LOGIC AND POLITICS

Bad Seeds or Good Soldiers? Why Some Cross The Line?

2012-01-16T16:03:00.007-05:00

“You take a mortal man, put him in control. Watch him become a god, watch people's heads a roll.”

A Brief History of Soldiers and War:

Throughout the ages, protectors of the community have been part of any multiunit social gathering. Hunters doubled as soldiers, knights, braves, and warriors of every culture are staples that define a “race”. Much akin to music and religion. (The deeper reasons that is part of our natural psychology is an issue more for thehumansystem.wordpress.com.) The approach to the soldier's station in life in more primitive civilizations, were the result of test of skills. In the more civilized societies, they were apprenticed and had to learn not only physical skills but tactical and moral ones as well. In the early days, during war, every citizens was charged with protecting the community. There were no civilians. As early the civil war the US started forcing people to fight as soldiers. Only 2% of the military were forced to sign up to go fight for a the cause. That grew by the time we reached WWII. Also during that time the war machine had been created and had learned the value “pleasure principle” and found a new way to operate. While a full 60% of the soldiers in WWII were drafted, 75% of the voting public felt that such a draft should exist. So a bridge period where people were forced to go to war, but agreed with that concept. An anomaly in logic for sure. By the end of the Vietnam war, a draft was no longer the most efficient way as the community had turned against it. It was also no longer needed, as there were other ways to make people believe such “service” was the most pleasurable option. To contrast, in the early days all citizens agreed upon a perceived thereat and then rose up against that threat. Today, many will kill simply because the threat they feel comes from a source other then the person or obvious distinct threat from the group of people they killed. Many times it is a fear of social rejection that drives them.

Who is a modern soldier?
“Thy shall not kill.” Ironically a large amount of the outspoken members of the US military claim to be “Christian”. However, the Christ left no room for war in his doctrine. So what is it that leads to such complex individuals that make up soldiers to make that decision. Soldiers come from every walk of life. Rich/ poor, academic/ physical dominate, and all races (even natives to the continent which has another layer). From the age of kindergarten we are “groomed” for that possibility by being forced to learn “The Pledge of Allegiance” and “The National Anthem”. There are disproportions when looking at the military as a whole. We have all heard the sayings/ arguments. “Kids aught to be forced into military service 'cause they lack discipline these days.” I know of at least a half dozen personal stories where they faced either jail time or joined the service. Or, “If you want to get out of poverty, go join the service.” What we know about the American soldier, overall, is that they are driven by money and perks. We know this because the volunteer military would not exist if it offered only room and board, no salary. We know that they utilize signing bonuses, free college education, and free medical insurance to increase its numbers. It is a rational conclusion then that people who are driven by a need for money are a common thread. Jesus generally would not have made a good soldier.

I would go one step further and say that , “The belief that the North Korean's, Vietnamese, or Muslims had the desire and means to be a threat was not inspirational enough to staff the military during the past 10 years.” Another benefit is that soldiers get much praise and social acknowledgment. In a “borderline society” where adequate attention is commonly lacking in most family structures, it is a very appealing option for those looking for a “meaning to life”. In their superiors, many “children” find parental (especially “Father”) figures they had been lacking. In their fellow soldiers, many find family and solidarity of values they lacked in their childhood. “Hoo-Rah”. So along with the monetarily driven, a personality type of wanting to be accepted and acknowledged, and directed are also candidates. This makes public schools darn near unfair grounds for recruiting. “Fish in a bucket.”

The Creation of a Soldier
It doesn't matter whether you are plucked from the inner city projects by a recruiter who keeps one from going to jail, or from a well-to-do military family who have financial success and even preconditioned at a place like West Point, the goals are the same. When you emerge from “boot camp” a soldier is to have six specific qualities. First, they must be able to suppress their individualized personal belief, moral and ethical systems and accept the ones the military psychologically conditioned them to. Your personal beliefs are to be conscious and second nature. Second, they must be able to act as a unified singularity in step with their unit and they must be able to do it with mechanical accuracy. Third, they must be able to act without questioning the consequences. Focus only on what is asked of them, there are not allowed to be existential or deeply philosophical. Fourth, one must be able to bond with their new “family” and the lives of the friends they are in the “fox whole” with is as far out as they can think. Fifth, they have to have the ability to close the doors of the past, absolve themselves of guilt, immediately and to only a forward looking perspective. Last, the value of life needs to be a fluid concept. The lives and definition of the enemy are have no meaning. They have no family, nor friends, no community. They have been deemed “the enemy” and therefore as meaningful as a mosquito.

It is the job of the recruiters to find candidates fear, insecurity, or deficiency, and convince them that the military can fill/ accommodate that missing component. Most common are a lack financial, futuristic, or family identity. The easy ones are those who want to impress parents. It is the job of the drill instructors to find those fears and expose them to the group. Tear each individual down in front of everybody else. Forcing the group to share emotional pain, makes them all exposed to the “What happens in..” syndrome. It also creates psychological bonds with the members that have been long documented. The icing is everybody is in the same uniform, looking the same. This suites to see that the mind subjugates what the eye sees to a predisposed kinship whenever they see another soldier. So these feelings of unity easily transfer to other soldiers long after boot camp. We all just “want to go someplace where everybody knows our name.” As evident by the creation of VFW's American Legions, AmVets, and the like.

Out the other side of boot camp, you have members of a society that outwardly advocates freedom, self expression, family, individuality, and value of life that have been conditioned to give all of that up and find comfort in exactly the opposite.

The Creation Of and Enemy.
Just as important of creation of a soldier is creation of the enemy. The war machine has learned to start this via propaganda long before they ask the soldier to go to war. At the end of the day, the soldier spent his formative years in the general population, and family and past doctrines still conflict with the new ones. In this voluntary military constraint, the population generally has to feel a threat from an enemy. Since many of us have German or European roots, it was hard to make an enemy out of them. They looked and acted too much like us. But, the Asians however, that attracted Pearl Harbor, they could be differentiated. This is the key. The military heads need to convince the families of the soldiers to support the act of killing. Carving out a race of people and treating them as if they are an inferior and “less then human” species is pinnacle to that goal. So the short, slant-eye, suicidal, non-christian, jap, gook, yellow, strange food eating, dictatorial, ect.. group of people were deemed as monsters. The military would make allies with the ones would support their efforts. Those were often the deviants of their own culture and monster in their own right. Communist, especially the soviets, and today the Muslims have all suffered the same propaganda. Simply ridicule and degrading a race or society of people isn't enough though. There has to be an obvious act, incident, or threat. The leaders who wanted war had to find a way to provoke the US into fighting in the past had to use such events as rallying points. Most often there is an element of conspiracy behind the events. Information release have shown that the US provoked (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/con_korea.cfm) the Russians and North Koreans into the Korean war. The Gulf of Tonkin is the event that sparked the Vietnam war AND it was faked. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident). This technique has been part of the American expansionalism since its birth. The continental natives were the first to be treated as something less then human. Today we have 911 and oh so many questions about not only the incident, but the response. No matter, the result was the same, the US war machine had a new enemy. Some of the terms I have heard US soldiers use to refer to Middle Eastern Muslims are “Towel head”, “sand nigger”, “camel jockey”, “desert turds”, and of course they are all “terrorists”. Their religion, philosophy, family structure, governing structure, social laws, and traditions have all been called “inhumane” or “inhuman”. The only reason given for the rag tag group of men who attack the US was that they “hate our freedom”. It doesn't matter that the explanation doesn't make any rational sense, the American culture is one that is designed to desire to extract revenge, and any flimsy excuse will do. With that, the public supports its soldiers. An enemy is created.

The Result: Environment meets Soldiers Confirming The Stanford Experiment.
To sum up the environment that leads to combat, I'll recap. We have a people who are trained to and find value in life by being protectors of the community. In modern US those people are driven by financial gain and/ or family respect, condition not to question or weigh the rationality against their own beliefs, and willing to kill without question and feel socially justified in doing so. The society has to support the soldiers and affirm the belief that the targeted group are something less then human and a threat. You have to have leadership willing to absolve themselves from guilt for being the trigger finger on the weapon.

When you have these elements and combine with the psychology of war, the result of soldiers treating the entire population, enemies and allies alike, with degrading disrespect is a given. It has to work out that way. This was proven during the Sanford Prison Experiments. (http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm)

So are they “bad seeds”.
The simple answer is a resounding “NO!” In fact they turned out exactly how the military expected them too. They are actually too good of a soldier. The acts of Abu Ghraib, Mahmudiyah, and the incident with the peeing marines are all natural results if you have any belief that psychology exists. It is one of the rare test we could conduct on human psychology that we can prove as a law with scientific method validity. People granted authority will use it to maintain their power. Once the group starts to participate in something of this nature, even the one with the weakest indoctrination will come around. “Causalities of War” made a great movie, but the reality is that would be so much the exception then it would the rule.
What we do in the west to the psyche of a human to make him/ her a soldier is dangerous to say the least. It is why we must only use them as method of last resort, and only when confronting real and inevitable threats.

Why Are People So Angry And Frustrated?

2011-10-15T00:35:00.005-05:00

I believe that this spreadsheet will shed some light into what it is that people know, but can't seem to touch. Money can never be a gauge of the equality of people. People can have vastly different amounts of money. Only in time and in duration of life can we find true equality. Only in understanding that every person desires time where they may do what brings them joy. During those times they are truly "free". Our lives have become so jam packed just doing the activities needed to say alive, that we gravitate towards activities that can happen quick and with out patients or much reflection because we haven’t the luxury of time for such behaviors.

What has happened is so many of our previous generations have been willing to sell their own lives out, take advancements on their time, thinking that "keeping up with the Joneses" would benefit their children. It didn't. As everybody was willing to do it, it just drove the price of everything up uniformly.

Comments

Relax People. Charges On Debit Cards Is A Sign That We Are Making The Right Choices.

2011-10-07T22:43:00.002-05:00

All of the backlash against the debits fees are misplaced and AGAIN a lack of understanding of how the system works and what it needs to be healthy. It demonstrates narrow mindedness and short sightedness. Much of the reason we are in the economic perils we are in is because of how banks make money. In order to get to a place where we are free from being a debtor nation, we have to make banks change their product. If we didn't it would be kind of like handicapping and legislating cigaret companies and how they make money crippling their sales and at the same time building billion dollar stadiums and/ or a budget based upon taxes revenue generated by the sales of cigarettes.

What Is A Bank?
I could go into the history of banks and what their purpose was. I could draw out a time line of how they change. In fact, I think I have don it here before. BUT, that would get boring and I would loose you to “Bigfoot sighting” videos on youtube. So let us just ask that question of most of us today.

Service Bank
We have 3 basic types of interaction with banks. We have the one we use the services of. (remember that one.) They accept your checks straight from your employer, make it easy to pay your bills online, validate checks, keep your records, and keep you money safer then under the mattress. Every one of these are services that require payment of more then a few people to accomplish.

Loan Bank
This is the bank that give us our mortgages, auto loans, car loans, and school loans. These are the banks that encourage skyrocketing market prices by allowing us to pay a total of $200,000 for a house we bought for $100,000.

Credit Bank
These are the banks that hold your credit card. They give you credit cards for purchases you might want to make in the future. This could be a donation to the LOL or an in service escort. The have no concerns about how responsibly your spend that money. Their interest rates are designed to make it so you spend a certain amount of money and then you can't pay them any more then the interest every month.

While these are 3 different types of banks, all 3 banks participate in all three types of banking. The last 2 have been what has caused the demise of our economy. They are the schemes by which we are imprisoned by the time we are out of college. There is way, way, way more money in the last two types of financial servicing. The first one, makes our lives easier. This type of activty should be encouraged in our economy.

Quick Review of What “Loan” and “Credit” Banks Have Done.
I have made this point 100 different ways on this blog. But here is is again. Market prices are set at the level known as “demand”. This price is the highest price a consumer is willing and able to pay for it. Many of us are willing to pay $1000 for an ear splitting, mind blowing, rock experience. However, few of us are able. We simply don't make that much. So in a world devoid of credit, that concert will not sell out for much more then $5 a ticket. But, along comes a “credit bank” who says, you can buy that ticket at whatever cost, we will let you get us to it in small amounts later. SO, off to the ticket window we go. With enough of us doing that, the going rate for every ticket will be pushed up. This is how the housing bubble was created, and this is how the school tuition have gotten so out of hand that they are the next “bubble” to break. Anything that creates a dual value of a product (one for the ticketed price on the market and one that represents the actual amount paid for the thing) is bad for free markets.

So What Is a Banker To Do?
So, if you want banks to stop making everything so artificially expensive, you have to handicap their ability to make money off credit. This is to be called out and demonized as “bad”. Not given bailout money and complain about how they are unable to offer their poison (credit) to people and struggling businesses. Then you must allow them to make money with an actual socially useful product or service. This will require a customer base that pays for that product. Charges for debit card use, charges for writing a check, charges for having a bank account in general are things that we should be celebrating and offering as alternatives to their “credit” junk. We don't want them to be pushers, but we have to offer them an alternative to earning a living. Now what exactly IS a good price for these services? Let the markets straighten that out.

Look people, these are new and anxious concepts, I understand. But if one is to loose weight, they have to change. It is an anxious proposition. But it is one that we must conquer. If we are going to "fix" this economy, bold acceptance of paying for financial services is going to be required.

(This was a quick response to news in a time when I don't have much time. I might revise this one later.)

Flat Tax, Herman Cain, and Systemic Ignorance.

2011-09-28T11:43:00.006-05:00

For years I have heard about the utopia called a “flat tax” nation, where everybody was taxed at the same "rate" with no deductions "and joy and fairness would spread throughout the land on the backs of unicorns". This shows a complete misunderstanding of how (and why) the tax system as we know it came to be. As a system designer, it is the first question I ask anybody paying me to upgrade or replace their current system. "How is it that you came to have the system you currently have, and why was that the best choice at the time?" Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan takes that to a new level where I am not sure if he is being ignorant of malice.

What do Herman Cain and porn stars have in common?
Before we get started I was roused to write about this because of the recent events. I hadn’t been taking it all that seriously. Since Cain won the Florida straw pole, he has gained a little recognition. If you don’t know him, his claim to fame is that he brought a pizza chain out of financial ruin. Now, if you know much about business (even just as a consumer), a pizza joint is a remedial business. Doing well is like being the fastest kid in the Special Olympics. In the small town I am from (approximately 8,000 people), there was 2 gas stations, a vet clinic, a McDonalds and a Rax, a greasy spoon, and 8 pizza shops. The top 6 were very successful. How often do you see pizza places on opposite corners of the same street? Because “Pizza is like sex, even when it is bad it is still pretty good.”. Thus brings me to the point, claiming being “successful in the pizza business” gives you insight into economic success of a nation is like saying being good as a porn star gives you successful insight into being a parent. Anybody can have sex. Porn stars are really good at doing something that anybody can do. But the systemic purpose, the function of sex, is only a small portion of the act of becoming a parent. So this is ludicrous to think just because a guy has financial success earning profit for a simple pizza business, he would make an intuitive economic policy maker. About the same claim rational as a porn star would make great parents.

That’s Gross (or Net)?
Like I mentioned, I have heard the idea of a “flat tax” sine at least the Ross Perot days. It has become the battle cry of the blissful but meaning well inside and outside the Tea Party. I too used to think that this made sense until I asked the question, if something so easy made so much sense, why hasn’t it happened? Which lead to the question, “why is our tax system as convoluted as it is?” (I can’t stop being s system troubleshooter.) Let us face it; what sounds more fair then everybody pays the same number, right?

My understanding of why it wouldn’t work came form my (way too long) 2 yr career as a ditch digger for the cable company working in a 1099 environment. (For those not familiar, this is a tax structure where you get all the liabilities of being a sole proprietorship but none of the advantages. Many illegals are employed under this because it requires little reporting from the employer, gets around minimum wage laws, and cuts way back on office red tape.) It was then I learned the difference between “gross” and net”.

When I hear somebody advocating a flat tax, my first question is, “on the gross or on the net income?” If they say, “gross” I explain how my years would go as a ditch digger. On paper it looked like I made in the area of $20,000 “gross” that year. My tools and equipment were things such as shovels, picks, sledge hammers, specialty crimpers, the cable, pvc piping, and various types of cloths, shoes and boots. Not to mention the computer used partly for mapping out routes and accounting for jobs. Those amounted to about $6000. Another nearly $3000 went into gas and maintenance for my Daewoo. Now, compare that to a friend of mine, a part time tax accountant that also made $20,000 whose overhead was about $1000 for computer, the maintenance, and the software. IF you tax us both 9% on our gross, we would both have to pay 1800. I worked 60 hours a week, and she worked 25 on the average. But the accountant was left with 19,000 in expendable income while I was left with $10,000. How is that fair? So, you say, “well then charge more for your services as a ditch digger.” There are so many reasons that logic fails if you are truly a champion of fixing the economy. Not the least as I mentioned before, this work is already appealing to those who don’t pay taxes. Continuing with this example, your cable bill would see a large increase if I had to chare 50% more for installation in order to compensate for the cost of doing business. As it stands now, it takes your first 2 months of cable at least to pay for the installation. However, the real inequality comes when you apply the sales tax on the tools and equipment. Why am I paying for taxes on stuff I already paid taxes on when I bought it. My accounting counterpart only paid 9% on the 20 grand. I pay 9% on the 20K and another 9% on $10,000 of it if you go with the 9-9-9 plan.

Meet The “Net” Plan, Same as the Old Plan
The other option is a person may answer “Tax the net” then. To which I just look at them blankly and say, “how do you think our system works now?” All of those write offs, loopholes, and tax shelters are created in the pursuit of determining ones “net pay”. I say that steel toed shoes are part of my business cost, while you say you had to take a client out to a day of golf and strippers as a cost of doing yours. Who is going to go over my return to make sure I am on the level with my reporting. If only we had an agency that would look over “internal revenue”. Next thing you know, people will be using the “rapid depreciation” clause to get the government to pay for their hummers. (The automobile kind)
Simply making a blanket minimized list of deductions is an impossibility, and anything but fair as all jobs have different overhead costs even thought they may have the same gross income. And that is how we got the system we have today. Economics of equality is complex and some even think subjective.

The Formula We All Work By (But Have Stopped Living By).
There is one formula every one of us who have ever been employed has come to know. Where (d)= dollars and (t)= time in hours, all offering can be broke down into d/t where “t” is almost always expressed as 1 for the first 40 hours worked of a week. That is the long version of saying, “your employer pays you in dollars per hour.” By moving us to this formula via the monetary system, we have forgotten what that “t” signifies. 1 hour of our life. Now, a “flat tax” on income as it is being earned (excluding the problems cited above) is fair enough. Let us take Mr. Cain’s 9% figure. You make a million dollars a year and you pay $90,000 in taxes (or 187 hrs of your life). If you make $25000 a year, you pay $2,2500 (or 187 hrs. of your life). That is the formula and unarguably fair in that perspective.

Sales Tax Are Inherently Unconstitutional
Wow, talk about an anxious statement. That challenges every thing we First, what people don’t seem to understand about the pizza kings proposal is that he is thinking about adding 9% in addition to your already existing city tax. So if your city has a 6% sales tax, that tax then will become 15%. That is a chunk of change, and with it buying power.

Now, I always get the same nonsensical response when I use “big screen TV’s” as an example when expressing he next point. “Well poor people shouldn’t be buying big screen TV’s” completely missing the concept of simplifying a point. So, let us use the example of a Ford Focus that they are buying which there is no denying having transportation to get back in forth to work or school is important to improving ones position in life AND the trade off between new car payments vs. used maintenance cost is one most Americans struggle with.

Let us say that the cost of a focus is $15,000. We apply the 15% to that cost as the local plus federal sales tax. Here is that number $2250 again. (It was the yearly income tax on $25,000) . So we know that is equivalent to 187 hours of the life of a person making $12/hr or $25,000 a year. However, compared to the guy making $480/hour (or a million per year) that is a total of 4.7 hours of his life. Now I thought our constitution promised us equality in “Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”? Sales taxes values a one persons life in this example nearly 40 times more valuable then another.

Conclusion and fear:
This type of policy “sounds” so fair on the surface. What could be more so then the same “rate” applied to everybody. Many smart people I know have fallen for believing it. But the story reminds me of the story of the emperor and the guy who invented chess. (look it up, it is a good story.) Here, the misunderstanding of the power of “terms” would have bankrupted the Chinese empire. People just hear marketing slogans; my fear is the average voter doesn’t have the depth of thought or tools to grasp just how much worse for the economy a proposal such as the “9-9-9” would be. Currently Warrant Buffet pays 17.4%. With this plane he would be taxed at a much lower rate of 9% which would amount to savings of millions of dollars, and in turn pay a higher “sales tax” on goods he purchases, which would amount to a few thousand dollars extra per year. All of this and we are not going to mention the affect on the equilibrium price of goods when the cost is driven higher and how that would dive more people out of work. If people can’t get this simple concept of tax rates, complex economics will sent them into comas. People seem not to be able to look at the entire system and because of it, they back the horse that bites them in the ass. Then they blame it on the horse.

POST A COMMENT

9/11 conspiracy theory – “The motive”

2011-09-03T16:33:00.001-05:00

Too many people? Yes Lack of motive? No way.

I just finished watching the history channels special on conspiracy theories and the science. It seemed balanced and the experiment were sound. While some of the science holds up, other things couldn’t be explained. A building be set able on the top leves dropping straight down will always perplex me. However, 9/11 has one of the biggest flaws to have been a conspiracy. To be successful at covering anything up, you need to keep things small. The fact that a vast amount of people involved and it was here on US soil makes a full on cover up impossible.

However, often the other reasoning is there was no motive to invade Afghanistan. That is not accurate, and the way the Bush administration conducted itself prior to and then there after is what breaths life into these theories. The motive would not manifest itself until after Bush would leave office. First things first though.

The timeline

Election 2000: Cheney (Board member of Halliburton) was head of George Bush’s search for a vice president and nominated himself. Cheney Reccomends Himself

Later the understanding of just how close Cheney was to many of the members of the Supreme Court would become evident. The very court that would decide the election. Cheney and Scilia go hunting

Spring of 2001: Between late January and mid May of 2001 Cheney met with heads of energy companies and reused to release the names of these people dictating his policy recommendations. All the way to the supreme court to protect the names and matters discussed during those meetings. Cheney Refuses to release the names of "task force" members.

September 11th happened.

Post 9/11

Quickly to Iraq:
Cheney himself sent Joseph Wilson on a mission to Nigeria as told in the books “Fair Game” and “Truth in Politics”. When Wilson wouldn’t “play ball” his wife was outed as a CIA operative and their lives were ruined. They used trumped up document that had been proven fake to Justify and scare the American public all the same.
Valerie was Covert

Haliburton, Cheny’s old company was getting “no bid” contracts and forked over money at alarming rates. Many of the names leaked from those meetings were getting benefits directly or indirectly.

Why Afghanistan?: This was something that distracted me for some time. I “reasoned”, “assumed”, or “guessed” that it was merely a distraction for the greater war on Iraq. Then the missing piece of the puzzle came to light. At first I thought Afghanistan was the distraction. But it turns out Iraq was the distraction from the real prize. Seeing the need for “green energy” and independence from the middle east.

June of 2010: It was announced that the largest deposit of Lithium had been found in Afghanistan. Now they couldn’t find Bin Laden, but they found lithium? What were they doing looking for it? Lithium found in Afghanistan

If there was ever a motive to go into Afghanistan with an army instead of a small strike force it would be the need to find and mine this “$1 trillion lithium deposit”. That is a lot of money for a bunch of greedy heartless bastages looking to profit off the lives of American blood. If they were a little more honest with their actions they wouldn’t fall under so much suspicion.

But alas, there is just no way to have contained it for this long with that many people involved.

Mining in Mongolia, The Horror Story

2011-08-29T13:37:00.003-05:00

'Mine-golia': Across the steppes, new wealth emerges

I saw this story on CNN this morning. Meant to be a “feel good” piece about wealth being discovered in a poor nation of Mongolia. There are a few things about it that are spun as positive but IF one takes the long view at it, the whole thing is more of a curse then a blessing. Those of us from Northern Ohio can relate.

Mongolia past and present:
If you are claiming to make life better for a people, it is important to know their status now as well and have an agreement on what “better” mans. Mongolia is a predominantly nomadic herding and farming culture. It has been this way since at least its founding by Genghis Khan in the 1200’s. Their per capita GDP is $4000 (compared to the US $47,000). They are a sustainable agricultural society. What individuals don’t supply for themselves they get from bartering. That is a brief economic overview. Culturally they are predominantly Buddhist and atheist. (Thank God. We are not pissing off another Islamic culture again. The two groups mentioned are the most peaceful groups in the world). As in any agricultural society, every parent is a “stay at home” parent. Use of Antidepressants and suicide is unheard of in the outlying regions away from the developed cities. Due to an industrial movement in the 1990’s they are literate and educated.

Economic impact:

Definitions:
There are some key phrases that stick out in this short article. The first big zinger is “Boost the average earnings of Mongolia by 60%.” I am not certain if they mean of the country or the people. But lets us say they mean they are going to boost the average earnings Mongolians. Good thing, right? It is as long as you are one of those select few that get hired by the mining company. But even then, how do you measure. If your average wage is $0 cause you barter for everything, how do you gage that 60%? Say that each of them make $1 a week equivalent and now they will get $1.60?

Supply and Demand:
Let us just take the price of goat’s milk for the example, a staple to the Mongolian diet it would be safe to assume. Now if a goat herder is hired as a miner, a few things happen to supply and demand. First, supply of goat’s milk reduces causing an increase in cost. But he now no longer supplies himself and adds to the demand. The increase in demand also edges the price higher. It doesn’t matter to him, he can afford to pay it. However, the wheat farmer he used to trade with is now forced to find a way to grow more wheat and find another trading partner.

Money issues:
The herder turned miner goes off to get his paycheck every week, he is paid in money. This is a much preferred method of accepting payment as it can represent wheat, corn, milk, smith work, and/ or livestock. A wheat farmer needs to find a goat herder that actually needs wheat in order to make the trade. As time goes on, many of the producers will require money for purchases to be made. The minor will have no problem paying for stuff with is 60% increased wages. But a wheat farmer who has never had to earn money has to now. So he sells his wheat at the market. Now everybody is hooked on the monetary system. (This makes it easier to tax.) The traditional wage earners basically has to work twice. Farming then marketing. And then will need to grow more to meet the demand and produce the amount of income to buy the stuff they need. Everybody has stopped working for the one thing they all have in common, the one thing that kept them all equal in the past, "time".

Culturally speaking:

That is economically. How about culturally? For the family of the herder turned miner you have a major shift. Now instead of having both parents stay at home passing on the family values and traditions, dad will have to leave to go to work most of the child’s life. This was a nomadic family that turned into a stationary one. Children instead of having self value and awareness as was the result of being part of a working farm or caravan, will find themselves lost, anxious at the loss of direction from their parent, and bored.

Besides the lands that were taken by the mining operation, lands that were free to roam for hundreds of years, permanent housing developments and western style market places will require permanent lands. Lands used to be free for all to use are off limits and come with a cost.. Of course as cost rise and the ability to even support one on a miner's salary come to pass, mother too will have to go off to the workforce. Maybe she will work at one of the new malls. With this “progress” this whole culture is changing into something it never was.

Now from the guy who remains a farmer point of view, life got much harder. He has to find a way to harvest more crops to bring to market. The cost of things went up. Why did theh go up, because "the price of things are set at the highest price consumers are willing and able to pay for them." With people well financed by the mining wages, they can pay more for things. He will need either more land (which cost more) or crops that produce a better yield (that they can get by buying into the genetically enhanced market.) This will mean less time for family and leisure and passing on of cultural values. Kids will grow up valuing that which the miner's children have.

A terminal proposition:

All of this is said to only have a life expectancy of 50 years. Two or three generations down the road, the well will dry up. The traditional way of living and existing will have been forgotten. Children will not be able to conceive of actually processing their own food or water. They will have lost what it meant to be self sustaining. For all the freedom they were promised, they were enslaved to the mining mentality and the monetary culture. In 50 yrs when the slave drivers drop the chains and leave them, they will be unequipped to handle themselves on their own. Even one minor was quoted as saying, "We think we can work at the mine and take care of our herds. My three children will get a chance to go to school and have a better education," But what happens when that education cost 3 years wages, would he still do it. What happens when he finds himself in debt for it and the mind dries up? A half of a century is just long enough to forgeth who you are and where you came from.

Creating of western hating monsters.

In the mean time this “nomadic society” will have lands taken from them that are now off limits. Men holding western riffles guarding places with western architecture will stand guard over these lands that were free for hundreds of years. More land will be developed to house the now stationary minors. They will throw up McDonald’s, McMansions, and a Wal-mart on even more previously “unowned” land. You can already hear the frustration in the comment of the one herder they interviewed who was quoted as saying, Says one nomadic herder: "At the moment it's impossible to graze our herd near the mine. Officials might say it is only 10-kilometer limit, but because of the traffic and dust you don't see any herds within 20 or 30 kilometers." Who do you think the less advantaged are going to blame when bad weather brings less productive yields? These are Buddhist, but what happens if some of them grow angry and start blaming the invasion of western capitalism for their troubles. Would they really be all that wrong? (On a side note we found the world’s largest deposit of lithium in Afghanistan while looking for Bin Laden.) Some will get jobs, others with get handicapped by it. Will we deem then “terrorist” and talk about them as less then humans.

From experience:

In the Cleveland area where I am from this story played out at the beginning of the 1900’s. My home was a fishing port and an agricultural center. Even in the 40’s and 50’s the majority of the surrounding area was supported by its self sustaining roots. Then in came the auto and steel industry promising big and quick money to anybody who would come work. People migrated into this previously unknown speck of an area from all over the world. They formed little communities of people like themselves and different then the natives of the area. They were know as “Little Italy”, “Slovak village”, Latin, and African American sections of town. They came and started buying up land, forcing up demand, and bringing temporary prosperity to the area. There was much money to go around and nobody thought anything of it. They started rejecting and polluting the life giving source of Lake Erie. Many of them had never grown up with such a resource or understood how to care for it., let alone its importance. So the culture turned into one that treated it like a toilet or at best and “extra” that we could live without. Then one day industry found this gift from our government called “free trade agreements” and hundreds of willing cultures to exploit. So those industries left to places like Mexico and China. The children of the children of the children of the farmers and fishermen of the early 1900’s had no clue how to self sustain. Dear god what had we done to the lake?! The Cuyahoga river, once flush with fish, had caught on fire and we didn’t see that as a sign. By way of the “good wages” brought by the industry our houses, colleges, food, and booze had grown to cost too much and we had no way to pay for them now that we had been abandoned. Worse, the “walleye capital of the world” had since banned commercial fishing. So you couldn’t even get a locally caught walleye at a restaurant. If it weren’t for a friend of mine, perch fishing would have went the same way in order to honor the likes of Bass Pro Shop. Our century old sustainable industry and we “banned” it because some sports fishermen wanted to blame their poor skills and the lack of fish in the polluted lake on the industry.

So it is not with sheer speculation that I make these suggested possibilities for Mongolia. I have read and experienced the history of my own town and it wasn’t much different.

Post a Comment

If They Really wanted to Balance the Budget…

2011-07-28T19:15:00.002-05:00

This is going to be a rehash of my main economic soapbox. But A) I don’t write here often so not even John is looking anymore I don’t think, and B) I am working on a new more readable writing style for these complex idea posts.

The problem:

There isn’t enough wealth flowing through the system to generate the needed revenue to run all the government responsibilities and culturally driven expectations. Being aware that the government only collects taxes on money that changes hands between American citizens (at least at the federal level) and all attempts to inject “cash money” that was empty and void of actual wealth (determined by taking ones assets then subtracting liability obligations and coming up with ones “wealth” amount) has failed. A way to encourage that flow while respecting the constraints of a free market society is in order.

The proposed solution:
Exchange the current practice of requiring a minimum wage for one of a minimum percentage of highest income. This would be known as a “minimum percentage”. This would require a company to pay it employees no less then at least a minimum percentage of its most paid employee. For purposes of this policy all incomes will be considered to be on 52 weeks with 40 hours worked. Every CEO will be makinging OT on the golf course. Overtime will not be considered when determining a company’s minimum pay rate. This rate once assessed will apply to all wages paid not only to direct employees, but to contractors and subcontractors. The 1099 environment will be abolished or limited to those who make more then $60,000 a year. A specific date will be assigned at which all stocks will be considered at that days rate. (Hey, they are stocks, they are a gamble.) Say Dec. 31st. everything that an employee was paid in cash other compensations and benefits. This will result in attaching the success of the top income earners to the backs of those laborers people they employ.

A real life example.

The CEO of Wal-Mart made nearly $19 million last year. Divide that over (52) forty hour weeks and you have a rate of $9134.61 per hour for Michael Duke, the CEO. His in store workers made and average of $250 a week or 6.26 an hour. That is a wage disparity of .07% (that is not a typo. That is 7/ 100ths of a single percent). (Note: this doesn’t consider an audit of every company that supplies goods and services, either foreign or domestic to Wal-Mart subject to this policy.) He made many thousands of times more then his least paid employees.

As an example, the policy is enacted with a requirement of all companies to pay .04% (4/10 of a percent). So, the janitor, the stocker, and the clerk will all be paid at a rate of $36.54 If Wal-Mart chose to continue to pay its CEO $19 million dollars. Instead, Wal-Mart could choose to pay its CEO less. For instance they could choose to pay its CEO $1 million dollars and the employees $1.92 an hour. Of course the CEO will have to accept an $18 million pay cut and its employees will be very undependable if they pay the minimum. At the end of the day, they will still have to offer their employees enough money to keep them interested in work. They will have to compete with McDonalds who is paying its employees 19.23 cents an hour since they pay their CEO $10 million.

What will the corporation do with all that money?:

If a company chooses not to raise their employees’ wages, (or to lower them) they will have a surplus of cash. Some companies will be obligated to pay out that cash in dividends. Those are taxed. If those dividends are paid to employees, then that is considered part of their compensation. Others are taxed at a standard rate. This can be anywhere from 15 to 39% depending on your tax bracket. They could use the surplus to negotiate a benefit for all their employees. They could let it sit in a bank, which would allow for more money to loan at a lot cheaper rates. That would spur small business. They could donate it to charity. They could lower their cost on their products leaving more money in the pockets of the consumers. They could lobby for a tax increase. Any of these would put money back into circulation.

What about the employee making $2 and hour?:

First, nobody is going to work for such a low wage in this economy. (Only 50 years ago minimum wage was under $1 an hour.) Most likely the CEO won’t take a $18 million dollar cut. If Wal-Mart tries 2 things would happen. 1) their employees would seek work elsewhere, their customer base would shrink as much of their sales come from their own employee. More then likely something like paying Mr. Duke $3.5 million and continue to pay their employees the same wage. But for all the reasons above there will be money circulating in the system. However, we could leave in place a minimum wage as well, or a phase out of it over years. Somebody will open a resteraunt selling burgers to the local carpenter and pay their employees more then these low wages.

Who decides that actual rate?:

This would be a legislative passed plan. It is designed to give the legislator control of economic flow. Just as the minimum wage might be preserved, the initial rate may be in the area of the current wage disparity. A “phase in” period designed to bring the economy to a rate of 1% wage disparity should be considered. This would allow the policy to come in with no impact at first. But, corporate America would know it was coming. After that, the legislators could use this rate as an open and direct tool in order to squeeze money back into the economy. The economy starts to stall, increase the rate. The government starts making more then it spends, relax.

Who determines if a company is following the regulations?:

Like any other tax obligation, steep penalties for anybody caught intentionally violating the minimum percentage policy would be assessed. A hiring of auditors who not only go through the US corporations records, but also those of their overseas suppliers to ensure that every employee in a Chinese factory makes as much as the Wal-Mart clerk. We will need a lot of accountants and ones that speak foreign languages. That can’t be a bad thing in DC.

Result:

The US economy will be awash with cash. Cost of goods will be driven down. Small business will be able to compete with the giants. US manufacturing will be able to compete with its foreign counterparts. It does it all without raising a single tax.

Remember to pencil in "LOL" for president.

Pursuit Of Land.

2011-07-04T05:42:00.002-05:00

I had a teacher who once made a statement that other have confirmed that they too were taught, but I never saw any evidence in the form of paper or pictures, BUT sometimes an assertion makes so much sense, it is at least worth considering. This instructor said that the original version of the “Declaration of Independence” that was nailed to the forts, church commons, and other social gathering places actually stated “Life, liberty, and pursuit of Land”.

The idea was that the founding fathers wanted to inspire people to fight for them. They were land owners themselves. The thought process was that if a man could have his own plot of land to build a house, grow crops and raise livestock, and raise his own family as he saw fit, free from government interference, he could truly be “free” and “happy”. Of course promising land to every soldier presented all kinds of problems and that lead to the change. Land ownership, free from banks, debt, and government influence was the key to what America had to promise.

This makes the irony of the “mortgage crisis” all that more profound.

Obama: Midterm Report Card

2011-04-17T19:13:00.005-05:00

Here at my job we have biannual reviews of our work. We have a set of criteria, some general expectations, and recognition for things that aren’t expected. There is attention paid to attendance, course work completion, and logged events (problems solved). They have a program that gages your coworkers opinions of you. It is similar to nearly every office job I have ever had.

Politicians don’t have a set list of criteria when they take their jobs. Instead what they have is “campaign promises”. They say to their constituents “If you elect me, I will do X, Y, and Z!” Voter listen and in their limited intelligence make a choice about whether these promises are a good thing. I n Obama’s case, there were many things he promised that I know would be good for the economy. Likewise there were more then a few that I know would be bad. But the good way outweighed the bad, and the other options were nearly all bad. So, for a “midterm review” we only have to level his promises against his actions.

Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

His stance on Iraq: Tired of the unjust wars, endless waste of money, and poor young men being sent to their deaths after being hoodwinked into believing this was the way to a better life by military marketing, I like what Obama had to say back then. It was the most important issue to me.

“Us rushing into a war unilaterally was a mistake and may still be a mistake.”

Now remember NATO wanted to Join the US but was told to stand down. BUT George and Co. had a “coalition of the willing”. The cheap “marketing” trick of reclassifying troops (still paid combat pay) as “non-combat troops” didn’t impress me any. His promise to have a “Spine”:

“This raises a broader issue that democrats have. I think it’s important for us to stand our ground and take our licks rather then to cave and whine about it later.”

This seems to have become his policy.

“It is time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreements that lie at the heart of someone else’s civil war. That’s why I have a plan that will bring our troops home by March of 2008.”

Fail!

Nation Building
I was under the impression that Obama opposed this notion with his opposition to the Iraq war. This Libyan war is no different (with the exception of more foolishness) then the Iraq war. At the moment less US soldiers are dying. “Militarily we are not supporting the ouster of Kaddafi (or Gadaffi) or regime change. But we are tasked to support and protect the Libyan people and that can only happen if he is out of power.” That is back handed political doublespeak that I don’t think anybody doesn’t see right though. Fail!

Bush era tax cuts

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmz5BrTJOPA

I guess I thought acknowledging that they are the problem was to be taken as a promise not to continue them. Yet, he did. Fail!

Off Shore Drilling
www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss

“What wouldn’t work is John McCain’s proposal to open up Florida to off shore drilling.” He went on to say with no uncertain terms that increasing drilling would not reduce gas prices, create jobs, or get us off foreign oil.

BUT WAIT!!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA7RAfHN-wo&feature=fvwrel

As president:

“But the bottom line is this. Given our energy needs. In order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our business competitive we are going to need to harness additional sources of fuel… Today we are announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration… (blah, blah, blah)” Something about protecting the environment and its protection was also mentioned.

FAIL!!

Supporting the working class
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBxsalTVkjM

“If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I’ll walk on that picket line with you.”

I live in Ohio. Many of my friends and family members are public servants (over paid teachers, cops, firefighter, prison guards sewage plant maintenance) and unionized factory workers. This was important to me. I thought this was a given of a democrat president. I am a unionized Federal worker. We have a bill that was jammed through our state legislators (SB5) that does just that. We had epic protests on the capital steps. Yet no Obama and his shoes. This was a major disappointment and a FAIL!!

The healthcare bill is stupid. There are much smarter ways to drive down health costs.

As bad as this guy has been, sadly, the Republicans will probably run Donald Trump and I will have no choice but to support Obama. But If I were his employer, if I was allowed to return to a pool of qualified people to pick from, He would no longer have a job. I will have to choose between the guy who blatantly says he will ruin the country OR the guy who says he won’t but does the exact same things the other guy said he was gonna do.

Critique of “The Zeitgeist Movement”

2011-01-31T19:06:00.001-05:00

After watching this whole thing, if I was an instructor, I would have to “fail” this project and send Jr. home with a note to his parents that said, “It is with regret that I had to fail your student. Sadly this was a pass or fail project. This thesis had a few major fatal flaws. Your student shows great promise, please do not discourage their charter. If they can address the flaws and resubmit the thesis will be reconsidered.”

At the end of this lecture the producers address “human nature”. At that point, this very scientific piece moves into the realm of theory. Much of that theory is sound and easily provable. For example, the heavy notion that environment produces behaviors is clearly documentable. (Sadly our court systems are staffed by lawyers and not psychologists. But that is another issue.) Simply factually stating that “if all humans had a better environment they wouldn’t steal or commit homicide” doesn’t make it a fact. This is a sterile discretion that doesn’t address the most basic need of every human. This “need” is on the subconscious mind of most individuals and the conscious mind of more cerebral humans. The question of, “what is my purpose”. This entire system that is outlined is based on the presumption that humans exist only to be “happy”.

“Being happy”, “prosperous”, or fulfilled is not the only reason a society exists. If it were all other cultures would gravitate towards that purpose. In all cultures only one thing is required to sustain its continuation. Not food, resources, or energy. Many cultures exist, somehow, without these. However, no culture, society, or country exists without the ability to reproduce. It is the singular drive of everything on this world from an ameba, to your cells, to your organs, to your body, to your family, to your race, culture, and on up. We will expose ourselves to unreal levels of happiness to reproduce and ensure those new beings are adequately guided into an age where they can then reproduce. Everything is a virus. Removing humans, “nature” is generally a system of controlling and organizing sustainable growth. This is what you never hear, “penguin nature”, “cactus nature”, or “tuna nature” in the context you hear the word “human nature”. Only humans have the ability to resist (temporarily) the forces of natural laws long enough to destroy the rest of the system. And “human nature” refers to anytime we do just that. This thesis completely rejects the human psyche. Prosperous countries have over population problems. People have children because they “want” them. Our governments are more then happy to comply with this want because (as these authors pointed out) They need more consumers. This is known as “symbiotic system failure”. Symbiotic system failure is a situation where two or more processes, if exited alone, would not cause a failure, but together they cause a system degradation. In poor countries, where having offspring shouldn’t be considered because its citizens can barely feed themselves, still there is a population problem. This drive to preserve ones culture and pass on the genetic code to the next generation is undeniable. Immortality is at that heart of every species.

So with the desire to reproduce defined as an “uncontrollable characteristic”, what isn’t mentioned is “who is controlling the system”. Who is writing the algorithm? If we could take a snap shot of this system working perfectly, all to resources are being consumed in a balance and harmony. The one resource that was not considered were people. What happens that next second after the snapshot when somebody decides they want to add a child. To maintain balance, an ideal population size will have to be agreed upon. So let us say the system can handle 1 million new humans every year. Let us say that 1 million and 1 want children. Who gets to decide which 1 happy couple is denied a child? How about when two million people want to have kids. Who gets to decide? What about when somebody decides to have a child in spite of the order not to? This very fact will lead to the feeling of repression and inequality the described system hopes to circumvent. How many Buddhists, Christians, Chinese, Europeans, Africans, original natives should be represented in this ultimate population number. Quickly, and very quickly the wheels would spin off their axles.

Another glaring point that is not even mentioned is the physical truth of life that it is inherently unequal. Every human being is not Albert Einstein nor is every human being “Albert” the very functional but mentally handicapped janitor that works in my facility. Thus not everybody has the same abilities even though they may have the same needs. So how do you address the fact that two people exist. Everybody is going to have to have a “role” in this one world culture. Let us just look at the occupational status. (Keep in mind that time is another most valuable human resource.) Take two people. One pushes turds through blocked pipes at a waste treatment plant, the other sits on a computer writing theological observations while watching TV and waiting for a fire or some other detrimental safety event. The guy pushing turds 40 hours a week will surely wonder his efforts are more laborious and distracting while the other guys spends his time in leisure. The system as described does not compensate for the system as described. Then imagine that the fire fighter gets selected to have a child while the waste treatment worker gets denied.

A computer can not determine many traits. It can not determine how attentive as a parent you will be. What if a mother wants to work and a father prefers to be the caregiver. Who get to be the rock stars, artists, writers, and mimes? How do we determine who marries whom? What about divorce? As the authors of this piece mention, environment is everything. Psychology has shown that there is no more destructive environment for a child then that of separated parents. What about death of a citizen that is untimely. How does one compensate for unexpected loss of personnel to this system? What about the biggest issue on the global scale. Some people will not be happy if other people are allowed to have abortions. I could go on.

The irony of this thesis is that it ads “humanity”, concern, and care to the “things”, “the resources” that provide for humans. However, it treats humans as cold, indistinct, mounds of flesh. Humans are assumed to be non-individuals as moldable as children’s play dough.

It also understates adversity. Adversity is as much of a part of the human element as breathing. Imagine a story where there was no movement, no protagonist, no problems to overcome. The story would be indigestible. A culture like that would breed boredom and lack a feeling of purpose.

In the end, while this is a grand thought experiment, one thing that the authors did that is impossible is they started their “new world” with all the technology and knowledge gained from humanity to date, and moved it to a virgin new world. This world with be “staffed” by likeminded people who were self aware, supportive, and malleable in thought. That is not the world we have got. There are lessons from this plan that are useful in updating the system we have. For that it is to be commended as a body of work.

Annual Anti Santa Blurb

2010-12-12T18:40:00.005-05:00

I am going to say it up front. I know this makes me un-American. But I hate Santa Clause. Not for religious reason (which is common but nonsensical). I have no religion. But for so many other reasons.

This is a huge issue for me. I think that we in the US do not put enough merit in the psychological dysfunction caused by the propagation of this lie. A child looks to their parents for not only verbal but physical and exemplary instruction as well. At the core of this truth is the feeling of security. Trust in other human beings is directly related to how mentally healthy we are in social environments. This includes work, relationship, and public exposure. If we come to know our parents will lie and/ or stretch the truth to us, our very foundation of interpersonal relationships becomes uncertain and anxious.

By the time we reach adulthood we seem to have suppressed how important Santa and the Easter Bunny are to many of us as kids. Mainly because when we find out, we feel silly and embarrassed. (I believe Freud said the minds ultimate goal to deal with discomfort is repression.) But I assure you that a 3 to 6,7,8 yrs old that fat old man is a very real and serious role model. This is further instigated by parents who use Satan Clause as an enforcer of morals, values, and behaviors. “If you don’t behave, Santa will not bring you presents.” (This reeks of Pavlov) These children are not being “nice” and not “naughty” for some fictitious fantasy. What happen deep in the subconscious when they find out the guy who they didn’t lie, cheat, beat their sister up, listened to their parents for is a lie.

Then, on top of that, these fairytales are conjoined with religious events. The entity that instructs many people and children alike about moral and values is tied to this masquerade. How does the mind process the hypocrisies? I learned at 6 in an overheard conversation between my parents. My next thought was “If Santa isn’t real, The Easter Bunny isn’t real, then who is the Jesus guy? He doesn’t even bring me anything. Why should I look up to him?” I have been an agnostic since 6 yrs old.

At the very least, it throws the juvenile mind into a spin of doubt and confusion with not certainty where it is going to end. He are seeing so many mental health problem dealing with insecurities. How can we not make the connection between the promotion of Christmas to a materialistic event and the loss of trust that leads to anxiety, depression, borderline, manic, and like dysfunctions?

Why do your children have to believe presents come from elves, reindeer, and bunnies? Why can’t they believe they are the reward for your hard work? Why do they have to be good for Santa? Why can’t they be good because you said so? We humans do only things that we find most pleasure in. Why do so many of us find pleasure in vehemently propagating this rouse? The looks of horrified parents when I tell them that my daughter knows Santa isn’t any more real then Tinkerbelle or Mickey Mouse is priceless. The look can only be described as horror. I am some kind of a monster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlo1kldHjF8

Chasing the tail of a dogma

2010-11-06T15:11:00.004-05:00

A friend of mine took me to task. Calling me “Dogmatic” in my arguments. (Dogmatic - Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.) I guess it could be viewed that way. The perception from my postion is that I am not that bright of a bulb. Many of the concepts I discuss are strictly “Rational” aka “Logical”. They are ideas that I assume by 6th grade most of us have been exposed to and had to have passed a test on things like basic math and social studies. I guess if I am in fact dogmatic, it’s due to my naivety. I have a belief that everybody can use a calculator, do simple multiplication, and understand simple psychology.

It turns out “Dogmatic” is a relative term. For example I can walk up to one of our resident mentally handicapped janitorial personal and say “water is made up of 3 atoms, of which 2 are hydrogen and one is oxygen.” Dogmatic. To him this would be unproven and seem awfully arrogant and authoritative. The average person over the age of 14 would think I was stupid for even feeling the need to make such and assertion. A few, might have even taken chemistry and adequately had it proven to them. Just as I can say, “John McCain or Sarah Palin are complete morons with no more skills for a community leadership role then one of our mentally challenged janitors. Further, Obama is not a Muslim.” To some that would be “dogmatic”. To others this would be obvious with out questions. To a few there might be some valid research to come to this conclusion. All that matters is that there are more voting representatives from the later groups then mentally handicapped group. If not, then a movement to either educate members who find it difficult to see past easy marketing scare tactics or discouragement or bar them from having a vote. (Discouragement. You have to take a simple test proving your ability to understand components of government work. Maybe basic rational skills.)

I guess what frustrates me is it should be profound, “feel” authoritative, or be unproven that continuing out activities with out regard to consequences is destructive and unsustainable. It shouldn’t be an “assertion” to a listener that ignorance begets more ignorance. I shouldn’t take a renowned physics professor to point out that the US has become a gluttonous, self centered, external blind society who collectively have no concern for the future.

I am not running for public office. My sphere of influence goes not further who will suffer to listen to me rant. Occasionally, somebody reads this blog. But other then that, I am just a person, a man, a father with fears and anxieties about the future for his offspring. My attempt to change the world one set of ears at a time is a futile task. But it at least makes me feel like I am trying, not just sitting on my hands because I fear social backlash.

The mathematics of energy consumption and population growth (part 1 of 8)

2010-11-06T14:46:00.002-05:00

Lots of people say they are politically in the “middle” but normally inside of 2 min. you can see they clearly are not. If you can watch this video and claim you are either conservative/ republican or liberal/ democrat then there is no point in conversing on political issues. They are BOTH WRONG. “Drill baby drill” is as dangerous and damming as welfare and social services unconditionally. (There are 8 oparts with the next part qued once the previous part finishes.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=channel

The mathematics of energy consumption and population growth (part 1 of 8)

2010-11-06T14:43:00.001-05:00

The Human System Blog is up

2010-09-12T05:40:00.002-05:00

The Human System blog is up and going. The layout and concepts are in their infancy. But it gives you something to aid in your pursuit to both vomit and laugh at the same time.

Humansystem.wordpress.com

Unsustainable In Every Way

2010-07-29T06:20:00.002-05:00

This is going to be a nice "lead out" / "Lead in" post to a new blog I am going to be starting in the future. This site was supposed to be dedicated to more global and political issues and solutions. However, I often end up writing about more then just such issues and how affect us generally on a political scale, but also more personally. I have learned a lot about what "makes us tic" as humans in the past year. It was another layer of the onion. I think a different venue will be in order to offer these ideas. I think it will be titled "The Human System”. The two web sites together I believe will be combined to one day wrote the book I seemed to have been born to write.

I have always known the reality of sustainability and its role, but a few years back, me and a friend were sharing beers and he put the concept together in a few sentences for me. What isn't sustainable isn't natural. What isn't natural, will either deplete, fade into extinction, or crumble under its own weight. Look around us. What will you participate in today that “isn’t natural”? If you are reading this, then the first one that should come to mind is the computer, internet, and electricity. Is your home heated or cooled? Did you catapult yourself down the road today at speeds far exceeding a “terminal velocity”? All of these things require the taking of resources with out giving back.

Our unsustainable behavior doesn’t just stop at our consumption of natural resources. It occurs with regard to our economics, population, and socialization as well. We really seem to collectively have no “Future sense” or vision. Everything is about right here, right now what is going to make me feel good. “There is no tomorrow, there was no yesterday. I trust nobody but myself and that is all that matters. I deserve mine as much if not more then the next guy, and I am going to take it before he does.” And of course my favorite and the mother of all, “I know it is bad for me, but I do it anyway because it makes me feel good.” We have become a “borderline society” thatDr. Kreisman and Hal Stratus predicted that we would back in the 70’s and early 80’s. It is unbelievable the things we think we can't live without. Even more unbelievable is that which we think we can't live with. But don't worry there is a pill for that.

Economically we use money that we haven’t even earned yet. Many of us feel “we will die before we actually get our debts paid off” and that is a good thing. “its not our fault we didn't have the money to pay for the things we 'needed'. Our government has let this counterfeit financial resource flood the market. Then to make maters worse we ship our real money off to foreign economies. They have consumed all of that and are now forced to accept our fictitious “credit” money. This can not sustain. It is unnatural to any economic structure. We have already seen it start to crumble. What is worse are the people who ignorantly benefited from this “feel good today” mentality are now crying for the government to “bail them out”. While it was credit and financial lending institutes that caused this problem, the government saw the biggest problem as being the fact that “banks have no money to lend”!! There wasn’t (and still isn’t) anything rational coming out of their mouths. What was offered seemed to be geared towards what to say to please the most voters. Again we see consumption with out replacement.

Our population is outpacing “natural” and healthy growth. I remember growing up people saying things like, “there is plenty of land in this country”. This statement completely ignores the reality that it takes more then just space to maintain a life form. More then that, it takes more then just existence to have a life. Great, our new farming techniques can feed 10 times as many people as we used to. So, technically we could accept 10 times as many people into our geographical borders. But what are these new citizens going to do? We don't need them to farm. As we make up stuff for them to do, and they become capable of having offspring, what are these offspring to do? Then there is the waste each of us produce, the space that we require, and the things that separate that grey line between life and actually living. Yes, the vast majority of us have the ability to have a child, but it is not a “God Given” right to do so when we don't know how we are going to sustain and enlighten that child.

Oh the things I will get in trouble for, called a “socialist” over, and condemned for if I were ruling this mess. One would be the encouragement of birth control for ever citizen. Also the submittable of a “business plan” for every child born. How do you plan on paying for the nourishment, shelter, and clothing of the child? Who is actually going to be raising the child, you or the government? How many hours per week do you plan on spending with the child during the first 6 yrs of life?

All of this leads to an unsustainable social structure. We don't know our neighbors, we don't care to. We have laws set up to ensure that getting to know them comes with great risk. When you do get to know them. It becomes a pissing match. Who has the most, biggest, shiniest stuff. We waste valuable resources to water grass. So it can grow bright green, and we can pull out our petro burning mowers and chop it down.

We don't even know our own family. Going through the divorce recently my ex's sister was on the stand. My attorney asked her sister, “you say you know your sister. What did you talk about?” her sister said, “raising kids. How our family is doing. You know sister stuff.” My attorney, “so you didn't know she had a drinking problem, you didn't know she was unhappy in her situation, you didn't know she was using drugs, you didn't know she hated her life growing up and considered herself to be 'the black sheep', you didn't know......” and my lawyer went on to spell out a lot of things that had come out that you should know about your family members. We don't even talk to those we are supposedly closest to. If you are going to sustain a functional society, there must be easy flow of communication. Now we have developed this great tool for doing it, and we just turned it into a way to meet up with old flings, gamble, and pleasure ourselves.

So religion will save us and our morality right? This is where our culture will gain its moral compass. Right it people are being lead to cults, then the “valid” religions are headed by greedy hypocrites using the money for their own pleasure. The biggest religion in the world has had a 20 plus year struggle defending the fact its ranks are plagued with child molesters. I can say I once had the pleasure of getting chastised about eating meat on Friday during lent from a soul that was in the process of divorcing me. “Umm, errrr, let's check the hand book on this one. Up here is it, I happen to have the 'Ten Commandments' tabbed. Eating meat on Friday..... Eating meat on Friday.... Nope, not mentioned.” Its all good though. Because most of us already assume from birth that we are dammed to hell, so why bother trying to right our wrongs. We'll just pass this dammdation on down to the next generation so we won't be so lonely in hell.

WE CAN NOT CONTINUE WITH THE WAY WE HAVE CONDUCTED OURSELVES FOR THE PAST 75 TO 100 YEARS. It is unsustainable behavior. It will erode and eventually collapse all we have come to value upon us. We do have some inalienable rights. But destroying the world in this child like fashion is not one of them. As each generation passes it will get harder to understand why this seemingly obvious point is factual. “But we deserve....”

"Mom's gonna Fix it all soon, Mom's coming 'round to put it back the way it aught to beeeee." (Tool, Aenima)

Oil Spill: Responsibility and Sensibility

2010-07-16T06:23:00.000-05:00

Alright, it has been too long. I hope to pick up the thread a little more regularly.

So even in my attempt to avoid the news, a few issues you just can’t ignore. The BP oil leak is the biggest one. With my contempt for our persistence on this practice without any real movement towards discontinuation is certainly not hidden in these posts. An event like this one just frustrates me further.

That said, I have to shake my head that when it happened and the world seems to have been surprised. My initial reaction was, “well no shit”. It was bound to happen. Yes the chances were miniscule, but real all the same. I think what did take me by surprise was that there was no contingency plan to quickly reduce the impact.

In my day to day, we have to often make decisions that could potentially impact thousands of lives. Now the actual chances are often very minuscule. However, that doesn’t stop us from having a “risk assessment” meeting where these risks are assessed. An approach to minimize those risks and a contingency plan in case the worst case scenario should occur are developed. There are events that happen on a regular basis that a meeting isn’t needed but the results of the initial assessment are attached and understood. Much like these oil platforms are scattered around the world and the process has become common.

I am just beside myself that there was no plan to address this potential danger and the factions of the government that license these companies to do this didn’t require one. But it isn’t hard to see how that much money clouds the judgment to require such formalities.

I am not amazed at the publics reaction. However, it is clueless and ignorant as usual in these types of situation. Everybody is in an uproar over this spill. But, really what is the other option. Buying our oil from other countries? Only drilling in shallower more manageable beds? This would drive the price of an American gallon of gasoline sky high. That of course would choke our economy and cause everybody to think the sitting president was not doing their job to the best interest of the voting public. So that same public that is now collectively in an uproar over the oil spill would instead be throwing their voting interest behind the candidate that screamed "Drill baby drill". The president had to “show” more openly his contempt for that incident. Because Americans can only believe you are angry if they see you making irrational and non functional body movements.

So what was the way to avoid this catastrophe should have been avoided? The most obvious action should have been that every license awarded to drill was awarded to contractor who had a proven contingency plan in order to stop any leak. But that would have been seen as congress impeding business.

This situation epitomizes the trait of a free enterprise/ democratic society that is both its greatest asset and most dangerous fault. When we have a problem that needs solved, there is great inspiration to find a solution. However, as that solution becomes common, acceptable, and cheap, better solutions have a nearly impossible task of entering the market. We all know "green energy" is a great substitute and at least will reduce the impact that fossil fuels put on our environment, safety, and economy. Yet, it is "too expensive" to use such technology. In a system not driven by financial reward, benefit of the community would drive solutions.

I have taken awhile to post on this. This morning I was glad. I heard a comment that highlights another relative facet of this issue. A lady was on CNN begging President Obamma to reinstate the drilling privileges (lift the ban) on the existing BP oil rigs. This exemplifies the problem and the frustration I have with our culture. “Lady, look out at the ocean, look at what your husband did.” Yet the vast majority of us do not see a connection between what we do as an occupation and its adverse affect on the greater community. We consider the fact that "we are just doing our job" and "following orders" absolves us from responsibility. This kind of mentality has lead to heinous acts of violence and destruction lead against humanity.

This "self entitlement" to employment no matter what the cost is at the core of all I find offensive about our western culture. It was only last year that "roughnecks" were being glamorized with their own TV show. They talked about the dangers to their life and limb. But the guys who did the job were "willing to risk it all to strike 'Black Gold'". The general population are too shallow in the intellectual pool to realize they had made a livelihood off a destructive force. They had for many generations. The money generated allowed more offspring who then needed to rely on the economic revenue of this destructive force. It is a parasites mentality. We all know what happens to both the parasite and the host every time.

Irresponsibility and lack of foresight runs from top to bottom of this issue. But there is just sooo much money involved in ignoring the dangers, impact, and contingencies. Every single one of us who has to pump gas into our vehicles to get to work share some responsibility to that destructive incident in the gulf.

Bush Era Attorneys Give Go Ahead For Extermination Of Villages Were Absolutely Correct.

2010-02-21T17:32:00.002-05:00

For those of you who know me or this column you might be shocked at this assertion. Especially when it comes to agreeing with anything the latest Bush administration did. But you are going to have to bear with me while we separate the logic and rational.

Here is the link to the news story if you haven’t read it. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/02/19/report-bush-lawyer-said-president-could-order-civilians-to-be-massacred.aspx
Basically this guy, John Woo, was one of the culprits that wrote a legal argument in favor of letting the CIA torture prisoners. Now to that end I have found nothing to support any current doctrine. However, during an interview where Woo was questioned about his perspective on presidential powers in regard to the role of “commander in chief”, he was asked if the president “had the right to order the extermination of an entire village”. Woo answered in the affirmative a couple of times.

"What about ordering a village of resistants to be massacred? ... Is that a power that the president could legally—""Yeah," Yoo replied

This statement is absolutely right. Not only is it a correct statement, but precedence has been set long before Curious George Jr. was an itch in his daddy’s pants. At the very least, from the moment we took to the air and started bombing cities, the destruction and extermination of a village has been acceptable. The siege of cities has been accepted tactics of war probably since the beginning of time. The US was forged from the destruction and annihilation of Native American Indian villages.

As an example, the atomic bombs that were dropped on Nagasaki an Hiroshima did not simply destroy military targets and enemy soldiers. Currently we have nuclear weapons pointed at targeted cities around the world. These would surely whip out entire “villages”.

Likewise, I can not be a hypocrite. I have always asserted that the way we should have dealt with Osama Bin Laden and his clan was to not publically acknowledge we suspected him. An intelligence gathering entity should have been activated first. Then a small strike force (preferably dressed in Pakistani attire) should have been sent in to extinguish the threat. We should have denied involvement. Every time one of these camps popped up, the operation should have been repeated. However, in the detailed scheme of things, these “training camps” function like “villages”. Children not even in their teens are being trained and capable of putting up a defense. It may have been necessary to remove them as a threat as well. This is why accurate and complete intelligence is crucial before any activity that takes a human life is implemented.

The reality about this statement is that the context of “exterminating a village” drums up images of soldiers with machine guns going door to door killing all the occupants. The ignorance of human nature sees this as different then a blanket bomb massacring the residents from a distance. The reality is that it isn’t. Maybe on the psyche of the people doing the killing it is different, but the result to the targets are still the same. Heck, bombing might be worse as it is not as thorough.

Now, all that said. “Legal” and “precedential” doesn’t make something “right” or “rational”. I have always said that it is imperative that acts of war or violence must be only used as a measure of last resort. Nothing that the Bush administration did in Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter) was the acts of last resort. This blog is punctuated with what the ingredients that made up the attacks on 9-11 that should have been considered before it got to that point. Many of the decision made afterwards were unscrupulous and malice as well. The same could or has been said about many other history’s attacks on civilization. The way to avoid the need to “exterminate an entire village” is to understand that which drives men to hate each other.

The Human System

2009-12-06T11:37:00.002-05:00

There was a debate awhile back on World Have Your Say in which the topic of helping out the poor was the major element of discussion. As usual what you had was a bunch of opinions that strictly concerned the issue at hand and not the full scale of the problem.

This is about as complicated of a concept as can be mauled over. The post is long, I am sorry, but it has to be.

I have said before on this blog that I have an education and background in system design. The first thing you do when developing, correcting, or improving a system is ask, what is its purpose? So what is the purpose of the human race? There are some variations depending upon religion and philosophical perspectives. The quintessential “what’s the meaning of life?” Any other sub objectives are arguable. Only one thing is certain. All living things seek to propagate and expand their species for as many generations as they can.

Every system has “constraints”. These are a set of rules that are dictated by physical limitations of the process. Violating these rules will eventually “crashes the system”. Since humanity is a perpetual system, meaning that the parts it produces is used by the system to continue functioning, violating constraints has an added danger. Breaking the rules leads to inferior parts that will also be the undoing of the system. To further complicate matters, the human race keeps improving, and parts that were once considered “inside tolerance” in previous cycles, are no longer acceptable for use.

So what are these constraints? No matter how you believe that this system got kick started, generally the rules were those called out by Darwin that we know as “survival of the fittest”. How the human race differs from all other species is that we have evolved to a point where physical strength is not the predominate factor in determining “the fittest”. Intellect and social skills has surpassed brute strength as how to determine who the most fit humans are. (Let us face it, if Stephen Hawking was a deer, no matter how smart he was, he would be a goner already.) The majority successful humans have a combination of intellect and social skills or “social capital”. Social capital is advancements made by previous generations that have improved the position of the person. (Paris Hilton is an example of somebody who has no exceptional intellect and owes her success completely to social capital. She has extended her success by developing her own social skills.)

These attributes are apparent in other species, but in most cases strength is still the superior quality. Even with our evolved brain, we look for characteristics of strength when choosing mates. There is one other technique for sustaining generations when either natural enemies are too great or a period of natural disaster or disease plagues a species. The species can choose to breed. For a time, in certain situation this can temporarily improve the chances of the herd, but it can not be sustained.

Every complex system has subsystems. These subsystems have their own purpose and functions relevant to the overall system. These interdependent processes have various and changing relativity to the purpose. In an evolving system, these minor processes and/ or some of their parts become obsolete. (For example wood has been replaced by gasoline in an automobile.) Accepting these adaptations is pertinent to continuing evolution of the system, and by extension in this case improving the lifecycle. In our most undeveloped form of the Human race this mechanism is most often the first response.

The most important thing about system maintenance is that one must recognize that any changes made to any one part of a system will have some kind of an affect on the rest of system. Anytime a change is made, the designers must consider what affect it might have on every other piece. Not doing so can bring the whole system down.

So what does this have to do with “poor people” in the human race? They are an inefficiency in the system. Weaknesses are not always caused by the part themselves. As I mentioned positive changes to one part can adversely affect other parts of the system. Then a benefit to disadvantage analysis must be conducted. (Here is where it gets really complicated and most people start to just focus on the symptom instead of the cause.) Impoverished people may be the result of other factors. For some reason they have not developed the intellect and social skills to become “successful”. Sometimes it is the result of not enough energy being dedicated to them. Other times, which I think may be more often be the problem of poverty, there is an inappropriate amount of products for the system to function properly. Let’s use the example of an auto assembly line system. If the line can produce 1 million cars per year, but the purchasing agent buys 2 million carburetors per year, then there is an overstock of carburetors. The warehouse will fill and eventually the so factory will be cluttered with carburetors that nothing will be able to move in it.

So let me make my point a little easier. Impoverished countries with wide scale hunger, disease, and disasters have broken systems. They consume more resources then they add back to the system for some reason. In a system that is meant to be perpetual, this is a “leak”. Generally that means that either the population must be allowed to dwindle or, they must find a way to become a self-sustaining at their desired population level. Just as pouring fluid into a leaky system only leads to a bigger leak, so is feeding the hungry of a impoverished society only going to make more hungry.

So I guess on a micro scale I think of it like this. I see a poor starving child on TV and my heart does break. But I am left with the question, “If I send him/ or her money for food and it is enough to sustain? them for the rest of their lives, what then? Will he/ she just have more offspring that then will also need sent resources? Let us say in Africa, they live in a desert where food and water are not and never will be plentiful. Will these children that are saved promise not to have children unless they can provide these necessities? I not only doubt it, but history has proven it not to be true.

Remember the basic prime directive of the individual part, the person, in the system is to propagate another generation. The more technologically ignorant they are, the more apt they are to carry out that task without regard to consequences. With their last breath, they will breed. They will attempt to fill the leak by adding more. Correcting the system will require finding a way to educate these populations that only when they know how they are going to feed themselves can they then think about having children. Those who think it is cruel or selfish to not feed the poor and hungry of the world are well intentioned, but misguided. Allowing these people to survive only to make more children who will suffer is far more cruel. How many more children have been brought into this world only to suffer their parents hunger and disease?

Likewise, in the US, the problem isn’t that we can not sustain people with food shelter, and clothing. All over people will tell you that our poor people are the richest in the world. In our little “subsystem” we require more highly refined parts. These people often lack education, self-discipline, and/ or motivation. Our purpose is defined by our culture. We require more refined parts then in other parts of the world. It isn’t about just carrying on bodies, but ideals into the next generation. On our part as a community we need to educate and even encourage self discipline. On the part of the poor, just as in any other part of the world, they must learn not to have offspring they have no self staining plan to support. As the lowest denominator of our system grows or doesn’t evolve, it weakens our system and threatens to crash the whole thing.

Who is raising your kids?

2009-11-13T19:39:00.001-05:00

Alright I have a question. And I really want you to think about this. Why did you have (or do you want) children? Was it because you just wanted them? Was it because you wanted to pass on the family name? Was it because everybody was pressuring you by saying “when you going to have a child?” Did these same people offer the advice that, “you will never be ready” in an address to your concerns? Or was it because you consciously thought, “I am a good human and member of the community and I want to pass my intellect and value system on to another generation?” I would hope that the later was the most predominate drive for you decision. Let us face it, if you are raising children with little more then your physical traits, whose moral and ideological traits are they carrying on.

So are your children being taught your beliefs and morals or are they just more sources of energy that feeds the “Matrix”? For those unfamiliar with the actual premise of this movie, it was about machines that take over the world. 99% of the world is kept asleep by machines and used strictly for their body heat to generate the energy they need to power the machines. A select few wake up, or are awaken to find their whole world as they knew it was just a computer generated dream. They battle to try and wake the rest of the world up. It isn’t quite so easy as just finding where the bodies are kept and shaking them. Most don’t want to be awakened. They wouldn’t know how to function outside the Matrix. Could your children survive if they had to grow up in the world of your parents or grand parents? Before fast food, credit cards, health insurance, 30 year mortgages, and nonstop video entertainment. Outside the distraction of the marketing blitz. Outside the matrix?

I have mentioned in previous posts that children of the agricultural age of economics had a way different purpose then the children of the industrial and service based economics of today. If you farmed as a livelihood children are assets. The more you have, the more help you have to tend to the needs of the far, and them more you can generate from it. Farm based families often are large. No need for babysitting, everybody was a stay at home parent, and families spent most of their lives together. In the industrial based model, children are liabilities. They do not contribute to the income of the family, and in fact they cost resources. The child of a factory worker and a nurse has to have a babysitter and eventually an education system to care for them. Children of the modern world have totally different roles in life that lead to all kinds of dysfunctions depending on their stations.

Let us do some logic here. According to the be Bureau of labor statistics, the average person puts in 36.7 hours per week. We’ll call it 37 hours for easy math, and say that the average is 7.4 hours a day. The national average commute time to work is 25 min each way. I think it would be acceptable to say that the average person take 20 min to get ready for work. So, just on work related obligations we spend about 8.5 hours of the daytime getting ready for work. So let us assume your day starts when you wake at 6:30 AM. No way to tell, but if you consider the suggested average for children up until their teen years is 12 hours a day for sleep, but the reality is closer to 10 hours. So up until 11 years old at least we are shipping out children off at 9 PM to wake them up at 7 am for school. Once we get home the average American has to get dinner ready, keep up with home chores, and take some time to address individual obligations. But as you are pulling in the driveway at 3:30 as the kids are getting off the bus, you have 5.5 hours to cook dinner, eat dinner, clean up after dinner, get the kids ready for bed, and do all the other nightly duties. I don’t think it is much of a stretch to say that at best, the average American has about 2 hours to influence their children. The question is then, do they? Or are they pre-occupied with extracurricular self interests? This is worth restating. Out of a 24 hour day, 14 of them waking hours, the average American parent has 2 hours of influence.

If we consider this, is it any mystery that our children conduct activities that make us say, “I didn’t teach them to walk, talk, dress, or act that way.” “They didn’t learn to do drugs, be violent, or make unhealthy personal choices from me.” Of the time people do spend with their children how much of it is spent punishing them for behaviors they don’t approve of? When you are not influencing them, who is?

In my area we have “pre-school” that starts as soon as your kid is potty trained. There are also business that seemingly offer something positive such as “gym”. To my observation this is where busy parents dump their children off so they can get some errands done. Parents leaving to strangers to teach their children to run, jump, dance, tie their shoes, and other physical activities. Missing completely the point that there is great value in a child seeing their parents do these things. This goes on as early as 3. In these environments there are so many sources of input developing your child’s personality that you can’t possibly be aware of. From the teachers to the other students, they all have an influence that might be in counterproductive to how you want your child raised. Many of these stimuli come in forms most often other then just verbal exchanges. Here your young children will meet others who lie, are violent, bully, or worse. What will your children learn in order to be accepted?

Let us say the weekend comes, and the typical person has free time. How often is that free time spent doing self indulging activities such as watching sports, drinking with friends, fishing, hunting, shopping, working out, working in the yard, fixing up an old car, golfing, or whatever your hobby is? How much of that time are you spending with your 2 to 8 yr. old? For most people they do not include their young children in these activities. Your children are awake, they are with somebody. Maybe they are with the other parent who is showing spite and frustration with you because you are out “doing your thing” while they are “trapped” at home with the kids. You, of course, are thinking that you put a “hard week at work and are getting some personal time in to relax”.

Throw into this mix the ever growing demographic of children being raised in a “split family” environment to the confusion and another whole new set of issues arise. Children being passed back and forth between two parents who now both have to work to make ends meet. The result is a child who has lost the sense of identity, a confused understanding about relationships, and forced to find somebody to give them the guidance on life’s most basic issues. At that age the amount of attention is directly related to the depth of love they feel. And then these children grow up to be parents, “just like mom and dad”.

Is it asking too much to teach your child how to tie their shoes, run, jump, hike, play, or work? Can you not teach them that “A is for apple”? Do you have the capacity to teach them basic math, language, and reading skills? If the reason you can’t is simply because of time, then you didn’t understand your requirements for parenting all that well. Somebody should have been expected to be home. They are requirements all the same. They will be met by somebody. That somebody may not have your best interest at heart. So if you are wondering why your teenaged daughter is pregnant or your teenaged son is facing a prison sentence and you think, “I never taught them to be that way”, you are right. You never taught them to be any way. Somebody else did.

So again I ask, are you raising children into people with your set of moral grounding, or did you just produce another warm body to feed the matrix? Another person to make all the same mistakes you did and eventually gets their life in order just in time to repeat the process? Your child doesn’t need sports, education, hobbies, or discipline to become a healthy well grounded person. All of these are in lieu of the one thing they do need. Your time.

I’ll end on this note. Include your children in activities. Yes, it is dangerous to have a child in a garage while you work on that old car, but nowhere near as dangerous as ignoring them. Take your 2 yr old outside to work on the yard with you. It will take you twice as long to do it, but it will be time well spent. Explain to them while you are doing it why it is important to you to keep your space looking pleasant. Let me let you in on a little known secret. Most of your friends really don’t like you. Your young child looks up and respects you. They want to know everything about you. Give them your time to teach them. Do it before they give up on you and seek enlightenment from somewhere else. The really important lessons, get down to their level, look them in the eye, and make sure they understand that you are serious. Follow up by demonstrating these lessons yourself. If you don’t want them to lie, don’t lie to them. If you don’t want them to give up when things get a little rough, don’t let them see you give up. Despite what the media might tell you, there are things way more dangerous in this world then the “swine flu”. Ignorance is on top of that list.

“I’m Sorry” A Social Contract

2009-09-15T11:57:00.001-05:00

This week has brought forth much media hoopla over a few incidents in which celebrities had to apologize for. It seems a week doesn’t go by where some public figure isn’t at a podium or a talk show seat expressing regret for their actions.

The thing that most people seem not to realize is “I’m sorry” is not just the end of an issue in the past, but if truly meant, it is a beginning to a change in character. In effect it is saying, “I recognize my actions were socially unacceptable and I will not do it again.” The “I recognize” part addresses the event that happened and the “will not do it again” is the constraints of the contract.

Now, it might be adaptable and acceptable to say, “try not to do it again.” In cases where addiction, compulsion, or ignorance is the reason for the social foul, there might need to be a correction curve. But in these cases a “ramping up” of effort should be demonstrated with each new infraction. So say that somebody with an alcohol problem says, “I am sorry I came home wasted and acted like an ass last night. I will try not to do it again.” Well, that person just admitted they have a problem controlling themselves under the influence. Maybe they “try” to quite or at least restrain on their own. If they fail and once again repeat the behavior, then the next step is to demand they seek alternatives to address their lack of commitment to the contract.

That leads me to the point. If they repeat and do not seek alternatives to their offensive actions, then they are really not “sorry”. They really don’t feel what they have done is an offense. In this case you can expect that the action will happen again. In this case, “I’m sorry” is merely lip service in an attempt to calm the contempt towards them.

Applying that logic to this week’s events we can all agree that we hope Mr. West and Ms. Williams apologized to the public because they feel the image they displayed was not conducive to a positive role model. Their actions are not how we would want our society to handle problems, nor do we want our impressionable aged citizens to see that as an option. So, from this day forward these two have to raise their bar for social appearance to a higher level. If events happen where other entertainers may have skirted that grey area between acceptable and offensive and gotten away without an apology or a half hearted apology, these two could justifiably be chastised for such actions.

In politics there is something that occurs along the same lines that I find much more difficult to accept an apology. Often, people who have more liberal perspectives are accused of not getting scrutinized by the media as harshly. Well there is a reason for that. If by “liberal” perspective means that they advocated for such issues as “gay marriage”, “abortion”, “stem cell research”, “legalized drugs”, “legalized prostitution”, and generally have a 1969 “free love” approach to their political perspective; then their judgment standards are different. If they get caught with a prostitute smoking weed then it is kind of a “so what”. Of course they did, they believe it should be legal and have advocated for it. In this case an “I’m sorry” might be more offensive then the activity itself. However, if a more conservative minded male politician who opposes the ideal previously listed gets caught poking some dude in the bathroom stall while smoking crack, then an apology is required. Beyond that, the constituency should require an explanation and a character change. As a policy maker who opposed these activities has either introduced laws to bar such activities, or at the very least hindered attempt to normalize them socially. Such a person is also known as being a hypocrite. In this case, open public verbal flogging to discourage such narcissism is not only expected, but required. Simply saying, “I’m sorry” isn’t going to undue the damage that was done for the sole purpose of protecting the offender’s ego.

It is harder to be a conservative, certainly. Those that choose that path have to recognize it. Often times it means rejecting self centered animalistic instincts. It often requires self assessment as to whether the cause is still relevant. This is different then just embracing those instincts as an insurmountable trait with little to no negative affect on the overall culture.

An apology should always be accepted. (Unless it is late in the night and it is in the form of half 151 and half Rumplemints. That should never be accepted, trust me.) However the level of reservation and the amount of influence the person asking for forgiveness should be allowed is completely based upon the existence and history of a social contract being offered before. If the apologizer has one, what are the extenuating circumstances? What makes their renewed commitment different? If the answer is “none” and “nothing” then remove yourself from their influence as best as you can and continue with the lessons learned.

So from Kanye and Serena we should accept their apology but expect that their level of rudeness and disrespect will not happen again, at least in the public eye. However, two truths remain about celebrities. One, the negative publicity is apt to get them financial and social benefit. That means they will get face time with the cameras. Two, our impressionable ones will most likely notice the social gain over the shame these stars are currently displaying and many kids will take from it a lesson that “aggression and rudeness only stings for a bit, but then there is lasting benefit.” And we wonder how we got here…

“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity”- Andre Gide quotes

How About This For A Healthcare Plan

2009-07-20T16:59:00.001-05:00

The political talking heads and attention seems to be fixated on a “new national healthcare plan.” I have written about my disdain for all things insurance in the past. (I realized after writing this that there wasn’t a post that specifically addressed this topic. I will do that one next.) So instead I will offer my “new national healthcare plan”. One to be hated but undeniable to those of either the religious or evolutionary persuasion and by extension either party.

How about this for a health care plan. It starts out with the fact that we all understand that we are not immortal. For the slower ones in the group, we die. Now the speed at which that happens can be attributed to a combination of lifestyle, intellect, and dumb luck. The last one you can do nothing about. The first one and second one are closely related. Through the first few hundred thousand years of the existence of life, species developed and evolved using an understanding of the fact that we need to choose a healthy lifestyle in order to preserve ourselves and promote the chance of preserving our genetic line. This national health plan should be called “survival of the fittest.”

Here is the plan. If you smoke, drink, do other drugs you hasten your way towards death. Sex with prostitutes is not doctor recommended either. Especially the ones that look like girls but are really Asian men when you have been drinking jack Daniels all night. If you eat 5000 calories per day but burn 500 sitting around reading stupid blog post all day, you are going to get fat. This will hasten that trek to the grave yard as well. The second you pull out onto the road, you must realize that you are at risk. Even if you are the most courteous, aware, and responsive driver, realize that 90% of the road is inhabited by people who couldn’t pass their GED. If you are an a-hole this too could increase your risk factors for an untimely demise.

You are aloud to have as many children as you would like. This is a free country. They will be covered fully by this plan. This is how it will work. If you can’t afford to feed them, they will starve to death. If they get sick, and you can’t afford to take them to the doctor, they will get sicker and probably die. If they watch you smoke, drink, do drugs, eat too much, or walk around being an asshole, they will grow to learn to do the same thing. This could lead to their problems arriving before they reach adult hood. Educate them. Teach them how to eat healthy, exercise, and consume their time with life preserving activities.

My suggestion is to plan your kids out. Don’t listen to people when they say, “you will never be financially ready to have a kid”. (Chalk this up to the wisdom of people who told you that “a house is an investment”.) Get there, then have a kid. I also suggest a plan “B” as well. (You never know when you are going to wake up one day with only half the resources you had expected to have at your disposal.) Do not expect the government to supply food, housing, or the latest $150 a pair tennis shoes for your kid. If you can’t do that, don’t have a kid. I hate to break this too you, but kids need something else that will can not be expected by the government. Time. Yeah, a healthy kid is going to need some one on one with at least one parent. Preferably both. This plan allows that anybody who wants a healthy child has to budget time into their healthcare needs. Great, you make great money working 50 hours a week that you use to buy your kids the finest toys to play with in the nicest basement in town. When are they going to learn these valuable lessons from you? They never see you. Instead they are raised by the 7th grade coke headed pervert of a government teacher. You are at work. So every kid that gets both financial and emotional support for a parent who is physically present, gets to live healthy and long. Or they die sooner then expected. Of course that is barring the dumb luck factor.

There is an added dental plan. Brush your teeth, get regular checkups, or your teeth fall out. Pretty cool. If your teeth fall out, then there is no need for a dental plan.

To you “health care providers”, this plan offers a relief of dealing endless insurance forms and red tape just to get paid. Healthcare insurance will be outlawed. That is right, you have to accept only cold hard cash from your patients. You may have to adjust your prices that you charge for spending 4.27 minutes with your patience. The majority of Americans will not be able to pay $350 for your time. That is of course not counting the hour they waited in the waiting room. See you are going to have to charge what people are going to be able to pay. I recommend you get payment up front. But look, no paper work.

Pharmaceutical companies are going to be happy to know that they can put any drug they want to on the market. However, each drug will have to have one name signed to it. That name belongs to the responsible person who will go to jail for homicide if anybody meets an untimely death due to the recommended use of their drug.

Those who have the resources and intellect to propagate continue their genetic line. Those who don’t, well their line ends and the community as a whole is strengthened. The next generational turn will in affect become even stronger and more resourceful. Eventually all of the health concerns of today will be a blip.

So what do you think? Is this the same one Hillary was offering during the Clinton years? I don’t want to be accused of plagiarism.

Consequences

2009-06-22T17:54:00.002-05:00

I love this word. It is just fun to say. By definition it means something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions. Using logic and past history one can derive the often negative result (consequences) of almost any rational action. I am teaching my daughter the word. She says it much cuter then I do. As she grows I will explain and expand the meaning of the word. Many times I have written about this subject indirectly. Most topics have offered solutions and the most probable consequences weighed against them.

Every single problem and every issue facing this country is a result of a lack of understanding of the consequences. Whether it be something as international as Iran and North Korea arming themselves because they saw themselves included in a group where one of them was invaded. Or more personal issues such as education and health care, we have no sense of the negative impact of our choices. Often the consequences seem so indirect that we don’t realize it. This is the case with cheap imported goods and global warming. We in the west have made an art out of postponing or removing completely the negative effects of all of our crucial life changes. We often do this by spreading the results over everybody in the community. United we stand, and united we also may fall. Get pregnant and don’t want to? Have an abortion. Buy a house or too many things that you can’t afford? Go bankrupt. Eat unhealthy, drink like a fish, and smoke until your lungs are tarred black. You have health insurance to pay for the procedures. Drive like an idiot, the safety features on your car will save your life, and the forced auto insurance will pay for the damage. Don’t bother teaching your children anything. Let the school system be their mentors, disciplinarians, as well as educators. The only thing as parents you have to do is donate the egg and the sperm. Sure, get married. If one day you wake up and don’t want to be, you can just get a divorce. Never mind any of the consequences.

Many of our problems that we have today are addressing issues that were caused by “solutions” not very well weighed out. Slavery? Not very well thought out. Freeing the slaves? Great idea, but they stopped half way through the thought. What do you do with a 20% unemployed poor people. As the country grew economically we entered the industrial age. More people were required to work in factories and the business that support them. As farms were shut down and more fathers went from being “stay at home dads (farmers) to “9 to 5ers” the male role model’s impact on the home was reduced. What was the impact on the children? Then we got into this habit of sending our men off to wars. The women then had to take their place in the work force. The men that did come back were often messed up in the head and the women either had to or wanted to continue to work to support the financial “needs” of the family. At that point who was responsible for passing on the lessons and the moral fibers of the past generations to the new one? How about nobody. Now we drop the kids in our public schools and hope they learn these things from strangers who are under paid and over worked just like the rest of us. This is just one string of events that the consequences were not fully realized.

Many of the things that we in the west find repressive, inhumane, and violations of human rights in other cultures are feeble attempts at reducing some of the negative consequences. One child policies, forced marriages, rigorous religious structure, extreme gender and class distinctions, and strict criminal punishments are a few examples. These are all activities to reduce the impact of many issues that plague even our society.

In western culture we have members know as “defense attorney’s” whose first priority is to prove innocent clients, guiltless. Here the choices of somebody else has a negative result on their clients life. But in the case of guilty ones, their job is to reduce the impact of the consequence that their client must endure. It is very factual that the amount of money spent on these negotiators of the law is directly proportional to the depth of the consequences. Inherently having an advocate to reduce your negative impact is neither good nor bad, it is when that courtesy is distributed unequally throughout the society that the lessons meant by punishment are skewed.

Even the biblical teachings and something as basic as the 10 commandments were designed to counsel people’s choices towards ones with less sever consequences. Many of the negative results of these teachings were of more internal sacrifices.

Whether it is nature or our legislators attempting to hold the citizens accountable for their actions and choices it doesn’t matter. Somewhere some how, as each generation passes, less of us are understanding the meaning of consequences. On this tract we will not only deal with problems of today, but forever compounding problems.

Iran and North Korea: Much To Do About Nothing

2009-06-20T20:08:00.002-05:00

There are a few proverbs in life that are a staple to my belief system. One is a Chinese proverb I learned in my studies of military strategies. It says, “never waste your resources blocking a strike that won’t hit you.” On the flip side of that understanding is knowing that getting your opponents to waste their resources by making them flinch is a productive use of your resources. If you have ever played the hand slapping game, (we called it “red hands” or “bloody knuckles” when using a striking instrument”) you know that there is as much effort in getting your opponent to react pre-maturely as there is in actually striking them.

Iran and North Korea are conducting activities in the open for a reason. They could easily hide any of this stuff. As a matter of guess, I would believe that they are doing some of the most damming activities in secret. In the grand scheme of things, all they have to do is deny it and those who want to believe one way or the other will follow their beliefs. But for some reason they are conducting their activities in a way that is sure to draw a response from their opponents. In Iran’s case they are claiming it is for peaceful energy purposes and even our own intelligence can’t prove otherwise. That reason is to pull us into the drama, keep making the western world flinch until we are too slow to react.

In reality why bother. Let them make whatever they want. If Israel is worried about them, let them take care of it, or at least produce some credible, usable intelligence. Instead of worrying about what Iran or NK are doing, make them worry about what we are doing. We have rights and would be accepted to put counter missile batteries all along the borders of both countries. Heck, put some war heads right there as well. Let them know that they are wasting money on resources they will never be able to use. Sanction anybody who tries to help either Iran or North Korea along.

To their face, the west need only to present a kind and understanding demeanor. “Oh you are working on a nuclear war head? That is nice.” That should be flowed with an expression that you are curious as to why they feel they need them. Not that it is some mystery that the three countries named in the (Best cartoon villain voice) “Axis of evil” are the ones we are now having trouble with. Whatever reason they give, just nod your head and say, “good point” and go on about your business of building a defense system that will react to any strike that will hit its target. Never let them know you are doing it. Keep all of your cards close. Should they launch an attack, your defense systems should be a surprise they didn’t calculate for. When their attack fails they will then be open for retaliation, with all the support and gratitude of the world. You hit them hard, fast, and show no mercy. (Remember, the world’s nations are like a woman. Each event is only scored as one point. There is no magnitude.)

This is how you deal militarily with nations such as Iran and North Korea. All this concern is for nothing. Nothing can be done about to stop them if they feel the need to arm themselves. However to be honest, intelligent diplomatic maneuvers would have allowed us to never be here in the first place.

Too Close To Home

2009-06-05T04:52:00.002-05:00

For you 4 regulars, you might realize that I pulled the "Personal Story" post. There is a chance that too many people that might be close to or work with my wife are reading it. The point of this blog is to share my story in hopes of helping others who others who might have questions or end up in the same situation. It is not a platform to hurt or embarrass anybody, especially my estranged wife. I honestly never thought anybody would take time to read this silly blog. (Well except for John. He is easily entertained though.) I hope people go back and read the post preceding this situation. Those are much more informative.

Sorry if this causes any inconvenience. The post will return when it is more then likely to help somebody. If you want to read my personal story, you can dig for SSRI marriage stories and you will find it has been repeated over and over again since the introduction of this devil drug.

The Divorce Journey

2009-06-01T05:55:00.003-05:00

Hello folks, I will now be posting on most of the more personal related issues here. http://thedivorcejourney.blogspot.com/. I only have the introduction up now. But there will be more to follow shortly.

Marijuana Is To Alcohol As Prozac (SSRI’s) Is To Cocaine

2009-05-29T17:18:00.000-05:00

I have discussed on other blogs, if not this one, many times the logical disconnect in logic between the legalization of alcohol and the criminalization of marijuana. The main reason alcohol and tobacco are legal and pot isn’t, is due to a major marketing and lobbing effort by the two industries to push out a substitute good. The now cult classic flick known as “Refer madness” was originally produced as a public awareness message to warn of the dangers of marijuana usage. It was funded by the alcohol and tobacco industries. It contains wild and untrue assertions about the use of pot. It includes a scene of people taking it intravenously. It was meant to stir paranoia in the ignorant masses. It worked.

“Weed” had one major problem, it grows like a weed anywhere. Hard to make money off that. Unless you live in the lush climate of the south, you are not growing tobacco in your back yard. Certainly not in the quantities to support the average nicotine habit. So there is an industry. As a home brewer, I can tell you that brewing a drinkable beer is no easy chore even with today’s advances. So alcohol had an industry.

Cocaine can be grown and harvested then brought to the border pretty inexpensively. The biggest cost is the logistics in getting to the US consumer. And again, aside from the awful social affects that come with it, cocaine was pushed out by the alcohol and tobacco industries. Here they weren’t making up the socially unhealthy side affects. Prozac as it turns out is a very complimentary drug for the two industries. This is because its use increases the desire for their product. Go figure.

“So, LOL, besides the political and economical relationship, what else do they have in common? Right now this seems like a stretch.” Nice class, I am glad you asked. Cocaine acts on the brain by increasing the dopamine levels. Get this, it does this by “inhibiting” the cells to reabsorb dopamine. (If that doesn’t sound familiar, it will.) Dopamine is a response to pleasure signals. In your brain it makes you feel happy and pleasurable when warranted. So without the ability to absorb it, people become “euphoric”. Dopamine is a precursor (forerunner) of adrenaline and a closely related molecule, noradrenaline.

Now, for those who have been following along, Prozac and the class of drugs known as (Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) SSRI’s. Please note the word “inhibitors”. Serotonin does the exact same thing as dopamine from a slightly different perspective. SSRI’s stop the reabsorbing of this pleasure producing chemical back into the cells. The results of it’s presence in the brain is nearly mirrored to that of cocaine. So are the side affects.

So lets take this one step further and apply a little logic. Why don’t we want people openly using cocaine in our society. Most of us, especially reading this blog would agree that cocaine and any drug use that doesn’t negatively affect the community at large should be completely legal. If you want to sit in your living room and snort coke, destroy your house, and scream profanity at the top of your lungs, go to it. As long as you don’t have a spouse or children who will be effected by this activity, party on Skippy. What you do to yourself in your own home is your business. However, coke and crack alike has a personality altering affect that produces citizens that are not functional healthy members of the community. By that, I mean they loose the ability to be good parents, hold down a job, or do an important job that requires responsibility to the required level. It has been known to produce violent and other criminal behavior such as theft, fraud, and sexual crimes. So our freedom seeking American society has cast it out as too much of a threat to our goal of social harmony. However, these SSRI’s have been proven to produce the exact same result. Because they are not often identified as the cause, they are not demonized. So why are they handed out like jelly beans at Easter.

Look, when you are talking about messing with brain chemicals, there are no guarantees. That is basically what my own counselor told me. Handing people these drugs nothing more then treating them like lab rats. So if for no apparent reason your wife runs off with your child and then falsely files a police report that she has been kidnapped, it is thought that adjustments need made. We all know people who can drink like a fish and walk out generally sober. We also know people who after 1 drink act like they have been drinking all afternoon. I know people who if I told you they do coke with some regularity, you would curl up your face and say, “really”. God knows I did. These drugs have the exact same consistency. The results are often the same unhealthy personality emerges. The difference is that since they are FDA approved and doctor prescribed, people look right past them as the cause when somebody’s personality on these flip. The diagnosis is further complicated by the fact that some people’s brain chemistry naturally goes haywire and act similarly. This results on many supporters of these drugs to say, “see people do this all the time that haven’t taken this drug”. To that I say, “my foot gets wet whether I get caught in the rain or I piss on it. The difference is one is my fault, and you can’t do anything about the weather.”

There are countless cases of people on these drugs doing the most heinous crimes. Here are just a few high profile ones. http://www.health-essentials.info/science/health-issues/ssri01.html . Then there are the ones that don’t make the news because nobody makes the connection. Then there are the grey areas where the personality flip ruins small individual lives as their person turns dysfunctional, but doesn’t do anything illegal. Children end up growing up in split homes, financial strains cause bankruptcy, disease are spread, abortions are had, and unwanted children are brought into the world. But we will leave that for another post.

The problem is that people who are already in a troubled state are going to doctors they trust and getting prescriptions for these antidepressants. Whether it be a vet returning with PTSD, a child who lost his mother at an early age, a deadly disease patient that is suffering from depressions, a mother suffering from post partum, or my favorite a wife who suffers from mild anxiety, anyone of them could be predisposed to heightened receptiveness to an increase in serotonin. Many times their adverse feelings are completely unrelated to a lack of serotonin level. You might as well snort coke or become an alcoholic. At the end of the day, whatever problem caused you to seek out mental health therapy, its still there. Now you have a deficiency in whatever was causing your problem and a serotonin addiction. Now you are headlong in the wrong direction at mach 2 with your ass on fire. Great job docs.

The trouble is how many people are getting rich off this. The drug companies are getting rich, the divorce lawyers are busy, the courts are full, the prisons are fuller, and the therapists who prescribed the drug often get business from the patients spouse, children, and even extended family members. Oh and don’t forget the doctors prescribing it.

Look, there are a select group of a few people who have serotonin deficiencies. For these people, SSRI’s are the answer. But what is becoming evident to me is that many of these people are not having their issues addressed. They are being prescribed aspirin for a brain tumor. I personally know of three people who were prescribed SSRI’s for to cope with anexiety. Caught early enough and having knowledgeable people around them they were taken off the drug quickly. One had a thyroid problem. The other had an androgen deficiency. The third just had deep rooted issues that needed brought into the open. A forth, well, I miss my baby.

Separated Parents: The Bible, The Courts, And The Science.

2009-05-19T19:09:00.001-05:00

Those who read regularly know one of my pet peeve arguments is “ U.S. laws are based on Christianity”. It is total chutzpah. The reality is first “Christian values” were based on values that had evolved to be socially functional. “Don’t lie”, “don’t cheat”, “don’t steal”, “don’t kill”, “respect your parents”, “expect to be treated the same way you treat other people” are not profound revelations. They are rules for a community to reduce aggressive behavior. If in fact he was a deity, he came down only to point out the ideas we should already have been aware of. The US laws were designed around these basic understandings. However, with about 90% regularity, if a value falls in the grey area, the US laws are crafted in complete disregard for what the bible would council.

I could go on citing examples, but that would make a long post. Instead the one that is fresh on my mind is the lesson highlighted by the story of King Solomon. For reference sake I will sum it up. Two women had babies of about the same age. One woman’s child had died. Both women claimed the living baby as their own. (I know it is hard to envision this in our separated living type culture, but remember back then they were more tribal living arrangements.) Unable to resolve the dispute they were brought before the king. The King Solomon proposed to just “split the baby in half”. One woman actually agreed to the decision. The other broke into tears saying she would rather see her baby live then to suffer such a fate. The king recognized that the real mother would never allow her baby to be hurt and awarded the custody to the second woman.

In this area US laws are 180 degrees out of the teaching of the bible. Here our courts don’t just suggest, but often demand that the baby be “split in half”, at least emotionally speaking. First and foremost the laws are set up as such that the mother gets primary custody unless proven to be a vengeful homicidal abusive maniac. Even then the courts only want her to go through a program, and show that she has gotten her emotions under control. Even if one of the parents are proven to be to the extreme, the courts still generally allow some sort of visitation and custody rights. These are the extreme cases. The grey areas in between where a parent is shown to act irresponsibly and/ or out of the best interest of the child, that parent is still awarded custody. If it is the mother, she is often awarded primary custody. This is a situation that allows a parent who is looking to emotionally torment the other parent a link to do so. We all know people who have crazy ex’s that use the kids to do irrational acts.

Generally US family courts try to establish what they call “joint custody”. (Picture a thick burly royal guard with giant sword.) This is where the two parents share equally in decision making and often living arrangements. This only tends to work if the separation was something that both parents wanted and they had been emotionally sepaerated for years. They often became some variety of “friends” over the course of their together but separate lives.

Joint custody certainly doesn’t work if only one parent wanted the separation and the other is hurt and frustrated with the other parent. The parent often uses the child as a pawn in some game of emotional chess. They will say and do things to the child that shouldn’t even be consider acceptable. It also doesn’t work when neither parent wanted the split, but just became involved in some kind of hurtful game escalated to the extreme of divorce. I have seen this a few times personally where not only my friends ex is acting not on the best interest of the child by doing irrational activates, but so was my friend. Every now and then I would check him by saying, “what are you doing. I though you guys were through with each other. Why would you continue the drama?” One friend made my jaw drop when in a burst of raw honesty she said, “I still love him, and I hate him for that.” I mean what do you say to that? I ordered a round of shots.

So in this instance as in many others the US laws are not “based on biblical teachings”. But wait, there’s more. It turns out they don’t even act in accordance to scientific understanding either. Here is a study that was conducted by Professor Yongmin Sun of OSU released in early 2008. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507132910.htm

It turns out that children of separated families have greatly varying chances of success depending on their custodial situation. First of all, as has been said by every councilor and even during the “separated parents” seminar I was forced to attend they stress that just having separated parents greatly reduces their chances at reaching their full potential. As Sun put it in this interview, “A stable family situation after divorce does not erase the negative effects of a divorce.” The study goes on to show that children of stable custodial environment are far more likely to succeed and be functional then children of changing custodial situations. The main point in the article showed that while children of single parent custody had the same chance of going to college as an “always married” family structure. However, the level of degree was reduced in the cases where sole custody was the norm. Children of “joint custody” environments fared half as well in most aspects as their other peers. Bottom line, divorce is a damming experience for a child. Passing the child back and forth is further damaging. Yet that is what the courts try to do.

The reasoning behind the disadvantage of the separated parents are no mystery. The fact that split parents suffer from reduced financial backing and social continuity was cited by the study. The courts attempt to recreate the “standard of living” in two places. Most couple could barely afford to do it in one. The second is a core understanding of the meaning of relationship and commitment to a common goal that are demonstrated by a divorce. These children often are more willing to give up on goals and commitments that are needed to drive their way up the ladder of success.

So as unusual, when I trash a social norm, I have a solution. Well part of one. In this case marginalizing the damage seems about the best one can do. First, obviously the situation has to be taken into account. A pregnant teen is a vastly different situation then an established marriage that were not “till death”. I have talked at length about teen pregnancy in the past, and will not address that here. But improving the fate of a child from a marriage that ends should have a different set of criteria.

First of all, I draw on wisdom from a short story I read I think in 6th grade called the “test”. The basic jest of the story was that people attempting to get their drivers license were put under hypnosis and made to believe they were involved in a horrible crash that killed their love ones. When they woke, if they still wanted their license they were committed. If they didn’t they were approved to get it. The first test of a parent should be making sure they understand the ramifications of separating. If they are still willing to go through with it, then maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to have custody of their child. This concept should not wait till people are in divorce court to be explained, it should be part of the marriage license process. If one of you are willing to separate, break your vows, or dissolve the family, then that person risks loosing access to their child. There has to be consequences. Now if the person is looking to separate for reason of abuse, then obviously the courts would have to consider. But simply wanting out is not an acceptable excuse. It demonstrates a selfish disregard for the child and the sanctity of marriage. It is damage that is actually felt financially upon the entire system and community as demonstrated by the study. Too many times marriages that have just reached minor lows end without properly addressing the issues has progressed. Making the consequences more dire might make the couple reconsider.

As a personal experience, I know a dozen or so divorced couples with children. Two of them stand out. Both of these children have very little interaction with more then one parent. In those cases, the children have grown to be very functional and are off to renowned success. Luckily, one of my friends recently got the chance to do it again with the right person. He is so ready it seems.

Defamation Of Character: In Depth

2009-05-16T05:30:00.000-05:00

With the return of a few politicians and sports figures to public light, the word “defamation” has come up in conversation a few times. As a legal term it is interesting to consider what this means, and why it would be included in our legal system.

First let us define the term “defamation”. M-W.com defines it as “the act of defaming another.” “Defaming is further defined as “to harm the reputation of by libel or slander.” So “libel” is “a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures. “Slander” is just a restating of libel. Slander seems to be used for short indefensible verbal attacks. (Basically any political news conference ever aired.)

These definitions tend to miss the elements of truth and relativity. I think the Wikipedia article might get it a little closer. (I know Wikipedia is normally avoided as a source, but sometimes it is useful.) It says, “defamation In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.” I have a joke at work when I am supporting somebody who is doing something dangerous. I say, “You know there are two ways to the top, either be better then the guy in front of you, or take him out.” From the perspective of defamatory statements, this would mean that a person would have something to gain by uttering a nonfactual statement. This issue is expressly addressed by the Bible as being one of the ten commandments. “Thou shall not bear false witness.” It turns out in England they don’t really care about the truth of the statement, just its intent. In their case even a truthful statement (juicy gossip) when uttered if the teller is trying to gain social or financial advantage is considered defamatory. This from the country most renowned for it’s gossip.

Another word often associated with this term is “derogatory”. Defined as the act of disparaging; belittling. The reasoning behind these forms of human communication are the same. A functional community needs both full and accurate information in order to continue functionally. Thus my outrage over the lies told by the previous administration in the rallying of the US public to war.

So why would our governing representatives adapt a negative attitude towards this activity? Simple, because the courts or their representatives are rarely present at the incident that ends up in front of them, and since often legal issues are decided by a jury of peers, falsely influencing public opinion can cause damage to justice of the outcome. Think of the Salem which trials here. In the days of small communities as well as in the days of mass communication, this truth in statement is very important. The sad part is that it is also important to our political system, but these types of statements are often used in politics. It is called “going negative”. Sometimes the truth and fiction are separated by a thin grey line that would take more resources to fight then they are worth.

They irony of the idea of defamation of charterer is that we have a 24hr news cycle that is dedicated to the process of walking that thin line. I gave a comparative of news stories mid last year that were posted by The Associated Press and the same story posted by FOX news. The story was about a protest at the WTO meeting. There were thousands of peaceful protestors that were also infiltrated by a few dozen self proclaimed anarchist. This was a fact included in the AP story. The FOX story was titled “Anarchist Disrupt meeting with violent behavior.” They went on to tell nearly the same story as the AP article which was titled “Few problems plague otherwise peaceful demonstration”. The group that organized the peaceful demonstration was defamed by FOX who had an agenda to advance to appeal to their demographic. However, the area was grey, so no court case could really stand the test.

Think about it this way. If you mailed a letter to the other side of the country but knowingly put a false address on it, whose fault is it that the information didn’t make it? So if there are not measures to stop defamation of character, libel, slander, perjury, and other deragative statements, then whose fault would it be if bad and damaging decisions were reached by the people who work for the governing system?

The dichotomy of the situation is that in order to have a healthy democracy speech needs to flow unhindered by opposing forces. But that speech must be truthful and relative in order to remain on a positive track.

On a personal note, I have never attempted to advance an agenda here. Almost all of my perspectives are backed up by links and/ or citations of my sources. Every post is about the quest for the truth or to answer the question “why” is this reality. I invite anybody to challenge me if they see it otherwise.

Disclosure post

2009-05-16T00:15:00.001-05:00

So it seems that we have a couple of new readers to the “logic and politics” blog. Can everybody in the group say, “Hi wife, and wife’s lawyer.” Wow two years of me writing my deepest most inner thoughts and turning them into a format in which the world could relate, and now my wife takes time to read them.

So I am going to have to go over the last couple of post and make sure that there isn’t anything that isn’t clear. A feat that should take a couple of days. This very blog is about the search for truth. It is about cutting through all the bullshit, and asking, “Why was this law created?” “Why did society develop this moral value?” “How do you rationalize such as a school shooting or a mother killing her baby occur in today’s advanced community.” “Why did this political or social event not jibe with logic?” This is not a commercial endeavor for me, but a hobby. It is therapy for my endlessly wondering mind. Expressing these, usually researched, perspectives is what this place is about. I am an open and honest person who likes to share my observations with people who invite me to do so.

So as a disclosure, the opinions expressed here are my own and nobody else’s. As always I invite people to comment, debate, and try to convince me of my error of thought. Everything I say I believe to be true. In relationship to my personal situations everything I say and do is passed through a gambit of reasoning. Of which the first two “I love my child, so is what I am about to say danger or damaging to my child in any way shape or form?” the second is “I love my wife (estranged wife, ex-wife, or whatever the appropriate title is these days) is what I am about to say or do dangerous to the physical or emotional well being of my wife.” You can look over the post of the past 2 years and find that the answers to those questions are a “no”. If you know me, you can look over my actions and find the same answer.

So it seems that “The Divorce Chronicles” might actually be in violation of the divorce decree. It will have to wait till after this thing is settled. I have been writing here for 2 years. It is part of my normality. I am loosing a very important part of my life, but I do not have to, or intend to, loose everything. Writing my thoughts here has become a part of who I am. After all, according to my brother, back in October at the family weekend, my wife said, “(LOL) is the perfect husband, I couldn’t be happier. I just wish he didn’t spend so much time blogging.” Hey it was election season and Palin was way too close to being leader of the free world for my comfort. I have the ACLU on speed dial for anyone wanting to stop my right to freedom of speech.

In the end all of these recent post are just an extension of what they have always been, but on a more personal level. It is the quest of a man searching for the answer of how he could be told he was “the greatest husband in the world”, “the greatest father ever” and how a woman says, “she couldn’t be happier” and “our daughter deserves a sibling” to being hated and emotionally traumatized by the same person only a week later. At the very least, the person I came to know over those 12 years would have chose a more honorable way to end this. This series has been a search to resolve the question, “what if”. What if I am right about this situation being identical to those stories I found? What if it is cause by the same thing that the 50 other people have contacted me saying, they “did the same thing when under the influence of the Prozac.” “What if my wife did listen and take a couple of month break from the SSRI?” What if my daughter could stop screaming, “don’t leave me daddy” every time I walk out the door? What if I could get my family back? I can’t make this a reality for myself, but what f I touch some reader out there about to go through the same thing? Even if I am wrong, there are hundreds of stories out there that this would be a reality. Of course the drug companies call this 1/10 of 1%. A small figure unless you are one of them.

I would also like to say “Thank you” to the anonymous contributor who said many of the things that my wife would have said in the “comments” section of the “Personal story” post. Through her I got to have a pseudo conversation that i would have wanted to have with my wife. I would only add to my comments that there was nothing that was wrong that should have been a deal breaker. Her complaints were about physical attraction, a known problem with Prozac. I started this relationship asking her why she would be with me as I was the self proclaimed “ugliest man alive”. This situation only confirms what I had always assumed. I still managed to produce one beautiful child. And why now after 12 years does this all the sudden make a difference? Unfortunately, not something that I think anybody but my wife could answer though I guess.

Thanks for reading, now back to at least the “logic” part of logic and politics.

The Conundrum of Marriage Destroyed by SSRI’s

2009-05-08T21:59:00.008-05:00

If you have reached this page because you or loved ones have experienced major personality changes that have damaged your family and you want to know if the antidepressants have played a role, I highly recommend yohttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifu check out this site. Marriages Destroyed by SSRI/ SNRI's
There are dozens of stories here that will make you say, "I could have written this story". Your are not alone. There are now 300 different stories on this thread ranging from a college professor who gave up her career in her 40's to go become a stripper and a prostitute to a couples who were married for 20 plus years. Another place to read and get info (maybe even post) is at paxilprogress.org/forums. Here the threads are a little easier to read, but there are less of these family support stories. Now on to the post. (I am just updating some info. I will do a look back in the near future.)

The system is broken. Who is going to do the research to find out if an otherwise happy marriage was effected by Prozac or any of the other SSRI related drugs? The prescribing information on every one of them require physicians to do a screening for bipolar disorder. This evaluation cost thousands of dollars and is often not covered by insurance if the patient should happen to have it. Drs get a large amount of what can only be described as kickback for prescribing them. (I spent 20 min. explaining to my doc how SSRI's had destroyed my life. This doc knew my wife and how close our relationship was. He was taken back by the events i described and said, "It sounds like she may have been misdiagnosed and is bipolar." At the end he still offered to prescribe me an antidepressant.)

Who is going to do the research to find out if Drs are talking to family members to find out if the patient is an alcoholic or bi-polar before the issue a prescription? They will tell you that they are just doctors and only go off the information their patience give them. Most are well meaning and think they are doing great work. Their patient is extremely happy. They are bared by HIPAA and doctor patient confidentiality from talking to the patient's family about personality changes. Of course that is exactly what the prescribing information says should happen. "Families and caregivers of patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder or other indications, both psychiatric and non psychiatric, should be alerted about the need to monitor patients for the emergence of agitation, irritability, unusual changes in behavior..." So how is this information exchange going to take place?

As a friend of mine put it, "I went to the doctors and said i was feeling stressed because I was unemployed and about to loose my house. He gave me an antidepressant and I didn't feel 'stressed' any more. I was still about to loose my house and was still unemployed, but i just didn't care. Heck I even stopped looking for work."

Once the doctor realizes the error of their ways they are stuck. If they get their patient off the drugs, they very well may find themselves defending a lawsuit.

So who else could have an interest in uncovering the damaging affects? The drug companies? They are making billions off these drugs. They are well aware of what they are doing. Ever noticed how every antidepressant commercial spend 20 seconds telling you how good the drug will make you feel, and then a minute and a half telling you about the dangers? Yet nobody finds this absurd. Do you think they have any incentive expose the grey area, non-life threatening dangers of these drugs?

Our watchdog agency the FDA has its hands so tied with bureaucracy that it takes an act of congress to change a drugs status once accepted. So much of the process is being driven by money and not the well being of the citizens the agency is supposed to be protecting.

To sum it up in real terms. The drug companies can show minimal side affect of the physical, life threatening nature. The Drs. give their patient the pills and the patient returns and says, “you know, I finally came to the realization that instead of being married, I wanted to sleep with everybody in town, spend all my money, and neglect my parental duties. Now I am happy.” They Drs say, “wow look I did a good job, my patient is “happy”. The pharmacies just take your money and completely feel disconnected.

Here is the reality of SSRIs. My wife went to consoling because after the birth of the baby, her obsessive/ compulsiveness and anxiety had increased. So she was given a drug that would “take the edge off”. Take the edge off it did. It take away your guilt and remorse feelings. Think about what you would do if you had no guilt or remorse? Think about what you would do if you couldn’t feel love or sadness. I can tell you a heart wrenching story of what you could do.

I too suffered from a disconnect in reality. For quite a few months I thought this whole thing had happened a lot quicker then it had. Luckily i like to write and stumbled upon old records and emails that I had kept to journal the irrational times. My wife was first prescribed Zoloft. This is when the feelings of agitation and suicide increased. She also became abnormally irritated with the baby. Only after this did our first fights where she mentioned not being happy in the marriage emerged. Prior to that it was never a consideration. As a good husband and completely in my character, she would calm down and ask for forgiveness. I would, and that meant that I forgave and forgot. I didn't know I should be watching for these as signs of adverse reactions to SSRIs. Even if i did, who would I tell?

A major sign for me should have been when my wife’s godmother died. She complained about the inability to cry. She said she just didn’t feel anything to this lady who had been an important part of her life. We thought it was just a part of her newly prescribed drug and it would pass. Now she is way passed that. Honesty, commitment, faithfulness, family, and duty were pillars of her character. Now she has none of those qualities. The problem is that if you ask her she will tell you how happy she is. If you didn’t have the guilt or remorse, wouldn’t you be ecstatic too?

Now she is out of reach of me. Her family is unaware of the many things she is doing. They have to be aware of the personality change, but probably figure it is just because she is "going through a hard time" with the divorce. They haven’t researched the effects of Prozac. Not to mention when you mix alcohol with it. So who is going to question her “happiness”. How can I rest assured that these uncaring feelings are not extended to include my daughter. From where I am standing there is nothing she is doing nothing that is in the interest of our child.

This is not my wife. Her very soul has been suppressed. There is not a shred of the values she once held dear. She almost seems not to realize the devastation that it is having on me or our daughter. My daughter has twice said to me, "I don't want to go to mommy's. I scared". This of course drives my own paranoia. Is she scared because she just dosn't want to leave home, and me? IS she afraid of some real threat? What do you say to a 2 yr old that she will understand. "Sorry munchkin, The courts say I have to send you to a place that 'scares' you". What kind of trust boundries am I breaking by doing this? I grow tired of this fight. But I can't give up until the unanswered questions about the dangers of the affects of these drugs are answered. I want to. That is the true "conundrum".

http://www.topix.com/forum/drug/effexor/TQ4I2UR28DFD3N759

Breakout Post: Hiatus update

2009-05-01T21:04:00.001-05:00

I wanted to separate this from the iraq post.

I am back party people. Grew a new skin and had to change directions. It will take a few weeks for me to get in the mix with where the country is and/ or should be standing on issues as I had lost the thread. Don’t know what the future holds for me, but it looks really sweet right now. I am writing post for “the divorce chronicles”, but it is a different writing style for me. I am not yet sure how I sit with sharing it with the world right this second. Also, I haven’t set up the tools to tell who is looking at it, and I have to be wary that anything I say can and will be used against me in a court of law. It is coming and will be an interesting read, but not right at this moment in time. Thanks to all of you who contacted me. Turns out there are more then 4 of you regulars. Who would have thunk it. Hasta for now.

Iraq Wants Us To Leave? OK.

2009-04-27T22:09:00.002-05:00

I am just looking over this article where Iraq is now dictating where and when US troops are to intervene. You know what that sound like to me? It sounds like they think they are ready to stand on their own. So forget “pulling back” get out. Save the money.

"The general position of the Iraq Defense Ministry is to keep the timings in the withdrawal pact that American troops withdraw from Iraqi cities and not enter the cities unless they get Iraqi approval," al-Askari said.

Send them an apology for the ruthless ignorance of our former administration. Now it is time for them to take their own destiny into their own hands. Pack up our shit, and move out. It really is that easy.

There is a joke I heard once about the NY giants. The Giants were threatening to move at the end of a particularly bad season. It seemed that the move was eminent. The NYer’s were pissed off. They wanted them to move right then.

Whatever is going to happen in Iraq is going to happen whether we are there or not now. Our economy is tanking, and every cent we need to fix our own problems. (and yes, don’t buy into the occasional hype I have seen briefly over the last few weeks that things are looking up.) We have other national security issues to deal with in Pakistan especially. It might be time for use to commandeer their nuclear arsenal until they can prove that their government is on stable ground.

But really, at the point Iraq are delivering us ultimatums, it is time to say, “Here you go”. As a prediction, I believe that it will most certainly succeed for up to 3 years, then fall into chaos, and by the middle of the next decade we will see a ruler there that will make Saddam look like a choir boy. Then again, I made that assertion the moment I heard the congress give the president the capabilities to go there in the first place.

As a final note, we really can’t afford to have these soldiers come back to this economy and be unemployed, but there is plenty of rational work to be done elsewhere. Even if it is just Mexico.

Update On the Hiatus

2009-04-20T23:39:00.002-05:00

Well I have reached an acceptance stage with the whole process. I am going to be starting a blog called “divorce chronicles” where I walk people through this mans process. It will be an interesting read I think as I will address more micro social issues. Maybe I can help people from making the same mistakes that have lead to this situation. Right now though everything is a little too tender to re-account. I wish I could cause the feelings and emotions spin so rapidly.

Right now, I am feeling good about myself. I a strengthening some weaker characteristics of my past. I am surrounding myself with friends, including a few of the female variety. It is funny, they are kinda like sharks, these women folk. One of them rips a whole in your heart and the blood starts spilling, and 4 more swoop in. Probably going to be getting laid more as the “sensitive hurt divorced guy” then I was when I was married. Ain’t reality a bitch. Sometimes you just have to throw the plan on paper away and go for the ride whether you want to or not.

Will be back to solving the world’s problems soon.

LOL On Personal Hiatus

2009-04-16T05:56:00.002-05:00

Sorry to my 4 regular readers. I know the world of politics and economics is still spinning around us. But I have got some personal issues that require some immediate attention. Let us just say my ability to communicate my inner thoughts feelings and ideas to the world at large was not reflected in my more micro environment. I am dedicating my time to correcting that situation and other charterer flaws for awhile. I will be back in hopefully a few weeks and pick up the threads of the political world and weave and spin them in my hopefully logical way. Until then I hope the country can hold itself together.

Baseline

2009-03-27T07:22:00.001-05:00

I was reading and commenting on a blog the other day. It is a good blog, make that a great blog, called baselinescenario.com. However, it is chocked full of people who are discussing things that are far from baseline. It does exemplify the problem that we have with our leaders today.

I have my background in system design and troubleshooting. When working on computers we have a “baseline” to determine the level at which the system is still working. It is called the “minimum system configuration.” This requires a motherboard, a power supply, and a graphics generator (graphics card and monitor). This is the bare minimal a computer needs to be functional. Problem resolution can come only after problem identification. It does no good to make up solutions without understanding what the source of the malfunction is. This would be like prescribing aspirin for a brain tumor.

This methodless madness, however, seems to be the approach of the leaders and learned alike. Nobody seems to have stopped to figure out what the cause (or causes in this case) of the problem is. No one has sat down and deconstructed the economy down to it “minimum system configuration”. While I have no real voice, I will for any who care to read.

It is easy to imagine the most basic society, because it exist today still. Bobbing little cultures on the open seas. Imagine if you will me, my wife, my dog, and a 30’ sailboat. We make up a perfect example of everything a society and an economy needs to remain stable. In order to survive, we need only to fish and sail. There is no cash, loans, or stock markets. It is purely democratic, with me and my wife each with an equal vote and the dog breaks all ties. Your work everyday is to catch or find food and water. It is a 7 day a week job. If you don’t do it, your economy falls quickly into recession and then depression. If we make bad decisions about how many offspring to have, it will sink us all. Adding another crew member means adding more to the work load. Later on it will mean one more to man the helm and fish. We are also responsible for financing and engineering the floating nation’s defenses. (let me tell you 30’ living aboard it is best to have a more diplomatic posture when possible.) This is it, the starting point of a functional economy. It is a little hard to apply this directly to our situation, so we might have to take this one step further.

So me the wife and the kid finds some land that we really like and we decide to become more permanently grounded. For examples sake imagine that it is us and one other family on the other side of the island. We build our hut out of local forage, identify local edible vegetation, weave some nets, and prep the land to try and tame some of the local grains. Us and the other family are technically a nation, we were not society, and definitely not a culture. We exchanged pleasantries but we give nor receive anything from them nor they from us.

Then one day the do something that interest of the other family. I had about 2 pounds of brewing yeast and the island had a great population of honey bees. 2 months later I had 3 cases of fine mead. Well it was fine to the lips that hadn’t had any in months. I couldn’t help but to share one with my male counterpart from the other family. He expressed interest in owning a few of these beauties. I expressed interest in a clear 5 gal. water bottle that bottle that he seemed to have a few extra of. A trade was made, and our first economic exchange was completed. This is economics at its basic form.

The settlers didn’t have home mortgages, health insurance, and auto loans. A family existed on its current assets. What the crops yielded is what they had to work with. A 40 hr work week would have been a blessing. There were no electric bills. Generally what the big wigs in Washington did was of less impact then what the weather was going to be like the next day. Bad weather in the short term as well as the long term was more damming to their income then the tax rate. Work was created by need. Farmers traded crops and livestock for that which they didn’t have. Houses were built by hand and often with help of surrounding community members. Doctors, blacksmiths and saloons were often paid in chickens or grain sacks.

For those of us who say “we were responsible” are not acknowledging the fact that outside of this basic model of economics, we are exposed to economic risk. What happened to the farmer? The factory moved into his city. They employed people that drove up the price and expectations of the local venders. Towns became cites. Farmers sons no longer know how to plant and harvest a field, slaughter live stock, or build a house. We no longer use the resources at hand to make our daily lives. We no longer trade with our neighbors for things that we both need. Children are no longer assets that grow to help us maintain our livelihood. They are liabilities that we leave at home or dump in schools while we go off and earn our living. They grow more distant from the basic understanding of economics. We have children without any assured way to keep them housed, fed, and clothed.
Our Leaders need to stop concerning themselves with “leverage”, “secured mortgages”, stocks, the ability to loan, or “retention bonuses”. They need to concentrate on how they can help us grow our own food, build our own houses, and trade with our own neighbors. They need to stop encouraging people who can’t afford it to have more offspring. Most importantly, they need to accept and explain that there are consequences to bad decisions including death. They need to tell the American people that just because your parents and grand parents did it, doesn’t mean that living a life that isn’t grounded in this self sufficient economic model is risky behavior. Then they must accept those lessons themselves.

This is one of those post that as I am finishing, I don’t know if I conveyed the idea that I was trying to. We all don’t have to live like the Amish. But we do have to live off resources that we already have earned. We need to be more aware of the impact of our actions. And we have to be prepared to sacrifice some seasons. Because no matter how complex the economic system is, we all live off the minimum system model. If you grow it and pick it from the ground you have added wealth to our economy. Whatever other activity you do to earn money is not stable and is just circulating existing wealth.

Here is a decent PDF file that goes through the history of money in the US . http://www.bos.frb.org/education/pubs/historyo.pdf as late as 1776 they were still having trouble establishing currency. People were not using their credit cards to survive. That is what made this country strong in more ways then one.

AIG Bonuses To The Best Of My Understanding

2009-03-19T22:28:00.001-05:00

Well one of my regular readers, of the 4, asked my take on AIG and this current debacle. I want to start by saying that this is not a “news” blog in the sense that I rarely cover “breaking” or current news. The point of this exercise is to diagnose what happened and try to avoid repeating history. You are more apt to hear predictions about the future then you are to hear about something that just began to be news worthy today or yesterday. I have a fear of commenting on something that I don’t have enough facts about that I can’t make an informed assessment. This AIG Company is wrapped in so many layers of bullshit that I am having a hard time figuring out how holds what part of the blame. But I will share my perspective thus far. Maybe somebody else can fill in blanks or misassumptions that I have.

Now I had written some gobblely goop about who AIG is an their role in this mess. I had planned to start this post with it. But it took too long to get to the question most people are interested in. So I will get right to the sweet stuff and I will put the other text at the end for anybody interested in my take on their role.

As for the question I suppose is on everybody’s mind. (No, not how long after Hanna Montana turns 18 will we see nudey pics of her. Sickos, the other question.) What does LOL think of compensation in the millions for people who had to take billions in taxpayer dollars. The answer is that I don’t have enough information. But I do have a running opinion. They are preposterous and exemplify the definition of irrational greed. However, outside the moral bankrupt issues, the question is “are they legal?” We are a “nation of laws”.

From what I have come to understand is that these “bonuses” were paid out in respects to contracts. The word “bonuses” is misleading in this context. We all think of getting bonuses when we do something good and profitable for our employer. Christmas bonuses are usually based on the company’s profitability that year. But bonuses in this case really should have been called “retention”. I have heard them referred to as “retention bonuses”. Most of us think of the word retention when we think of lawyers. A company keeps a law firm “on retention”. That means they pay them, or in this case promise to pay them, a certain amount to sort our any legal issues that come up over a period of time. It doesn’t matter how many legal issues, they are to work on whatever comes up for that one set price. Now imagine you are in some legal dispute that is very complex. Maybe it is some kind of real-estate deal. They can get messy and a lot of research, some documented other just general findings, goes into these cases. You wouldn’t want your lawyer to just quit in the middle of it, forcing you to find another lawyer that has to go into it cold. It is my understanding that that is what these “bonuses” were contractually bound for. There are people who knew the inner workings of this very complex system of insurance law that were human assets to AIG.

One more quick analogy, cause that is what I do. Say you are in the middle of an operation. Your doctor has your heart out on the table. You are awake being kept alive by a machine. Would you turn to your doctor and say, “you know what, I can’t afford to pay you anymore. I am going to look for another doctor.” That is the situation AIG is claiming they were in. Now one of the representative in the grilling of the AIG CEO said, “couldn’t you go and find somebody else to do these jobs?” While it is true that there are many doctors that could have performed your open heart surgery, at that point, only one could do the trick. You had him on “retention” until that job was done.

Now that is what I understand that AIG is trying to claim. What I don’t understand is how our legislators didn’t have somebody look over their books and say, “hey who is this guy you have a couple of million dollar obligation to?” The fact that this is hitting them out of the blue scares the crap out of me.

One other point about the guy who receive $2 million form AIG for his services. Mabe he is “living beyond his means”. He has a 10 million house, another million dollar house in the Caymans, a wife with a giant coke habit, 20 cars all with loans, and health insurance to pay out of his own pocket. To him taking that $2 million hit was going to be devastating. He was promised it in the contract. I personally don’t believe AIG should have been allowed to promise one guy that amount of compensation at the same time they paid their janitor $10 an hour. But I have covered that in previous post.

As far as the Congress goes, they passed a law that was not only unconstitutional but dangerous I fear. I haven’t seen the details. But what if they tax 90% of the bonuses. What if a guy that works for AIG lived on a yearly bonus from them of $100,000. Is he now going to only bring home 10 grand? While I still believe we have made the best choice this past electoral season. I am not sure they have the intellect to see us out of our self made mess.

This is where the rest of the post begins. Read if you would like.

Now, who is AIG? As I understand it, AIG’s role in the housing debacle was “eyeballs deep in muddy water”. They made it much more appealing for Fannie Mea and Freddie Mac to take on the irrational home loan exposure. AIG is, as we all know, an insurance agency. Anybody who has read any of my post related to insurance knows that I think it all (health, auto, home, and the likewise) should be illegal in a free market system. Only life (which has a guarantee payoff) and maybe on the blackjack table should be allowed. It allows for the artificial rise in prices. Fannie and Freddie expected an “X” percent default rate on the mortgages they held. As long as that rate didn’t exceed that percentage, then they were still racking in cash. AIG insured them against bad single quarters where maybe that default rate was higher. The mortgage companies paid a pretty high premium and in return their business gained stability. Now those of you worried about the big banks spending money they on this silly stuff, don’t. You the borrower paid that premium for them. It was called “PMI” (Private Mortgage Insurance). So anybody who had no equity in their house when they bought it, were insured to pay off their loans by this AIG product. The problem is that quarter after quarter mortgages defaulted beyond the acceptable percentage. AIG was soon paying out more then it was taking in.

Now that is a very simplified version of what AIG did and still does. However the inner workings are beyond my grasp at the moment, and defiantly beyond my ability to put in laymen’s term.

That brings us to why the government thought they were so important. As the housing dominos started to crumble, our leaders felt that if AIG went belly up, lenders would stop lending money to people who couldn’t afford 20% down on the home they desired. That would bring the housing market to a screeching halt. Construction would stop, millions would become unemployed. More people would default on their loans, and the vicious cycle would spin into a depression. In the end it just seems to be slowing the inevitable. So the democratic government whose base are the “poor people” who can only afford expensive houses if they don’t have to save up for them were as afraid of the housing collapse as the paranoid aggressive chest pounding “faithful” base of the republican party were of Iraq’s nuclear weapons. The only difference is that the collapse of AIG really was going to lead to much worse economic times. Can’t really say the same about Saddam using nuclear weapons. So in a bold attempt to get re-elected, the democrats and many moderate republicans promised AIG the world if they would stay in business. It turns out “the world” meant a few irrational loopholes.

The Persistence Of Time

2009-03-15T13:15:00.001-05:00

The 4 people that regularly read my dribble (2 of which just to point our how “ignorant” I am.) know that I have an affixation with time. I have written about paying people in time, having your receipt show you how many labor hours you have spent on a purchase, and how important time is to a healthy community. Well, this post is about why this recession soon to be depression is different then any other economic dysfunction in the past. The difference as it turns out is our use of a very powerful resource. Yep, you guessed it, “time”.

First a real quick visit to the only thing one needs to know about economics (not finances or accounting which are often thought of as perfect synonyms but aren’t). One needs only to know that consumers will buy anything that they are “willing AND able”. It is not an “OR” proposition. You must have both pieces to the puzzle in order to attract a consumer to complete the transaction. The more people you have “willing and able” to buy your product the higher the price you can ask for the product. As the product prices rises you price people out of the market. Many become “unable” to pay he market price. They still want the product, but they don’t have the resources to buy it. There are a bazillion reasons why people become “unwilling” to buy a product. That “science” is known as “marketing”. There is only one reason why people are “unable” to buy your product. Because if you want it bad enough, “everything has a price”. That is all most people need to know about economics.

For most items in the US the “willing” part is easy. Everybody would like a new car, big screen TV, low hassle food, a brand new house, beer that makes women like you, and whatever the latest technology gadget is. It was the "able" part of the equation that kept a loaf of bread at a nickel and a new car at $2000. Most people were not able to spend money on anything and everything they wanted. They had to save for it.

Some brilliant strategists in some marketing department somewhere came up with a thought. “Hey if we sold our meals to more people, we would make more money.” The second guy say, “you are right! But how can we sell more. Everybody who can afford to, already comes here to eat.” A third guys says, “We could lower our prices.” The first guy says, “While that will surely get more people to buy meals, it will also reduce our profits.” The second guys say, “when people leave our place, what is it that has to happen before they come back?” The third guys say, “They need time to digest their food, and they need to spend time working to earn enough money to come back.” Simotaniously the first two said, “Time!!” The first guys says, “we could give them ‘time’ to pay off their meal.” Strategist number two say, “Right, we will let them buy the meal with money they will earn next week at work. That way, they will have already bought our product and won’t be tempted to buy their meal from somebody else!!” “Wait a second.”, the third one piped in. “What happens if they don’t pay?” The second guys say, “Oh that is easy. We will just charge like some outrageous interests rate like 3%. Nobody will ever want to have to pay that interest, so they will make sure they pay us.” And just like that the Diner’s Club Card was formed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diners_Club)

My grandmother tells stories of taking my grandfather's paycheck and splitting it into envelopes. Each one labeled with a bill or an expense, and one labeled with something they were saving for. What the bills didn't gobble up went to the savings envelope

Those envelops represented time to her. Time my grandfather had to spend away from the family to pay the bills. What happened between there and here is that Americans started being able to spend "time" that had not come to pass. They were able to spend it even though there was now 100% guarantee that it ever would come to pass. They were even willing to spend more time paying for the object of their desire then they would had they just waited and earned it. Eventually they were even tilling to spend 5 full years just paying for the roof over their heads.

Now, let us revisit that economic formula again. "The market price is set by the amount of people willing and able to pay for a product." That means that if more people want a product, you can do one of two things. First you could produce more and sell them at the same price. This option of course comes with greater overhead and availability problems. The second option is to produce the same amount and sell them for more. Your overhead doesn’t rise with this option, but the trade off is that you will be pricing people out of the market. They will physically be unable to buy your product. Price it too high and you will actually make less profit then at the lower price. (This is the economic difference between Wal-Mart's picnic table and the hand crafted one from your local carpenter.) However, as our creative marketing team figured out, there is one risky option that will allow for both more customers and higher prices. Offer to spread the cost out over time. As long as they remain healthy and employed, they will eventually pay you back.

So as everybody starts getting credit cards, the price of everything you can buy with them goes up. Now with blenders and cheap tools, making more or charging more is a business decision. With housing, food, and other commodities that we use everyday the amount that can be produces is set by uncontrollable forces such as weather, wars, and disease. Prior to credit cards, if a person spent all their money on blenders, they would have to starve until they can afford to buy stuff to put in the blender. Now they can afford both luxuries.

This is what is different from the great depression and even the minor recessions in between. People had not financed so much of their future. Time is not something that the government can buy up. The people who spent it, just have to wait till it passes. If the government tries to buy theses consumers out of purgatory, they will only dam more of us to it. In the end they will not ease the people who are there trying to help. The fact that we are here today is not unrelated to the previous economic troubles. We are here as a result of remedies that did nothing to cure these prior economic woes. They just put the trouble of the 1920’s, 40’s, 70’s, and 80’s on “credit”. Turns out these “brilliant” marketing strategists earned cabinet positions in Washington in short order.

I would like to ad one footnote to this post. This giving up of our time wasn’t something that just happened all at once and the instant a credit card was introduced. Over a slow sunset of dusk to night, we have given up many things that encompass time. No we have been giving up the freedom of quality for the chains of chasing quantity of time. As first the fathers and then eventually the mothers moved from working at home to working full time away from the home, the perspectives became irrational. Now too many of us leave the schools and their peers to raise our children. We all work so hard to provide a good life for our children that we forgot the reason why we had them. It was to teach them our values, our history, and our lessons. We have turned into a society of energy generators for the big machine.

A Home Relief Plan With Merit and Consequences

2009-03-03T07:44:00.001-05:00

Here is a better way to address the failing housing market. The government opens up a new hosing department. One that is understood to have a hopefully temporary life span. This new agency will negotiate a new value for the home. The new housing authority will then buy the house from the bank for whatever “payoff” is. They get their money back. If they had planned on that interest coming in, they are no different then the home buyer who though he would be employed and healthy for 30 yrs. “You guessed wrong. Here is your consolation prize, your money back.”

People who sign onto these programs are relinquishing the ownership of the house. The difference between the payoff value and the newly negotiated market price becomes a debt to the participant. Strict limits would be placed on their ability to hold credit. The ex-homeowner has proven by their situation that they do not grasp the risk of credit. A 5% increase in their taxes will be asses in order to pay off the remaining balance.

These previous occupants who were renting it from the bank have a few choices. They can stay and rent the residence from the new government agency who has the asset of time. The US government will hopefully be around for 50 or 60 years more if it takes that long. It shouldn’t. The appraisal should catch most impending large maintenance problems on the horizon. A rental agreement can be worked out to better suit the troubled home owner. 60% of all of the money collected would be applied towards the debt. The other 40% would be used to pay for taxes, insurance, and administrative expenses. This would be in addition to the 5% tax liability and help to speed along the paying off of the debt. As a side affect it would also hold down the demand on rental units that could be a backlash of so many people loosing their houses. When the debt is settled the option to purchase the home at the new market price should be made available. They could keep renting, but at the risks involved with that option. Much like when renting a home, from the moment the new price is set, the house will be available on the market. The ability to stay and rent is a courtesy extended but not a right. Of course the government will have a vested interest in the rental agreement at first as well.

Looking at a number example of how this would work. Let us say that you paid $100,000. The new government agency, using metrics based in realism, local salary averages, and on a 10 year loan, the new value of the house is set. Let us say in this case the house has lost 40% of its value. So the best market price expected is determined to be $60,000. The payoff price for home was $80,000. The government pays the bank the $80,000. The default homeowner now owes the government $20,000. Under the old terms the loan was costing the homebuyer $625 per month plus taxes and insurance. The new arrangement could be done at the rate of $450 per month straight rent. That would be based on a 5 year plan to pay of the $20,000 and $160 per month for expenses. The home owner would be responsible all financial responsibilities one would expect a renter to pay. Since the income tax is also being asses, it is possible for these debts to be paid off in 3 years or less.

Now the ex-homebuyer could just move out. Maybe they don’t have a job and/ or can’t afford the new terms. They will not feel the penalty until they get employed. Remember it is coming out in taxes. If you are not making money, you are not paying taxes, and you are not being restrained by your debt. Like I said, the government plans on being here a long time. It can wait.

In the end, the loan agency got the money back that they loaned out, plus whatever interest they had accumulated to that point. The government gets a piece of property valued appropriately for the new deflating market. The defunct homebuyer gets a term option for paying the debt back and a possible option for staying in the home.

There is a glut of vacant houses on the market. The same offer could be made to whoever is the current owner of a vacant house. The government will agree to try to fill it with displaced ex-home owners. The new agency will have a department dedicated to basically being land lords. There are unemployed home inspectors and realtors that could easily fill these positions. As a home owner, you sign up for the program. Your house is assessed and devalued. It becomes an asset to the US government. The current owner now owes the government housing relief agency the new value. No interest, and new terms. The same 5% tax on income also is invoked. The difference is that the government agency collects the difference between the pay off value and the newly assessed market value from the renter they placed in the home. More then likely renters who were once responsible home owners. Here is were terms cold get into the 10 year or longer term.

In this case basically you are taking a house that is empty and owned by a person who is struggling to pay for it. It gives an option to those who have lost their jobs but don't want to loose their house. They have moved in with relatives or lower cost housing arrangements. They are renting to people who have lost their homes. As in the first case this splits the obligation to repay. They have an opportunity to keep the home. Rent for the house can be made more affordable.

This plan should be a limited time offer. Say one year it will be offered to those who want to take advantage of it. Anybody hired to participate in the program should know that the temporary jobs are only expected to last 10 years. It should be coupled with new regulations on credit and home loaning. The biggest new regulation being that no loan can be made for more then 10 years.

This plan is based on the acknowledgment of two realities. 1) The housing market has been over priced for years. While everybody calls the sale price the “market price” in reality the market price has been the amount people have been willing to pay over the terms of the loan. In most cases that has been 2 to 2.5 times the sales price. 2) That the only people who can be burdened with the cost of these bad financial decisions are the ones who agreed to pay them. That is how our system works. The government guarantees you have the right to the opportunity of life liberty and happiness. However, it doesn’t guarantee these attributes to you.

Of course my usual discloser that says, “If we don't stop sending our capital to economies that are subsidies by socialist and communist social programs. We will never get ahead. (National health care, free education, housing subsidized, energy cost reductions) These are things that in the free market economy must be paid for by the employer or the employee. Until our capital stops leaving our economy faster then we bring it in, we are destined to need programs like these.

Let me guess, He told you a house was an “Investment” and you “responsibly” believed him.

2009-03-01T11:31:00.001-05:00

We have a saying that I am sure most of you know that starts out, “if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.” It is a cliché used to point out the most preposterous assumptions by the most naïve people. It usually gets rolled out when only the slightest amount of thought renders an ideal illogical.

So when the pimply faced ex-pizza delivery guy (because I am sure you checked out the credentials of this perfect stranger that all of the sudden had your best interest in his heart.) who turned into a loan agent told you this did you have him explain how? Did he explain that over the next 30 years, at your 7% rate, on a $100,000 loan you would pay $250,000 plus property tax, insurance, and maintenance costs? This was supposed to be an “investment”? How many times your net (bring home) yearly salary is that? When you finally paid it off, it might be worth $200,000, although historically it would be more like $150,000 and that wouldn’t even take into the rise in cost of living over the past 30 years. So how was this a “responsible decision”? Boy, wait till you get a grasp of how a credit card works.

An investment people should A) never cost more then the purchase price you paid for it. B) Should never be worth less then the price you paid for it. C) Should have the ability to cash out (with maybe some minor penalties) and get your “initial investment” back plus whatever you have earned off of it. And D) If you loose your job, it should be a source of last resort to provide food shelter or clothing for you and your family. You should not be in jeopardy of loosing it because you lost your income. The only thing way a house might be considered an “investment” is if you are planning on leaving the paid off asset to one or all of your kids.

I suppose that you believed him when he said, “borrow to the max now, everybody’s income eventually grows” as well? So you bought shares of a bridge, and now I have to pay for it. Exactly how is the free, fair and just? The biggest problem facing this country is not its economic woes. It is that a large enough portion of our community are not able to make rational responsible decision and are not able to accept blame. I hate GWB and believe he may have doomed this country to a bitter end. But I could never bring myself to believe he was responsible for a hurricane. Now, Cheney? He may have had that kind of influence, being the Anti-Christ and all.

4% Mandatory Mortgage Rates and 40 Year Terms. Why They Won’t Work.

2009-02-24T08:50:00.003-05:00

This post cold easily be title “just how screwed we are.” But know that I have a suggestion that would get us out of this mess. It will have to come in a later posts, but if I can figure it out, the people on the hill are much smarter then me will. Right?

One of my favorite and most quoted cliché’s is, "common sense is often common, but rarely makes sense." This is true when listening to people make wild thoughtless suggestions on how to fix the economy. The phrases that send off my B.S. detectors are things like, "It's economics 101" or "it's about supply and demand" or "you are over complicating". First there are very few "or's" in economics and accounting. Capital generally follows the laws of conservation. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Two prevailing suggestions I have seen posted in the last week or so to "help the ailing housing market" and help out home owners are about the same. One is to lower everybody who needs it to 4% mortgage rate. The second one is to extend the mortgage out to 40 years? Neither of these things make economical sense, and/ or follows the free capital everybody is treated equally spirit of the country.

First let us address the 4% suggestion that has been going around. It basically says tell "the banks" they can only charge 4%. We will get to who "the banks" actually are at the end of the post. Let us say you got your loan and you agreed to a 7% interest rate, right? (Numbers don’t matter here really. All things are relative.) Your $100,000 loan was worth about $240,000 when the loan goes to fruition. The mortgage broker immediately sells that loan to Fannie or Freddie for about $140,000 leaving the new lender to make $100,000 profit over 30 years. (You probably didn't even send one check to your mortgage broker) Essentially Fan or Fred just paid 28.5% plus administrative cost for the loan. We could call it 3%. Quick basic math tells us the 7%-3% is only 4%. As any lender knows not everybody pays you back, and in the real-estate game for the big banks, I would think that 1% of the money lost to default would be a low norm. With today’s market that has even gotten worse. But even at just 1%. The banks are now down to needing to make 5% interest on those loans just to break even (3% they paid plus covering losses and administrative costs.) Telling them to only charge 4% is the same as telling them to close their doors. (That is a big problem we will get to later.) Also, the first 5 to 10 years of a mortgage is all interest. The amount you owe on that house is not changed much. The value on the other hand, well that has.

This is a good time to move to the problems with the extension of the loan solution that is equally bad. First we know that time equals money. As mentioned before the giant lender banks are in the business of selling time. They make you pay for their part of the investment up front. Fannie and Freddie sit on the loan for 30 years and count on collecting “X” amount every year. They count on that return to in turn buy more loans and make more investments. If you extend the loan, at the end of 30 years instead of the projected capital of $240,000 to use to offer more loans, they now only have $220,000. Would you take that deal? "Well, I know you were panning on retiring when you were 65, but now you will have to wait till you are 75. Hey, we will throw in an extra 10 grand for your trouble."

There are other questions too. Do contracts have to be redrawn up? They can’t just send you a letter saying, “oh we just extended your home loan, from here on out just send us the smaller house payment.” If you let them renegotiate and scrap the contract, there is no way you would buy the house at the price you paid for it 5 years ago, and there is no way they would lend you the money to do so. It does nobody any good to “invest” in a house that is priced 30% below market value. The second you open the contract you would have the legal equivalent to a “Mexican Stand-off”. Not to mention the operating cost and the original amount they paid for the loan ate into their profits from before. This causes other problem equally dysfunctional to the system. The reductions in income would ultimately cause the banks to stall and go belly up. What would you say to somebody who owes you $1000 and says they can pay you $20 a month for 50 months? Exactly. What if you counted on that 1000 bucks to pay your own bills.

One last point on the loan extension solution. A $100,000 loan at 7% is $665 a month without taxes and insurance costs that the bank has no control over. Extending that to 40 years only lowers the payment to $621. Is $44 a month going to save the average home owner? Who is to say that fuel prices and tax increases won’t eat that new savings?

Well I also promised to enlighten the reader on “who the banks really are.” I have on occasions heard people say, “So what, let the banks go bankrupt.” I too have been guilty of this naivety myself when this all first hit. Believe it or not, my background is in system design, not economics. I didn’t realize how the whole thing worked. So it took awhile to identify the trouble being cause by banks. So I did some research, some asking, and lots of listening. Then I added 2+2. You can say, “We don’t want to nationalize banks” all you want, but in the end, the US mint is “the bank”. Ask yourself this question. (It is the one that was the epiphany for me.) How does the US mint get money into the system? Well let me tell you. They don’t load up a plane, fly it over a trouble spot like Cleveland, and just open the hatch. I am betting many of you have heard terms like “Prime Interest Rate”, “Federal reserve board”, “Fed Chairman”, and even had “Prime” described to you are “the interest rate at which banks loan each other money”. Now why would banks with their highly educated CEOs worth billions of dollars themselves in a perfectly good free capital system need a government body to tell them what the market price should be for their loans? Because the reality is that “Prime” isn’t the price banks charge each other. It is a good “suggested retail price”. No “the Prime Rate” is the rate at which the US mint lends money to the big “time sitters”. Where do you think these banks got their trillions of dollars to pay for the mortgage that the pizza delivery boy turned mortgage broker got you into and then sold to one of the “big banks”? Right Fannie and Freddie got that money from the US mint. So what happens if somebody owes you money then goes bankrupt? Right again, they pay you only a fraction, if any at all, of the money they owed you. So what happens if Fanny, Freddie, US bank, go belly up. They pay the government only a “fraction, if any” of the money they owed the US mint. (remember how secure t-bonds were as a kid?) Real quick, in the US who runs the US mint? Right, the government. So who is “the government”? Oh yeah, they are “by the people, for the people.” So when these banks don’t pay back their debts, who are they not paying them to? “We the people.”

When You’re Stuck In Quicksand, Kicking Your Feet Only Makes You Sink Faster

2009-02-20T22:51:00.002-05:00

When you are sinking in quicksand the natural reaction is to kick your feet and struggle. The problem is that kicking only causes you to sink faster. I know this is going to come as a blow to those who are trying to say, “The government should help us because we can’t pay for our house”, but you are mistaken. I am sorry. The only thing that this home rescue plan is going to do is cause the rest of us to go down with you. Not to mention your attempted salvation will result in the prices remaining artificially high.

Let us say that I wanted to buy a nice midsized bungalow overlooking the water with a dock where I could store my sailboat. However 4 years ago when I was looking for a house, that house was going for $300,000. About $200,000 outside my price range. At the time an autoworker who was making about $80,000 a year with overtime bought the house. At the same rate I got for my house at the time, the payment would be about $1600 a month over 30 years. That would be less then 2 weeks pay per month going to his house payment. His wife had a job as a local bank teller making $20,000. Then the bottom fell out of the auto industry. He gets his hours reduced and laid off. They are now in deep, and house prices in the area have dropped 30%. No houses are moving in the area. He has put lug nuts on the new car tires for 15 years since leaving high school. No chance of him getting another job like that anytime soon. My dream home is already down to $210,000. Why should the government deny me of my dream home? Over the next 2 to 3 years, that house is apt to be worth about $100,000. I can afford that. Not only will I be able to afford that, but I will be able to buy other stuff and still be economically sound.

The problem with the home owner rescue plan is that it will damage the economy faster or at the very least it will have no affect. If you give money to people who are barely surviving and need help, then the money is just going to go to pay off debt that already exist. No new jobs will be created, and the economic problems will continue to drag us down. It would make much more sense to send that money to states and cities to hire police officers, firefighters, teachers, immigration agents, road construction, corrections officers, IRS agents, and other civil servants. It seems that there is a need for more staffing at the Security and Exchange Commission. Offer loans to anybody who can start a manufacturing business that could compete with Chinese version. This will create jobs that will keep capital in this economy. People with jobs will be able to afford to buy the houses at the new deflated price. People who have a place to live that they can barely afford but no job are not going to contribute to the economy.

Let s take a different perspective on this. We will follow money. Let us say a family is struggling to make a $1000 a month house payment. They get a new deal that drops that payment to $800. What happens then? They don’t have $200 a month extra to spend. They were struggling to spend that $200. Hopefully they don’t go out and spend it on other stuff. That would mean they didn’t learn the lesson. They are not going to buy a new car with it. They are not going to hire people to remodel. They will be in a pickle all over again when they have some routine maintenance happens to the house. Cities to make up for their cash flow problems are very apt to raise property taxes. As the economy stabilizes globally, what if gas prices rise again? There will be so many ways that little break could get gobbled up. If prices are let to fall and people are hired who were already making it for the new jobs, the economy will move again. Please not that I said “move” and not grow. This quest for growth is self defeating.

Of course in the end none of this will do anything to help the 800# gorilla in the room. That being the fact that no matter who gets this government stimulus, they are going to take it straight to a department store and buy Chinese goods. With in a few turns of the capital it will all have escaped to a foreign economy. That, or it will end up in the pockets of those so wealthy that they are not going to be spending it in the near future.
So when is the administration going to stop enabling Americas to kick their feet and start figuring out how to pull them out of the quicksand.

What Is Good For The Producer Is Good For The Consumer Economies

2009-02-10T07:02:00.004-05:00

It seems that the EU and China as well as many other economies both established and “emerging” are complaining about the US only clause in our stimulus package. I know I have been harping on this for awhile now. But, they keep complaining and there are so many lessons and insight to be gleaned from this issue. Many have been touched upon in previous posts. I would like to explore an overall depth of this issue.

If you have been with me all along, you know that I put much more merit in labor hours then actual currency. If you haven’t been with me a quick but necessary synopsis goes like this. We should not judge how much somebody is paid by the dollar figure as much as we assess how many of hours they have to put in at work to pay for needs and wants. If a man could live on bread alone, the man who only makes $1 a day but pays only a penny for bread is richer then the man who makes $100 a day but pays $3 for the exact same loaf of bread.

So with this concept of the importance of the "labor hour" fresh in our minds, we have to consider what our employers have to offer as compensation to attract good candidates, and what kind of expenses our employees have to cover with their salaries. Our employers often offer, and are required to offer some kind of health care program. The employee is most often required to pay a growing large portion of that health care cost themselves. I have what is considered good health care, but still i pay close to $200 a month for the premium and I still have to pay deductibles and co-pays when I go to the doctor. So right off the bat I have to pay $200 a month or around $1.70 and hour just for health insurance. Now if the Chinese really make 40 cents a month, how do they pay for their health insurance? Oh wait, their government subsidies their work force by giving them free health insurance. Then again, it is also acceptable to just let them die. It is kind of one of those negative effects of being Communist. You can't use the need to pay for health insurance to demand more from the employer.

What other cost might an employer in the good ole US of A be either asked or required to pay that people in say China, India, or the E.U. might not have to? All employers have to pay into a retirement fund called "Social Security". This is a tax, and could arguably be said to be covered by the tax leveled against foreign companies. But for the most part it is another unfair advantage. First of all our skyrocketing daily costs is not being paced with an increase in the benefit. Also, one could easily counter that if you had a national health care plan, that SS, Medicare, and Medicaid would become unnecessary. one of the biggest costs for the elderly is medical expenses. Many have their houses paid off and some kind of savings from they employment years. Or they could go greet people at Wal-Mart for enough to suit other needs. But, aside from all of that, it is a staple of our society that some kind of "retirement savings" plan should be offered. In many of our older and larger industrial models, these plans came in the form of "pensions". That meant that the company keeps paying the employer for sometimes 20, 30, even 40 years after they are no longer contributing to the production of the company. In countries where the government, work force, or a combination of both do not require retirement savings plans, they are at an advantage. lack of such future expectations in the culture can cause and "intangible advantage". In the US we all expect to live to at least 75 or 80. ten to 15 years after we retire. if you live in a society where mortality is never expected beyond 70, there is a huge advantage to your expected cost over the economies with more longevity.

That said, it should be noted that other economies subsidies their labor force in ways that are not immediately recognizable. Ideas such as national health care, free higher education, housing, and energy support are benefits to its labor force that advantages them financially over the US labor force. Intangibles such as a road system that has allowed us to "sprawl" in a way that requires an automobile to live. Insurance, public transportation systems, and other related cost associated with that "infrastructure" that was developed to get us out of the great depression. So unless these countries are willing to end their unfair subsidies and/ or send us the money to pay each for the advantage to each of our laborers, I do not think they have a case for "protectionism".

One last quick thought to demonstrate the uniqueness of this mess we are in. A "durable good" is defined as a product with a lifespan of less then 3 years. The "no prize" this week goes to anybody who can name me 5 durable goods from the Great Depression era. 5 products that were expected to last more then 3 years.

5 Myths About Globalization, Free Trade, And Protectionism

2009-02-04T11:35:00.002-05:00

There has been a lot of hub-bub about the stipulation that Obama has put on the stimulus money being used only by those who buy American steel for related constructions projects. While this idea merits a bonus factor because he is using taxpayers dollars to pay for these project, there is really nothing wrong with policies that cater to your own economy. Many opponents like to label it “protectionism” or “isolationism”, but their arguments are not based in another “ism” “realism”.

1) “Protectionism” or “isolationism” limits consumers to inferior products.

The statement I often hear uttered goes something like this. “It promotes bad products and drives up the price.” This is a false notion usually derive from good economics’ worst enemy “common sense”. What really happens is a country like the US develops things like autos, electronics, and other durable goods inside an economy that requires wage, environmental, and safety standards. These are things that are part of the moral fabric that make up our nationality. Then economies without such standards duplicate the process with out all that overhead. The more restricted economy must then attempt to produce at a disadvantage. In the end a product requires a certain amount of labor hours to produce. That is a constant. So are the costs to be safe and environmentally sound. R&D and quality assurance are not constants and can be re-budgeted to compete. So in order to keep up with the “unleveled” playing field, a producer has only a few choices. Cut the cost of R&D, quality assurance, or both. They could also buy most of their parts from the less regulated economies. We have seen plenty of this. Left alone internal competition would have yield the required quality from the markets. Probably even better products. In reality, external competition often drags down quality advancements.

2) Globalization helps emerging economies.

This is a common and self righteous and pompous assertion that usually comes from people who think that they have the best way of life and everybody else should be like them. The truth of the matter is that globalization gets a lot of wealth in the hands of very few. It hurts the people in the consumer economy by reducing their ability to maintain a previously enjoyed standard of living. (Study: Men in Their 30s Make Less Than Their Dads. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10438943) Moreover, it reduces local ability to demand fair compensation by forcing them to compete for jobs un an unfair playing field. Their cost of living and level of comfort was promoted by their collective innovation.

It is equally damaging to the economy where the new factory or industry is established unnaturally. It hurts the economies that the new industry invades by raising the cost of living for people who hadn’t developed it themselves. It does this by giving a small percentage of people in the developing countries jobs that pay better then the sustainable environment that had existed previous to industry. Anybody who is not fortunate enough to get one of these jobs becomes disadvantaged through no fault of their own. A better description of this can be found on the post, Economics from the CEO perspective (http://logicandpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/12/economics-from-ceo-perspective.html)

You will find that people often have to work for the companies and their culture will have been changed because of it. “You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile”. If I have lost you on this, it is quite simple, higher paying jobs and lower environmental and safety practices do not help the “emerging economy”. Often those people would be quite happy to live out their lives as they had for thousands of years. To say, “they are not like us and they should be.” is a rather selfish and damaging cultural view.

3) The advanced economies need the consumers of the 3 rd world economies they are competing with.

People often say things like, “look what the world buys from the US. What if the world stopped buying soda, fast food, and Microsoft products from the US.” Generally these are low cost items that are A) not durable goods and B) have a better profitability at the distribution point. Meaning that even though they are “American Products” their real source of wealth goes to the people who sell them. I can not think of too many durable goods that are coveted overseas. If everybody pulled back and didn’t allow trade, there would be winners and losers. With in the economy there would be a labor shuffle. But the US would be a definite winner. Want proof? Look at the trade deficit. That simply means we are consuming more then we produce. You can not do that in a completely isolated economy. It is a matter of the US consumer only need so many cars and they have plenty of internal producers to supply them.

4) Globalization helps by supplying low cost products to the poorer members of the advanced economies.

This forsakes a really obvious logical flaw. PEOPLE WITHOUT JOBS CAN’T BUY ANYTHING, NO MATTER HOW CHEAP IT IS. The reason some of the people are poor in this country is because they can’t find decent paying jobs. Wal-Mart loves this logic. “We supply inexpensive goods to people who otherwise couldn’t afford them.” They can’t afford them because you are buying goods from the people who took their jobs!! Here is another reality dope slap for you. People with jobs will pay more for products if they have to. They might grumble, they might even start email chains telling everybody to not buy the product for one day. However, they will still buy it because they can. People who are unemployed and have no income can’t buy even the less expensive product. In order to purchase the things they really need, they will have to rely on the government to give them resources to do it. Look US citizens will dam and chastise people who employ illegal immigrants, children slaves, and unsafe environmentally hazardous productions techniques. They will even sue the hell out of companies if they find them in their neighborhood. But they will run, not walk, down to their nearest Wal-Mart to buy products made under these exact same conditions if not morally more reprehensible. That choice shouldn’t exist. We are addicted to low cost like crack. Like crack it feels good when we do it, but is destroying us in the end.

5) The great depression was caused by isolationism.

There are lost of people who make this claim, yet it is one that has never been backed up by any notable (by that I mean one with a track record of being right) economist. The idea that the reason we didn’t have jobs was because the US restricted industries from selling their products around the world to people who didn’t have money to buy them is ludicrous. We are talking about the 1920’s. The world was way less developed and much larger, logistically speaking, then it is today. The cost to move stuff back then would have been enormous and not worth doing. Who was going to buy the American automobile, and on what roads were they going to drive them? There was no China or India with billions on population wanting to buy our junk. What does happen when the US opens is trade barriers is an initial surge in new economy buying product they never knew existed. That is followed by a feverish period of the new consumers reverse engineering, and then start producing their own version much cheaper.

What we needed to get out of the Great Depression was to create jobs. Then along came the great job creator, war. Workers willing to work for low wages, in unsafe conditions, with very few benefits is the ideal situation created by war. You cut the unemployment rate at both ends. You create jobs and reduce employable population. Goodbye depression. Then again, every economic policy has its equal and opposite reaction, but that is for another post.

In the 1920’s we were isolationist because population and technology limited us to it. Today we must return to it because economics demands it. What Obama should do (aside from the million other things I have suggested in previous posts) is set a trade deficit limit. “These rules apply once the deficit reaches ‘X’ amount of dollars and/ or another country owns ‘Y’% of our national wealth.”

We are facing an economic meltdown in the US. It is affecting the world. No other country could have such a meltdown and have the same influence. That in and of itself sets us apart. For those who have ever flown on a commercial airline, you might recognize the following set of instructions. “In the event of an emergency, oxygen masks will drop from the ceiling. Please secure your own before helping the person next to you.” This is to ensure that you do not pass out in the attempt. Here in the US we need to do whatever it takes to secure out own economic prosperity before we start back helping to bring our brand of prosperity to the world.

If you want to know who would actually loose wealth to the US taking a more isolated approach, look at who is complaining. What you will see is that the people who we hold the largest trade deficits with are the biggest complainer. What would you tell the person on the other end of the line if your credit card company called and said that you are not spending enough? That is basically what the opponents to “protectionism” are doing.

Economic Defense Is More Important Than Military

2009-01-30T23:36:00.004-05:00

It is funny (by funny I mean so scary that you either laugh or scream.) how the citizens and the politicians take our economic security so much less seriously then out military security. For those taking notes, here is a profound statement that I don’t want slipping by. You can never fully destroy a culture with tanks and bombs. However, you can completely and utterly destroy a culture with economic invasion. When the dust settles the people will just start breeding and rebuilding. Their food, their music, their livelihood will return eventually. Most often even the culture’s form of government and wealth distribution will return. Most defiantly they will not take on the appearance and characteristics of their oppressors. However, invade a society economically, and their children will all be trying to emulate their aggressors. It wasn’t the bombs in Japan that did the most damage to the traditions that defined them. It was the businesses.

You wouldn’t let a foreign army come and use your equipment, weapons, and bases to wage a war against you would you? Then why would you let workers from another country come in and use your facilities to increase their own countries economic viability. Certainly the intelligence agencies have empowered groups with ideologies completely different then those of the US to fight military battles. So far, not once has that not come back to bite them in the ass. Iraq and Afghanistan are the most recent examples. It certainly doesn’t make sense to send monetary value to your enemies so they can buy weapons to use against you. Yet we do it, mostly through oil revenue.

While it makes no sense to do any of the military faux pas expressed above, we think nothing of A) letting foreigners drive the cost of our labor resource down and B) economically empowering cultures that we find morally wrong. These we willingly do at the expense and even detriment of our own family, friends, and countrymen. Ultimately we do it at the expense of our own wellbeing.

The way economics all works out, is that if you want people to employ you or your company, they are going to need resources to do it. If you do not employ them they will not be able to employ you. The simplest way to think about it is like this. Imagine a meat farmer and a vegetable farmer existed for years making weekly trades. The vegetable farmer would show up each week with a weeks rations of vegetables and traded it for a weeks ration of meat. Then one day the vegetable farmer shows up and the meat farmer informs him that he will have to have cash. He got twice the amount of vegetables from the farm that uses illegal immigrants for the same ration of meat. A week later the meat farmer noticed a decline in orders. 3 weeks later he runs into a man who had been a regular customer, but had not seen weeks. The man explained that he had been working for the original vegetable farmer. Since so many people were buying their vegetables from the illegal immigrant employing farmer, the honest farmer had to lay him off. Wait there is another kick in the teeth. On his families reduced income, the only place they can afford to buy vegetables from is the illegal employer. Eventually the meat farmer had to close his doors.

Now imagine an entire economy buying from the cheap outside labor. All of the sudden the government doesn’t have employed tax payers. They need those taxes to pay for military expenses. How long do you think we would have our large volunteer military if the paychecks and benefits stopped coming/ not long I assure you. Most of its workforce is made up of recent high school grads that had not other economically sound options.

This is why it is as important that our policy makers be as aggressive with the economic aggression as they are with their “(war) s on whatever”. Our morality is not one that is designed to be advantaged in an economic struggle with people who have no problem using slave labor and unsafe environmentally unfriendly production techniques.

Christian VS. Islamic “Nations”

2009-01-26T18:44:00.004-05:00

In a continuance of the thought stream from the last post, I have debated and discussed the difference between Christianity, at least as we perceive it here in the good old US of A, and Islam as it is perceived in “Islamic countries”. The whole debate can be summed up with a story told to me by a Jehovah’s Witness follower many years back.

Jim, I believe was his name, was a really great guy. He was not pushy with his religion but open conversation if you wanted. This was in about 1994 or so. Way before 9-11-01. He attended a religious study with a couple of Baptist Christians and a pair of Muslims. The question came up, “would you kill for your country? Even if you knew the people on the other side were of the same religion as you.” The Christians present said they would for their country, and were rather boisterous and proud of that fact. The Muslims said they would not die for their country over their religion. If their country “held the same values” as their religion then they would answer their countries call.

Christians, at least the style here in the US and many of the modern western societies, value not only separation of church and state, but patriotism over their faith. Islamic countries who value their governance to be interlaced with their spiritual beliefs, will often choose to obey religious leaders over their political officials. This is true even in Islamic countries where officials are elected.
If you can grasp that concept, you can understand why the west and the Middle East are oil and water. The reason Iraq could only be led (as needed by western business interest) by a tyrant ruler, and why it fell into Chaos after his fall. Understanding this reality allows one to see why Afghanistan is untamed, Saudi Arabia can not keep its people from becoming terrorist, and why Israel can not get a peace treaty to stick.

Here in the US, your spirituality has been legislated and re-enforced as something that is “personal” and “not for public conversation”. Two things you do not discuss, in a social circumstance is “religion and politics”. Islam, I have been told, is not just a religion, but “a complete way of life”. (Christianity was supposed to be the same way. The Amish are about as close to it as I know of that we come though.) Islam is used to set the rules that we would otherwise leave to our secular government. Acceptable dress, economics, social rules, and work requirements are all addressed by Islamic law. Laws that often require interpretation.

That leads us to another major difference. I think I have pointed this one out before here. But for relevance sake I will again. In the US, our federal makes laws our states must enforce. What is not covered by the federal can be legislated by the states. What isn’t covered by the sates, can be legislated by the counties, then the cities, then the family. There are some grey areas that are often debated over, but that is the general order of things. In contrast, Islamic cultures are often legislated first by the families. Of course there is strong influence by the clerics and spiritual leadership. You will find in these situations that the state and federal leadership court the local religious leaders and family heads in order to make a cohesive law. This is a concept that Bush administration either didn’t understand, or rightfully recognized that a “free, just, and fair” democracy, void of human rights abuses, couldn’t exist under those conditions.

Now, I am stating reality, not trying to justify or promote “Islamic” virtue. I am an agnostic for God’s sake. (I would like to see us live a more Christian lifestyle though.) As a matter of fact I would not want to live in a religion run environment. I thrive too much on rational and logical thoughts. Not that election of GW twice and 48% voting for John McCain and the unmentionable one doesn’t demonstrate a high level of both irrational and illogical thought. Secular democracy is certainly capable of it. The difference is the ability to correct it. Words passed down through some indeterminable entity from an unquestionable force is very hard to scientifically disprove. So ideals such as “women are irrational, illogical creatures who can not be trusted to vote.” Ok, bad example. But other policies that we held true in the past have been proven wrong.

SO how would you answer the question. Given the choice. Your country has drafted you into a war. Your preist tells you not to go. Who do you listen to?

America The Nation Of Hypocristians

2009-01-24T17:09:00.003-05:00

The NPR/ BBC radio show World Have Your Say (WHYS) recently asked its listeners if they view the US as a “Christian Nation.” Reviews were mixed with a few of the “live and local” audience in the Florida studio, from which WHYS was broadcasting from, were old and shallow in thought. They believed that simply saying you are “Christian” and/ or “believed in Jesus Christ” made you Christian. Others especially those outside America say that the there are no signs of Christianity in our policies.

Often on WHYS they ask ambiguous questions that leave a lot of grey area to be argued over. Patrons in turn engage in arguing pointless undefined posturing but no real sustenance. This issue was no different. My first thought when I read the topic line was, “how do you define ‘Christian’?” I have broached this subject on this site a few times in the past. Without an agreed definition, a valid debate can not be negotiated.

If you simply define being a “Christian” as on who believes that Jesus Christ existed, then I could agree that The United States is a “Christian” nation. In that light Hitler was a Christian, as well as many of the most heinous creatures to walk the earth in the past 2000 years or so. But I suspect that what makes people straighten up and proudly proclaim their faith is not merely the belief in the existence of a dude from 2000 years ago. What they find so agreeable is that they believe in the moral and social creed of the man and that makes for a more peaceful and harmonious society. They believe that what defines a Christian nation, is policies that reflect that value system.

I will field debate if I am wrong. As I have mentioned before I am an “agnostic Christian”. (That simply means I believe in the man and his plan, just not his source of information.) But it is my understanding that the basic attributes of Jesus Christ’s morality plan are pretty obvious. Don’t kill other people, don’t lie, don’t cheat on each other, don’t steal, and everybody is to be considered equal (so don’t hold yourself above them.) are ideals that had been around and Jesus just affirmed them. But there seemed to be a misconception or even a change in the way “God” wanted people to act towards people who didn’t comply with these rules. Jesus came to preach pacifism. Tolerance, forgiveness, self sacrifice, charity, and love were the new way to respond to those who sinned or wronged you. No worries, he promised a better life after this one, no matter how it ended.

Now above is what I would consider to be Christian traits. So in order to be a Christian nation, our policies and our people should mostly demonstrate these quality. In recent displays we have sought revenge, been driven by greed instead of charity, are intolerant to other religions and cultures, have murdered people who got in the accidental way of our revenge activities, have cheated countries out of their resources, have stole from the ones who wouldn’t let us cheat them, and have shown anything but “love” and expressed equality to our neighbors. By that definition I can not agree that the US is a Christian nation.

Many times during the broadcast, somebody would say, “The United States was founded upon Judaio-Christian values.” This of course is more bogus misrepresentation of the fact. It is a statement that shows that the “tongue-in-cheek” Christianity has been part of the US since the start. Let us not mince words here. The US was “founded” only because of the genocide of the Native American. They were considered heathens, had a price on their head, and treated like animals well after the establishment of the constitution. It started out by lying to them, then cheating then, then stealing from them, finally by killing them. They were never considered equal. That is with out even getting into the issues of slavery, women’s rights, and the wild west. Compare that to the above listed attributes preached by Jesus Christ, and you will see that the US was founded on the back of policies that were certainly not but Christian.

“But that was 400 years ago. I didn’t have anything to do with it. What do you want me to do about it?” For starters stop saying that the US was founded on Christian values. The truth is that Judaism and Christianity were founded on humanistic social values. As it turns out the concept of not killing, cheating, stealing, lying, and equality are psychologically pleasant attributes that promote harmony and good will with in a society. They are however “unnatural” traits to the animal kingdom. Now, isn’t more likely that a couple of more cerebral leader types were sitting around one day and one says, “These are great qualities, but how are we going to get our people to take them to heart?” A second guy says, “We could tell them that if they don’t when they die they will suffer great pain for all eternity and will never get to see their loved ones.” The first guy says, “But isn’t that lying?” The second guy justifies by saying, “ It is one lie to end all lies. Besides who is going to know we made it up. It isn’t like people come back from the dead to report.” And so it was that religion was created.

So is the United States a “Christian nation”? No not a chance. It wasn’t founded on Christian values, the acts and deeds of those who changed it into the country it is now were not Christian, and its current domestic and foreign policies are anything but Christian. However, a lot of people say they believe a guy named Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago, and they are not afraid to say to on a census form. People often say that Muslim culture is not conducive to freedom and democracy. I would say that free enterprise and democracy are not conducive to Christianity.

Obama's Inaugural Speech As It Should Be

2009-01-18T22:08:00.004-05:00

If I were writing Obama’s Inaugural speech it would look something like this.

“America I would like to thank you for letting me play such an
important part in this American story. As your leader I plan to take a
different approach then many of my predecessors. To you, the American
citizens, I promise to lead not only with an open mind, but an open heart.
I also promise that I will not ‘stay the course’ when there is a looming iceberg
in front of me. I will not presume righteousness over rationalism. I
promise that I will listen, truly listen to both sides before making a
decision. No matter what the makeup of what the legislation is. I am
not so convinced of my own shallow and narrow perspective that I can’t assume
somebody else might have a wider and/ or deeper knowledge of an issue.

When I speak of change I am not only
referring to the leadership of recent history, but the even the approaches that
work so well in the past, that were implemented by well meaning
legislators. These have to change because the long history shows they
don’t work. Short fixes that get people re-elected have been the drug of
choice on capital hill for too many generations. I have some bad news for
you America, life as we know it is a thing of the past. The Idea of
spending more then we make, consuming more then we produce, and talking more
then we listen is fast nearing its bitter end. The age of our false
prosperity has started it’s, hopefully, slow crumble. The news and
perspective I give may not always be pleasurable, but it will always be
honest.

In the past leaders have asked you to “ask
what you could do for your country”, Americans through the generation have
answered that call. Whether it be the millions who have served in the
armed forces of this country, or the millions who have innovated and engineered
The United States into market domination you have paid your dues. However
those that run your country leached off your charity, negotiated damaging back
room deal, and scammed this country of its resources that were produced of these
sacrifices. In doing so they turn “The Land Of The Free” into the “Land of
the indentured servants”. So many have traded our social and physical
freedom for car loans, home loans, medical bills, education loans, and credit
debt. Many have taken jobs working long hours just to support families
they never see. They are not passing on the traditions and heritage of their
parents, because they are not actually involved in the raising of their own
children. Not because they wanted to, but because to have a chance
at getting ahead they had to. This is not freedom people. This is
not what our founding fathers promised. It is now time to ask your
country’s leaders, elected and business, now what will you do for me.

It is in the midst of this
turmoil that I assume the position as your leader. Two wars that should
have never been embarked upon. Increasing unemployment and decreasing
commerce. The rest of the world in unrest and our diplomatic and political
capital taxed beyond its means. In this time I promise to you that I have great
plans. Some may not work. These are uncharted times when only theory
and not practical knowledge have ever been plotted. But I have many tools
at my disposal, and most importantly I understand the causes of the problems we
face. The good news my fellow Americans, is that I plan on using these
tools to ensure a solid and real recovery that will lead to a sustainable
future. I promise to work towards a future that doesn’t leave our
children with only an option of indebted servitude just to raise a family.
I plan on doing it in a way that in not of social or communal in nature,
but using the free and fair values of our founding fathers. By returning
America to the people again.“

Something along that lines would encourage me to think he actually realizes what the next 4 years will bring. Somehow I don’t expect anything like this though. The more I see, the more I believe what I always have. Obama is going to bring this giant oil tanker to a halt in the wrong direction. However, I don’t think he understands what the right direction is once that happens.

The Year, The Word, And The Resolution Is “Sustainability”

2009-01-02T21:21:00.003-05:00

As the new year rolls in, it is time for a few activities. It is time to reflect on the past year’s successes and mistakes and learn from them. It is time to think about what one wants for the future. It is also a time to make resolutions. I was involved in all of these activities over this first week and realized something I have never quite fully recognized before. Almost everything we long for is about sustainability. Ecological, economical, social, and personal physical and mental sustainability is what we in no to obvious or direct ways are trying to achieve.

The eco fanatics for years have been talking about “ecological sustainability”. But what do they mean? M-W.com defines it as “of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.” This is what “green technology” is about. In order to sustainable ecological practices, it requires understanding the reaction to every action. This is very difficult for modern man who has become so far removed from the world he host himself upon. In fact, even though it is akin to the people of the 15th century and beyond that still believe the earth was flat, many people still resist the indisputable fact that we are making life unsustainable for human life as we prefer it. This is in spite of the very long winded but cool explanation I presented in the post, Global Warming- Not Just Science It's Also a Diet Plan. I Guess even then I was making the connections.

I have been hearing some of the top resolutions this year. The first two are always the same. Loose Weight and quit smoking top the list in alternating order from poll to poll and year to year. However this year number three has been reported as sentiment along the lines of “spend less”, “get out of debt”, or “make better financial decisions.” Loosing weight and quitting smoking are both about achieving sustainable health. Let us face it, those of us who enjoy eating or smoking wouldn’t bother to consider cutting back or stopping the activity if it didn’t make us unhealthy. We adjust our behavior because our habits are unsustainable for the continued function of our bodies. The third resolution is the same. We are not pledging to restrain our spending habits because we have purchased all the stuff we have ever wanted and no longer find joy and buying stuff. No, it is because if we keep spending at the current rate, we are not going to be in a very “sustainable” spot even if we do manage to remain employed. Should such financial travesty visit our (or rather the bank’s) house, we want to improve our chances of not having to stand in soup lines with smelly bums and muscians. The truth is that all of our ills are a result of unsustainable activity.

They teach the “laws of conservation” in physics. They teach equal distribution in math. But these concepts should be applied and should be taught in every discipline. Working out problems of dealing with these laws requires considerations to both sides of the equation. The action is an explosion, the reaction is that it pushes against the wall of the jet engine. The action is water flows. The reaction is that the waterwheel turns. That is how it works in physics. There are studies that break those functions down even further to their atomic and elements. That kind of in depth is what needs to happen with politics and economics. If the action is making a purchase of cheap Chinese goods at Wal-mart, then what is going to be the reaction. If the action is placing a factory with good paying jobs in the middle of a farming community, then isn’t a rise on the cost of living for the entire community expected as the reaction? If the action is to send out $10 billion in economic stimulus money, what is the reaction going to be broken down to its atomic level. Where is the money coming from, where is it going to? If a foreign government supports, trains, and arms one side of a civil war, that is the action? What are all the possible reactions in the immediate and distant future? These concepts should be discussed in our classrooms as well.

So if you are looking to figure out a doable New Years Resolution, resolve to live a more harmonic life. Look to not spend as much on new stuff until you have paid off all of your old stuff. There are going to be a lot of businesses affected by a large portion of us who resolve to do that, but that is this going to be an issue they address with their own resolutions. Go back and find ways to enjoy your old stuff. If dieting, quitting smoking, or exercising are failed past endeavors, then instead, resolve to just find ways to be healthier. Take up a hobby that is fun, but also requires energy. If ideas such as getting more organized is on your mind, It means that you are going to have to allot time to do it. Think through your normal activities and figure out which ones are going to get either trimmed or eliminated to make time needed for organization. This applies to anything that is going to require time.

In the end we should all look to live our lives more aware of our impact. The bad news is that change is the hardest thing we creatures can do. We resist it even when it is necessary and we begrudge it when it comes forcefully. We all seek the path of least resistance, or at least the one that appears that way. The good news is that there is so much fat in our western style of living small changes can make a big impact. Start by questioning your own motives and beliefs. Dig a little deeper. Peel back one more layer of the onion then we normally would. You don't have to critacally think down to the atomic level, but just consider the question "then what would happen."

Happy 2009, all. Brace yourself. Change is coming like a drum solo whether you like it or not.

Breaking News Is Broken

2008-12-23T21:54:00.001-05:00

I think we reached some kind of new low for the 24hr news cycle today. As I got up at 8:30 am, every single channel was showing a flooded road in some city. There was somebody stuck in a car, and they all zoomed in to see the results of the rescue. CNN, MSNBC, CNN Headline News, and even stooped as low as FOX, but they all had this “nationally important story” breaking on the screen. Now call me cold if you want to, but there are 2 wars, millions loosing their jobs, an economic crash, millions without health care, the governor of a major city being brought down on corruption charges, billions in “bailout money” yet unaccounted for, a national debate over the merits of helping out the auto industry, a vocal VP admitting that he wanted to go to Iraq weather they were a national threat or not, and so on. These are things that they could report. But nooo, we are all forced to watch a car in the water. Like an hours later the water had died to a trickle and the lady who was stuck could have just opened up the door and tip toed to the curb.

I have to tell you, I am quite sick of seeing local stories on national news. I do not care about a car chase in LA. (As OJ proved sometimes you run even when you are innocent.) I don’t care about a foot bridge collapsing in NY. I don’t care about a house fire in Florida. I don’t care about some bad weather in Oklahoma. Now you are really going to think I am cold, but I don’t care about a missing and murdered child anywhere that the killer isn’t expected to be in my travel area. I don’t care about the family feuds of dead celebrities. I defiantly don’t care about their length of prison sentence. All of these stories could be delivered in a 5 min. news round up at the end of a major newscast if they really must be covered at all. However, the country and the world will be fine without such enlightenment.

I don’t think I have turned on any of the major news networks in the last 2 years where the words “BREAKING NEWS” isn’t splashed across the screen. It is like some drug that has long lost its affect, but they all feel they need it to survive. For the benefit of the major news producers reading this blog post, here are some suggestions of things I will never get sick of. I will never get sick of reporters hounding legislators about their bad vote decisions. I will watch tirelessly as you interview people who were convicted for obstruction of justice in a treason case. I will always find it interesting to hear debates between scientists on the topic of global warming. You can hold my attention with economist who debate the ways to strengthen the dollar. I will be mesmerized every single time with discussions of future costs of education. If you can get the CEO of CitiBank to cry on your TV show for ruining the lives of every hard working American and admit that credit is the cancer that has rotted this nation, then you have “Breaking News”. Other then that it is just drama. People have enough distractions in life with out the annoyances of Nancy Grace. And Lou Dobbs chases so many red herrings he should be forced to declare “fishing” as his actual occupation on his W-2.

So please, just one of you, step out and step up. Before you “run” a story, ask yourself, “If I lived 200 miles away from the scene, would I have a stake in the outcome of this event?” If the answer is “no” and you are running a national/ world news network, consider other options.

Why would somebody throw away perfectly good shoes?

2008-12-21T08:54:00.000-05:00

There is so much on the economic front right now. Or at least there seems to be. In the end it is the same crap on a different flavor of toast. Nobody with any ability to change things seems to A) know what needs to be changed, and B) know how to use policy to influence that change. We have pressing issues that need addressed now, and a lame duck legislative process that seeks only to pass the responsibility buck to the incoming incompetents. If you want endless takes on why’s, who’s, and when’s this situation, turn into the 24 hour news cycle that seems to never stop having “breaking news”. For at least this post I am going to turn to something that was highly reported, but severely overlooked this week in the news media. The waste of good energy to throw good shoes in a country where that resource is scarce.

So George Bush attempts to take a victory lap around the Middle East. The problem is that is kind of like Abraham Lincoln taking a victory lap around the south. Hey, he “won” the war. He freed a bunch of people from their oppressive chains. I bet the locals are going to welcome him with open arms. My guess is that Abraham Lincoln couldn’t do a victory tour in the south even today. The same sensibility should have been observed by GW. But if he had that kind of sensibility, we wouldn’t have been in this situation to begin with.

However, the fact that George Bush is a moron is hardly a fresh new perspective. The question asked but never answered this week, or for that fact, since the beginning of time, is “why can’t we bring peace to the Middle East?” At the end of every president’s time they try to find something to make their legacy. The Middle East, and especially the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict has emerged as the elusive “Holy Grail” of presidential legacies. Yet all return only to ring their hands and say, “why can’t we figure this out!”

The answer is a matter of perspective. We in the west will never solve the Rubik’s Cube Middle Eastern peace because we don’t define it the same way they do. As a matter of fact, we don’t define anything the same way they do.

Some thought exercises? England, France , Germany , Spain , and even and especially the US , when you think of “what kind country is ‘X’ country?” your answer is bound to be different. When “X” is replaced with any of these countries, you might think, “modern”, “democratic”, “free”, “capitalist”, and a plethora of other words. One thing that would might show up, but low on that list is “Christian”. We just don’t identify ourselves with our spiritual leadership. THAT is where we loose the perspective on the Middle Eastern status. Another quick thought to emphasize that point. If some foreign country invaded the US, there wouldn’t be an “evangelical region”, a “catholic region”, or “the Baptist triangle”. They would meet Americans. It wouldn’t even matter if the invading force were fellow Christians; we would kill them without prejudice.

In the west our emphasis on having a separation of church and state is only rivaled and equaled by the Islamic countries’ (See that, an identity in their spirituality.) desire to regulate through their religion. We in the west value materials and tangible life. We believe in country over God, patriotism over religion, and we have more faith and allegiance in our political leaders then we do our rabbis, priests, and preachers. Weather and which is wrong or right is not the point of this article. It is just “the facts Jack.”

In the east, and many of the “3rd world” communities around the world, a completely different flow of order exists. Where in the west we have a top down system of rules, the rugged loose fitting communities of the areas we identify as the most “problematic” are made up of communities that enforce laws from the bottom up. Our federal laws supersede our state laws. Our state laws supersede our city laws. Our city laws supersede laws laid down by our parents and our family leaders. This is 180 degrees different then a place like Afghanistan where tribal leaders hold more weight then national icons. In places like these spiritual leaders set interpret and set rules for the “family”. The state and local governments negotiate with the tribal leaders to form coalitions. The federal government seems only able to perform such activities as provide aid and step in to solve disputes between clans. Their inherent allegiances to their own tribes and spiritual ideologies often form conflicts of interest.

In the 1920’s Great Britain forced 3 major regions to become one country and called it Iraq. In the late 40’s the west paved the way for Israel to become a festering splinter in the side of the whole Middle East. History, especially recent history, is littered with the horrendous result of the west trying to force its moral perspective on the east. Since they are not a very unified culture, they are usually easily divided and corrupted.

Because we are a stable, rooted, “here and now” driven individuals, there is now way we, our politicians, and certainly not our soldiers can understand a flexible, nomadic, afterlife driven mentality. This is why no president can or will ever achieving that most prized of legacies. They don’t understand the complexity of what they seek, let alone a realistic plan to attain it. In the end our concern for their peace is driven solely by our own selfish need to have a stable and rooted entity to buy oil from.

So if GW wants to know why he is dodging shoes from the people he “liberated” this is it. These people didn’t want “liberating”. At least not all of them. If you had given them the choice of living under the oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein or having their friends, family, and countrymen murdered on a daily basis, many would choose to love under the oppression. Which they really didn’t find all that oppressive to begin with. Besides, Saddam would have been able to oppress them if the US hadn’t given him money, weapons, and training to begin with.

A Case For The Big 3 Producing Junk

2008-12-13T00:30:00.000-05:00

While listening to a couple of colleagues that other day say that they didn't want to buy an American car, because they were unreliable. Like myself they scorn NAFTA and the WTO. But there is an inherent problem with the idea of not buying "American Junk". There are only so many drivers in the country. If the policies are going to allow people from outside the economy to flood the market with product, there is going to be a point when there are more cars then there are drivers.

I read that Toyota reached a 15% market share by selling 2.5 million cars in ’07. That means 16 million cars hit the road in the US in one year. I have had a hard time figuring out exactly how many drivers are on the road. By divers license is wrong headed. Since an ID is so important, lots of people who don’t have cars have drivers licenses. Lot of people who don’t have licenses drive cars. Anyway, let us apply a little logic.

There are 300 million people in the US . I would say that if we remove anybody too old to drive, everybody under 16, the legal driving age, Those too poor to drive, and those who live in densely populated urban areas where driving is more of a hassle you end up with about half of the people. Let us call it 175 million to error on the side of caution. 175 million drivers.

We know that a car now of days last easily 10 years. I am actually looking for a junker right now. Most cars on the list are 15 years or older. It is 2008 right now, but the ‘09’s have been out for 6 months. 10 years ago, was 1999. By today’ standards still isn’t that old. Many of the Korean companies are now offering 10 year warranties!! Just at this pace alone there would be 160 million cars on the road 10 years or newer. Can you see where I am going here? The reason that the auto industry is hurting, is because everybody who wants a car has one. Now does everybody have the car of their dreams? No, of course not. The junkyards would be filled with Escorts, Chevete, and Prisms if they did. But they have the car that they are “willing and able” to buy. So either their cars have catastrophically fail forcing them to be more willing to buy a new one, or the cost of one they want has to drop to the point they are able to buy a new one. We know that pricing profit margins are too tight for the later to happen with the US big three autos.

The problem is that everybody has a car. Most people trade in their cars and it becomes somebody else’s “new to them” car. When the US let foreign auto companies into the economy, they did exactly what free markets do. They drive product ingenuity and efficiency. The problem is that they have become too efficient, too durable. Ford has been in business for 100 years. The others almost as long. What do you do when you look at the market and you realize that you are producing your product at a rate that outpaces market demand? When entities like OPEC see that in petroleum production, they cut production. The problem is that there are no such unions in the auto industry. If one auto make cuts production, they will just loose revenue. Someone else will fill the market hole.

So how do you suggest that you make sure that your factory keeps people gainfully employed for 30 years? How do you pay form these employees to be paid and retired for another 20 years? Well, if the market isn’t flooded with outside competition, you will find that you can control the prices in a way that will allow you to experience slow downs and rejuvenations. Since the market for the product is symbiotic and local to the economy, it will remain self correcting. But if outside competition is allowed into the mix, ones that have a much larger profit margin, they can easily bleed the market dry. That is where we are at now.

If you are Ford, GM, or Chevy your bet is on an outside chance that you can build brand loyalty and inferior products in hopes that they will keep you employed. It is not a very good plan, but it was the best they had. As I mentioned in the earlier posts, there was no way for these companies that had to pay American wages, follow American safety and environmental standards, and pay the taxes that US companies have to pay. The sad part is that most of the parts from all auto companies comes from outside the economy.

Economics from the CEO perspective

2008-12-06T09:28:00.003-05:00

That bout with the foreign wage blog allowed me to create a couple of good analogies that are useful for explaining this current mess. The first one comes from courtesy of my buddy Pete who just returned to the sates from a little island in the South Pacific called Tonga.

Tonga, I am told, is an island of extremely content Polynesians. They have advanced medical facilities, some industry and a 99% literacy rate. Every Tongan male is guaranteed a plot of land. Most are self sufficient and self sustaining. It is the only South Pacific nation to never be conquered or colonized. It is ruled by a monarchy in which the king must approve every facet of the economy. Let us depart from what I am sure about to using “Tonga” to a more exemplary version. (Since it is a real place, I don’t want to hear from people saying things like, “I have been there, or I know people from there who say they don’t like it.” or what ever.) So our Tongans have existed for thousands of years on this island. They grow enough food to feed themselves. If someone wants to open a new shop in the nation, the King considers the affect on the surround economy.

Let us say that on one particularly small island, there are 25 fishermen. They supply all of the islands fish needs by traditional spearing methods during low tied. The average fisherman works about 30 hours a week which includes cleaning and processing the fish for market sale. The average fishermen spear about 10 fish an hour or 250 fish a week. This results in a market price for fish of about $.25 a fish. The average fisherman makes about 62.50 a week or 2 bucks an hour. A major source of the fish are Skipjack tuna. It is a highly sought after breed of tuna in the US. The US market gets about $5 a fish. So a commercial fishing company approaches the king and says, “I would like to set up a commercial fishing operation in your kingdom.” The king says that if he allows that it will cause many of his native fishermen to become unemployed. The commercial company rep offers this deal. We will employ any Tongan that looses work to our operation. We will give them twice the average salary of a fisherman. As a matter of fact we will need twice the number of fisherman to work the fleet. With the increased supplies, we will ultimately result in a “per fish” price here in Tonga of $.125. that would be a 50% drop. This all sounding fine and good to the king, he allows it.

Well the first thing that happens is that the traditional fishermen resist. But soon the price of fish drops so low that they are finding themselves working 50 hours a week to get the same wage they had made prior to the commercial company showing up. They soon give up and join the fishing company and enjoy a new level of wealth. As the next couple of years tic by, the trickle down effect on the economy from the new wealthier citizens causes a rise on the cost of living. The Tongans that try to remain true to the traditional way and live off the land find it harder and harder to buy things that their farm doesn’t supply. Doctors stop taking 3 chickens and a bushel of corn as payment for an office visit. Meanwhile, the fishermen are being driven to work harder and longer for the same money. They could never quit because their bills are structured in a way that only the high paying commercial job will pay the bills. If they do, the commercial fishing company will just bring in others from other Polynesian surrounding cultures to do the job the Tongans wont do. That is right, they now have "bills". Soon Tongans realize that this "fair and beneficial" agreement is neither.

The kicker of the whole thing is that the CEO of the commercial fishing company can not figure out why everybody has spite towards him. From his point of view he has paved the way for the paying of twice the average wage to the Tongan fishermen and raised their standard of living. On top of that the cost of fish has been cut in half and more Tongan people can afford it more often. Meanwhile, back in the states, all of the unemployed Tuna fishermen that would have been unable to afford $5 a fish prices can now get the Tongan tuna for only $3 a fish. He is wondering why people don’t call him a hero.

The global point here is that two cultures and economies can not mix with positive impact. There are consequences when ethics, living standards, morals, and flat out economics don't mesh.

Economics 3.141592…..Whose to blame for the Big Three Failure?

2008-12-03T18:58:00.003-05:00

If you are wondering, the number is a reference to the illusive solution to mathematical Pi. Because our lives and times and thought streams are not infinite, we eventually have to stop. However the “butterfly effect” of any economic policy change does not stop just because we do. Ever heard two people in an economic debate who have two completely different beliefs but you find they are both making agreeable valid points? First, you need new friends and a better life if you are listening to an economic debate. Secondly the reason is that they might both be right depending on where along the chain of events you would like to stop the reasoning.

Let us look at a few examples. Many Americans from both sides of the isle hold disdain for welfare recipients. What if the government just ended it. Money is no longer flowing into the hands of people who patronize small liquor stores to Wal-Marts around the country. Farmers and textile producers will no longer be receiving the revenue generated by these consumers. That will force these producers and distributors to cut staff. That means even more people who will no longer be able to buy goods. I mean, welfare is gone. Many of these newly unemployed actually made enough to buy cars, houses, and an occasional lap dance. Now you are starting to take a bite out of the consumer base of “hard working middle class Americans.” And the collapse will continue.

Now let us apply this ripple effect to how the Detroit Big Three ended up before congress begging for money. There are a few forces at work here and enough responsibility to go around. Overall, the encompassing problem is that American business decision makers and our legislators have made policy changes to the delicate economic system as if the effects were contained in a vacuum.

I remember in the 70’s and 80’s that Japanese auto reigned king in quality. Toyota, a company that introduced its first product into the world’s strongest economy in 1957. The fact that they were allowed to offer a fuel efficient, low priced auto into the system caused ripples. Until that point the big 3 had not competition. The winner of that local competition just hired more Americans and the accounting remained balanced. Their wage structure and benefit plans were based around wholly built American products. Even if the US had wanted to build the exact same car, it would have cost them at least 15 to 20% more. Some would argue if you look at the full impact of costs and lost opportunities it is closer to 50% more. The US allowing this product, not regulated by the same costs, into the market was irresponsible. Like letting an invasive species into to lake system.

Let us look at the pickle the big three were in at that time. If they manage to muscle the very powerful UAW into accepting a huge cut in wages and benefits in order to lower the cost of their current product and/ or retool to meet the new demand for Japanese type products, they are taking money way from the consumers who buy their product. The loss of capital of course being felt throughout the system as described in the welfare example. Not a problem for the Japanese manufactures to deal with. Wage cuts seemingly a bad idea for the Big Three, the other option is to cut quality. Spend less time on R&D and revamp the marketing strategy instead. "Buy American cause it is good for America." The problem was that many of the design flaws were not caught until after they reached the market. This developed a product image problem. The other option was to employ people outside the economy to lower costs and build new products. This was ultimately the medium that they settled on. There was no winning option for Ford, GM, and Chrysler.

Also in the 60’s instead of sending our crop of bright but maybe not financially endowed young men to college, the government was sending to die in the rice patties of Vietnam. Economically, this lead post high school entities with a smaller consumer pool. That required them to charge more to cover the expenses. High educational cost are certainly contribute to the high cost of health care today. And the ripple effect continues on infinitely and in all directions. I mean we haven’t even considered the global ramifications.

Response to Foreign Wage Blog

2008-12-01T18:06:00.001-05:00

My regular readers know that wages and the way we are compensated is a platform issue for me. The root of all that is evil and wicked. So when I cam across an article titled, “Why Are Wages Low in Developing Countries?” http://mises.org/story/3218 I couldn’t resist. I have never read more delusional, greedy driven ignorant dribble in my life. This was my response. I was trying to be brief. But that was impossible. It is this kind of backasswards thinking that put us in the sinking boat we are in now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, I have no clue what you just said. I even read it 8 times. That is double of how many time I usually read things. I am slow reader with a high comprehension level. But I guess that is what you were talking about. My productivity level is low. If one wants to justify paying me a low wage, they can say, look how slow he is. That is until somebody points out that the results is 90% less dysfunctional products make it to the market. If it was the other way around, then people would seek to say, “yeah, but look how cheep and dysfunctional the product that reaches the market is.” In which case the business you are herofying would justify paying less. This is an old magician’s trick. Ask an audience member for the answer then show them the question it fits. What do you say to the 100,000 mile warrantee with sound quality KIA and Hundi that have flooded the market? They are made with cheap labor at an efficient pace and with many of the same manufacturing statistics.

The author’s assessment that “more sweat shops” are needed in developing countries dizzies me with irrational and inhumane rhetoric. That is the nicest way I could say it. (here on my blog I can say it. He is an asshole. A clueless one at that. Look the fact is that we would round up, prosecute, and perp. march a manufacturer in say Chicago who employed 8 yr old children, worked them 60 hours a week, for $.40 a month, while billowing pollutions into our waterways and national air space. However, we don’t think twice to stampede a poor Wal-Mart security guard to death in order to get our hands on a bicycle made in China under those exact same conditions. This is an unsustainable and narrow sighted thought stream. It is one that will not allow the human race to exist for more then 3 or 4 more generations. Not at least in the capacity as we know it.

The auto industry, being from the “auto belt”, is near and dear to me. What happened was that with out trade restrictions, it was cheaper to build a cheap structure in south America and China that didn’t require the billions of dollars in environmental and human safety regulations that required millions yearly in upkeep. With them went all the supporting manufactures and the jobs they offered. The big 3 would have no problem paying the pensions if they were the only game in town. People would have no problem paying the cost of the Big 3’s prices if they all had good paying jobs themselves. The problem is that the opportunity to go to less regulated markets cost the companies who tried to remain their “national pride” two ways. They couldn’t compete with the labor costs by the wholly foreign companies, and they lost the income that was once in the hands of the local economy.

Put in an analogy. Say you live on the border of Southern California and the thought that you might like a burrito comes into your head. You have two favorites. They are your favorites because they both taste about the same. You know about the one up north because you did a plumbing repair for the owner last year. The border crossing is something you do a couple of times a week and it is no big deal. The only difference is that the restaurant in Mexico will cost you about $.40 for the dinner and a margarita. The one equally north in California will coast you about $10 for the same. So you say, “What the heck, I’ll go to Mexico and even give the guy a $1 tip and make his day.” Then one day you (Jose de fontanero) notice that your northern customer is closing his restaurant. You stop in and ask why? It turns out most people decided to make that trip down south. You just ate yourself out of a job. Take that job and multiply it time a few million, add about 10 layers of bureaucracy, and you get the impact of globalization on the auto industry. The big 3’s failures were not a result of not being able to pay pensions. Sure that is the way it looks now. They are the result of developing a business on the wrong side of the industrial development curve. All of their hard work has ended up benefiting the spoiled hands of the children who feel they deserve it. The truth is that the only thing that kept our tiny towns from being devastated by poverty earlier is that the auto industry as well as the steel industry had to pay decent wages.

The numbers you are making up are not even close. I can tell you stories that have been told by steel industry execs. That talk about the insane productivity and efficiency of Asian labor markets. One of my favorites is about a plant manager who went to see the plants in Japan. A coil came off the mill with a scratch down the side. The guy who caused it stayed after on his own time to polish it out. The next morning he apologized in person to everybody on the line for wasting their time.

What we have are two distinctly separate economies that have been raped and pillaged by people of this caliber of ignorant greed. In reality what counts is not the amount of money brought home from work to help meet basic needs, but how much time is spent away from work while still making those ends meet. If you want to equalize wages, We need to stop viewing them as hard currencies and instead as the result of labor hours. What is fair? What is the average cost of housing, groceries, and wardrobe for a year? How many labor hours does it take in the foreign markets to purchase these same necessities? That is how you judge equality.

Self Inflicted Problems. The Finger Trap Of Production Technology

2008-11-28T20:27:00.001-05:00

When I was younger I was hired to work in a lighting factory. They had a split “shipping” and “receiving” departments. I was hired to help out in the shipping side. Eventually the orders fell a little flat. No worries, I was sent to the “receiving” side. I had been there before and always looked around in horrified amazement at how in disarray things were. There were 3 and a half people working there. (part time, not an actual half of a person.) The only way anybody knew where anything was is if you were the one who took it off the truck yourself. So bored at the lack of orders coming from the floor, I set to work on laying out an organizational floor plan. Little by little over the course of two weeks, myself and another aggressive individual got the thing in ship shape. It really took the need too have so many people in the receiving department away. So one day me and the other guy are sitting on the doc yappin’ away when in came the plant manager and asked what we were doing. He said something that sounded funny at the time. “We are receivers, we are waiting to receive.” The following week I found myself on the production floor while they waited to see if the trend was going to change. A month later, they sent me packing. For years that receiving doc had been a mess. Had I left it that way, I could have continued being a gainfully employed tax payer for another year or two at least.

Last week the CEOs of the auto industry met with congress and complained one of their flaws was that legacy costs were overwhelming. GM said that they pay 2.5 inactive workers for every active worker. I lived in a town almost entirely populated with Ford, GM, and steel mill employees. Of course there were the doctors, lawyers, teachers gas station attendants, truck drivers and parts manufactures that support the central business.

The problem is that capitalism and free enterprise eventually started to cannibalize itself as the industry advanced. I remember my father raging every time they brought a new robot into the plant to do the job of 10 men. That was 10 men who were no longer consuming. (of course that meant they were no longer buying houses, landscaping, cars, gas, paying taxes, or generally contributing to the economy in a positive manor.) Add in competition for the opening of globalization and ease of moving labor to lower cost areas, and you have a bad economic stew brewing. This problem replicated across the economy. From engineering drawings done in half the time by less people on computers and sent across the ether to the automation of gas pumps. We have capitalism and ingenuity efficiency that is developing ways for less of us to do more work in the same time while we are increasing exponentially in population. What you end up with is 2.5 retired for every one active. My father has been retired from ford for 12 years. He just turned 65 last year.

Have you ever bought an updated version of a product and asked, “That was perfect the way it was. Why did they have to change it?” The reason, engineers are paid to engineer. If they come up with the perfect version of a product, next year they still have to do something to keep their job.

I like to offer solutions. This one is about picking a point in the cycle that you want jump in on and address it. As I have posted before, we have to stop allowing products that the US could make here to be made half way around the world. Also, we need to stand up to the public and say we are no longer going to encourage population growth. In fact the government is going to discourage it.

The U.S. Economy And It’s “Quack” Doctors

2008-11-27T13:20:00.002-05:00

So let us say that you went to the doctor’s because you were tired lately. You had experience a fainting spell or two. He runs some test on you and says, “well we have found some blockage. That is stopping the blood from getting to your brain. But rather then clear the blockage, we are going to instead just infuse more blood into your system. We will do it just on the other side of the blockage. What I need you to do is eat more Bacon and trans fat laden food. We are hoping the pressure behind the blockage will get so great, that it will blow the blockage open.”

He would probably not even finish his suggestion before you were on the phone talking to your lawyer to get the malpractice suit in the works. However, this is exactly what our fearless leaders in Washington want us to do in order to solve the blockage problems with out economic system.

I have shown my illustration of the economic system on other post. If you haven’t seen it you can see it here. Circulation diagram. Basically it resembles any fluid controlled enclosed system. Picture a cars transmission system, the hydraulic lift, or your own circulatory system. Each one of these systems uses the fluids to achieve a desired result. The fluid is just a tool. Money is the fluid in the system. You don’t desire just build up a bunch of transmission fluid in your auto but rather the forward motion generated by it flowing through the drive train. You don’t desire money (really if a genie offered you a choice all the money in the world but you were stuck on a deserted island or being completely broke in NYC but everything you wished for you got, which would you choose?), but the things you can buy with it. Until policy makers start looking at money that way, the answers to our current crisis will remain illusive. Currently these "doctors" are just treating the itchy crotch with anesthetic powder.

The problem is that as 80% of our wealth has been pooled into the top 3% or so of our population, the governments answer to it has been to introduce this false wealth in the form of loans, stimulus, and reduced regulation. Since that blockage only seems to let a “trickle” back into the circuit once it reaches the pressurized side of the clot. More and more cash infusions have had to be put back into the system. The “blockage” occurs at the market places and housing developments around the country. It is most prevalent in the “big ticket”, durable goods. The amount of people able to afford these items with out going in debt is shrinking in number.

Let us face it. When somebody wants to buy a house, what do they think of first? How much money they have in the bank or what is their credit rating? Buying stuff in this way is kind of like having blood not getting the needed oxygen to your brain. The answer is not piling on more debt by using credit (infusing blood) and paying more then it is worth (increasing the blockage) and causing the next guy to do the same. That is going to result in an aneurism, heart attack, and probably irritable bowls. Or as the economist like to call it “bubble bursts”, “unemployment”, and “recession”.

None of the solutions to this problem will look very “American” on the surface. It will mean taking from the rich, giving to the poor, and setting up rules and regulations that reflect the economy as it does today and not as it did in 1776. At least that is how the conservatives will spin it. The truth is that the rich got that way by stepping on the backs of the poor and uneducated without actually paying them for the ride. It was easy since they were hungry, desperate, and not enlightened on the impact of their decisions. (imagine your 90 yr old grandmother talking to an Internet pyramid scammer.) Justice is also an American virtue. It is time for a check-up. We are not 16 anymore and we can not consume as if we were. We are in the midst of a full blown heart attack. If these quack medics can get us stabilized, a life alteration is in order. That is a big if.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One last thought that came out while writing this that didn’t seem to fit exactly. So many Americans are so afraid of activities that get marketed as “un-American” that they will do some pretty derogatively foreign things just to keep up their self appearance. They are so afraid of being stabbed that they will throw themselves on the sword to avoid it. I might use this later, but it is here for now.

Credit In The Simplest Terms Possible. I Think

2008-11-22T16:44:00.002-05:00

Hello all. A couple of times this week I have been asked to explain why a bank is different then an automaker when it comes to government regulation and intervention. I have said time and again that I believe that credit is equivalent to legalized counterfeit money. But even that seems to not be clear enough. “So what is wrong with counterfeit money.”

Let me ask a few questions. You can think to yourself or shout the answers out loud. Do you have a credit card debt? Do you know anybody who doesn’t have a credit card debt? You know, you are out at the bar or to eat with them do they always pay in cash? Do you know anybody over 20 that has none of the following. Home loan, car loan, school loan, or credit debt? Do you know people who work hard, make a decent wage, do the right things financially, but are still struggling? Do you have a years worth of savings accumulated in case joblessness or illness occurs? So how can it be that so many of us are working our butts off, making an alright living, not living lavish lives, and still could not make it a year with out income. Now, under that guise let us talk about the affect of credit on the US economy.

Let us say that there are two consumers. Consumer A (conA) and consumer B (conB). A little background. Both work blue collar jobs making about the same amount of money. Both are looking to marry their current sweethearts (a mistake that we will deal with on a different day) buy a nice moderate home near where they work, have a couple of children and live out the American Dream. For ease we are going to suspend some disbelief for a time and removed elements of time, market size, and realistic values. These two have happened upon an article that says, “Home for sale. Am selling Sunday to best offer, by 5 PM, no matter what.”

Come Sunday our two consumers show up at 3 PM. They bring the full amount that they have amassed to make a home purchase to date. ConA has $4500 in hand. ConB has $5000. They both really like the house, and it is everything they are looking for. Neither of them have debt, credit, or other obligations currently. They have other money, but this is what they have saved up to buy their dream home with. Since basic economics (and auction sales) tells us that a product is worth the highest amount consumers are “willing and able” to pay for it. In this case, ConB has set the market price with his ability to offer 5 grand. However, the bankers circling like vultures across the street see what is going on. So they swoop in and make an offer to ConA. The banker says, “If you give me $1200 in two months I will give you $1000 right now.” Now ConA doesn’t have the extra $1000 let alone $1200. It will take him the whole 2 months just to save up the extra cash. ConA really wanted the house though. Not to mention his wife to be is there making eyes at him and nagging him to “just do it.” So he does. The house has just artificially been increased to $5500, well ConA would actually have to get $5700 out of it in order to get his “investment” back.

ConB likes the house equally. But, he is able to resist the pressure from his fiancé. He decides to do the right thing and not go into debt. But guess what. Everybody in the neighborhood found out that the house went for $5500. They all feel their houses are worth more than the dive that ConA bought. So they all immediately ask for at least $5500 out of their house. Also, As a matter of fact, it seems that these financial loan sharks have been busy and stationed all about the place offering people the ability to outbid other potential buyers for the things they want now. What ConA learns is that the only way he will ever get a decent house is to take the loan, buy into the madness. Well he could wait another 15 years saving up. By then his sweetheart will have whooed ConA into dumping that bitch that talked him into going in debt and letting her move into the house of her dreams. The problem is that over the 15 years asking a quarter million dollars for homes that cost $5000 only 20 years ago.

With the advent of a credit card, this phenomenon has occurred in every product consumed in the US. Whether it be cars, homes, education, clothing, food, or sex wax (the stuff they put on surf boards), the price they can get for it is artificially propped up by the availability of credit. The fact that everybody else can afford to by everything with money they haven’t earned yet, allows the price of everything to rise to unreasonable prices.

Look, there is no reason a reasonable house should take you 30 years to pay off. There is no reason you should leave college with a 30 year that you have to pay off. A car should not be something you are paying on long after you are getting repair bills for it. Your wife should not be at the store spending money you are at work making at the very moment you are making it. (That reminds me. I got to call my wife.)

The government has a responsibility to controlling the amount of buying power in the system. They go through great strain to control the amount of money and wealth in circulation but neglect the giant leaking hole in their theory in credit. Morons one and all they are.

If You Are bailing Out Your Automobile…

2008-11-15T13:55:00.002-05:00

….Then you have taken a wrong turn somewhere. That said, I still believe bailing out the auto industry is way smarter then bailing out any financial industry. Now, that is not to be confused with the fact that I don’t really think that anybody should be bailed out, especially when they make short sighted selfish decisions. However, it seems that our government is dead se upon taking this path, so prioritization has to occur or the impact will be next to nil. If your building is crumbling, it does no good to patch the walls on the 6th floor while ignoring the foundation.

Here is what we know about financial institutions. Generally they were created to allow more free exchange of money between businesses. You didn’t have to walk into the tanners shop with a pouch full of gold to buy materials to make your boots. People knowing that wouldn’t be so inclined to wait outside the tanners residence and roll the business men as they approached. So banks supplied and cashed checks and protected the gold. Then they got the idea that they might hold your money (the everyday consumer) when your loving homestead was a little too unsecured to guarantee its safety. Basically at that point, they sold checks. Sure this is a very generalist view of the beginning of banks. So the bankers were sitting around their meeting table asking, “How can we make more money?” One guys brings up this idea getting people to pay more for products then the market price. He had to explain that it could be accomplished by giving people money immediately in exchange for them giving the bank more money back, but over the course of time. With that came the birth of credit. “Financial institutions” (or “money changers” as the Bible calls them) are organizations that make their livelihood by getting people to pay more for products then they are worth. Business, people, heck even show animals can buy stuff with money they haven’t earned yet, and might not earn.

Real quick quiz. Can you name the one thing in the paragraph above that has to exist in order for this to a fruitful economy to exist? Hint #1, it wasn’t credit. Credit wasn’t around for thousands of years while economies emerged. Hint#2, it wasn’t money. Money too came late. One could still live today on the barter system. Oh, I see you jump up with your hand ion the air shouting, “PRODUCTS!! We have to have products.” Right, a bootmaker could trade a family’s worth of boots to a farmer for a years supply worth of vegetables. He can then trade some of those vegetables to the tanner for more leather. See, no money, no credit. A functional economy without “financial institutions”. Try having a functional US economy without cars. Here we are talking about “energy independence” while we slip into transportation dependence?

The Auto industry supplies “products”. Something solid that the community as a whole needs. The credit industry only makes everything cost more. If a bank won’t give a loan for a new car? Good! Eventually that car will cost its real market value and people will pay for them with the money they already have. If there are no cars for transportation in this country, it can be a much more dire situation.

So bail out the auto industry but put stipulations on it. No more screwing the American people by selling them cars that intentionally do not last that long. Quit scamming with the oil companies to produce only inefficient engines. Last, we expect to see a reduction in large unnecessary vehicles. I don’t care what the demand is. People are dumb, stop catering to it.

That is why it makes more sense to bail out the auto industry then it does the credit industry.

As Much About “Good-Byes” As “Welcomes”

2008-11-15T07:45:00.000-05:00

There is still this euphoria in the air almost two weeks after Barack Hussein Obama (lol, now I just love saying his whole name. It really twists the dagger in the belly of the paranoids) was elected. There are many reasons for this group hysteria. But two can sum up most of the rhetoric.

A couple of varieties belong to the first group. First there are the “minority”, especially African-Americans, who woke up on November 5th with the reality that a glass ceiling had been drilled through for them. When listing successful role models for their children, they could now include Obama and the office of the leader of the free world as a possibility when they grow up. It was the kicking of the dirt in the face of, and the result of, slavery and Jim Crow era mentalities. These attitudes still exist, but they are being buried generation by generation. People around the country and around the world have to see and respect the US in a new light. At least that is the hope. I am not so far from the era when I asked, “what could be worse the Bill Clinton” that is am willing to accept the coming of a new messiah. I am however, aware of the magnitude of the results that have already occurred before he even sets foot in the oval office.

Another group are the liberals that really understood what Obama was about and his political agenda. They have pinned their hopes for the future on a man that they believe will shape the country to their own ideals. The two demographics make up the “welcoming committee” for the president elect.

Then there is the other gathering of people. Standing along the perp walk out the back door is probably most of the world. These are the people waiting to cheer the departure of the Bush administration. These are the people who came to the “Anybody But Bush” party. Unfortunately, there wasn’t enough Americans at the party in 2004. Many of them voted for this asshole in 2000. Many of them that wanted to know what was so “conservative” about two chosen wars, a giant trade deficit, and an economy that is in the shitter. This group come from a wide variety of personal constitutions. The only constant is that the Bush administration walked all over their beliefs, and they can’t wait for him to clear out.

So long Mr. Bush. History will remember you are the worse president in US history. You are truly an idiot among retards.

The Piling on of Palin

2008-11-15T07:11:00.001-05:00

No this post is not a review of the new Larry Flynt movie. I was going to let the election go and get back to thought exercises in politics, economics, psychology, war, and peace. However, many issues have been generated and brought to light, since the election that seems to go unanswered. One I keep hearing on my new favorite comedy channel, FOX, is why doesn’t the media “just leave Sarah alone!!”

Most common are statements like, “the election is over. Let it go.” Well there are two reasons that this “pile on” has occurred. One is to ensure that such dangerous and destructive behavior never happens again. This ignorant, self serving, mental midget should never get that close to the White House. Kind of like when you’re a kid and your parents catch you smoking and ground you for a month after beating your ass and screaming at you for an hour and an eternity. The kid is thinking, “Great, I got it. Don’t smoke.” By the sounds of the sediment on these conservative venues, they still don’t get it. So we are going to keep reminding them.

Look, because the conservative side of the spectrum that is NOT beating Ms. Congeniality down and telling her to be happy with the post in Alaska that the punishment continues. Not only are they not checking her, the Republican extremists are trumpeting her and many calling her “the face of the future Republican Party.” That is OK. She can be the “face”, but don’t let her be the “brains”. It would be a pleasure to watch her in 2012 try though. Oh my. The aggressive and angry republican debates would be a source for great entertainment. It would be good for her young children, her daughter’s young children, as well as her daughter’s 3rd baby daddy who is living with them to see Ms. “I can see Alaska from my house” tore into mental shreds by the Republican grinding wheel. Not to mention, Tina Fey is hot and I would love to see her return to SNL. They are going to need to run another sacrificial lamb in four years.

The second reason the media will layoff is because Sarah doesn’t know when to shut up. (As I am writing this, is a montage of Sarah on last nights media playing in the background.) She is talking about things like “open doors”, “God’s hands”, and “don’t know what the future holds”. HERE IS A CLUE HONEY. As a leader, it is your job to plan for the future! Plans most often don’t work as written out on paper. If we were just going to react to whatever comes our way, we wouldn’t need a leader. But a plan, well they are guidelines and help keep the team in focus.

Sarah is also complaining about not getting to give a “shout out” at the defeat speech. It is because you wanted to make a “shout out” that they didn’t let you speak. In my history, I have been in the room with people who wield a great amount of power and deserve a great amount of respect. I have been in rooms with people who hold my future comfort level in their hands. I have been in these positions with people who were less then socially aware of that fact. Nothing like trying to present a business proposal with an associate who thinks farting in the middle of the meeting is humorous.

The Wealthy Pay Most Of The Taxes

2008-11-07T04:11:00.003-05:00

So looking at the understanding that we work to gain the resources to buy goods and services as Highlighted in the post, below titled “Employment And The Work To Time Ratio”. Through a series of thought exercises I think I adequately established that desire to work for those things are tempered by the time we are asked to spend earning it. That leads me to one of my economic pet peeves.

Back to economics. Do you know what I am about sick to death of hearing. “The top 10% pay 80% of the taxes.” Or something along that lines. Alright, this is about logic here, right? Yep I looked up and sure enough right at the top of the page I make reference to the posts being about taking “logical approaches”. So let us apply it to this Irrational claim. In one of those stupid long posts about “wage reform” I covered this basic idea. I hope to make it clearer here.

If every capitalistic read blooded American is really working for time, then isn’t time the factor by which we make that tax assessment on. Why pick the dollar value. Like I pointed out before. There are two factors that form a ratio there. They are equally weighted. Money over time or dollars/ hour. Why do we have to pay the government in dollars. Why isn’t the 1040 filled in with hours. Probably because most of us would understand how little we deserve that guilt place on us by the “10% pay all the taxes” statement. It would aslo make us sad to see how many hours we have to put in before we start making money.

What if I told you that, Richard S Fuld Jr (CEO of Lehman Brothers who is currently receiving bailout money from the government.) paid $24,600,000 in taxes for the year of 2006. He made $123 million that year. What if I told you that Joe Smith (He is a janitor the cleans the toilets at Lehman’s main office.) paid $5,200. He made $20,800 that year. Who would you say paid more in taxes? For those of you who think Joe, you are dismissed for the day. I will see you at the bar in a few min. Those of you who say, “well obviously Richard paid more”, dope slap yourself and pay attention. Like I said before, we work for time as well as money. CEO “Rich” worked only 416 hours to pay off his tax obligation. He needs the extra time to spend all of that cash. His accountant somehow got him down into the 20% bracket. Joe “the janitor” used Turbo Tax to pay 25%. He has to work 520 hours to pay off his tax obligation. Good thing he was at work that extra time, or he might have been tempted to spend money he didn't have. Don’t think that happens? Warren Buffet recently condemned the system that allowed him to pay less taxes then his secretary.

So the next time somebody spouts on about the fact that the rich pay more in taxes, look at them, shake your head and say, “You voted for Palin didn’t you?” This is code for you are a giant idiot. You can try to explain this to them, but they won’t get it.

Employment And The Work To Time Ratio

2008-11-07T03:05:00.004-05:00

Alright, I think I got most of my disgust with the American voters out of my system. Back to the work of whipping our foreign and domestic world back into shape. I am planning on getting back to writing the book now that the distraction of current events via the election is over. So to the three people who read this, you might find longer periods between posts here. You may also notice some rehashed ideas as I try to make them more read worthy.

Do you go to work to make money? No, you don’t go to work to make money! What good is money? It is a piece of paper with a dead guy’s picture on it. You can’t eat it. Most of us don’t make enough to make clothing out of it. And none of us make enough to form it into a suitable housing environment. Not to mention that it is illegal to use money in this fashion. So money will not even serve to help with the three basic needs. A giveaway might be that now a days we don’t even see the money we earn. It just goes to a bank, and then on to a vendor. As a final test, would you go to work if you weren’t paid? I hear a resounding “NO!” How about if the offer was that you didn’t get paid, but you were given a card that you could use to buy whatever you wanted, no restrictions? I think I just changed the “No” into a “hell yeah!”

So we are getting somewhere. You are going to work so you can obtain goods or services that you might enjoy. So when might you enjoy most of these goods and services? I think I can safely assume that you are not wanting to drive your brand new Mustang around the parking lot at work while answering business phone calls or flipping whoppers. Not to mention, getting a “happy ending” while trying to slaughter a chicken might be distracting and frowned upon by the FDA. However, secretaries, fast food preparations, and slaughterhouse employees are all members of the “workforce”. So are CEO’s. As we have already established people don’t go to work to earn money, they go to work to earn things. But, things can be considered useless with out the other factor in our equation. CEO's, Whopper Floppers, and strippers all make different amounts. While the amount of money is different, one constant in the US is the amount of hours. The magic number is 40 for most US employees.

Next proposition. We have given you a card that you can go buy anything you want with, but here is the catch. Your job is basically a prison. You must work 365/24/7. Sure you can order stuff online and have it sent to your house. But, you are contracted until age 65, and if you break it, we take all of your stuff back, and then some in penalty. Until that day of retirement, you must keep giving those lap dances non-stop. Still interested? I am going to say most of you will say two things. First, who wants a lap dance from a 60 yr old stripper, and second “no deal!” How about we let you work 160 hours a week and let you go enjoy yourself 8 full hours a week. I am going to assume that I am not getting many people responding to my employment ad. How many hours are you willing to work per week for that magic card? Let me tell you something, whatever number you give me now will steadily decline as you acquire more things. I think I have sufficiently proven that we go to work for the resultant of two issues. We are employed to buy things and time to enjoy them. It is a ratio that varies from person to person. In the US it is a ratio of 40 hours per week at a rate of about $18.50 is the average.

This is an important concept to grasp when trying to achieve many of the goals of our politics. fairness, justice, and quality of life for Americans can only be obtained as long as this concept is understood. Remember, of those two elements, only one is finite. Time is something the government can not create more of.

This was supposed to be a post about fair taxation, but I have held your attention span way too long. So I will break it into another post.

48%, Sarah Palin, and the Most Dangerous People In America

2008-11-07T01:51:00.000-05:00

I said to a co-worker that it didn’t amaze me that Obama won, it was more amazing that 48% of the country voted for him. I am going to pretty safely assume that nobody who voted for the McCain/ (ehhm) Palin ticket is reading a “blog” called Logic And Politics. The very name inherently a turn off to people of that mental capacity. So, let’s talk about them.

First, a little more about John McCain. I don’t know who the guy is that ran, I voted for a John McCain in the 200o primaries. The guy who voted against the “Bush Tax Cuts” that has lead to the skyrocketing unemployment and trade deficit turned into it’s biggest cheerleader. His foreign policies made real sense back then. Today they are the chest thumping of war apes that has lead us into the disrespect of the world. He s an idiot.

Now 48% of you still found it acceptable top vote for him after his major swing in ideologies, and after his pick of the dumbest woman on Earth, you are morons. Your threat and right to vote is actually the biggest security flaw in America. (As I explained in earlier posts about this woman, I am unusually bitter about this issue because I felt it jeopardizes my family, friends, and own life.) You people should find a brick wall, hang a nut from a string, and then run your heads into the nut and try to crack it. Don’t worry about your brain, because you weren’t using them anyway. At least you can use your head as a nut cracker.

I don’t care if you are pro-gun, Pro-Life, Anti-gay marriage. If this woman was running the country you wouldn’t have to worry about any of that. We would be over run with financial and hostile breaches. Saying that she could, “hold the most complex job in the world and choose people who can make the right and rational decisions” is a huge suspension of disbelief.

My only hope is now that just how fucking stupid she was, is coming out of the McCain inner camp members is a lesson to the extreme right and its supporters. But somehow I doubt it. Because they were that blissful to begin with.

To you Ms. Palin, I do not know if you were so ignorant that you didn’t realize how dangerous you were, or if you realized that your stupidity was a bigger threat to US national security then al Qaeda and greed drove you to pursue this dangerous path anyway. But in either case it makes me think maybe Obama should invade the country of Alaska and take its oil resources for its own.

Go Home And Good Riddens John McCain

2008-11-04T16:55:00.000-05:00

You had billed yourself as an “American Hero”, but in the end your divisive and irrational campaign placed America in wore danger then al Qaeda could have ever imagined. I do not know what happened to that guy I voted for back in the 2000 primary campaign. I suppose he went off to the same place as the liberal democratic vice president that almost won the job in 2000, Joe Lieberman. But the dirty conniving underhanded fool that has had the American political spotlight for the past 8 months is not the same John McCain.

I wish only the worst for you and your shallow family. I hope your cheap beer pedaling wife relapses into her addiction and dies groveling on a street corner poor and destitute. I hope you leave this world slightly senile, in pain and destitute from the health care system that you so boldly feel can regulate itself. You are a wasted and reached old man. Your “anything to win” policy of the last few months are despicable and reflective of all the negative things that your generation has imposed upon us younger generation that has lead to our economic and foreign respect demise.

Your pick of Sarah Palin to be your replacement should your 72 year old cancer ridden, war abused health give out is the most dangerous, greed driven, and irrational decision made by any politician any time in the U.S. short history. Osama Bin Laden makes more considerate decisions to the US population then you displayed with her selection. She is somebody you never met, didn’t know, wasn’t properly vetted, and was completely unqualified to take your notes, let alone be VP. She was an ex beauty queen at the professional level. I guess that is in line with your shallow decision making in the past. From leaving your disabled wife and children for a 20 year younger wealthy bar fly, to the causes and adopting of children who had appearance afflictions your shallowness shines through. Ms Palin was based on your belief that the rest of America was as depthless and thin as you. Come on she went to 5 schools just to become a weather forecaster. She believes the world is only 6000 years old. And she has been pregnant as long as she has been in public office. It would only take a 10 min. conversation to figure out she is dumber then a box of painted rocks. This is what you would leave the children of America to be championed by if your number should get called? Reckless.

“A hero who will fight for America?” First you have to define the qualities that make up America and being American. To most of us, fairness, honesty, sacrifice, courage, bravery, and truth are the qualities our founders meant to define us. You have practiced none of them in this past election. You might have fought for America, been imprisoned for America, and even served America your whole life, but you were given the chance to exemplify what it means to be one. Through all of this, you are no American John McCain. You are a disgrace. You are spit on the flag, and effigy of an America. Go now home in disgrace knowing you had a chance to be an American and failed. Go Home.

Barack Wins!! Congrats, No Time For Disneyland

2008-11-04T15:30:00.000-05:00

This is truly a great day for America . If for no other reason, then it shows that the marketing of name recognition and fear has been overcome. A guy with the same name of the US “enemy #1” in 2003 was elected. Great America, enough of you have risen above your prejudices and shallow thought stream. There is no doubt you elected the better of the two contenders.

Barack, to you I have to say that you have inherited this office at a time that will allow no rest. You do have great support form the legislative branch to get things done. Your mission is three fold. First, you are the Commander in Chief. Get out troops out of the Middle East. I know you have been thumping your chest on Afghanistan. But now it is time to get real. You are never going to get an area made up of religious tribal clans that put more merit in the local cleric then they do state government to cooperate as a unified people. You have a better chance of getting every member of congress to agree on a healthcare bill. Send in intelligence agents and leave a small strike force behind to take out training camps as they rise up. Too many families are without crucial members and too much money has been spent chasing a ghost. When the people you are fighting and the people you are protecting are the same people, you have a futile mission.

The second issue at hand is the economy. It is time to start weaning the country off the addiction. No not the “addiction to foreign oil” that you have been stumping about. The addiction to credit. Shack that addiction and the rest of them will find their own solutions. It is going to require heavy decision that will lead to people suffering for awhile. But like an addict going through a dangerous withdraw; healthy and full lives await those who make it to the other side.

The last part of this commission will be to set a good example for faithful and doubters alike. You have an even more critical role then previous democrats have played. You have to be an exemplary display for your perceived race, party, and age bracket. People will be watching your every step. This doesn’t mean to make decisions based upon what people are expecting or wanting you to do. It means, don’t act in a hypocritical manor. Don’t say you are an honest committed family man and then get caught in a compromising position. On this day, black and other minority children who could aspire to be many things in America, have a new aspiration. They see a face that they recognize as the leader of their great nation. Don't let them down. Try not to give the ignorant critics any reason to say, "See I told you so."

With that I wish you a fine career. I will be watching and criticizing every decision you make. It is my nature. But, don't assume it’s a sign of disrespect. As of this day you have my utmost respect. It is up to you to keep or loose it. Now, get to work. You are already slacking.

The “Turning Out” Of America

2008-10-31T08:51:00.001-05:00

So when you go to buy a new car, what is the first thing the salesman asks you? It is not, “what price are you looking to buy at?” It is, “What do you want your monthly payment to be?” We will let you sign and drive today. It resembles a crack dealer giving away the first rocks. We have stopped structuring our finances around what we earn weekly, and instead started structuring it around what minimum payments we can make monthly. Making monthly payments on “happiness” is fine. That is as long as you have a job that will let you make them. The problem is what happens if you no longer have a job? I don’t care how you renegotiate that house loan. If you have no job, you aren’t going to be able to pay anything.

McCain: Those Jobs Aren’t Coming Back. “I’ve got to give you some straight
talk—I can’t turn that around,” McCain said. “I can’t look you in the eye and
tell you I believe those jobs are coming back.” (Grand Rapids Press, 4/23/08)

Well with that attitude we won’t. What he is essentially saying is that we are destined to be a third world country cleaning the toilet bowls of the emerging economies. This is the kind of talk a pimp might use to groom his latest project. “look, I love you so I am going to tell you the truth. Your future is hopeless, but IF you do a few things for me, listen to me, I can make it at least profitable. I love you.”

On one side we are given credit. We get hooked on it like a drug. We believe we need it to survive. To get the same fix we keep “needing more”. On the other side we have our own government beating us down with their “trickle down economics” that keeps us just rich enough to satisfy our fix. In the mean time we don’t notice that our good paying jobs are going over seas. The next thing we know, we are doing whatever it takes to get that American dream. Financing education, housing, transportation, food, clothing, and even insurance for the whole thing. (Insurance with is really building credit for a mishap that might happen.) This is burning the candle at both ends and in the middle. Less job s for lower income with money that we already have spent.

The credit concept works great until the time comes that we have domestic policy leaders that lead us from our upper middle class paying unskilled jobs at the Ford Plant to the unemployment line and/ or to the stocking shelves of Wal-Mart. When policies are made to allow good paying jobs to leave the US economy and enrich a poorer economy, we are then doomed to the crisis we are in now. With monthly obligations to pay for the stuff we already “bought” we “owe” our keepers. John McCain has said time and time again, he doesn’t believe that “good industrial jobs are coming back.”

Not all of us are smart enough to be doctors, lawyers, or beauty pageant queens from Alaska. Not all of us are built for high paying secure educational jobs. Some of us are fantastic at using our backs, blood, sweat, and even tears to make our salt. That doesn’t mean we deserver to work 180 hours to get the same compensation the CEO that has sold us down the river makes in 40 hours. We have factory jobs to produce electronics, plastic dishes, toys, and automobiles being done over seas. The jobs that are done here we are learning to use robots and computers to do the work of 10 men. We no longer can afford to have one parent stay home and educate the children functionally enough to succeed in higher education. At the same time everything cost so much that a weeks pay isn’t cutting it for basic and extended basic needs. IF that wasn’t bad enough, competition for the jobs and the goods has accelerated. We now have twice as many people on earth as we did when JFK was president. Now if the jobs are going away and/ or being done more efficiently ad there are more of us looking for them, how id giving up on the ones that we do have and need going to get us out of the mess? There surely must be something that we can do that is always in demand wherever there are people.

The people who tell you that “the production jobs are gone”, are trying to get you to accept a life of prostitution. Don’t believe them. Listen to anybody who says they are willing to try to keep those jobs at home.

The Economy Needs Cures And Not More Remedies

2008-10-19T16:12:00.001-05:00

The current crisis will never be solved by anything more then remedies until somebody calls a duck a duck. Credit is unhealthy, even cancerous to a free market economy. In the US we have laws against making counterfeit money. Why? Because adding money without adding actual wealth to the system weakens the integrity, allows stagnation to occur, and causes inflation as “bidders” in the auction known as the “free markets” are able to bolster the price of goods and services using money they don’t securely have. If everybody had to pay cash at time of delivery for every house bought, the average price of a house would be about $20,000 in the current environment. In reality, the cost of living would be somewhere around 1950’s levels.

This self defeating activities are not limited to credit. We have immigration laws. Why? Because illegal immigrants do the same to our labor pool as counterfeit money and credit do to our wealth. Drugs are legal that are worse for our health then the ones that are illegal are encouraged and fined at the same time. On and on the paradoxes continue.

To cure our economy, instead of just remedy, and the current crises two things must happen. First, the legislators must realize controlling who gets credit and how freely it is distributed is as much a part of their job as it is to control the Fed’s printing presses. In reality, that is what credit distributing companies are doing, allowing counterfeit money to enter the system. There is a reason every dollar bill has, “property of the US government” written in it. Because money is a function of the system. It is not a right of the citizens as many conservative minded people seem to think.

The second is that the legislators need to stop indirectly trying to influence wages in the system and take a more direct, but free market, approach to minimum wage. The current static number needs to be replaced with a dynamic “minimum percentage”. This free market symbiotic method of setting a wage floor would be more effective. If the economy needs to increase circulation, the legislators could simply increase the minimum percentage. That would hold the top in check, while delivering market stimulation to the bottom and most immediate participants in the economy.

Credit should be a tool, like printing more money, in order to influence and tweak the system. Want to stimulate the economy? Release a few billion in credit to the financial institutions. They can "bid" on the credit by offering the terms in which they will be extending the credit. The best terms for the public will be allotted their desired amount of credit. If the prices are getting out of hand, a recall could be issued to the financial companies to reduce their credit lines. This would inherently force financial companies to consider the risk they are getting involved with.

The US economy doesn’t need more remedies. It needs cures. Those cures are going to require that the American people give up on these ideals of entitlements that were never part of the original promises.

A Spineless Traitor And His Endorsement

2008-10-19T14:51:00.000-05:00

So Powell endorsed Obama with three weeks to go until the general election. Whooptee-doo. Mr. Powell. I know some in the media with short memories and in search of liberal based drama are happy to hear about the once respected Republican general who was George Bush’s main advisor in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. They are happy to hear him turn traitor to his own part. They easily forgive that he tuned his tricks on against the American people in 2002.

Colin Powell could very well have been the first African American president. He had the respect and ear of the full spectrum of the political arena. His silence and reluctance spoke volumes about what he believe during the run up to the war. He was the one person that could have swayed enough of the right people to change their minds about the necessity to go into Iraq. He was known for being cautious and reserved about using force. Many of the cheerleader around Bush were know as “War Hawks”. If Powell had spoken out or even threatened to and followed through with a resignation, this unjust war of choice at the expense of the poor and ignorant might not have been approved. The US diplomatic and economic security might not have suffered the reprehensible damage that we are currently experiencing. North Korea and Iran wouldn’t be laughing in our face about our threats. Al Qaeda would not exist any longer.

But no, in spite of the intelligence being delivered to Colin by his own office’s intelligence service, Colin fell in line and supported information that he never appeared comfortable endorsing. He admits that he pressured the Administration to reconsider it’s decision to engage in the Iraq war. That means one of two things when you read between the lines. He either A) didn’t believe the intelligence being presented by the CIA, or B) he didn’t believe Iraq having a nuclear weapon was a threat to the security of the US or its allies. Yet there he was in front of the UN with a pointer showing some RVs that they had “confirmed held elements of a nuclear weapons program. It turned out not only to be false, but many knew it was false even as Colin was delivering his speech.

So “thank”, but “no thanks” for the endorsement Mr. Powell. Your timing coming after the primary, three weeks before the general election, and after it is obvious that Obama has the presidency wrapped up is only a further demonstration of your spinelessness. You had a real chance to change the destiny of this country. To move us into a new realm and demonstrate that we had learned the lessons of wars and years past. But you didn’t. So take your endorsement and shove it . You are ultimately a disgrace to you country, you service, the soldiers, and even your race. Go fade into obscurity and let history for get you ever existed.

Housing And The Mutually Accepted Lie

2008-10-18T19:00:00.000-05:00

Before I get into this post too far, I would like to apologize to all my friends that I convinced buying a house was a good idea. So here is goes. John, I am sorry. I am an idiot. There that feels better. At least I don’t have many friends and the few I do have are more sensible then to listen to me. Poor John. Wait till I tell him the truth about getting married. Then there is having a kid.

Now for the rest of you. If you have bought a house, then I am sorry I didn’t get to you sooner. If you have not, you can send me any portion of your windfall I have saved you that you want to help with my monthly sentence.

We have all heard the statement, “buying a home is an investment. It is investing in your future.” People are still saying it today even in the face of the current crisis. Do me a favor. The next time somebody says that in your presence, dope slap them and send them this post.

Here is a story that is actually a combination of stories that could easily been one couple. It will illustrate with real numbers the hazards of believing that lie.

In the late 90’s a young couple had been living in a beautiful apartment overlooking the lake. It had an in-ground swimming pool, workout room, sauna, and free utilities. The whole package cost $550 for the first couple of years, drifted up to $650, and now had they been there 10 years later it would have cost $850 a month. If you averaged the 10 year period it comes out to be around $700 a month.

But did our young couple stay in their cozy apartment? Nooo. They bought into the lie. They went out and bought a cheap house for their area. Out the door after tax and titling they financed $100,000. Luckily for them the “American Dream Act” allowed them to put no money down and get a 6.1% rate. That ends up being a $606 a month mortgage payment. But wait!! There’s more!! This payment estimate doesn’t include property taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs. Remember how I told you that their rent included utilities? These first two, are often rolled into the monthly payment and make it vary from $850 to $950 depending on various confusing banker math calculations. For sake of argument we will say the average was $900 a month total payment. Just in that alone there is a $2,400 savings if they had stayed in their apartment. That alone is a $24,000 over the course of 10 years.

Then there were those “maintenance costs”. Plumbing problems, lawns mowing, leaf blowing, flowerbed planting, snow plowing, and appliance repairing are all part of this category. Over the course of that ten years, the couple spends $30,000 on these things that would have been included in their rent. (Did I mention that apartment overlooked the lake and had a nice place to shore up a 25’ O’Day sailboat with a cabin and nice sails.) This maintenance did include siding. A roofing job is on the horizon for the next 10 years. So 10 years into this they are down $54,000.

But wait there is more. When they moved from that apartment, did they just move in and accept the house the way it was with the furniture they already had? Noooo. They needed to fill the new place up. It needed a refrigerator, washer and dryer, and a couch to fill up the new bigger living room. All the sudden that 19” TV ain’t cuttin’ the mustard either. Since the happy couple spent all of their money just getting into the house, they will have to put all these new “investments” on their 16% APR credit cards. Of course before any of that can be moved in, the carpet had to be replaced, the walls had to be painted, and ceiling need retextured. So go ahead and add another $10,000 to the first 10 year period. The now not so young couple are down $64,000 over where they would have been if they had stayed in the apartment.

So I bet you are saying, but look how much they have paid off towards their future. At the 120 payment mark. You’ll be shocked to know the happy couple still owes $86,134. As a matter of fact, they will not even cross the half way point until the middle of 21st year. Of course that assumes they didn’t take out a second mortgage or refinance. If they put that $64,000 (not including any interest they might have earned) as a down payment only 10 years later, their monthly payments would be $218 plus tax and insurance. Of course I recommend doubling up on payments, raising that total to $306 per month. All tolled a $100,000 loan at a rate of 6.1% for 30 years costs $218,000. oops. Market value of a 60 year old house when it is paid off? $200,000. Provided the area didn’t get worse or the housing market didn’t collapse.

No “investment” should cost you more then double the market price you agreed to pay for it. You shouldn’t have to work your whole life to pay for it. And it should be yours to keep or get rid of at will.

But wait there is more!! There were other things that are not so tangible. Let’s say that shortly after getting this new home one of them lost their job. With the reduction of income, they starts running up credit debt. They fall behind on a payments. The price of the house just rose up. Or, the government taps one of our fine examples to go be employed in a tropical environment. The bad news, the pay is pretty low. The good news, the locality will be at a residence with jumping dolphins in a clear blue ocean creek just beyond the in ground pool. Room and board is covered. The work is fulfilling and outside of work is even more fulfilling. But our couple can’t accept the job because they have that “investment” hanging around their neck. They could not have paid for it with the new arrangements. Yet another scenario might be that the unemployed member gets offered a job 30 miles further away. With gas prices on the rise, it was hardly worth the trip. But, the choices are limited since moving before the house is sold is out of the question. In this market? Good luck.

Through all this stress, as more then 50% of young couples do, they divorce. They sell the place at a loss, and his credit is screwed up for 10 years. They got along great when there weren’t money problems to argue about. Makes one wonder if they would have made it if they had stayed in the apartment.

So how do you feel about “investing” in a home now? Amass a large of a down payment as you can and then never take more then 15 years to pay off the house. Again, I am sorry John. Whatever you do, don’t get your new wife pregnant.

Joe Plumber: What he Doesn’t Understand

2008-10-16T07:37:00.002-05:00

Meet Joe. He is a plumber whose business is earning $250,000 “taxable income”. (remember that. We will come back to it.) Now without actually seeing the change to the code proposed it would be hard to tell how much that is going to affect “Joe”. But when Joes says, “Why aren’t people calling my plumbing service anymore?’ Because they are broke Joe. Their houses sit vacant, and they have plenty of time, since they are unemployed, to snake their own drain.

As I had mentioned in earlier post, no business considers tax cuts as reasoning to hire new employees. The Feds might give you a 2% cut, but the local and state government might raise it 3%. No Joe hires because he has so much work that he and his current employees can’t cover it with overtime. But is people don’t have jobs or money they can use to hire a plumber, all the tax cuts for big business in the world won’t help Joe.

Joe, Joe, now look at me Joe. Look me in the eyes. I don’t want you to miss this. You are a dammed liar. You call that “your money”. You know what your tax rate is before you bill. You figure that expense into your bill. That money was never yours. When you fill out your bill at the end of the day, why do you take the money of your poor customer? Money that you figured taxes into when you generated the bill. So don’t tell me that the government is taking your money.

Here is what Joe didn’t tell you. He is driving a brand new $75,000 fully decked out Silverado that you the tax payer paid for. See when he did the taxes at the end of the year he pulled a trick that George Bush allowed by expanding a loophole. (My Uncle who is a plumber did this after I told him about it.) Tax Code 179 "the rapid depreciation break" allows people to completely right off the cost of a utility vehicle over a certain tonnage. Of course, he can only use it as a "business vehicle." I got $3000 for my hybrid. Joe also didn’t tell you that he has 2 employees working under him in a 1099 environment so he doesn’t have to pay vacation, health benefits, payroll taxes, and contractors insurance. He also doesn’t mention the “illegals” he has hired from time to time when the need suited him. That all comes out of his “Taxable income”. So in reality he doesn’t pay for many of the things we have to in day to day life. He writes them off. That means us little guys have to pick up the slack.

What I would like to know is if Joe would mind parting with his “hard earned money” if he know it was going to hire more teachers for his kids school, test more food that his family consumes, paves the roads in front of his house and business, ensure the drugs his doctor prescribes are safe, ensures the planes he fly to Disney land with his family are safe, and pays for a veteran to go to a decent hospital? These are the things taxes pay for. Obama missed an opportunity when “Joe” asked him that question.