Welcome to the Home of Hyperopia.

2053 > too many

2011-08-10T17:50:00.000-05:00

Greco-Portuguese Protesting in Wisconsin ...

2011-02-18T20:30:00.005-06:00

Didn't us all make endless fun of the French and the Greeks and the Portuguese (among others) when they did this kind of stuff over the past year or so in response to threats "public" workers might have their compensation adjusted to reflect (the more sober) economic reality?

At least nobody's burned up any cars yet here (that I've heard).

This guy did this topic better than me:

http://fiatcollapse.blogspot.com/2011/02/global-unrest-year-in-pictures-of-world.html

Photo Credits:

First Photo - http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-02/59511888.jpg

Second Photo - http://fiatcollapse.blogspot.com/2011/02/global-unrest-year-in-pictures-of-world.html

Why Do We Have Taxes? - GOOD QUESTION!!

2010-01-05T22:32:00.002-06:00

A good friend recommended this article (called "Why Do We Have Taxes?) in the context of a discussion we were having on Facebook about health care and rights and whether the services a government requires its constitutents to perform constitutes slavery. I had recommended this article (called "What Is A Right?") to him, prompting his recommendation.

I thought the "Why Do We Have Taxes?" article deserved a line by line refutation.

At least its second paragraph certainly does.

Because so much of what its author says in those paragraphs is incorrect or untrue.

Only without governments would there be no taxes; therefore, without taxes there would be no governments.

This "therefore" item is simply not true, not logical. Governments have a variety of ways to get money, and taxation is only one of them. There are also tariffs. There are also bonds. Note that the U.S. didn't have any income tax until 1916 (or thereabouts). Note also that the federal government had no (or a massively limited) ability to tax under the Articles of Confederation (which was great), and nevertheless, the federal government existed.

Taxation is one of the several ways by which governments raise money to pay for the goods and services that they are called on to provide.

This sentence is true except for the part that says "they are called on to provide." Governments aren't called on to provide the services they fund through taxation. Governments grant to themselves monopoly privileges to be the only source from whom their constituents (consumers) are allowed to obtain their services. For example, the U.S. Postal Service. It's against the law (a law made by the government, not the people who wanted the service) for certain kinds of mail to be delivered from one place to another. For another example, taxi cabs. It's generally against the law (a law made by the government, not the people who wanted the service) for people who don't have the proper government-issued credentials (e.g., medallions, etc.) to accept money from a person to drive that person from one place to another, even if the passenger wants to be taken.

In the case of the USPS, the laws were passed because private entrepreneurs were outperforming the government mail service on price and quality of service. Government hates competition.

In the case of taxi cabs, there are many stories about how government policies artificially limiting the number of licensed cabbies in various cities have made life worse for people who don't have cars and need transportation so that the cab companies and cab drivers who do have the licenses can charge prices in excess of what they could charge if the government wasn't limiting - by force of law - entry to the field.

Governments lack the major sources of revenue available to other sectors of the economy and must therefore rely on taxes to finance the majority of their expenditures.

This is not true. Governments provide stuff. Governments could charge money for the stuff, except that, because they don't have a profit/loss feedback mechanism, governments can't provide the stuff as efficiently, effectively, or economically as enterprises that do have to generate profits to survive. So governments get out-competed. (Naturally.) So governments do rely on taxes (and other compulsory means) to get money to do what they do. But it's not because the institution is called "government" that it needs to extract wealth by force to operate. It's because of the nature of the institution (operating outside the constraints of the profit and loss feedback mechanism guarantees inefficient, ineffective, and uneconomic operations).

Unlike businesses, governments generally produce very few goods and services that can be sold, especially at a profit.

Not true. People pay money to drive on roads. People pay money to have police services provided. People pay money to walk around in nature. People pay money to be educated. People pay money to have records maintained of their transactions. People pay money to communicate with one another.

In fact, completely contrary to what this author says, I bet that for every single good or service a government provides, there is a transaction involving the exact same good or service being purchased in a private transaction.

In addition, governments don’t have wage and investment income as do individuals and families.

This may be true, at least as to the wage income. As to the investment income, I'm sure as a factual matter that it isn't true. I'm sure governments do invest some of the money it extracts through force from its constituents in transactions that pay a return (i.e., governments loan money at interest).

Governments do not generate enough profits from their investments to pay for all the activities they undertake. Instead they force their constituents to finance the difference.

Without these sources of income, governments have little choice but to finance their spending needs by assessing businesses as well as individuals.

Here the author has, I think, lost the thread of his "argument" a little bit. I'm not even sure what this sentence is saying. The previous sentences speak to governments needing funding for their activities and indicate that, in fact, governments do obtain funding from individuals and families (which is true). But this sentence seems to be saying governments DON'T tax businesses as well (not true).

Moving on ...

Governments are continually searching for additional funds to pay for the needs of their citizens, businesses, and bureaucrats.

This is actually true. Governments are relentless in their pursuit of previously un-plundered populations. Understood in this (accurate) way, this sentence is much more ominous than the author probably intended it.

At the local level, taxes support spending for schools roads, libraries, athletic facilities, fire and police services, and the salaries of county and municipal employees.

This is true, but as noted above, each of these goods and services are not only being simultaneously provided by private businesses to private individuals in private transactions, each of these goods and services CAN be provided to private folks by private folks. (Government has appropriated for itself the position of primary provider of these goods and services. And it uses force to keep competition from taking that position away from it. (Except at the margins -- see, e.g., FEDEX, private security firms, and home schooling.)

States collect taxes for highway construction and upkeep, public colleges, buildings, and law enforcement.

More of the same.

The federal government levies taxes in order to provide its citizens with an interstate highway system, a capable military force, health services, an Internal Revenue Service, thousands of parks and monuments, and scores of other things.

More of the same.

SKIPPING TO THE END (of the article) ...

In summation, although unpopular (and many may argue, unfair), taxes are a necessity.

Not true.

The standard of living of a modern society demands it; governments must collect the revenues in order to provide the goods and services that their citizens need, want and demand.

Not true. Nobody needs government to provide the goods and services it provides. Plenty of people don't want the government to provide those goods and services. And if there is demanding to be done, it ought be to be that government get out of the business of trying to provide goods and services and let the profit-seeking, loss-averse private businesses who don't have the luxury of funding their activities through coercive wealth extraction improve the world for us all.

Photo Credit:

http://paulbuckley14059.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/taxes.jpg

On Questions and Answers - Part 1

2009-12-13T13:38:00.005-06:00

Q: How many federal employees earning more than $100,000 per year in salary does it take to destroy American's productive economy?

A: A lot less than those of us who aren't employed by the federal government are currently financing.

Which is why I am happy to see this article in USA Today (of all periodicals), noting that:

Almost 19% of the employees of the federal government now pull down salaries in excess of $100,000 per year. (This is compared to ~14% at the beginning of the recession/economic crisis. This also does not include bonuses or overtime pay.)
The number of employees of the U.S. Defense Department making salaries in excess of $150,000 increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009. That is a more than five-fold increase in the number of such highly-compensated individuals.
In the U.S. Department of Transportation, at the beginning of the recession, there was only one employee earning more than $170,000 /year in salary. Now (as of June 2009), there are 1,690 such employees. I believe that is an increase of 1,690 fold, for you arithmetic whizzes.

NOTE 1: The average salary for federal employees is $71,206. The average salary for other folks is $40,331. (The article says that is the "private sector" average, but I wonder if they excluded state government employees?)

NOTE 2: These numbers (stunning enough) to not include employees at the White House, in Congress, working for the US Postal Service, intelligence [sic] agencies, or uniformed military personnel. (Not knowing any better, I'd think the White House, Congress and the intelligence agencies likely would push that average federal salary higher, and that the USPS and uniformed military folks would likely pus that average lower.)

Continuity, Thy Name is Obama - Part 6 (O=W)

2009-12-07T20:56:00.003-06:00

Creepy, dude. This (photo) is.

I was just reading about the new bumper stickers achieving growing popularity with the (disappointingly few) Obamites who still remember they don't like it when the U.S. goes around killing innocent people in various places around the world.

The bumper stickers that say: O=W.

If Obama continues his warmongering, hopefully those bumper stickers will get more and more popular. Here's the (excellent but soberingly blunt, as usual) article where I read about this by Bill Lind, by the way: CLICK

Photo Credit

Continuity, Thy Name is Obama - Part 5

2009-11-25T20:49:00.004-06:00

The Bush administration refused to sign an international treaty about land mines. According to the report on Reuters I link to below this decision by the Bush administration was a change in U.S. policy (presumably from Clinton?) and Bush and his bunch said they would never join.

Now comes the Obama administration ... acknowledging that they will NOT "change" the Bush-era policy.

Big shock.

CLICK to go to that Reuters report if you like.

By the way, I don't know enough about the land mine treaty to have an opinion on whether the U.S. government should or should not sign it. I'm not expressing an opinion on that. This is just another installment in my collection or reports noting things that Obama is not doing differently from Bush. I'd note that a lot of the continuity is to do with killing. The war industry are well-connected politically. Big shock.

Continuity, Thy Name is Obama - Part 4

2009-10-13T12:28:00.005-05:00

In May 2009, President Obama sent his first proposed defense budget to the U.S. Congress. Reports on what was in it varied, and there is spin (naturally) all over the web on the topic. My conclusions?

For fiscal year 2010:

For spending that is apparently general Defense (sic) department funding [1], Obama requested four percent (4%) more money than President Bush requested for fiscal year 2009.
In the aggregate, Obama requested one and a half percent (1.5%) more money than President Bush requested for fiscal year 2009. [2]

In other words, now Nobel laureate President Obama requested MORE money for the U.S. military empire and for fighting wars around the world than former president George W. Bush (who was widely (and properly, in my opinion) criticized for all his warmongering).

(I know this report is belated, but I do think it's highly relevant inasmuch as Obama has since been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.)

[1] This DoD press release calls it "discretionary budget authority to fund base defense programs" (so who can say what that really means).

[2] This article is my source for the 1.5% increase.

Ron Paul Interviewed by TIME Magazine

2009-09-18T09:10:00.005-05:00

An Establishment mouthpiece asks questions from regular people.

This is a very good piece I thought, and as always I appreciated Dr. Paul's unflinching consistency on the principles of liberty. Especially poignant to me is his response towards the end about the Obama administration's approach to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (where Dr. Paul notes (1) Obama is not pulling the U.S. out of Iraq; (2) Obama is actively expanding the war in Afghanistan; (3) Obama is continuing to bomb Pakistan; and (4) Obama is perhaps more dangerous than Bush because the formerly anti-war LEFT has gone pretty much silent since his election).

Here's the URL for Facebookers who don't get the video.

Ron Paul Interview With Time Magazine

Here's a link to the LewRockwell.com blog where I found the article.

Arianna Huffington Agrees With ... RON PAUL!

2009-09-15T10:14:00.002-05:00

Recommended: Pre-Order "END THE FED" ...

2009-08-23T18:12:00.002-05:00

... Ron Paul's new book "END THE FED" is coming out September 16, 2009. It would be great if it debuted at #1 on Amazon.com when it first comes out. It's already #39, and there's still three weeks to go.

http://snipurl.com/qsj7p [www_amazon_com]

RON PAUL BOOK BOMB!

Dive on it!!

See report on LewRockwell.com here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ronpaulbookbomb/

On the Obameter, Part 1 - HEALTH CARE REFORM

2009-07-31T08:10:00.006-05:00

What happened to Obama's campaign promise that health care reform proposals would be negotiated in full public view?

According to the the St. Petersburg Times, during his presidential campaign, Barack Obama made the following promise:

"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."

But that's not actually happening.

For example, according to McClatchy Newspapers, the two biggest deals so far -- industry agreements to cut drug and hospital costs -- were reached in secret. (They even quote a prominent Senator saying: "[The negotiations] were private, yes.")

The St. Petersburg Times rates this a broken promise.

A politician breaking a campaign promise?

That's a big change!

What IS Bernanke Afraid Of?

2009-07-30T22:56:00.002-05:00

I literally applauded after this speech by Ron Paul (see video below). And I am sitting in my bedroom right now, all by myself. It's that good. And it's that important.

Go Ron Paul!

Go H.R. 1207. AUDIT THE FED!!

Note especially the part of this speech (at about the 4 minute mark on the video), where Dr. Paul notes that: (1) ordinary Americans (the "people") support H.R. 1207 and WANT the Congress to audit the Federal Reserve [See Note 1 below], and (2) it is the Federal Reserve itself, and Wall Street's big banks and powerful financial interests (i.e., the very groups that created the Fed in the first place AND the very groups that have received trillions of bailout dollars in the past eighteen months after they devastated the economy) are vehemently opposed to H.R. 1207.

Then Dr. Paul asks: which group best represents the public's interests?

To ask this question is to answer it.

Note 1: Poll: 75% of Americans want Federal Reserve audit

This Picture Is Worth a (few) Trillion Words

2009-07-27T12:14:00.005-05:00

This article tells a sobering, important tale in pleasantly plain English and in not very many words.

Here's my adaptation of its story:

If Samuel Adams (in 1800), Robert E. Lee (in 1860), or Wilbur Wright (in 1910) wanted a loaf of bread, each had to pay approximately the same amount of money. In other words, a loaf of bread cost about the same in 1910 as it did in 1800.

AND

If my great-grandparents (in 1913) or I (in 2005) wanted to buy a loaf of bread, it's a different story. Now I have to come up with almost twenty times as much money as my great-grandparents. In other words, a loaf of bread costs about TWENTY TIMES as much in 2005 as it did in 1913.

Here's a chart showing this in VERY graphic form:

Look how fast that red line is going up. That's how fast the purchasing power of our United States dollars is disappearing. We've already lost 95% of it. Yuck.

I encourage you to think about this chart every time you hear Ben Bernanke (or anyone else) say that the Federal Reserve has to stay "independent" because it's the Fed's job to protect the stability of the U.S. dollar or to prevent inflation or any of that sort of palaver.

They lie.

If you're against the government stealing your wealth by inflating the money supply, the most effective step I think you can take at this point is to let your elected representatives know that you want them to push for a vote on H.R. 1207 (Audit the Fed) or S. 604 (same bill, but in the U.S. Senate), and that you want them to vote in favor of those bills.

First we need to see just what horrible things the Federal Reserve has done to us.

Then, we can shut them down, forgive them, and send them on their merry way. (Even though they're probably guilty of criminal acts against us, I don't recommend imprisoning them, because then we'd just have to pay more money to keep them locked up, and we've wasted enough resources on those scoundrels.)

Establishment Media Reveals Itself (again) - Part 1

2009-07-22T10:46:00.004-05:00

The Wall Street Journal hacked out a hit piece on Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill (H.R. 1207) - see it here, including a random reference to Ron Paul's having been defrauded by a popular "comedian" making a movie. (How that has anything to do with the important question: whether the Federal Reserve should be audited, I personally can't fathom.)

I hope the LewRockwell.com crowd is right, that the cause of freedom has now advanced to the second phase of Gandhi's famous observation: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

It's obvious to me (and should be to you also, Erin O'Brien, hint hint), that Ron Paul and the cause of liberty and freedom can no longer safely be ignored by the power elite.

Thank God.

* * * * * * *

And in other news, who is this guy interviewing Ron Paul in this video (below)? Doesn't the guy know he works for MSNBC (at least for now)? This is a good video. The interviewer is EXCITED!

Ron Paul Interviewed in ... HUFFINGTON POST

2009-06-10T22:53:00.004-05:00

Erin O'Brien:

Ron Paul has come to the attention of the Huffington Post.

Here's the article. I just thought you might be interested to know about that.

By the way, you have cited to Huffington Post articles at least three times on your blog. (Search results here.)

Yours,

Garrett

On Obama and "Prolonged Detention" - GOOD FOR RACHEL MADDOW

2009-05-27T08:29:00.002-05:00

With "change" like this, who needs continuity ...

Ron Paul on HR 1207 - AUDIT (then end) THE FED!!

2009-05-19T16:49:00.006-05:00

In his "Texas Straight Talk" column this week, here is Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) re: his "audit the Federal Reserve" legislation (HR 1207). I'm glad to see he seems to be kicking the rhetorical aspects of his comments on this bill up a notch (or two). It's important to tell the truth about why this bill is so significant. I put the applicable sentences in bold text.

You can go to the column directly by clicking: HERE.

Oh, and if you don't want to read it, there's a video at the bottom where you can listen to it.

I have been very pleased with the progress of my legislation, HR 1207, which calls for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve and removes many significant barriers towards transparency of our monetary system. This bill now has nearly 170 cosponsors, with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a companion bill in the Senate S 604, which will hopefully begin to gain momentum as well. I am very encouraged to see so many of my colleagues in Congress stand with me for greater transparency in government.

Some have begun to push back against this bill, and I am very happy to address their concerns.

The main argument seems to be that Congressional oversight over the Fed is government interference in the free market. This argument shows a misunderstanding of what a free market really is. Fundamentally, you cannot defend the Federal Reserve and the free market at the same time. The Fed negates the very foundation of a free market by artificially manipulating the price and supply of money – the lifeblood of the economy. In a free market, interest rates, like the price of any other consumer good, are decentralized and set by the market. The only legitimate, Constitutional role of government in monetary policy is to protect the integrity of the monetary unit and defend against counterfeiters.

Instead, Congress has abdicated this responsibility to a cabal of elite, quasi-governmental banks who, instead of stabilizing the economy, have destabilized it. It took less than two decades for the Federal Reserve to bring on the Great Depression of the 1930’s. It has also inflated away the value of our currency by over 96 percent since its inception. It has invisibly stolen from the poor and given to the rich through this controlled inflation, and now openly stolen through recent bank bailouts. It has predictably exacerbated the very problems it was meant to solve.

Detractors have also argued that the Fed must remain immune from the political process, and that that more congressional oversight would distort their very important decisions. On the contrary, the Federal Reserve is already heavily entrenched in the political process, as the Fed chairman is a political appointee. High-level officials routinely make the rounds between positions at the Fed, member banks, Treasury and back again, taking care of friends and each other along the way.

As far as the foolishness of placing complex monetary policy decisions in the hands of politicians – I couldn’t agree more. No politician or central banker, no matter how brilliant, is smart enough to know more than the market itself. The failure of central economic planning has been witnessed over and over. It is frankly beyond me why we ever agreed to try it again.

To understand how unwise it is to have the Federal Reserve, one must first understand the magnitude of the privileges they have. They [The Federal Reserve] have been given the power to create money, by the trillions, and to give it to their friends, under any terms they wish, with little or no meaningful oversight or accountability. Thus the loudest arguments against greater transparency are likely to come from those friends, and understandably so.

However, it is the responsibility of every member of Congress to represent the interests of the people that sent them to Washington and find out what has been happening with our money. As the branch of government with the power of the purse, we really have no other reasonable choice when the economy is in the shape it is in.

Support HR 1207. Tell your representatives you support it.

Ron Paul Interviewed on MSNBC

2009-05-15T13:32:00.006-05:00

Erin O'Brien:

Ron Paul has come to the attention of MSNBC. According to the interview linked below (televised very recently), one of the MSNBC host fellows - Joe Scarborough - even quoted Ron Paul in a recent book.

Because Ron Paul correctly predicted the mortgage crisis in 2003. Ron Paul told members of the House Banking Committee what would happen. And he was right.

I just thought you'd like to know.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours,

Garrett

On How Awesome Is The Internet - Part 1

2009-05-13T10:14:00.005-05:00

How awesome is the internet? It's really, really awesome. Because bad guys get to say bad things to a wide audience, but good guys can say good things in response. Often in the same place. And in real time (or approximately in real time).

What a great arrow in the quiver of truth and freedom.

Here's today's example:

At one minute after midnight this morning (May 13, 2009), Forbes.com published an article by a fellow named Thomas F. Cooley (a distinguished looking fellow - bespectacled ... bearded): T. Cooley's article (link).

In the article, T. Cooley argues that the Federal Reserve ought to be left alone. That it ought not be subjected to the audit those pesky elected representatives seek with H.R. 1207 [1], which legislation calling for a meaningful audit of the Federal Reserve (i.e., what has the Fed been doing with the trillions of dollars it has created in recent months?).

Among other things, Cooley says in conclusion:

Anything that threatens the independence of the Fed threatens the long-term viability of monetary policy. It is really important that the expanded role of the Fed in the current crisis not threaten that viability. An independent Fed can pursue policies that are politically unpopular yet in the public interest. We need central banking to be boring again, not something that keeps us on the edge of our seats.

If he wanted to say something TRUE, he should have left the first six words of the first sentence of the quote above out. Instead he says something expedient for The Establishment. Which is what the whole article is about.

Pimping for the man (the Fed).

(One of most remarkable things Cooley says, by the way, at least from the point of view of readers living in objective reality, is that: "Without independence, the political cycle would subject the central bank to political pressures that, in turn, would impart an inflationary bias to monetary policy." Assuming Mr. Cooley knows that since the Fed was created in 1913, the purchasing power of one U.S. dollar has gone down by 95%, there is PLENTY of inflationary bias to the Fed's monetary policy even with the quantum of so-called "independence" the Fed has at present.)

Happily, though, we can now (finally) get to the part of this note wherein we celebrate the awesomeness of the internet.

People are leaving comments on Cooley's article: click here for comments.

And folks are tearing Cooley's article to shreds. And noting Cooley's connections to the political-class (i.e., folks who benefit from the Fed running its business the way it currently runs its business).

Then nine minutes before 9:00 a.m. this morning, Lew Rockwell posted a note on the LRC.com blog linking to Cooley's article: Lew Rockwell blog post (link).

There were thirty-eight comments when I last checked (a couple minutes before publishing this blog post). I didn't see one comment in support of Cooley's propaganda piece. Thank goodness.

[1] H.R. 1207 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX). There is also a version of the bill in the U.S. Senate called the "Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009" having been introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT)). For the curious, click here to read the Wikipedia page about the bill.

On The REAL Lessons of History - Part 1

2009-05-01T11:51:00.002-05:00

The topic today is government intervention -- bailouts.

One person talking quite a bit about bailouts these days is President Obama. Among the things he's saying is that we ought to be learning the lessons of history.

And I couldn't agree more.

And one person who is a part of history is Warren Harding, formerly President of the United States. Now Harding was a lot of things, many of them not complimentary. At least according to Wikipedia.

For example, Harding wrote his own speeches. And critics thought he oughtn't. H.L. Mencken, for one, had this to say about Harding's writing:

"He writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash."

As an aside, I find "dark abysm of pish" to be a particularly good turn of phrase.

But one other thing about Warren Harding -- which I did not see mentioned at all in the Wikipedia entry about him -- is that he was a decent economist.

Harding was President during the depression of 1920-1921.

But he did engage in government intervention in a futile and damaging attempt to "fix" things or "stimulate" the economy. He understood that such intervention would make matters worse.

But don't take my word for it.

Have a look at this important article by Tom Woods (author of the New York Times Bestseller Meltdown on the topic.

Woods includes here words straight out of Harding's mouth -- direct quotes of a man who wrote his own speeches.

Like this one:

We promise that relief which will attend the halting of waste and extravagance, and the renewal of the practice of public economy, not alone because it will relieve tax burdens but because it will be an example to stimulate thrift and economy in private life.

But I think the most important part of Tom Woods' article is this:

The very ideas of fiscal and monetary stimulus stem from a misdiagnosis of the causes of economic depressions and then apply exactly the wrong remedies. The problem is not with an inadequate level of spending, but that in the wake of a central bank-induced boom, the capital structure is out of conformity with consumer demand. The recession is the period in which this mismatch is rectified through the reallocation of capital into more appropriate channels. Fiscal and monetary stimulus only interferes with and delays this purgative process.

By the way, another brick in the wall of the lessons we ought to be learning from the Depression of 1920-1921 is the experience of Japan during that time.

According to Woods, Japan's government intervened vigorously in the depression Japan experienced during 1920-1921. With the (predictable) result that the Japanese economy was paralyzed from the early 1920s until seven years later when Japan had another terrible banking crisis.

History is there to instruct.

The U.S. experience -- a very quick and robust economic recovery after a terrible and devastating collapse -- during the 1920-1921 depression can teach us a great deal.

Continuity, Thy Name is Obama - Part 3

2009-04-14T21:19:00.003-05:00

This report is about the Obama administration continuing the Bush administration's policy of trying to deny people who are arrested and held by the U.S. outside of the United States the right to habeas corpus.

By the way, I know basically nothing about Rachel Maddow, but according to Wikipedia, she is a "liberal" commentator. I hope that's right. And it's great to see -- assuming that is right -- "liberal" commentators complaining about and questioning Obama. (Which is way better - as far as I know - than the lapdogs on the right did during Bush 43!!)

Click here: Wikipedia on Rachel Maddow

Thanks to LewRockwell.com for blogging this item. (That's where I found it.)

On Hope For The Future - Part 1

2009-04-09T08:34:00.004-05:00

Ron Paul Wins NPR's Pretend 2012 GOP Primary: Political March Madness!!

Note that in the last round there were almost 1 million "votes" cast.

Interesting.

Here's what Ken Rudin, a guy at NPR's "Political Junkie," had to say about it all: Click This.

Another Excellent Political Cartoon ...

2009-04-01T10:39:00.002-05:00

When Cartoons Go Non-Fiction ...

2009-03-30T13:32:00.004-05:00

Thanks to Lew Rockwell for posting this political cartoon which handles nicely a key objection to the so-called War on Terror here.

(I saved you a click...)

IN MY LIFE - Jake Shimabukuro on Ukulele

2009-03-09T08:49:00.001-05:00

Gosh. This is a gorgeous little performance by a ukulele superstar.

Continuity, Thy Name is Obama - Part 2

2009-03-07T20:57:00.004-06:00

Good for The Daily Show. I suspect airing reports of this nature cause Mr. Stewart actual psychic angst, and for that reason I'm impressed with Jon and the crew there at TDS putting this sort of thing out in the early Obama administration.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mess O'Potamia - The Iraq War Is Over

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Stay honest (as best you can), Jon.

UPDATE #1 - 2009/03/09 @ 9:00 a.m.

Saw this comment a "donpaluh" left on the "Mess O'Potamia" video at The Daily Show's website. It's indicative of the faith-based support enjoyed by the current administration.

"The difference between President Obama saying the troops will be there for support and training and President Bush saying it is simple: Obama's statement is sincere, and Bush's is a euphemism for continued combat forces."

I don't think he's right. I think he's drinking the Kool-Aid.

I wonder what will happen when some significant percentage of the folks who share this point of view realize they've been duped?

UPDATE #2 - 2009/03/11 @ 12:20 p.m.

Ron Paul has written a compelling article on this topic:

IMAGINE

John Lennon couldn't have said it better himself.

2009-03-06T09:16:00.003-06:00

Defend yourself and protect your family. Learn economics. Free market economics, that is. The "economics" preached by politicians and central bankers (other than Ron Paul) is toxic.

There is no tooth fairy.

On Voting Machines, Markets - Part 2

2009-03-05T08:52:00.004-06:00

Continuing this week's little series on revisiting various of my prior predictions about the world, today I'm looking back at this post I made in December 2005 (2005-12-22, to be precise) about the relative valuations of two publicly-traded companies: Google (ticker symbol = GOOG) and Berkshire Hathaway (ticker symbol = BRKA).

Back then, the stock market placed comparable values on Google and Berkshire Hathaway ($127 billion to $136 billion, respectively). Believing this circumstance to be highly improper, I wagered $10, agreeing to take all comers, that in 2012, Berkshire would be valued at least twice as high as Google.

Happily nobody took the bet. Today GOOG is still trading for less than BRKA, but both stocks have taken a real pounding. Right now BRKA has a market cap of around $113 billion (having lost 50% in the past six to eight months), and GOOG has a market cap of around $98 billion (having lost over 50% since it's absolute peak about in November 2007).

I hereby retract my offered wager. I may end up still being right, but I think now that seven years (from 2005 to 2012) was not a long enough period of time. I should've picked twenty or thirty years.

I think Berkshire's troubles would be over if only they required all their Dairy Queens to serve chocolate soft-serve. There's nothing better than a Butterfinger Blizzard with chocolate ice cream.

On Prognostications - Part 2

2009-03-02T20:38:00.003-06:00

A little over a year ago (on 2008-01-18, to be exact), I wrote this blog entry about Robert Prechter's depressing volume "Conquer the Crash" (originally published in 2002). I noted that in "Conquer the Crash," Prechter predicted many Very Bad Things, including abysmal returns for investors in all asset classes other than cash (and short-term U.S. Treasuries).

I also noted that back then, the book had an Amazon.com sales rank of less than 87,000 (that is, there were more than 87,000 other books selling better at Amazon.com than Prechter's "Conquer the Crash."

And I opined that if the sales rank for "Conquer the Crash" ever advanced below 5,000, it would be time to buy U.S. stocks. I indicated that I thought such a development would be very bullish for U.S. equities from the point of view of a contrarian investor.

But I see that Prechter's "Conquer the Crash" has a current Amazon.com sales rank of 3,601, meaning two things: (1) there are now only 3,600 books selling better at Amazon.com than "Conquer the Crash" and (2) it's time to re-evaluate my chosen contrarian indicator (i.e., Prechter's book achieving that measure of popularity).

Check here for the updated ranking: Prechter's "CTC" @ Amazon.com.

(The rankings are updated at least hourly, I think, so don't be alarmed or annoyed at me if the book isn't ranked 3,601 if you go there to check.)

In any event, I now elect to modify the implications of my indicator. I now say that if Prechter's book is ever selling in the top 1000 books on Amazon.com, that will indicate that there have been some very, very bad things happen in investment markets around the world. I can't say with any confidence that it will be time to be U.S. stocks, though, because America's politicians have been actively destroying our capital markets for the past eleven or twelve months. (And obliterated capital markets are a bad thing for equity investors.)

I'm interested and surprised Prechter's book is up to 3,601 at Amazon.com. I wish I had some idea what that means in terms of how many copies of it are actually being sold. Could it make a jump of that magnitude in the rankings on the sale of, say, six copies today?

Anyone?

Bueller??

P.S. By the way, me including the above picture of Ben Stein is decidedly NOT a recommendation that anyone pay attention to what Ben Stein has to say about investing. Much of his advice has been terrible ("buy-and-hold" establishment pap) for at least the last several years. He totally missed the meltdown and in fact actively denied that there were any problems to come in a showdown ("shoutdown"?) interview with Peter Schiff in 2006 or 2007. He also lost piles of money personally, and wrote about that on Yahoo (to his credit on that point).

On Warren Buffett - The Man Can Set Goals

2009-03-01T14:34:00.000-06:00

I like the way Warren Buffett described his goals in Berkshire Hathaway's 2008 annual report:

In good years and bad, Charlie [Munger] and I simply focus on four goals:

maintaining Berkshire’s Gibraltar-like financial position, which features huge amounts of excess liquidity, near-term obligations that are modest, and dozens of sources of earnings and cash;
widening the “moats” around our operating businesses that give them durable competitive advantages;
acquiring and developing new and varied streams of earnings;
expanding and nurturing the cadre of outstanding operating managers who, over the years, have delivered Berkshire exceptional results.

In this picture above, Mr. Buffett is probably thinking he's late for some advancing of his agenda as regards at least one of those four goals. He's got a reputation for being a pretty focused individual...

Anyway, I think I'll adapt these Berkshire/Buffett goals to my life, print it out and and tape it to the wall above my computer to help me stay on task.

That seems like a good idea (as far as setting business/financial goals is concerned, that is).

Continuity, Thy Name Is Obama - Part 1

2009-02-21T08:09:00.004-06:00

Just like President Bush, this article from CBS News reports that President Obama will not allow detainees designated as "enemy combatants" who are held in Afghanistan to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. Obama's administration says those folks don't have constitutional rights.

A lawyer at the ACLU says Obama has "now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law."

GLENN BECK ON OBAMA'S "STIMULUS" - IT'S A BAD IDEA

2009-02-10T09:26:00.005-06:00

I don't know Glenn Beck. I recognize him, of course, and I know he's on FoxNews. But I've never followed him or watched him much. So it was a wonderful surprise to see him having such a candid and useful discussion with Tom Woods - author of the new book "Meltdown" which explains the financial crisis from the perspective of Austrian economics (i.e., truth) - and some other guy whose book is sharply (and accurately) critical of FDR and the "New Deal."

Watch and enjoy.

And please add your voice to the chorus of folks opposed to the spending package for which President Obama is actively fearmongering. It can only make things worse.

We Have Met The Fascists - And They Are Us

2009-02-07T08:16:00.003-06:00

Here I've been worried Americans should be fearful of what I thought was our government's trend towards socialism. I've invested a lot of time on that bogeyman.

But now Gary North explains - correctly, I think - that it's too late to worry about what more the socialists might do to us. Because the fascists already have us.

And the fascists HAVE had us for almost 100 years (basically since the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913).

Here's Dr. Gary North's explanation of all this: Fascism in America

A couple of particularly juicy paragraphs to whet your appetites:

The American political system has been soft-core fascist for almost a century. Liberals love to call conservatives fascists. The problem is, the liberals are right. Of course, well-informed conservatives like to call liberals fascists, and they are correct, too. Everyone who believes in the efficiency of the so-called government-business alliance is a fascist.

...

We are seeing the culmination of a century of bad economic policies. Academic economists never sounded the alarm after 1936. They did not sound the alarm because they are the paid agents of the State, certified by earlier generations of paid agents of the State. The State has paid for the services of these men and women, and they perform accordingly. They understand the fundamental rule: "When you take the king's schilling, you do the king's bidding."
...
The academic economists say that things will recover. They tell us that it will again be business as usual. They tell us that once we get through this crisis, the American economy will boom once again. They believe in the fascist economy. They believe that government regulation is better than the free market. They believe the government-run, bankruptcy-protected banks, which we now openly have, are better than private, profit-seeking institutions that are not protected by a government-created cartel called the Federal Reserve System. They believe in fascism, and they are going to tell you that everything is fine as the fascist State extends power over every aspect of our lives.

And on the hugely important question - now that we've correctly identified the threat/reality, what are we to do about it? - he says this:

This is why it is important for you to preserve your assets by not believing the official assurances. Put your money where the experts tell you that you should not put your money. You should take your money out of those segments of the economy into which the experts say you should put your money, and will soon boom.
...
You had better adjust your portfolio, your career plans, and your retirement plans accordingly.

Yuck.

I hate !@#$ Illinois fascists.

I also hate Texan fascists, by the way. We had eight years of one.

Also, yes, I realize that the creek jumpers were socialists.

It's a paraphrase...

GOVERNMENT "FORCED LENDING" IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER

2009-02-02T09:45:00.002-06:00

President Obama promises forced lending by banks.

There is no case that can be made on economic grounds in support of this.

Americans who support what the government is doing are bringing about their own economic calamity. See this article (seriously, you should read it): Rozeff On Forced Lending Programs.

This excellent article explains precisely HOW government "bailouts" hurt - and will hurt - regular folks.

I am so grateful that people like Professor Rozeff are writing articles like this with today's date because AFTER the devastation is wrought, we will be able to point to people who predicted it. And hopefully at some point we will all benefit from the widespread implementation of liberty.

Book Review - Assassination Vacation by Sarah Vowell

2009-01-26T10:30:00.003-06:00

My sister recommended that I read this book. So I did. And I'm glad I did. I enjoyed it (so thanks, Laura!).

It was entertaining and interesting. It also surprised me. Or at least my main takeaway from the book surprised me. Because the primary lesson I got from this book (1) was very important to me personally and (2) had nothing specifically to do with the topic of the book (i.e., reflections on the assassinations of a few former U.S. presidents). What did I learn? Something about my second-favorite topic in all the world -- me.

During the introduction to this book (if I'm remembering correctly), Vowell is talking about herself. Specifically she is talking about how obsessed she is with presidential trivia and especially macabre (morbid?) trivia about the assassinated presidents she covers in this book. And she relates how she has at some point figured out that her obsession doesn't play very well in day-to-day social settings. And so to compensate she finds herself sitting in a corner at some party somewhere admonishing herself "don't bring up McKinley ... don't bring up McKinley." In other words, she is in the obsession so deep that she can relate everything that she sees, hears, experiences, etc. to the assassinations. There's always a connection. And as a result she (correctly) sees that she is a bit tedious/dull in public.

When I read that part of the book, I realized that she was talking directly to me about one of my challenges in relationships. I am obsessed with Federal Reserve policy, libertarianism, Ron Paul, and so on. Whenever I am in a group of people, there's always something that comes up where I can toss in a tidbit; where I can "share" something I "understand" about the topic. As a result, I can be tedious and dull in public. I can be very disagreeable. And I don't want to be. So the book was helpful as a dose of reality about who I am and an inadvertent recommendation that I should edit myself more than I do so I'll be more enjoyable to be around.

One part of the book that didn't surprise me, by the way, and that disappointed me, was Vowell's Lincoln-worship (and really President worship generally). My view -- which I won't be sharing at cocktail parties very much in the future, I hope, if I can take my own advice -- is that presidents, especially Lincoln, do not deserve our respect and certainly shouldn't be worshipped. Government is the great evil of our time (just as it has been throughout history). But, to her considerable credit, Vowell does seem to me to be interested in truth, so maybe eventually she'll come around.

Isn't that the face of a woman who wants to have someone tell her that everything she believes about everything the government has done all these years is wrong? Isn't everyone?

First Civilian Deaths For New U.S. Regime

2009-01-25T12:10:00.006-06:00

President Obama authorized U.S. Predator drones to bomb houses in Pakistan.

Here's an ABC News Report.

According to some of the reports about the bombings, three children were among those killed.

Here's a report in The Times Online.

And President Obama's White House Press Secretary is not going to talk about it.

2009-01-20T10:52:00.005-06:00

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

-- Benjamin Franklin

Peter Schiff is a Modern Day Cassandra

2008-12-30T21:54:00.003-06:00

I was supposed to read a book about Cassandra (who was cursed by Apollo to have none of her predictions, which were accurate, believed)) in a German literature course I took in college. I never read the book, but I do know about Cassandra's destiny.

Peter Schiff is one of a handful of folks playing the part of Cassandra these days.

EXHIBIT A:

Listen to the non-Peter talking heads argue with him, fail to believe, refuse to see.

Compromise is deadly here (as it is in so many instances; see, e.g., Elijah from the Bible). But "compromise" is what we are probably destined to get.

Compromise and misery, that is.

On Barefoot Wines - Chardonnay, Part 1

2008-12-10T21:13:00.006-06:00

Dudes.

Holy cow.

I really liked Barefoot Wines Chardonnay. And I did not expect to like it. It was pleasantly smooth and very drinkable.

And it is CHEAP (I think I paid less than $6 /bottle; I bought two bottles of it for Thanksgiving at my sister's house; but I'm such a cheapskate that I absconded with both bottles still in my cooler since the lightweights she had at her festivities didn't drink up). And, by the way, I bought my two bottles at Wal-Mart.

The bottle said all kinds of nice things about the flavors of the wine and the hints you could pick up on the nose of the wine, but I already threw the empty away so I can't share those with you.

But check it out ... please. And let me know if I was overly positive on the bottle. Because for me it was an enormously pleasant surprise. I'll drink my second bottle the next time it snows in Kingwood (Texas) and let you know if I adjust my opinion.

By the way, based on this very wonderful experience, I wonder if the rest of their line is any good? Because it's all bargain-priced.

Which is great as our government destroys America with the FDR-II Greater Depression. By the way, buy foreign currencies (while you still can). The USD is on its death legs.

Thoughts?

WHATEVER ELSE MAY BE ...

2008-12-07T15:21:00.002-06:00

... we all hate that lousy flea.

Best 1:44 of music available today. Actually, not available today. Does anyone know where a guy can get the mp3 of this little ditty?

Me loves it.

A Wine For Your Weekend: Spy Valley Sauvignon Blanc

2008-12-04T20:29:00.004-06:00

Even though I failed to find the droids I was looking for before Thanksgiving, I did find a highly-regarded white I'd been looking for for some time -- Sauvignon Blanc from Spy Valley, New Zealand. And I had a few thoughts to share about it ...

I don't know if it is the weather, or what but I am really enjoying some white wine lately. I bought this bottle online for around 11.99. I see that it is selling anywhere from 11.99 to 18.99. It has 13% alcohol, and sports a screw cap. After having a few bottles with cork closures leak all over the inside of my fridge, I'm appreciating the screw cap. The back of the bottle contains some words that appear in this order:

After pressing, all parcels were tank fermented at warm temperatures. The wines were then aged on yeast lees for four months prior to blending and bottling. The bouquet exhibits passion fruit and ripe melon with underlying herbal notes and hints of mineral/flint. Pure fruit flavors shine through on the palate, the lees aging as provided weight, interest and balance.

Now, I must admit that sometimes I read where a wine says it has all these flavors in the bouquet and I think to myself 'yeah right'. This one is different though. The nose on this bottle of wine is one of the more uncanny noses that I have enjoyed in some time. It is huge. I could sit on my deck and watch the sun set and just smell this wine it is that good. The nose explodes with muskmelon, kiwi and guava and cantaloupe. It is like sticking your face in a giant bowl of fruit salad. In the mouth it is bright and cheery and fruity with some salty wet stone action on the back end. Nice acidity, it is balanced and crisp and clean on the finish.
I can't think of a better wine to enjoy at the end of the day, in fact I'll be hitting some of this as soon as 5:00 starts rolling in. Cue up some Sam Beam and let it ride. If you are in the neighborhood stop on by for a pour.

"IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY" - U.S. Congressman

2008-11-22T07:02:00.003-06:00

This one guy from the United States Congress, this one day here in November 2008, put it quite bluntly (and offensively): as far as he is concerned, the money the federal government is spraying around everywhere in their bailout mania belongs to him.

He says: "IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY."

He probably said it emotionally, but he certainly meant it.

Wow.

I am disgusted. (But not surprised.)

On the Magic Penny - Part 1

2008-11-10T19:46:00.002-06:00

WHAT DID YOU LEARN IN SCHOOL TODAY?

2008-11-05T09:12:00.002-06:00

Big government = less freedom.

That's what I taught my daughter at home today.

On Blackbird Singing In The Dead of Night - Part 1

2008-10-28T20:26:00.001-05:00

This is not how I play it. This is better than how I play it.

Gosh, I love to learn.

Reflections on Site Build It - Part 1

2008-10-26T21:46:00.004-05:00

Since January, I have been a paid subscriber to Site Build It ("SBI"), a product that has (according to its promotional materials) delivered a lot of value to a lot of small e-business owners who run a lot of successful websites.

(Click here for some SBI Case Studies.)

I haven't accomplished anything SBI-related lo these many months. But I'm back at it again right now. Working through the "Action Guide" this evening. And thinking more clearly about these matters (I think) than I did this spring when last I tried.

Here's today's reflection ...

According to Day 1 of the Action Guide, the "C"in SBI's C-T-P-M stands for "Create In-Demand Content." This spring that didn't mean much to me. I believed SBI that the "C" was important and accurately thought through (I believed it on authority). But I didn't understand why the "C" is important and accurately thought through. Tonight I think I do:

if you are creating in-demand content, you are creating information people want.

This is important because one HUGE mistake that I understand lots of sales folks make is they try to sell customers the product that they have to sell instead of trying to figure out what product their customers want and delivering (selling) that product. The former is backwards. Shortsighted. Doomed.

So I was right to believe SBI. Ken Evoy knows what he is doing.

On the Black Hole Sun to the Acid Rain of Government (Austrian Economics) - Part 1

2008-10-17T11:41:00.008-05:00

Austrian economics is a black hole sun to the acid rain of government. Which is to say, it is the truth (and the government is not).

Civilization is best ordered in accordance with its principles.

Freedom works.

And the truth will set us free.

This terrific article gets vividly, succintly, and powerfully right to the hearts of the matter.

Some key paragraphs from the article follow (emphasis (bold text, etc.) mine) ...

EXPLAINING MONEY:

Money is a claim on resources. Where there are resources and productive values, claims can be created on them and there is no problem. But printing more claims does not produce more resources. The government and its printer (the Fed) have no resources except what they take from us. Printing claims enables them to take these resources from us, but it does not expand their amount.

In other words, the bailout can not create wealth. Printing presses (or monetizations of U.S. Treasury debt) can not create capital. The bailout and the printing press can ONLY redistribute wealth. (Which, by the way, is a fancy way of saying "rob Peter to pay Paul." Which, by the way, is wrong (and against the law, unless, apparently, the government is the thief).)

EXPLAINING WHAT GOVERNMENT IS:

Government is a black hole. It is a field of political power that is so strong that nothing can escape its pull, or so it seems. Once established, it grows.

EXPLAINING GOVERNMENT FINANCE:

Finance is a final constraint upon a government. When it can no longer finance itself, it fails. When its tax collections fail, it fails. When its printing press no longer seizes enough real capital to sustain the government, it turns to brute force seizure. This brings its political power into the open. As greater awareness of the seizures spreads, capital flees. Capital flees taxes and seizures of all kinds. It goes into hiding domestically. It runs off to foreign havens. This has been going on for many years. It will accelerate. The costs to the government of seizing capital will rise sharply, and this will constrain government.

In other words, people don't like to be robbed. Not all victims will sit idly by and allow government to destroy their accumulated wealth. (As an aside, no one should. The government is not really on your side; there is nothing patriotic about financing evil (theft).)

EXPLAINING THE END GAME:

According to quantum theory, black holes leak energy (Hawking radiation). [Their] life is finite. Government faces leakage of capital. Capital flees the control of government. The government's life is also finite.

In other words, black holes and governments both come to an end because of leakage that, by their very nature, are impossible for them to prevent. Their destruction and failure is inevitable. As the works of Austrian economists - and the principles identified therein - demonstrate.

* * * * *

The Federal Reserve is a castle built on sand. And the acid rain of the government's monetary policy will, inevitably, wash it into the abyss. And then - with God's help - civilization can come on out of the dark and get back to flowering in the light of freedom. [1]

[1] I say "get back to flowering in the light" because this story is very old (see, e.g., 1 Samuel 8 (a vivid account of how a people came to choose centralized government (a king) over God and what a bad idea that was; includes a litany of the kinds of problems this would create, which list, coincidentally, resembles very closely our own Americans' plight under the thumb of our government (except that our tax burden is MUCH more onerous)).

Trying To "Talk Like An Austrian" - Part 1

2008-10-13T10:02:00.007-05:00

My dad emailed me this article (link follows) from Barron's where they're talking to famous smart, rich guy Jeremy Grantham. An email exchange with my dad about it prompted me to want to put this post together in which I'm going to try to "talk like an Austrian" (economist).

Grantham Interview - October 13, 2008

Grantham seems to be pretty shrewd. He was making various dire predictions over a few years. And he’s certainly managing a lot of money - $120 billion (according to the Barron's article) is a pretty huge pile (and assuming he’s on some sort of percentage cut management fee, he’s making a lot).

And a lot of what he says makes sense to me (which means it's consistent with that certain other stuff that I've been reading which I credit for being accurate and helpful for making sense of the present economic environment).

But as with so many of these fellows (smart, rich guys who predicted some sort of general dislocation/crisis in the world's financial markets and economies), there is plenty that he didn't say that I wish he would have said (because it's my view that it would be very beneficial to the human civilization if more smart, rich guys said things like this). Especially towards the end of the article where Grantham is asked how he thinks we (economic actors) got into the mess in the first place.

And he says:

I have a theory that people who find themselves running major-league companies are real organization-management types who focus on what they are doing this quarter or this annual budget. They are somewhat impatient, and focused on the present. Seeing these things requires more people with a historical perspective who are more thoughtful and more right-brained -- but we end up with an army of left-brained immediate doers.

So it's more or less guaranteed that every time we get an outlying, obscure event that has never happened before in history, they are always going to miss it. And the three or four-dozen-odd characters screaming about it are always going to be ignored.

This may or may not be true.

But it's far from the best -- defined as most accurate -- to the question. And I wish he would give the best answer to the question.

I wish he quoted or alluded to Ludwig von Mises and/or Austrian economics.

Specifically on Mises' “cluster of errors” concept (see, e.g., this article by Murray Rothbard expounding on Mises analysis).

Mises says the causes of the “cluster of errors” is the misinformation delivered to capital markets by the Federal Reserve’s monetary inflation, not a right-brain/left-brain problem of executives running financial firms.

That monetary inflation causes entrepreneurs engaged in forecasting to believe that capital available for investment is cheaper than it actually is. This lures them into more capital-intensive projects than is appropriate given the state of the “real” world.

And eventually the investments prove to have been unsound (when losses are realized through an inflation in the costs of ordinary things, including labor and raw materials, etc., and the failure of the revenue generated by the capital-intensive projects to exceed the costs of the projects themselves). And so then the bad investments need to be liquidated (because there’s been real errors in the allocation/expenditure of wealth).

But governments don’t want that to happen (because when prices go down and businesses fail, interest groups scream and cry out for help), so they intervene, try to prop up prices, try to keep the losses incurred in the bad investments from being realized (an impossible task). This is what is happening now. Massive government intervention. Which can not undo the bad investments. (The omelet hath been scrambled. The milk hath been spilt.)

Carried to its logical conclusion, this process will spread the pain/losses of the bad investments made by the entrepreneurs who were deceived by the Federal Reserve's monetary inflation around the entire economy/populace. A process which will take much longer than is necessar and that also will hurt scores of innocent people who had nothing to do with either the monetary inflation or the malinvestments (think poor folks and folks living on fixed incomes (old folks)).

By the way, the government intervention path is also immoral.

So that's a massive double whammy against government intervention -- it won't work and it's immoral.

UPDATED ADJUSTED MONETARY BASE CHART

2008-10-10T09:46:00.001-05:00

Here's the updated adjusted monetary base chart from the Federales.

This is some serious holy crikey bonkers mania stuff.

MAP OF BAILOUT VOTES

2008-10-05T20:13:00.003-05:00

Thanks to the good folks at the Lew Rockwell.com blog, here is a map color-coding the vote on the bailout.

THE BAILOUT IS BULLSH*T; YOU BROKE IT, YOU BOUGHT IT (video)

2008-10-02T21:35:00.003-05:00

This video shows a large group of people gathered on a recent date (2008-09-25) in a single place (Wall Street) to voice their opinion about recent political events ($700 billion big banker bailout).

I have been watching a lot of television news and reading a lot of internet coverage about this event. Didn't see this discussed anywhere. Seems newsworthy to me.

These folks are chanting the following (which I really like; it's perfect, I think):

The bailout is bullshit; you broke it, you bought it.

Awesome.

Thanks to http://tikilounge.blogspot.com/ for the link.

ADJUSTED MONETARY BASE CHART

2008-10-01T21:50:00.004-05:00

Americans, your unelected overlords (e.g., Fed Chairman Bernanke) have achieved liftoff (and I'm afraid their destination is Dollar Destructionville).

This chart gives me the heebie jeebies. I could not BELIEVE it goes up that fast that far as it has in the past couple of weeks. And that is BEFORE the chart reflects the US$600 billion plus Bernanke flooded into the capital markets last week.

This is a very important statistic. I'm not competent to explain why, but I'm confident that that is a true statement. I look at this chart a few times a week, definitely every time it is updated I see it within a day or two.

By the way, they publish this chart here:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/usfd/page3.pdf

SENATE PASSES BAILOUT + VIDEO REACTION

2008-10-01T21:15:00.002-05:00

Senate passes bailout (report from CNN).

And here's a music video which will hopefully turn out to be inappropriate (but which I am concerned is one of the things that is going to happen here as a result of this government meddling):

One interesting side note ... I just tried to send another message to Ted Poe, the House of Representatives fellow for my district here in the greater Houston area (who voted "NO" on the bailout on Monday, thankfully). And the server at house.gov is not responding. Maybe it is getting crushed by concerned citizens trying to get their message through that the revised bailout is no more acceptable than the version rejected Monday?

I hope so!

Another Letter to Senator John Cornyn

2008-10-01T01:03:00.003-05:00

So I saw on the news that the U.S. Senate is planning to pass a version of the bailout that will include a bunch of tax cuts because this is intended to tempt enough of the House Republicans who voted no to the bailout on Monday to vote yes because they want the tax cuts more than they are scared to vote no on the bailout.

I hope this plan doesn't work.

And in any event, it did give me a chance to fire off a follow-up message to my Senators. For your pleasure, my follow-up note to Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn (pictured below - he's the one to the left of Vice President Cheney) follows. Again, I'm sure this note will make the difference.

Senator Cornyn:

I am a registered Republican voter living in Texas.

I saw a report on the news Sept. 30 that the Senate may vote on a modified "bailout" proposal on the night of Oct 1. So I am sending you this message as a follow-up to the message I sent you over the weekend to let you know that I hope you are planning to oppose any "bailout" of the banks, etc.

As I indicated in that other message, the two primary reasons I am against the bailout are (1) it won't work -- which is to say, it will not generally improve conditions for Americans and instead will almost certainly make conditions generally much worse for Americans (except for the bankers who stand to receive the windfall and be "bailed out" of the consequences of the bad investment decisions they made over several years) and (2) it is immoral -- which is to say, a bailout would be a massive forced redistribution of wealth from regular taxpayers to bankers and redistribution of wealth by force is akin to (the same as) theft. Congressman Ron Paul can explain item (1) by the way, if you are not already convinced that it is accurate.

To put it bluntly - in my opinion, a vote for the bailout is an attack on the value of the U.S. dollar and a vote to reduce/diminish the standard of living of ordinary Americans.

Please also be assured that I am not in the least persuaded by any of the doom and gloom talk flowing so freely from the mouths of people pushing for the bailout. I am not at all afraid of what will happen to "the economy" if the banks are not bailed out. On the contrary, I very much AM afraid of what will happen to "the economy" (and ordinary Americans) if the banks ARE bailed out.

This is because socialism doesn't work. Nationalization of businesses that made bad investments does not prevent the losses those bad investments deserve.

In any event, if the measure comes to a vote in the Senate, I hope you vote against it. And I will check to see whether you voted in support of the measure or against it.

As I indicated in my message this weekend, this is a "make or break" item for me in terms of supporting your next candidacy for Senate.

Thank you for your time and for your service.

Garrett

And Now Here are a Few Words About Prices

2008-09-30T21:39:00.006-05:00

In my opinion the entire "financial crisis" (which led the bankers and other power elites to come begging for a "bailout") is the result of too many people borrowing too much money for houses for which they overpaid. In other words, the prices people paid for houses in 2005 are higher than the prices people are willing to pay for houses in 2008 (and probably 2009 through some time a few more years from now).

And speaking of prices, Lew Rockwell, a smart guy and an expert on Austrian economics, including the business cycle as explained by Ludwig von Mises and Frederic von Hayek (work for which Hayek was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974, by the way) offered up the following paragraphs about prices in this recent article. It really helps me to understand this stuff when writers put it in to a sort of everyday context. I like when folks do this.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

But does it mean that the economy is going to tank and we will all suffer? On the contrary, it could mean that we can begin an economic recovery from the Fed-generated bubble that should have and would have burst years ago but for artificial props by the Fed. If the stock prices of these troubled institutions can fall to where they need to be, they can be taken over, and their assets used productively and traded by the market. Once this deleveraging takes place, we will be ready for a new round of economic growth.

You have to understand how ridiculous this whole debate looks to anyone who understands the price system. Let's change the example from houses to apples to see how silly it is to suggest that falling prices can be made to rise. Let's say that the Fed created an apple hysteria that drove the price from $3 per pound to $10. Stores loaded up and even used them as collateral for expansion. Suddenly the price collapsed to $5 and finally to $2.

Now government takes notice. What can government do to deal with the problem? It can try to boost the price of apples by forcing stores to raise their prices. But what about consumers? They won't buy at $10. So the apples sit and rot. Maybe government should buy them all or force consumers to buy them. Also perhaps stores will just not buy any more at all. Government could force them to. But it can't force them to stay in business. People can always walk away. So perhaps government can just buy the stores, all in the interest of keeping the price of apples up. But it will have to buy the apple-leveraged stores at a much higher price than the market would offer, so this is a bad economic deal on the face of it.

The tangles can get ever more complicated and billions and trillions can be spent. You can put everyone in a prison camp and force people at the point of a gun to buy and sell apples at $10. But in the end, the problem is still the same: the price of apples wants to fall. Nothing government does changes that one fact. To attempt to change it is like trying to change gravity. Of course, the government’s central bank can raise all prices through inflation to the point that apples do in fact cost $10, but this is purely cosmetic. In fact, in real terms, the price of apples is still $2. It is a pointless and destructive activity to try changing this. You only cause massive damage in the attempt.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

And the principles are the same if you're talking about houses (as we are in 2008) as apples. If people are no longer willing to pay the high prices of 2005 that's just how it is.

By the way, please keep in mind, the true fly in this financial crisis ointment is the Federal Reserve Bank and the true poison those folks have been passing around is overly cheap credit/money.

And finally, stay alert. Because I'm sure the bankers who are so desperately in need of our money will be back. They'll figure out some way. I saw earlier this morning on intrade.com that folks were trading at an approximately 80% chance that the U.S. government would do some sort of bailout of these financial institutions by the end of October 2008. I hope they're wrong.

RON PAUL "BAILOUT" VOTE VIDEO + HOUSING CRISIS PREDICTION (FROM 2003)

2008-09-29T15:56:00.004-05:00

ON THE BAILOUT:

Video below of Ron Paul's comments outside Capitol Hill shortly after the "NO" vote on the bailout ...

MY KEY TAKEAWAY #1 ... the Federal Reserve and the government will continue to inflate towards the destruction of the U.S. dollar (this is the principal threat to the standard of living of ordinary Americans). Note, for example, that even while the $700 billion bailout bill was getting voted down in Congress, the Federal Reserve was busy pumping another US$630 billion of "liquidity" (new "money" freshly created out of thin air by the feds) into the "global financial system." For a report on Bloomberg about this item, click here.

MY KEY TAKEAWAY #2 ... do not believe the reports you will hear from Establishment politicians and journalists that the "free market" failed Americans. Our capital markets are not free (see, e.g., the Federal Reserve) and the amount of government intervention into commerce is staggering (see, e.g., the rest of this note below about Ron Paul predicting the Housing Crisis because of some prior legislation he understood) ...

ON THE HOUSING CRISIS ...

The next time you hear Bernanke or Paulson or some other government or finance big wig say that the financial crisis came out of nowhere and is such a huge surprise, know this:

Ron Paul knew the federal government was creating a bubble in the housing market because of monetary inflation and because of its support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And, because he understands Austrian economics, Ron Paul also knew that the bubble would eventually pop, and that when it popped, it would result in losses of home equity to people who bought houses during the (artificial) boom and losses to companies that extended mortgage debt to to those people during the (artificial) boom.

It is important - I think - to keep this in mind when today high-ranking members of the executive and legislative branches are busily running around saying surprised they are at the occurrence of the financial crisis for which the Bush administration says it now needs $700 billion (in addition to the other hundreds of billions already devoured).

The Austrians are not surprised. Only the Keynesians/Friedmanites (monetarists) are surprised. Ron Paul has been sounding the alarm on this issue for most of this decade (and probably longer).

How do I know this? How can I say those things with such certainty?

Because in 2002, Ron Paul introduced a bill to the U.S. House of Representatives called the Free Market Housing Enhancement Act. And when he introduced this bill ... all the way back in 2002, he gave a speech explaining exactly what was going to happen (artificial housing boom, inevitable housing crash, financial losses/crisis).

Here's the transcript of his remarks to the U.S. House of Representatives:

Government Mortgage Schemes Distort the Housing Market

On Cellistical Exertions - Part 1

2008-09-28T20:59:00.003-05:00

So tonight I am listening to Bach's Cello Suite #1 in G major, performed by a very famous cellist named Mstislav Rostropovich (yes, that's how it's spelled on my CD).

I wish I could say I am listening to this because of my vast cultural sophistication, but I can not. There are two reasons why I am listening to this, and I will share those reasons with you now.

In the first place, my wife is right now watching the season premiere of Desperate Housewives and I am trying to read and this music works pretty well to block out the television noise (headphones). And in the second place, there was a car commercial or a movie preview that used the first movement of this suite as background music and ever since then I always wondered what it was until a friend of mine who plays the cello told me and I bought these discs.

But none of that is the reason I'm writing this note. The reason I'm writing this note is because, to my interest (and amusement), I am pretty sure you can quite clearly hear Mstislav breathing during short breaks in the music during the second and third movements on this recording.

The notes do move along at a pretty good clip, and the act of extracting music from a cello does involve more than a little bit of physical exertion (what with all the sawing back and forth of the bow across the strings), so I guess it's only natural that the demanding parts would leave the performer breathless (or at least needing to breathe vigorously enough for the microphone to pick up the sound of the inhalation).

I approve of the sound of the breathing on this CD.

MY "BAILOUT" LETTER TO SENATOR JOHN CORNYN

2008-09-27T15:18:00.000-05:00

I sent the following to Senator John Cornyn a few minute ago. That's him on the left in the photo below.

I'm sure this letter will make all the difference (especially given my recommendation that he and his staff speak to Ron Paul if they don't already know the truth about what's afoot (and given I think President Bush considers him a pretty reliable legislator)).

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Senator Cornyn:

I am sending you a note to let you know that I am strongly opposed to the "bailout" proposed by President Bush's administration.

The most important reason that I am opposed to it -- and the best reason for you to be opposed to it as well -- is that it simply will not work. The "bailout" will not improve the economic condition of Americans (except bankers, etc. who are guilty of the malfeasance and errors that created the problem in the first place). More monetary gimmicks (inflation) will not cure the ills wrought by the monetary gimmicks (inflation). If you are unsure about this, please ask (or ask your staff to ask) Congressman Ron Paul for help (he knows the truth about these issues backwards and forwards).

The "bailout" is also immoral -- a direct theft of wealth from one group of people (people who save money and pay their bills and otherwise aren't involved in the "financial crisis" beyond being at risk of the federal government plundering them: people like me) to another group of people (people who took full advantage of the Federal Reserve system on the way up and who are looking to be protected from the folly of their decisions on the way down: the bankers and financiers).

I hope you will vote against any proposed bailout.

I am a registered Republican living in the state of Texas.

This is a "make or break" issue for me.

Thanks for your time and service.

Garrett

Some Reading and Some Watching on the Bailout

2008-09-26T14:01:00.002-05:00

Ron Paul continues to deliver the goods (truth) re: the bailout.

Ron Paul on the Bailout

Jon Stewart continues to deliver the goods (irony) re: the bailout as well, though I wish Stewart was publicly out there clamoring about the Federal Reserve (which he is not).

I thought the name of their new segment ("Clusterf#@k to the Poorhouse") said a lot.

Click below to enjoy.

RON PAUL ON FINANCIAL CRISIS

2008-09-25T10:14:00.002-05:00

Here's an informative, helpful video of Ron Paul speaking to some folks from Fox Business News. Interestingly, the panel interviewing Dr. Paul seem to me to be sincerely trying to understand what is going on. So they must be actually scared.

(Which they should be.)

People -- if we're not careful, the Keynesians among us (including Bernanke and Paulson) will destroy our standard of living.

Ron Paul's Rally For The Republic

2008-09-02T09:13:00.003-05:00

Ron Paul is having a Rally For The Republic in the Twin Cities today. According to Dr. Paul's website, CSPAN-2 will cover all the proceedings.

Go here for the details of who is speaking when.

Hurrah!!

Book Review - EVERYTHING BAD IS GOOD FOR YOU

2008-08-31T19:50:00.003-05:00

I read this book. And here's what I thought about it ...

This book is absolutely wonderful. It's very logical and although as science goes, it's far from definitive (or, probably, even "reliable" in a scientific sense) because Johnson's evidence to support his argument is anecdotal rather than experimental (by the way, he freely acknowledges this shortcoming as far as the extent to which his argument is "proved" by this book, so that's just an observation by me, not a criticism), I am thoroughly convinced Johnson is spot on correct here.

One other side point that I really appreciated is this: there's a great parallel in this book and the political ideology of liberty (libertarians). At one point towards the end of the book, Johnson is discussing the somewhat popular criticism of "pop culture" which goes something like this: common entertainments -- movies and video games -- pander to the lowest common denominator, and the populace will select, if people are simply left to their own devices (i.e., if people are just allowed to select their own entertainment with no influence/force by any agency, e.g. government), the simplest, most brain dead entertainment out there to the point that civilization itself may crumble into disrepair (and the reason given by this argument is because people are inherently lazy and, like non-thinking physical processes/matter (e.g, water, electricity, wind) will choose the shortest path or the path of least resistance). And he notes that at least based on the anecdotal evidence of what sorts of entertainment are the most popular/best-selling, that is simply not accurate, that is simply not what happens. People buy complicated, challenging entertainment more often and experience that entertainment more thoroughly than people ingest crap. Similarly, the political process, where government clamors that people need to be helped from themselves, and the government is the agency best equipped to provide this saving grace, is B.S. People will not destroy themselves (or the environment) if left to their own devices. That's just not logical, it's just not the way people work. So government should stay out of that too. (The foregoing is far from a complete or intellectually-satisfying (to me) summary of the point I was trying to make, but I'm out of space here and I need to get back to Guitar Hero III, so I have to drop it and get back to my life.)

On the DNC - PROTESTORS PEPPER SPRAYED

2008-08-30T09:06:00.003-05:00

Well, this is lovely (sarcasm).

More cops blasting people with pepper spray.

This was in Denver during the Democratic National Convention.

Here's an article about this in the Denver Post.

One of the things that I thought was the most ominous in this article is the subtext that protestors generally know that police are going to pepper spray them at some point during their activities. I don't know what they were doing, I don't know whether the protestors actually behaved in a threatening way or whatever, but it is frightening to me that police use pepper spray like this so frequently (and just google for something about police and pepper spray or go to youtube and there are plenty of videos with situations like this) that people expect it.

Look at that stream of spray coming out of that cop's spray gun. It's huge.

A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT RE: BEARS

2008-08-15T15:03:00.004-05:00

This is a public service announcement about bears. Bear safety, really. Many of my friends and family enjoy being out of doors. And some of them may, from time to time, experience Nature in an area where there are bears and where some of the bears are grizzlies. So I'm hoping that the alert on this sign may help.

But it will only help if you read it ...

Anyway, please be careful out there.

BARBIE POOP IS PINK

2008-08-10T13:23:00.002-05:00

This is the most important motion picture ever filmed/produced/created/recorded.

I believe in hyperbole.

MATT IS BACK

2008-06-20T22:01:00.002-05:00

Well, Matt of Where In The Hell Is Matt? is back with his Dancing 2008.

A new video - recently released.

By the way, if you watch the video here and it isn't the "Hign Quality" version, I recommend you go to his website by clicking the link in the first paragraph of this post and watch it there. Youtube's website didn't give me the option of "High Quality" at youtube - only through Matt's website. Probably some user error on my part.

Also, the journal portion of Matt's website is incredible and fascinating. I only just discovered it as a consequence of clicking around on there a bit after watching the new video. Matt should organize all that stuff into some sort of "Where in the hell is Matt" travel book. With the photographs he includes and the stories he tells I would expect it to sell vigorously. Personally, I really liked his sort of blunt honest style.

Dig it!

SNAP, CRACKLE, POP

2008-06-09T14:17:00.002-05:00

I don't mean to be alarmist, but this makes me think all those lengthy conference calls were the equivalent of sticking my head in the microwave. Urgh.

... and my Summer of George continues.

It's Too Late, I'll Never See It - Part 1

2008-05-13T13:48:00.002-05:00

On Matters of Change - Part 1

2008-05-10T19:57:00.003-05:00

There is an expression -- "change is Good."

Well, I don't know about all that. But I do know that if you pay for enough things with cash enough times, change is inevitable.

RON PAUL'S REVOLUTION MANIFESTO #1 ON AMAZON.COM

2008-05-03T08:46:00.005-05:00

Hello friends ... wanted to update you all with this wonderful news ... Ron Paul's new book "The Revolution" is now #1 on the Amazon.com bestselling books list. And in the top 10 on the New York Times Bestseller list.

VERY EXCITING!

Buy your copy here: The Revolution @ Amazon

Pledge your support through the Ron Paul Book Bomb here:

Enjoy these YouTube videos of Ron Paul discussing the book and the revolution.

IN THE "SITUATION ROOM":

ON CNN AMERICAN MORNING:

Updated.

SPECIAL NOTE: In my view, Dr. Paul's response to John Roberts' question (this exchange occurs at about the 3 minute, 35 second point of the video of the CNN American Morning segment) whether Dr. Paul can be a good Republican if he doesn't support John McCain, is perfect.

I hear him saying that the Republican party should be a party of principles and not of candidates. In the same way that American is supposed to be a nation of laws and not of men.

Check it out for yourselves!

On Rules, Boundaries, and Limitations - Part 1

2008-04-29T13:17:00.003-05:00

So the other day we were shopping. And when we finished shopping we all headed out to our car to load up our purchases. And our children. Our youngest daughter (just turned three) has recently graduated -- at her request -- from riding in her stroller or the shopping cart. But there are rules. No playing in the parking lot. No running in the parking lot. That sort of thing.

On this occasion, our three-year old broke the rules. She darted around in a manner far more cavalier than the situation -- being in a parking lot -- required.

So I spoke to her about it.

Here is a transcript of our conversation (I am playing the part of "G"):

G: Are you sorry you broke the rules?
H: I'm very sorry.
G: What are you sorry for?
H: Breaking the rules
G: What rules did you break?
H: Playing in the parking lot.
G: Why is that a rule?
H: Because then I don't get ice cream.

It's so gratifying -- as a parent -- to see these lessons sink in and really take hold. With all the challenges parenting presents, moments like these -- when evidence of the depth of true understanding manifests -- are precious indeed.

**********

Dr. Ron Paul's Manifesto - NOW AVAILABLE

2008-04-18T21:26:00.004-05:00

Click here: Ron Paul's Manifesto - THE REVOLUTION and then click "Add to Cart" and then click "Check Out" and then when the book gets to wherever you asked Amazon to send it, read it. Then get prepared to implement its recommendations.

This is probably the most important book since Murray Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" ... although I haven't read it yet. My copy just arrived today ...

Here's to the long tail!

On Vegetable ...ophilias - Part 1

2008-04-14T21:32:00.003-05:00

The scales fell away from my eyes this afternoon in the canned vegetable aisle of one of our local grocers. And I realized the merchants hawking canned peas are visiting an atrocity of perhaps epic proportions on shoppers. I haven't decided what action to recommend (boycott, something worse, etc.), but I did want to do my part to let both of the people who will visit this website in the next month or so now:

THE YOUNGER THE PEA, THE MORE EXPENSIVE THE PRODUCT.

This affront to decency absolutely disgusts me. There are plenty of laws on the books against this victimizing of the young. It's bad enough the capitalist swine are profiting from the butchery inherent in the exploitation of vegetable cultivation. But to trade purely and shamelessly on the basis of age. It's appalling.

Take Le Seuer Vegetables first (a division of Green Giant). They go so far as to trumpet their revolting accomplishment with eerie pride: "'Very Young Small Sweet Peas' for sale." It's right there on the label, people!! Not only young peas, but very young and small.

Get 'em from those sickos first. But good luck making it past Saint Peter at the pearly gates if you do.

And Birds Eye Foods is even worse: they are selling "Baby Sweet Peas" ... my word.

All this leads me to wonder ... where is Stone Gossard when you need him?

On Contests You're In - Part 1

2008-03-27T10:44:00.003-05:00

Back in college, a friend and I had a contest. We each had a water bottle with two liters of water in it. We agreed to drink as much water as we could and not to pee for as long as we could -- we were hoping to make it one hour. Then the plan was to go into the restroom in our dormitory and begin urinating at the same time. The winner of the contest would be, of course, the person who peed the longest. He who pisses last pisses longest, in other words.

I lost. By an embarrassing margin. If I remember correctly, I achieved something on the order of a 22 second stream. My friend managed over twice that -- nearly a minute. It was humiliating.

Last night as I reflected on this experience, I realized that if I had it to do over again, there are two modifications I would make. Two ways the contest should be changed to make it more equitable.

First, I think the diet -- both food and drink -- of the participants should be identical and carefully controlled for at least one week before the contest. It is entirely possible that part of the reason I lost is because of what I ate or drank (or didn't eat or drink) or what my fellow competitor ate or drank (or didn't) in the days and hours before we started the contest.

Secondly, I think the volume produced should also be measured. Different rivers flow at different speeds, after all. And if the purpose of the contest really is -- as I understood it to be -- to determine whether my body or my friend's body can produce more liquid waste under the chosen conditions/constraints, isn't volume probably more important than duration? Quantity exceeds chronology.

What do you think?

On Easter Bagging the Megachurch Way - Part 1

2008-03-24T09:26:00.004-05:00

We celebrated Easter the new-fashioned way this year. We hunted Easter eggs and candy. And we tried belatedly but with complete sincerity to explain to our eldest daughter (soon to be 6) that the star that led the shepherds to the manger in Bethlehem was a Christmas symbol, not Easter. But her Easter drawings were nevertheless pretty neat.

Something new for us, though, was the Easter egg hunt done MegaChurch style (pictured below).

Note that of the hundreds upon hundreds of plastic Easter eggs spread around on this quite large grassy area, every single one of them was "found" by at least one child within the first minute after the pastors said "go." (There were warnings given -- appropriately, we later learned -- that the egg hunt for kids younger than three was someplace else on the compound; the space pictured above was for serious, fit and competitive hunters aged between three and sixth grade.)

The official time from start to finish of the egg hunt was announced as thirty-seven seconds. A new record!

A little later in the day, after things had calmed down considerably and almost everyone had either gone into the church for services or to their homes to inventory their loot, I took the photo below which is a much more relaxing scene. (We love our fancy new camera!)

(Fellowship of the Woodlands is what this church that we went to for the egg hunt is called, by the way.)

On the Business of Birthdays - GUEST NOVELIST APPEARS!

2008-03-17T16:52:00.004-05:00

Friends and visitors, I'd like to take moment to recognize a true accomplishment in typing. By cutting and pasting it -- with the permission of the author, I hasten to add -- here for all times' sake. And old times' sake, since I'm a couple weeks delinquent on bestowing this honour on my darling older sister. I only say "older" because I have two sisters, each of whom is darling. Anyway, to the good stuff ...

By the way, I got this by email. Shortly after I forgot my sister's birthday. At least I think I forgot it. Maybe I didn't though. It's hard to remember. I've been doing a lot of shopping lately.

From: Laura the Birthday Girl
To: Various Associated People of Uncertain Relationship
Subject: More About My Birthday

Hello Haiku Group Commentary Recipients,

I would like to question why the near majority of my well-wishing has come from sources of a corporate or marketing nature. Bikram Yoga, Getdefensive.com, World Market, Bank of America-- these are the 'friends' who are quick to celebrate my birthday. Must my birthday go the way of those of other great birthed ones, like Jesus, and just become another secular commercialized opportunity to sell somebody more of what they don't need to make them happy?

Of course, if someone wants to GIVE me more of what I don't need to be happy, other than a gratuitous email or card that some secretary had to handwrite the address onto yesterday (oh, the CYNIC! Luckily I am, actually, insanely cheerful in this moment), that would be fine. I could resell it on craigslist, if nothing else.

I'm sorry if any stores were closed, or having obnoxious sales, today. It could be my fault.

Love, and Happy Birthday to you in advance or arrears, because I may not get you a card in time, having no ulterior motives,

Laura

OUR HERO @ WORK

2008-03-14T10:52:00.000-05:00

Watch out, friend - flies are getting in.

On Prognostications - Part 2

2008-03-11T17:21:00.003-05:00

Updating this post from a couple of months ago, the current Amazon sales rank for Robert Prechter's book "Conquer the Crash" is around 56,000, up considerably from it's ~87,000 sales rank from my original "Prognostications" post.

Of course, sales ranks jump around a lot in the ranges we're discussing, so this update is interesting (at least to me) but not really significant. It's too easy for a very few interested people to move the sales rank of a book up from ~87,000 to ~56,000. I think. And in any event, a sales rank of ~56,000 for this doomsday survival tome is not significant in terms of helping contrarians identify a "bottom" to investor psychology.

Folks are still hanging in there.

(Rightly or wrongly.)

On Josiah Leming - DUDE IS ALL THAT

2008-03-10T15:54:00.005-05:00

The part of me that wishes I had an alternative track to my life where I am a desperately impoverished but earnestly and charmingly self-indulgent and really very talented especially for being so young and naive and unworldly singer-songwriter traveling the country with only a guitar and a bag of clothes and a notebook and a stubby pencil that needed sharpening and also being blessed without too much pride so that I could let a pretty girl who is pretty confused about everything herself buy me drinks before we two lost souls stumbled from a bar into the back seat of my dirty beat-up car in some alley in the middle of some small town somewhere in Kentucky or North Dakota or Arizona or wherever to do whatever it is that lost souls do when they're trying to find each other and they're not likely to see each other ever again except for a "thanks for adding me" link or two on myspace or facebook would have it be Josiah Leming's life that I would lead on that there alternative track.

Yes, it's that kid from Tennessee who sang with an english accent on American Idol. Dude is all that. Seriously. See below. Note the nice touch of the upside down painting of the ship in the background.

I hope America gets to find out what Josiah Leming thinks of his experiences in 2007 and 2008 when he gets older. It seems to me from this great distance of exclusively multimedia exposure to Josiah that he is unflinchingly honest in what he says and does. I would so much hope -- if I'm correct that he is unflinchingly honest, etc. -- that he continues to be that way and in ten years and then again in twenty years he's still writing songs to let us know what he's learned and how his life has changed who he is. This is a guy that needs to produce a retrospective at some point. At least that's my opinion.

In part because I also have the feeling that Josiah has this extraordinary and possibly unshakable belief that the world wants him to succeed and everything to be OK for him. I'm praying he's right. It seemed to me that he thought it was his destiny to be the next American Idol. He was very wrong about that, but I don't see that it slowed him down that much. Thank goodness.

The world of the cynic is such an ugly place.

WORKING LIKE A CHARM

2008-03-07T10:26:00.001-06:00

User error defied!

By the way, this is a remarkably brilliant and funny exposition (what does that word mean, anyway?) on politics.

They use the word "contretemps" in it.

Enjoy.

RON PAUL BILLBOARD

2008-02-23T14:19:00.003-06:00

Dudes.

In addition to his presidential campaign, Dr. Ron Paul is running for re-election to his seat in the House of Representatives. This billboard is up along the freeway around Texas City, Texas.

Dig it!

By the way, I noticed something interesting when I was looking at Ron Paul's website for his congressional re-election campaign (www.ronpaulforcongress.com). Similar to his website for his presidential campaign, he has the "donation total" graph running when you first click on the page. According to the site, Dr. Paul has raised over $1 million in the past few weeks. And that's pretty interesting.

But even more interesting to me, the "Recent Donors" that the site shows are from all over the place.

Here's a few I saw today.

* Dylan Clark - Sugar Land, Texas
* Stephen Kuhn - Indianola, Iowa
* Stephen Chase - Devils Lake, North Dakota
* Donald Johnson - Erin, New York
* Kathleen Johnston - Reva, Virginia
* Myriam Lopez - Bronx, New York
* Paul Hewson - Mount Sinai, New York
* Michelle Bonnewell - Orcutt, California
* John Robertson - Knoxville, Tennessee
* Austa Wakily - San Francisco, California
* Joe Cross - Cleveland, Tennessee
* Lloyd Bird, Jr. - Atlanta, Georgia
* Peggy Erskine - Seattle, Washington
* Benjamin Truax - Schenectady, New York
* Gunter Perlwitz - Fort Lauderdale, Florida
* Maurice Lovell - Newark, New York
* Vernon Thorp - McCleary, Washington
* Erica Hopkins - Woodbridge, Virginia
* John Bubb - Fenton, Missouri
* Robert Lalanne - Colorado Springs, Colorado
* Lois Bravard - Springfield, Ohio

Then the list begins again ... I would be stunned if other congressional campaigns have similar breadth of contributions from such a diverse group of people from so many different places.

Freedom IS popular!!

BUSINESS TIME

2008-02-15T15:54:00.003-06:00

Two minutes in heaven is better than one minute in heaven.

(This is funny. And it would be really funny if it didn't hit quite so close to home....)

Seriously.

*grins*

On Last Night's CNN Republican Candidate Presentation Show - Part 1

2008-01-31T10:19:00.000-06:00

I'm not about to call CNN's Republican Presidential candidate presentation show a "debate" because if you take a look at the video below (a collection of the few moments in the debate where Ron Paul speaks), it looks to me more like McCain and Romney and Anderson Cooper were intentionally and deliberately trying NOT to debate the fundamental issues at hand.

Check it out.

Regarding Anderson Cooper's culpability for preventing the occurrence of a real "debate" ... at the 1 minute 55 second point (1:55) of this video, as Dr. Paul is asking to have a chance to address the question of conservative vs. liberal because when the topic originally came up, he was not invited to comment, Anderson tells Dr. Paul:

COOPER: We're going to have -- I promise you we're going to have -- you're going to have another opportunity to do that. I promise you, coming up in like two minutes or two questions.

But Anderson wasn't true to his word. Anderson didn't keep his promise.

Dr. Paul was never invited to (or permitted to) address that topic.

Classic.

Here's the transcript of the candidate presentation show from CNN itself:

Transcript of CNN's Republican Candidate Presentation Show

***

RON PAUL - ECONOMIC PLAN THAT WOULD ACTUALLY WORK

2008-01-25T12:09:00.000-06:00

Hi All:

Ron Paul recently released his plan to save the U.S. economy. Because Dr. Paul actually understands economic law, his proposal would actually work. I've cut and pasted the text from that page below for your convenience ... here is the URL: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/Prosperity.

Introduction

America became the greatest, most prosperous nation in human history through low taxes, constitutionally limited government, personal freedom and a belief in sound money. We need to return to these principles so our economy can thrive again. When enacted, my plan will provide both short-term stimulus and lay the groundwork for long-term prosperity.

Other candidates talk a lot about stimulus packages, but my record stands alone. I have fought for these measures for years as a member of Congress and will make them a top priority as president.

Ron Paul, a 10-term Republican Congressman from Texas's 14th District, is currently the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology. He has been named "Taxpayers' Best Friend" for 10 consecutive years by the National Taxpayers' Union. Ron Paul is also the author of several books on monetary policy and economics.

The Four-Point Plan

Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.

Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.

Monetary Policy Reform: Expand openness at the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings. Return value to our money.

Regulatory Reform: Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of US markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth.

1. Tax Reform

Eliminate Taxes on Dividends and Savings. The basis of capitalism is savings, and Americans who do so should be rewarded.
- Pass HJ Res. 23 to encourage savings over consumption.
Repeal the Death Tax. Attacking small businesses and breaking up family farms smothers growth and kills jobs.
- Pass H.R. 2734 to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Cut Taxes for Working Seniors. Grandmothers and grandfathers working to make ends meet should keep all the fruits of their labor.
- Pass H.R. 191 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits.
Eliminate Taxes on Social Security Benefits. That money belongs to seniors, not the government. They paid into the system for a lifetime, and they should be free to spend every penny as they see fit.
- Pass H.R. 192 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits.
Accelerate Depreciation on Investment. We need to help companies grow and create jobs.
- Pass H.R. 4995 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce corporate marginal income tax rates.

Eliminate Taxes on Capital Gains. Investment should be embraced and rewarded.

Pass H.J. Res 23 (The “Liberty Amendment”), proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

Eliminate Taxes on Tips.The single parents and working students who earn their income chiefly through tips deserve to keep all of their money. This tax on "estimated income" is unfair and should be ended.

Pass H.R. 3664 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that tips shall not be subject to income or employment taxes.

Support the Mortgage Cancellation Relief Act. Working families who lost their homes should not be punished a second time with a big IRS bill.

Pass H.R. 1876 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from the gross income of individual taxpayers discharges of indebtedness attributable to certain forgiven residential mortgage obligations.

2. Spending Reform

Reduce Overseas Military Commitments. Our bases and troops should be on our soil.

It's time to stop subsidizing our trading partners in Europe, Japan and South Korea.

Freeze Non-Defense, Non-Entitlement Spending at Current Levels

I vote against all bloated, pork laden spending bills and will veto them as president.

3. Monetary Policy Reform

Televise Federal Open Market Committee Meetings. An institution as powerful as the Federal Reserve deserves full public scrutiny.

Expand Transparency and Accountability at the Federal Reserve

Pass H.R. 2754 to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to continue to make available to the public on a weekly basis information on the measure of the M3 monetary aggregate and its components.

Return Value to Our Money. Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency.

Level the long-term boom and bust business cycle by passing H.R. 4683, which would repeal provisions of the federal criminal code relating to issuing coins of gold, silver, or other metal for use as current money and making or possessing likenesses of such coins.

4. Regulatory Reform

Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has seriously wounded our capital markets and helped make the UK a financial center at our expense.

Ending these misguided regulations would bring jobs flooding back to the United States
Pass H.R. 1049 to reform Sarbanes-Oxley and reduce the burden it places on small businesses.

Repeal or Remove Costly and Unnecessary Federal Regulations. Neighbors know best how to help their neighbors.

We need to make it easier for community banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions to better serve their communities and to help people in these communities get access to credit and capital.
Pass H.R. 1869 to enhance the ability of community banks to foster economic growth and serve their communities, boost small businesses, increase individual savings, and for other purposes.

On Prognostications - Part 1

2008-01-18T18:32:00.001-06:00

Robert Prechter has written a book called Conquer the Crash (cover below).

In it he predicts various disasters, including crushing losses for anyone who (1) owns equity securities in companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges; (2) owns real estate in the U.S. secured by dollar-denominated indebtedness; (3) has deposited money in a checking or savings account in a financial institution located in the United States; and (4) other normal people. It's quite gloomy.

Also, I was exaggerating. Slightly.

Anyway, today that book's Amazon Sales Rank is approximately 87,000.

If it's Amazon Sales Rank ever gets below 5,000, it will be time to buy stocks.

I can't think of a better signal than that for the contrarian investor.

Doing It Their Way

2008-01-17T12:56:00.000-06:00

This is highly entertaining (and remarkable, I think).

Of course, I couldn't help but wonder: everyone listening to this knows that he is telling the truth. But they're laughing anyway.

Why are they laughing?

On Aping Yogi Berra - Part 1

2008-01-10T16:48:00.001-06:00

Here's the best I can do at aping Yogi Berra:

As far as I can remember, I've never forgot anything.

There you have it.

And by the way, I made that up all by myself.

COME ON, IOWA REPUBLICANS ...

2008-01-03T18:01:00.000-06:00

... YOU CAN DO IT!!

RRON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... ON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL ... RON PAUL!!

2007-12-27T20:45:00.001-06:00

COLD FORT WORTH BEER

JUST AIN'T NO GOOD FOR JEALOUS.

(We got both kinds - country AND western.)

THIS IS A PICTURE OF A RADISH

2007-12-17T21:54:00.000-06:00

Yes, it was a picture of a radish.

On the Pied Piper of Hamelin - ALTERNATIVE ENDINGS

2007-12-15T19:33:00.000-06:00

So tonight I read The Pied Piper of Hamelin to my five-year old daughter for her bedtime story. Aside from questioning my judgment on this choice of nighttime reading (which wouldn't be inappropriate on the facts presented so far), I was so thrilled and fascinated by my daughter's creativity in our discussion after we finished the reading.

First, I asked her who were the bad guys in the story. She thought the Pied Piper was a bad guy and also that the Mayor (in our version it's the Mayor of Hamelin (and his four-person town council) who breaks the promise to pay the Pied Piper) was a bad guy. I think she's right.

Next, we talked about what the Mayor did that was bad and what the Piper did that was bad. She didn't think that the Piper should have stolen the children. (I agreed!! And I wished her sweet dreams and left the room. (Not really, I just made that part up.)) And she thought that the Mayor was bad because he tried to pay the Piper only 25 and then 50 gold pieces (instead of the promised 1000). (I agreed again.)

Next, I asked her if she had any ideas for how the story could have ended. And she asked me if I did. Turns out we both did.

The best alternative ending I came up with was that the Pied Piper should have demonstrated his power over the children of the town to the Mayor and then asked the Mayor to reconsider whether the Mayor wanted to honor his promise and pay the entire 1000 gold piece.

My daughter came up with the correct answer (the correct alternative ending). She said she thought the Piper should have told the police about what the Mayor did and the police could have put the Mayor in the dungeon because he broke his promise.

And of course that's the right answer - the executive branch and the judicial system are the mechanisms by which contractual grievances should be addressed in a civilized society.

I chose a threat. I recommended a version where the original wronged party (the Piper) threaten to commit a reprehensible crime. Not optimal!

My five-year old daughter selected justice. She recommended a version where the original wronged party (the Piper) allow the enforcement mechanisms of a nation of laws to operate.

Wow. I was so proud of her. I can't even begin to tell you folks.

WORST SONG EVER - YouTube Video!!

2007-12-07T14:16:00.001-06:00

Thanks to the great gift of YouTube, I can now provide you unwitting victims with direct access to the music video for what I honestly believe is the worst rock song ever performed ... Madalaine by Winger.

"How in the World could it Come to This" is the right question (see the chorus).

Please see here for my earlier report on this excruciating song.

MY CHRISTMAS LIST - ITEM #1

2007-11-27T20:24:00.000-06:00

For those of you who know how good I've been this year, item #1 on my wish list:

The piano, not Peter Baartmans.

MORE ON RON PAUL'S MONEY BOMB

2007-11-15T00:14:00.001-06:00

Here are a couple of fine clips of Ron Paul on ABC and MSNBC talking about his "Money Bomb" from November 5th. Dig it!

WITH TUCKER ON MSNBC:

WITH SAM DONALDSON AND SOME OTHER GUY ON ABC:

On the Lighter Side - SCUBA STEVE

2007-11-09T19:39:00.001-06:00

A friend of mine at work was in a meeting a few months ago where one of the guys in the meeting had a seizure. Apparently it was very unsettling (pun sort of intended, but not in a malicious way by any means, I assure you) for all involved. The guy who had the seizure is now fine and was unharmed by the experience.

I don't know why it happened.

His name was Steve.

Well, because it's such an odd experience and because I'm a curious fellow, I frequently ask my friend about it. What did she do? What was it like? How did she know he was having a seizure? Did they notice that something seemed wrong with him before he went into the full-on thing? (etc.)

We were just talking about it tonight. And she said, "Well, the one thing I learned from Scuba Steve ..." And I interrupted her with a confused look: "Scuba Steve?"

"Oh yea," she says, "We call him 'Scuba Steve' because he went under."

Gosh, I couldn't help myself.

I thought that was hilarious.

RON PAUL'S REMARKABLENESS

2007-11-06T14:22:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, Ron Paul's campaign raised between $3.8 million (according to his campaign website and $4.3 million (according to Reuters).

This is the most money any Republican has raised in a single day in the entire 2008 presidential campaign.

Remarkable!

(Wonderful!)

Here's the website principally credited for this achievement:

This November 5th.com.

The video they have on their website is embedded below for your convenience, enjoyment and inspiration.

Check it out!

On Nomenclature - Part 1

2007-11-04T22:00:00.000-06:00

Is algebra arithmetic?

I don't remember what kinds of grades I got in algebra in junior high, but I don't think they were that great. Now that the other month I learned how a "=" could really open up microsoft excel, I find myself thinking from time to time that I wish I was better at algebra.

I think I saw somewhere that Warren Buffett talked about algebra once. I recall that he said that algebra is really all the math most people need to know. But that it is very important to be facile with algebra. Having just spent too long figuring out how to calculate a gross purchase price from an assumed implied valuation, I agree with him.

On Brevity in Business

2007-11-02T14:56:00.000-05:00

It's interesting how many very, very short telephone calls take place between lawyers as closing of business transactions takes place. I've probably placed six phone calls today that lasted less than twenty seconds.

Actually, I take it back. That's not actually all that interesting. In fact, I suppose it's perfectly predictable and I know it's perfectly explainable.

But the thought occurred to me and since I can type I shared it here.

Cheers!

On Getting The Scoop (Seventeen Years Later)

2007-10-31T20:08:00.000-05:00

I love learning things. I love having things explained to me. Sometimes when its your wife doing the explaining, it's hard to get the ego out of the way to let the light of day in. But today I managed it. And thank goodness, because what she told me about is really neat and I just couldn't stop myself from coming right here to tell the world about it. (Well, OK, first of all, when I say "the world" I mean both the people who have ever been here and who may hopefully come back sometime again to learn what I learned. And hopefully they actually do have to learn it, which would make me less embarrassed of course because then I'm not the only dim-wit who used to enjoy this song.)

Anyway, to the revelation ...

That one-time popular song (Jimmy Olsen's Blues) by that one-time popular group (The Spin Doctors) is not actually a song about Superman. Instead it's actually a song about the other guy in the story who carried a torch for Lois Lane (Jimmy Olsen).

And the idea is that Jimmy Olsen has a pocketful of kryptonite that he can use to get Superman out of the way, allowing his love for Lois to bloom. Because apparently he's also infatuated (or worse) with her.

That makes a lot more sense than what I thought the song was about. I just thought it was another song about Superman and how he was in love with Lois Lane. I'm quite sure I should've figured out that the lyrics didn't make any sense given what I understood the song to be about. Plus of course the title to the song is a pretty big clue as to what it's all about. I guess I did always wonder why it kept talking about a pocketful of kryptonite, because I had some vague recollection that exposure to kryptonite is problematic for Superman.

Anyway, it's so easy to understand things once a sophisticated explanation is provided. I guess never knew there was a Jimmy Olsen. I thought those other characters in the movies were so unimportant they didn't even get names. (That is an exaggeration of the truth, provided by my ego to inadequately defend me from this humiliation.)

Good times.

It's a Bitter Pill I Swallow Here, Charley Reese ...

2007-10-26T10:21:00.000-05:00

I don't have Charley Reese's archives bookmarked in my list of favorites of the authors who are frequently published at the most important website on the internet: Lew Rockwell.com. But maybe I should.

Anyway, his efforts make it into Lew's site's weekly "Top Ten" read articles with some frequency, and I generally read them when they do. (Here's a link to the Top Ten.)

Mr. Reese's article in this week's top ten was important. It's basically a rant, but at the same time I read it as pretty dispassionate: he's just reporting how it is, and he's telling the truth. It's about the state of the union. It's about the state of the citizenry. The best sentence is the last sentence: "Responsibility is the other side of the coin of freedom."

The full text follows ... please share your thoughts in the comments section.

RESPONSIBILITY

By: Charley Reese

If anyone doubts that the republic created by the U.S. Constitution is dead, he or she only has to watch the Republican presidential debates. Save for Dr. Ron Paul, all of the candidates believe a president can take the country to war on his own, though most concede it might be a good idea to "consult" attorneys and even Congress.

The Constitution, written by men more intelligent and better educated than today's crop of political duds, is quite clear. The president has no authority to take the country to war. The sole authority for declaring war rests 100 percent with Congress.

Naturally, if a shipload of pirates sailed up the Potomac and began shooting at the tourists, you wouldn't need a declaration to authorize returning fire. American troops defending themselves while under attack is not the issue. The issue is that if a president wants to take the country to war against another country, he must, as Franklin Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor, ask Congress to make that decision.

The Founding Fathers, having suffered under a monarch, deliberately created a weak president. His powers, as specified by the Constitution, are limited mainly to administering the laws passed by Congress, making appointments, negotiating treaties and being the official greeter when dealing with foreign powers. His role as commander in chief is limited to just what it says – the military. The president is not our commander in chief, as the current president seems to think.

Lest anyone be beguiled by the current politicians' determination to create an emperor and an empire, even the president's appointments and treaties have to be confirmed by the Senate. Congress has sole authority over taxation and spending. Appropriations for the military are limited by the Constitution to two years. Furthermore, Congress is elected independently of the president and is a separate branch of government. It is under no obligation whatsoever to do anything the president asks it to do, and the president has no authority whatsoever to do anything not authorized by Congress and the Constitution.

The Constitution, which apparently not many Americans have ever bothered to read, is the supreme law of the land. It does not make suggestions. It commands. It was written in clear English. It has provisions to amend it, but it should never be amended by interpretation. That is always a usurpation of power and should be grounds for impeachment.

There is only one way for the U.S. to be a real nation of laws. That way is for the people to demand that every single public official obey the laws as they are written and obey them to the letter. The current president seems to think he can alter laws with "signing statements" and legislate with executive orders. He should have been impeached a long time ago.

The kernel of the nut is this: In our constitutional republic, sovereignty rests in the people. If the people are too stupid or ignorant, too lazy or indifferent, to hold their public officials accountable for violating the laws and the Constitution, then of course they will deserve the tyranny they will surely get.

Self-government is tremendously more difficult and demanding than living under a dictatorship. In a dictatorship, all you have to do is obey. I fear that concept appeals to some Americans today. It's understandable. Responsibility can be a heavy load to carry. It's much easier to relegate all of that to the Great Leader and just do what we are told.

Anybody who's ever been in the military or a jail knows what I'm talking about. When you are deprived of the ability to make choices, you are simultaneously relieved of the responsibility for making them. Responsibility is the other side of the coin of freedom.