Tuesday, April 30, 2013

The Original Bailout Lie Routine

It is amazing what is thrown around as hype or scary by the people who testify in front of Congress to pass legislation or perform some act for the good of the country. While a classroom or two of little white kids getting shot by a deranged individual is enough to get the media and left wing agitators into a tizzy over gun control, a bombing killing 3 and wounding scores can't move them on immigration. Wait, why did I bring up media and left wing double standards. Forget that. I was researching a specific bailout: the Mexican bailout of '95. It is the start of so much trouble that we still live with today. The Mexican bailout was easy to sell to President Clinton because the GOP had just swept into Congress and the threat of a drag of 1% on the GDP was enough to scare Clinton (I'm not kidding). It was a hard sell to Congress, and even Congress rejected it. The interesting part was the testimony by our Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin. He bailed out Mexico yet every scare he used, if we didn't, turned out even worse. The event was a great example of how things work and a precursor for what was to come: propaganda, scare mongering and billions of taxpayer dollars.

Rubin testified to an angry and confrontational Congress about the need to bail Mexico out of some bad loans worth maybe $25 billion. Treasury wasn't quite sure how much. Congress was skeptical and saw this as a handout to Wall St. They were right. Rubin offered some frightening consequences for failing to act. His audience was not Congress as much as it was the media and the little people. If we don't bail Mexico out, there will be a 30% rise in illegal immigration. If we don't bail out Mexico, there will be a flood of drugs into the US and the drug war will get worse in Mexico. America didn't buy it. Congress said no. We still bailed Mexico out, which was really a bail out for the Wall St banks that had loaned money to Mexico as well as handled their privatizations in the '80s and early '90s. Wall St gambled on Mexico, and NAFTA did flood the country with more money than they could handle. Wall St forgot they were dealing with a 3rd world country (just 10 years after Mexico's 1st big default). Rubin was right for all the wrong reasons.

Rubin used a little discussed exchange stabilization fund to hook the Mexicans up for about $25 billion. Their currency lost value and unemployment went up. Wait, isn't that a reason for people to leave a country + earn foreign currency? Despite Rubin swooping in to save the day all of his scary consequences happened on steroids. Immigration from Mexico rose by 66% per year after the early '95 bailout, not 30%. The Cartel Wars got significantly worse to the point where even the tourist areas are scary, and there are no signs of them slowing down nearly 20 years later. Depending on the geopolitical genius you speak to, Mexico is either the next rising power or a borderline failed state. This is all after we did exactly what Rubin wanted. Rubin was throwing whatever talking points would affect politicians but more importantly be picked up by the news media and reported for you at home. He had no real feel for what would happen. It was all manipulation to get the public to feel comfortable with the bail out. It was nearly 20 years ago, but it was a pattern repeated over and over again. Big Wall Street bets, profits, bets get too extended and go bad, big scare, bailout. It's just that the stakes got raised as the bets got bigger. Our banker owned government has its roots way back in Mr. Rubin's prime days.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Rejected Beta Origins of Bill Clinton's Adultery

Bill Clinton was such a Boomer. He oozed charismatic, sleaze-ball Boomer who would get busted for sleeping with one of his daughter's friends. There's that great Gerald Ford quote that was released after his death where he criticized Bill Clinton for being sick and a sex addict who couldn't keep it together for 8 years in the White House. Ford couldn't understand Boomer Clinton. This was a total generation gap moment as well as the problem of one D-1 jock who succeeded in life being married to a former model and dancer (who had great legs for decades + said she and Gerald had sex 'as often as possible') commenting on a fat, nerd from a shitty family who blossomed later and was married to a possibly lesbian woman that looked the other way throughout every affair. Ford couldn't comprehend it because Clinton himself was a product of the social dysfunction we see much more often today. Why was Clinton such a sex hound who used his positions of power in government to nail a lot of women? Simple. Look at his family, his childhood, and the fact that he was a late bloomer who rose to higher levels of status and power as he aged.
Clinton was born of a skank mom of ill reputation. He's got the DNA of the loose moral way in him. He goes through some tough stuff with his blended family, and I'm willing to bet in Arkansas the other kids may have used salty language about her. Bill himself also was a very intelligent guy, not athletic and he played in the band. One of his admissions to his cabinet at a retreat was how the school kids often picked on him for being fat. In Arkansas, which I hear is a state that values athletic prowess and maybe not so much smarts, there was a fat, unathletic, genius who played tenor sax in the band and had an easy mom raising her blended family in a poor neighborhood. Like he wasn't rejected often and with glee. I'm betting butterball Clinton dreamed up his revenge fantasies on those SOBs. If you ever see a nerdy kid walking alone on a playground with a look on concentration, they are plotting their future to show those unaccepting bastards (lesson: raise smart kids to be social). Genius, chubby Clinton was probably pacing the asphalt thinking, "I'll show them and fuck hundreds of prettier girls later".
Flash forward 25 years later and the fat kid has status because he is Professor Clinton, state Attorney General Clinton, Governor Clinton, and finally President Clinton. He got the payoff, and could execute on his fantasies. "Look Ma, people accept me!" If the presidential aura can make Obama, the aloof, beta loner, seem cool and sexy to some women, then a guy like the charismatic Clinton, who was a handsome middle aged man, can roll in the punani. A cabinet member said Clinton had a great listening face even when he wasn't listening or agreeing with a person; fake listen = perfect game. That validation Clinton got from banging skanks in Arkansas, later countless cities across America, and approval for being a desirable, sexy and powerful man must have made up for years of feeling like a fat, nerdy piece of white trash in Arkansas. It eventually caught up to him, as he'd take the attention from anyone just to get that rush again even at the peak of power. I'd argue that this is part of his obsession with re-election, fighting anything personal at all costs (we only found out about Lewinsky, women #27, because he wouldn't settle with Paula Jones out of court), tossing aside liberal principles just to win, and constantly changing direction per the latest polling report. Just a win was a rush. Clinton would do anything for that hit of acceptance, approval, and validation. Love me, blow me, vote for me!

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Liquidity Finds the Weirdest Places

Money printing and pushing cash to banks does not always go where you intend it to go. It doesn't even go where you want it to go. It goes where investors want to put it. A new online platform opened up for people to buy and sell royalties (The Royalty Exchange). The goal is to allow sellers to get liquidity for their assets and for buyers to find alternative investments. Yes, this is another consequence of the FED's ZIRP. This platform is like a ghetto version of the famous Bowie Bonds. The low cost for purchase and lower tier goods for sale make it look more like a local property management firm's website. We have 48 million Americans on food stamps and U6 unemployment of 15%, yet shenanigans like the Royalty Exchange are where marginal investors are allocating their dollars.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Capital Always Needs More Cheap Labor

The current immigration crap sandwich feels like another big money attempt to rush in more bodies into the continental 48 to push wages down. Capital just sticking it to the common man and woman again. This is not anything new, and capital's asymmetric knowledge of finance compared to the common man as well as ability to buy politicians gives them an advantage. The classic formula is something will be cheaper for the common man, and the common man's work will sell more (hint hint job creation and security). This is tried and true product of our democratic ways and the earliest instance I can find of it is the repeal of the Corn Laws in England in the 19th century. Unlike landed interests, capitalists always need more cheap labor.

The Corn Laws were repealed under the con that English manufacturing would be more competitive in the world market, free trade would expand, those evil landowners would give back some ill gotten profit and bread would be cheaper for the English. The politicians were supported by the manufacturing interests that were growing in England. Facing competition from a growing Germany that had lower living standards, they needed help reducing costs. They needed lower wage demands to cut costs and stay competitive. More cheap labor. The repeal of the Corn Laws depressed wages for the English and was a boon to manufacturers. Weird, this corn law website doesn't say it, but wikipedia's entry on Corn Laws mentions it. The manufacturers could afford the propaganda and get out the vote efforts to swing enough MPs and PM Peel to their side. The British landed gentry didn't recover and saw their power slide continuously for the next century; almost lock-step with the continuous expansion of voting rights.

Something feels familiar about this, even within my lifetime. Let's see: change the laws so that we can open up free trade. American products will find new markets to sell more. It will be great for American manufacturing. They sold globalization and free trade on abstract ideas that people would only see as us sending goods over there. Hi Mexico. Hi China. Let our products in. Not really. American manufacturing jobs have disappeared due to automation and outsourcing. Location centric jobs have seen wages anchored by never-ending immigration. IT guys get screwed by the H1B Visa helots. Those sectors have their wages capped, allowing the remaining American manufacturing jobs to suffer from sticky wages. Capital had it much easier. American capital crossed borders effortlessly with the aid of Wall Street consulting. Wall Street lent money to foreign nations to build up their industries, which surprisingly would lead to monetary problems in those countries requiring bailouts from the developed nations' governments. The free trade is good mantra hurt other things as well. While America's land and air quality scores went up + forests filled in, the rest of the world saw a worsening situation. Capital doesn't care. It just needs more cheap labor. At least we got cheap toys.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

I Can Change Him

"I know he's been convicted of attempted murder and leads a prison gang, but I'll have a kid with him. I can change him."

"He doesn't take care of his kids, and rarely sees them. He won't do that with our kid. I can change him."

"I know he's a violent Muslim immigrant without friends who beat his girlfriend. I can change him."

"He has no ambition, but I'll work 70 hours a week. He'll have to reciprocate. I can change him."

"I know he's beaten me and doesn't have a job, but I'll convert to his religion. I can change him."

"I know he is an alcoholic, but once we have a baby he'll quit drinking for me. I can change him."

"I know he's unemployed, smokes weed and plays video games all day, but if I move in with him, I can change him."

"I know he's married and has affairs, but we're special. He'll leave his wife for me. I can change him."

"He sleeps with other girls, but that will stop when we get married. I can change him."

"He sleeps with other girls and doesn't call me his girlfriend. If I say we're exclusive, I can change him."

Men, use this to your advantage. How does this tie into game? Play on that primal delusion....

"Why is that cute guy talking to that other girl? Jesus, he is barely looking over here.... I can change that."

Early Identification of the Cathedral

When I come across bits in history where people warned America of the coming dystopian government or fiat FIRE economy gone mad, I pay special attention to when, where and who. Special award to Congressman James Boyd Utt of California for stating:

"We are rapidly coming to a point where a complete change of elected officials, including Congress and the White House, can mean little change in policy. You are governed more and more by people for whom you have never voted, for whom you never will vote, whom you have never seen, and whom you cannot recall by your vote. They are entrenched in the boards, bureaus and commissions, even at the policy level. For example, you may think that the Secretary of Labor sets the policy of his Department, but I know that much of the policy of that Department is set by Civil Service employees who have been with the Department for twenty years, and they have no intention, now or ever, of recommending to the Secretary of Labor any policy which does not fit their personal philosophy of government, and you cannot remove them or replace them by your ballot. That same situation exists in the State Department, and in fact in every bureau, board and commission. This is a form of invisible government and can lead to the most oppressive type of tyranny."

This is similar to my theory that Ayn Rand, even with her faults, actually understood the Marxist cathedral before it had a name. Boyd was very anti-UN. Boyd was pretty early on his cathedral call out. When did he say this? 1960. Congressman Boyd may not have been perfect, but the man did know what was wrong with our government. I used to say the post-'65 changes to governance + society is what did America in. I was wrong. The forms and methods were in place well before the Sixties (‘33). The elite of the left were just hungry for new ideas by the ’60s. The economic equality movement was a spent force. They needed something new to use to destroy the existing order of America. Cultural Marxism, liberation theory, cultural pluralism… it will all work out fine.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Book Review: Bailout by Neil Barofsky

What the hell happened with TARP? TARP was the $700 billion program to save the economy from collapse. It turned out to be a billion dollar lifeline to reckless banks, the biggest banks, and nothing as advertised to Main Street. Appointed to watch over the TARP program as the special investigator general, Neil Barofsky went from NYC to DC with responsibility to the taxpayers of America. "Bailout" is his play by play of what went down from his arrival in DC to his resignation with TARP. It is a fun read. If you are new to financial innovation, Barofsky does a nice job of breaking things down into simple concepts. While this is his book with his message and his biases, Barfosky comes across as a conscientious, tough but fair prosecutor that you envision when you imagine an honest public servant. I do wish he had explored a bit more the 'why'. As an insider in the TARP scheme, he would have access to some insight as to why the PPIP and other schemes were crafted. Why has no one been brought up on charges for a myriad of crimes, even Sarbanes-Oxley related corporate oversight and accountability issues. One of the best things said about our entire financial f*ck up was stated by Barofsky in an interview where he said to not focus on who the media tells you a bailout is for, but where does the money end up. Follow the money to find out who is truly being bailed out. Check out this book. It is a quick read, educational and enjoyable.
Random "Bailout" Thoughts....
1. Barofsky is told that to make Congress pay attention, he has to have the media all over things. To spur people to his defense, he has to play the media. The media still only reports what they deem worthy to report, so he has to make things interesting or sexy enough to report. Late in his time at SIGTARP, Barofsky comes under fire in the Wapo, but is told that everyone knows the Wapo is in the White House's pocket. There are editorials that read nearly point for point from memos or arguments by his opponents. I love the smell of corrupt, unofficial state organs in the morning. Barofsky was a lifelong Democrat, and even he was not spared. He couldn't be seen casting a true but bad light on St. Obama. The cathedral is alive + well.
2. Sen. Shelby is one of the guys who comes across well. I've always joked how he is Sen. Foghorn Leghorn due to his accent, but he appears sharp, smart and tells Barfosky to go hard in his role. There are some 'good guys' in this circus.
3. Sec. Geithner comes across as a douche. Side note: Geithner was coddled and promoted through the system by Larry Summers who was befriended by in the '80s and a frequent partner in government in the '90s of Robert Rubin. Rubin is the pope of our bankocracy. Geithner even cites how the mortgage refinancing is to foam the runway so banks get time to earn their way out of the hole. Barofsky's retelling of Geithner's comments lays the playbook out right now. The banks are being enabled by our federal government and the FED to try to earn their way out of this hole. This is a repeat attempt (with trillions more money) of the 1980s stealth bailout and extended-'n'-pretend for the money center banks after the LDC debt crisis. In the end, banks had to take their losses, but they only did so after earning millions to cover. They could only earn millions though by lending during the democratization of credit '80s boom. We don't have that credit boom now, so they are stuck trying to rig the stock market higher and earn a ton trading. I'm going to join this to my 'banks are running out the statute of limitations theory' and call this a 'banks are earning billions + running out the statute of limitations to broker a deal with whomever is in charge in Jan '17' theory.
4. The entire city of Washington could be bulldozed and we would run things much more efficiently. Barofsky peppers this book with dialogue, anecdotes and details that reveal how corrupt, territorial and slimy the civil service and DC culture is. Burning the city would be a negative to GDP for a quarter, but the societal improvement would be enormous.
5. Continuing the greatest trick ever pulled, the media's portrayal of the Democrats as fighting on the side of the little guy is so thorough, that even Barofsky, like many of us, thought Obama would be anti-bankster and tougher on fraud. Barofsky quickly learns that the Obama admin is actually worse in their approach than the Bush admin. Besides failing to confront the banks, they use speeches, PR, and politics rather than actual process and policy to fix the problem and help Americans. Obama's administration also lacks focus on details and execution.
There lies the problem. Government has moved from being about good governance and serving the safety, security and development of the nation it represents to a machine like game of looting the national treasury.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

The Pricing Free Market Myth

There are a lot of myths about our capitalist economy. I dislike the cliches and platitudes spoken by politicians and business leaders about free markets that often leave the idea in the abstract. They need to do this to keep us imagining a system that we consider good, when the system has changed dramatically and does not reflect the mythical capitalist world that leaders dredge up in public. One of the worst myths is that prices are set by the market where consumers and producers come together and send signals back and forth for an optimal price where demand meets supply. That might have been the case in smaller scale capitalism with local producers. This is not the case now, and hasn't been since roughly the 1920s. The rise of multinational corporations and consolidation of industry has destroyed the quaint notion of the market. This is why politics is lame and behind the times as society has raced ahead of and then bought off political parties and institutions. When the free market pimps speak of the free market for prices, they really speak of the unregulated ability of producers to mold your tastes to pay for their planned revenues.
This is not about basic needs like food, shelter and water. Any food products beyond the basic diet of three generations ago are excess, manufactured demand food products. For consumer goods, producers set the price to generate enough sales for enough profits to pay out shareholders and bondholders since they have to keep them happy and make sure salaries are paid to execs and technical expertise personnel of the firm. Consumers don't send signals. Consumers get bombarded with advertising. That advertising is unregulated in amount, rarely regulated in content, and the largest corporations have the biggest advertising budgets. As one of millions to consume an item, what power does the individual have? The signal is not producer to consumer, consumer returns message and producer complies. The information flow is producer wants X revenues, conducts surveys or market research for what they need to do to separate that revenue from consumers, then deliver a product that meets the anticipated desires of the consumer. Big business can afford to do this, and we live in the age of multinational conglomerates. How many markets are now dominated by oligopolies? We spent decades fearing monopolies, but no one cared if each sector of the economy came to be controlled by a handful of competitors. Customers rarely ever set the price. Marketing and corporate finance departments do; they just manipulate enough of us to get their way.

Monday, April 22, 2013

Movie Review: Girl Model

Everyone knows the dark side of the modeling world in America. Hold on, maybe everyone but the moms on Toddlers & Tiaras who hope their girls get into modeling. Producing a documentary on the evils of modeling would be walking on a worn path. "Girl Model" is a short documentary that was the brainchild of the female recruiter for the agency and the producers. It has the fish out of water element with the focus being on a 13 year old Siberian blondie being sent to Tokyo. It is an interesting and sad, but will hold you for all 77 minutes. I recommend it.

The real star is the female recruiter, Ashley Arbaugh. She is whacked out, and is a former model who had modeled in Japan (where the Russian gets sent to). There is self recorded footage of her in the late '90s being whacked out, and then there is current footage of her acting like an X-files antagonist. The NY Times review frames the doc weirdly by not stressing how much this woman is a crazy bitch and also a lying, manipulative hunter for the exploitative agency. Hmmm, I wonder why the Times has to minimize the woman's role in the evil scheme of underage model exploitation? A product of this underage modeling world turned into an exploiter herself. Ashley reveals creepy bits like buying naked baby dolls when she bought her home, but how she has one less because she dissected one of them. She leaves them out on display. Ashley's rationalizations for the slide into prostitution some girls ride is an awkward 45 seconds of film. She keeps cysts they remove + shares photos of them. She has photos of the models that she takes when they don't look that she keeps in a box. She has poor interpersonal skills, but she can speak to parents, potential models and the press with a good pitch about the agency. She is quite the actress.

The Times review misses her evil, and it is a deep evil. In some male-female serial killer pairs, the woman acts as the helpful guide to seduce the targets. They may or may not have been assaulted or raped by the male partner, but they gladly do his bidding. In some instances, they are the true leader who inflicts the majority of pain on the target (usually a younger female), and in others, they are an active participant, enjoying the sadism. There is a special evil to that compared to a solitary female murderer. Ashley Arbaugh may hate the modeling world, but she loves the home it buys her. She may know it tears girls up, but she keeps lying to get them greased down the chute. She has a choice with what she does, similar to the girls wanting to model, but her choice is made with full knowledge. She knows, yet she continues to walk the dark path.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Anarcho-tyranny: Boston Edition

For anyone slightly confused by anarcho-tyranny, here is a definition. Basically, the state will fail to enforce the traditional laws while simultaneously using laws and regulation to oppress the law abiding citizenry.

The older of the bombing brothers was arrested for a violent crime (unsure if convicted) and should have been deported per our rules, laws and immigration regulations. At the urging of the Russians, the FBI investigated one of the bombers for terrorism ties. They not only failed to deport the brother, but they granted citizenship and a green card to these two questionable men. Anarchy.

The entire city of Boston and the surrounding areas were placed on 'lockdown' as a police force of 8000 men and women looked for the one remaining suspect whom they had identified with eyewitness accounts and many surveillance photos. All businesses were closed and all persons ordered to stay inside (what law covers that?). The militarized police force rolled through the streets of the nice suburb of Watertown, MA until they cornered and captured the bleeding to death bombing suspect. Tyranny.

All of this in the heart of liberal land USA.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

SWPLs Will Do the Media's Post-Bombing Job

Don't worry about the media shaming you from even daring to mention that the bombers were Muslim. They won't need to because your friendly, social media SWPLs will do it for them. In less than 24 hours, a man who lived on the frickin' street where the shootout in Watertown happened already played the 'don't hate on Muslims' card. I like my friend. He and I are very similar in personality, except I am the driven one, but for the love of God, pull your head out of your ass.

You, SWPL, are so enlightened for not hating on Islam. You are also so funny mocking the fear people may have. God forbid they have a fear or uneasy feeling towards a group that has a pretty good track record for terrorism, stoning gays, honor killing rape victims, destroying other religions' scared monuments + libraries, etc. I know Christianity would be mocked by this person for even sniffing in the direction of any of that violence, but hell no, we can't even voice any displeasure with the horrible product of our federal government's immigration and judicial system. I'm sure this moral righteousness would apply to all groups that all future bombers will belong to.

Often, I wonder how I ever became friends with these people.

Friday, April 19, 2013

The Dying Apple Tree

The apple tree stood out back. It produced apples that, with some spraying over the course of a growing season, were edible and unlike store bought varieties. The tree stopped producing fruit, and we wondered why. Branches would fall in strong wind storms. I'd grab them to toss onto the fire pit because the smell of apple wood burning is pleasant. The branches stopped sprouting leaves. Branches stopped growing. Cutting it down, we found the tree had died. The death ring had started in the center and was rapidly spreading to the edges. It was not visible on the trunk, only deep within, but the lack of fruit and branch development were our warnings. I'll miss that tree.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

What Defeated Soviet Sphere Communism?

Britain lost one of their great figures of the 20th century recently as Margaret Thatcher passed away. Slowly but surely, the world is losing the Cold War figures who defined the end of that era, causing the media and history fans to review the figures and issues. Now that we are 20 years on from the end of the Cold War, we can review consequences no one would have seen in 1990. Thatcher is one of the primary figures associated with the confrontational stance towards Communism of the '80s that receives credit for defeating Communism. What or who defeated Soviet sphere communism? Individuals serve as rallying points and can guide a policy, but it is more what. Bad post-WW2 geopolitical moves, an underdeveloped consumer goods manufacturing economy, oil, and the US taking out a huge loan to defeat them in the 1980s defeated the USSR.
During WW2, Stalin was keen on securing a buffer zone of states between Germany and Russia. Hard to blame him considering the German invasion of Russian territory twice in 30 years. A problem created was a group of client states that drained resources out of the mother country. They were also off the wall at times, and required an armed presence to keep in line. This also opened them to publicity problems like the Polish Solidarity movement and the odd election of a Polish Pope who took the offensive. The Soviets then doubled down on this stupidity by seeking clients throughout the 3rd world. The Commies didn't learn from the Sino-Soviet split, and at every opportunity, they tried to develop clients in the 3rd world. Many of these 3rd world revolutionaries were Marxist men trained in American universities who went back home to start independence movements. They usually pledged their allegiance to the highest bidder. During and after the Vietnam War, the Soviets spent tons of money on 3rd world countries. Many of these loans went unpaid, the Soviet arms industry did well, and the rest of Soviet industrial firms could not extract natural resources from those nations at efficient rates. The Soviets expanded these efforts all over Africa and Asia in the 1970s as oil prices rose, and could afford losses then. As oil prices came back to earth, the Soviets bad loans built up and hampered their overall economic situation. They got entangled in bad situations, with Afghanistan just the best and last example of their careless, unnecessary decisions.
The Marxist bastards in charge of the USSR were just as obsessed with economic production as the West. Their problem was an economy that was largely agrarian before Soviet takeover and excluded from foreign investment in other ways. They could never properly manage their economy and the decades of destruction with their farming base left them in a grain deficit, which left them exposed to food price spikes despite having productive farmland under their control. Soviet economic leaders often remarked in amazement at how the US could have a functioning economy with proper resource allocation and optimization efforts, and even speculated that there was one office in DC or NYC that handled it. They just did not have a history of industry like the USA, and never could envision one properly within their Marxist framework. Their lack of consumer goods and food production issues while spending billions on defense was a problem. For the people and some of the leadership of the USSR, there was always a ready made system they could jump to: western capitalism. They even had an immense national treasure of a needed commodity to trade with that would fix all of their problems: oil.
Nixon closed the gold window and unleashed a decade of WTF with commodity prices. The Russians did benefit from this as their hard currency reserves increased with oil's spike up and elevated levels. This is how they funded many 3rd world idiots. It was a protection racket scheme, and oil was their revenue source. Kissinger set up the petrodollar system, but this doesn't explain the inflation. The US wouldn't reduce government spending, but the FED wasn't ratcheting up rates to cool the economy down. Losing the link to gold, everything went up to find solid footing (cotton especially, which is why people wore polyester clothes). Oil was subject to that influence, benefiting the Soviets, but it was also subject to the Arab's power with OPEC. Texas has ceased to be the swing producer, and Saudi Arabia had picked up the slack. The rising oil prices inspired the Soviets to spend more money, invest more in oil exploration and production and ramp up production. This took years, but changed in the early '80s. Volcker raised rates to the teens, forced a recession, and made investors and people trust the dollar again. Reagan's economic team realized the US economy did best with oil around $20, and realized that the Soviets were extended with the high oil prices. Reagan's foreign policy team worked the Saudis to clean up their finances, sell them some weapons to use against the Iranians if need be, and then to keep pumping oil and create a cap on the price. This screwed over the Soviets with their hard currency reserves as well as total revenues. This was also in the wake of many of their 3rd world loans rolling in worthless.
The US and UK, with Reagan and Thatcher as the course shifters, did change things by their confrontational stance. After the '70s US military draw down and aversion to foreign involvements, Reagan's commitment to an arms buildup did spook the Soviets. After a decade of Nixon's detente, Carter's softness, and the New Left running amok in the US, it was a drastic change to see Reagan shaking his fist at the Commies and promising lasers in the sky. This is over simplistic, but the USA's government deficit might as well be seen as a corporate restructuring on generous terms. To help reduce the demand side of the oil equation, the US went to more fuel efficient cars and switched the focus of our economy to use less oil for industrial purposes. The USA switched from a manufacturing focused economy to a finance focused economy, took on immense debt to build up a military, reduced taxes to free up their citizens and corporations and dared the Soviets to play catch up. As the money ran out for client states (East Germany nearly went broke in the early '80s if not for a Western German loan), the dominoes kept falling until finally the big domino fell. It cost the US a couple trillion, but there is a cost to becoming the world's hyperpower.
To step out of this subject, for a couple of sentences: we get it Foseti, they are all communists. The US left, the USSR, the Chinese etc. are communists. We get it. I hate the cathedral, too. The Soviets and Cubans tried true economic communism, but America's economy was too established to do so, and China junked it to grow and stay in power. This is why the ruling oligarchy's tastes matter, and why capitalism was so appealing. Many little people of the Eastern Bloc miss the guaranteed crap they got from their communist governments, but the connected folks knew who was getting better stuff and knew that capitalism offered even better goods. Like stressing that they are all commies, I could stress how Karl Marx came up with a system for overthrowing the contemporary, heavily Christian, and capitalist European society as an educated intellectual member of a minority (and sometimes heavily persecuted) religion that was not fully emancipated. Jeez, wonder what Marx's motives were.
View these groups as mobsters running a country by deciding who lives, dies and gets favored or punished. I'll argue that in reality they are all power hungry maniacs who realized that Marxism is a convenient and flexible philosophy to manipulate people to your side as you grab power. It is classic middle class uses magic promises to get lower class to throw out ruling high class, but suddenly the middle class is now the high and becomes a vicious ruling elite. Marxism allows these silver tongued snakes to craft their language to meet their specific national needs. The Chinese + Vietnamese used anti-colonialism and nationalism as their rallying cry. The Russian Bolsheviks had European roots, and while Russia had an underdeveloped manufacturing sector, they could rally the rural poor, the veterans, the newer worker class, etc. to their side and control the means of production as it was being built nearly from scratch. The USA had too developed of a productive economy for the US commies (progressives) to use the same shtick. The end was still power, so yes, they did have that in common. Even as the US progressives came to see the Soviets as Russian focused, it was because they were to bent on emancipating the oppressed groups that they believed would give them power in America. Defeating Soviet sphere of influence Communism was a multiperson, multivariable process. It took arms, money, an alternative system available, paranoid fears of armed invasion because they didn't know the power nuclear weapons would have as a deterrent, and self inflicted wounds for the Russian Bear to change his fur. The bear never dies, he only changes.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Snap Bombing Guess

Now that all my family and friends in Boston are accounted for, and my one friend who ran the marathon has told his tale (hotel evacuation), I'll just blog this guess to have it in black and white. This event gave my friends and family with no lives an excuse to tell you what terribly lame thing they did that day instead of running or going to the marathon. Here goes:

1. Bombs detonated with ball bearings
2. Not all bombs went off or did they because the media has lied about there being other bombs.
3. Bombs were placed in an area with copious amounts of security cameras.
Bomber is semi-competent because they pulled it off, but not super competent like the highly destructive Brevik or McVeigh. This feels more like the London bombings. My guess is Muslim terrorist but not a direct operative of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda now is a brand or channel for Muslim men to express their frustration with the world and strike out against the 'other'. I am 100% certain no politician will propose ending all visas to Muslims or sending non-citizen Muslims back home. This will be another price we pay for the joy that is diversity. I'll give this 'favorite' odds at 2-1.

My second idea is a Joker style, 'watch the world burn' white male under 35. I'll set that at 5-1. I won't hold my breath waiting for the media to evaluate the current state of young males in America with penetrating analysis of the state of the family, men, the economy, fatties, etc.

I almost forgot, ricin letters to Senators and the president are an odd wrinkle. I hope they do catch that crew as it seems like a terror act of opportunity like the Anthrax guy in 2001, but could be part of something bigger.

Thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families. That is all any of us can do.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Are you John the Savage or Bernard Marx?

Western society has marched down the road of Brave New World for decades with slight deviations here and there. We have touches of Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Harrison Bergeron and other dystopian novels, but Brave New World is a solid fit right now. The world state of BNW is pretty fantastic with sex, drugs, entertainment, and everyone having high self esteem no matter what caste they belong to in the hierarchy (hmmm that's familiar). There is a dark side of triviality, conformity and emptiness that irritates some but causes even fewer to openly rebel. It is the velvet gloved totalitarian regime. There are two men who definitely know the world state is awful, and they have very different circumstances. If we do live in a BNW style world state, then who are you? Are you John the Savage or Bernard Marx?
John the Savage is a genetic product of the world state but raised outside the sanitized world. He has access to a few old books, a mother who tells him of the civilized world, but exposure to the remnants or excluded system of the natives. He doesn't think like a normie, and has a hard time comprehending the normie world. Bernard Marx is an alpha raised in the world state who is aware. Due to his job, he knows the hypnopaedia that brainwashes those around him and dabbles in unorthodox behavior. He doesn't think like a normie thoroughly, he understands the world around him and seeks to manipulate it for his gain. John the Savage ends up betraying his principles because of actions by the world state and commits suicide upon discovery instead of giving into the world of pleasure. Bernard Marx pushes too hard for personal gain and is banished to an Island in exile.
You might see yourself as a John the Savage. You're an outsider. You have books to the ancients and won't compromise your principles. You aren't an opportunist like Bernard Marx. You aren't one of them. I'll disagree. I think we are more like Bernard than we are John. We know something is wrong, but we are a part of it. We went through the same schooling, are awash in the propaganda and entertainment, and interact with human products of this system. We try to work the system. John was outside of it and thrown into it. Bernard knew the terrible truth but was also a product of it and wanted a plum little spot. We can pose as outsiders all we want, but it doesn't change the fact that we are products of the very system we dislike. We can only hope for its collapse under its expanding weight or exile on the Falklands. John is the romantic ideal of what we want to be, but Bernard is the cloudy pond reflection of who we really are.

A Tiger Woods Issue No One Mentions

Tiger Woods went from being Jesus Christ with a Putter to a villainous whore chaser. I've blogged about Tiger before as being the result of bad parenting. The man is a great competitor, but a man. He is also the product of non-stop training since 12-18 months old for the game of golf. Anyone thinking a toddler wants to golf himself is delusional. That could lead to a warped personality as an adult. Where are the nurture advocates? With Tiger's skirt chasing and phony excuse of sex addiction, why didn't anyone mention that Tiger had an odd childhood and his acting out might be the result of bad parenting? With the borderline abusive behavior that is common knowledge, worse things might have happened in the Woods household.

We live in a society where every bad behavior is excused away by the liberals as a product of their environment, their home, their parents, legacies of system hey were never a part of (slavery, colonialism). How come no one jumped up to defend Tiger's antics as the product of his overly controlling father? Todd Marinovich was trained by his father non-stop to be the perfect quarterback. His breakdown is why other athletes with obsessive parents are compared to Marinovich. The only difference between Marinovich and Woods is that one did succeed in his sport while the other failed. Marinovich developed a drug habit that nearly killed him, but Tiger developed a sex addiction and possibly dabbled in steroids and HGH use. Marinovich in documentaries and news articles has journalists partially excuse his drug use as an expression of freedom and rebellion from an oppressive childhood. Woods going bonkers with as many women as he could is an irresponsible athlete, using his fame and money to screw around. It also might be the difference between how Americans view sex versus drugs.

Part of this is framing and the media's desire to sell a story. Woods was the world's most famous athlete and considered bulletproof. His fall from grace was too good to even question for some deeper rationale. Marinovich could be the golden boy who was abused and victimized by his father, pushing himself into deeper drug addictions to cope with his demons. Story has it that Woods broke up with his girlfriend just prior to his ex-wife because his father said she was messing with his game. Stupid, but a rumor, and it was a rumor that had legs, considering Papa Woods' control over his son. Woods sexual antics might have exploded once his father died, and that ultimate fear that he'd let down his dad who trained him from birth to play golf was removed. This is a reach, but in our victim culture, it is odd that no one ever explores the odd relationship and training of Tiger by his father. If the obsessive sports dad pushing his son to breakdown has become a common staple on television and in movies, why would the world's most successful and most documented sports obsessed father get a pass from being a part of his son's troubles?

Monday, April 15, 2013

Polygamy is Coming

It has been a soft campaign with hints around the edges. It changed a bit with the coverage of the Supreme Court hearing the same sex marriage arguments. Someone signed off on the Slate polygamy legalization "Polygamy is Good" article. An editor said, let's do this, a writer crafted up a nice article with typical progressive words, and the content was finalized for consumption with a photo of two attractive moms in a polygamous home. They used the gay marriage line, and it is probably a few years away, but some writer will state that a woman getting child support from two men but living with a 3rd man is a soft form of polygamy. What is good for the gay goose is good for the straight geese. All of the arguments for gay marriage are applicable to polygamy, and polygamy has an actual historical record and tradition. There are some other things at work here though, but rest assured, if the progressive steamroller is still in effect in the next 20 years, we will have polygamy.
Progressives realize marriage is good even if gender relations theorists say marriage is an evil social construct to oppress women. They have started to feel the effects of the rising tide of illegitimacy. The progs also know that no matter how much they try to brainwash women, some women still want to marry and have kids. Progressives have done enough to hamper wages for men by supporting never-ending immigration and environmental laws that ruin other male heavy industries. Family law changes have scared other men away from the divorce theft racket. The constant reduction of sexual standards and norms have created a sexual playground for handsome and wealthy men. What man needs to marry? Fewer marriage material men are around, and many others don't want to. To keep some women happy, the progs need to set up a structure for women to get their hit and fill of marriage and kids. Not all women want to raise a kid on their own, so the Uncle Sam husband substitute doesn't do it for them, plus they've seen what single moms really go through. Lawyers also really want a new revenue source. Polygamy is a goldmine for fees and contract services.
How bullshit is the progressive mind? Money Quote: "Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice." Yes folks, we have publicly inverted the "marriage is a patriarchal, oppressive construct" line. State sanctioned polygamy is actually a deeper step than same sex marriage since any gay couple can marry right now, they just won't have their marriages recognized by the state (depending on jurisdiction). Polygamous marriages aren't just unrecognized, but they are breaking the law. Think of how bullshit it is that liberals are now supporting polygamy because they have to since it is the same argument using their logic, if not better, as gay marriage. This is because the libs have reduced marriage to a contract or old fashioned and outdated, and forgotten that marriage is sacred with all those hopes and notions of romance when the couple enter matrimony. They say love is love and focus on the contract part (and benefits) instead of what marriage was intended to be. At every step, they destroy the old system to replace it with a new one, but the new one keeps needing changes because of the continuous dysfunction from liberals' original changes. Don't believe the left will fight for this? Who lines their candidates pockets? Lawyers.
Lawyers are the key. They contribute overwhelmingly to the left for a variety of reasons. The court challenges to this would earn few lawyers some fees, but the real moneymaker is in setting up the polygamy contract. Think of how complicated a divorce or asset split would be. You think first wives are going to give up their nice financial position because some younger chick marries in and then parachutes out after she has her kid and gets bored? No way. First wives will want protection. Even if this only affects 1-2% of marriages, the polygamy contract itself will generate more work for lawyers than a gay marriage, which only creates legal work if they divorce, plus the added polygamy bonus of multiple, potential divorces. Lawyers will love this, and if they love it, the Democrats will love it.
This is what happens when the left doesn't think things through and only does what feels right at the moment. The moment changes. What feels right can change with enough shouting and money. The argument that polygamy is a feminist positive thing is the signal that the snake has begun to eat its tail. Anything to draw in new voters, anything to push state dependency, anything to win. I support same sex marriage and polygamy, but I also support churches saying no way to officiating or recognizing them, and I support the government getting out of the marriage business. Most importantly, I support private, consensual relationships that have to deal with the consequences of their actions. What goes unsaid in our media, and therefore our public debates, is that the churches and communities of the world handled marriage fine for eons. We knew what worked to make society function. Once the state started to mess with marriage, divorce, child custody, etc. then mass dysfunction appeared. Never looking back, the progressive steamroller moves on.

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Note on Gold

Oh no, the end of the gold bull is here. Gold is getting iced in the markets. Goldman is telling clients to sell gold, the NY Times is ripping on the folly of gold owners, and all is well in the stock market. I'm doing the opposite and picking up some now (so is Goldman).

1. Money printing has begun in Japan in a new phase of the currency wars.
2. JP Morgan and the Comex depositories have both declined significantly since the start of '13. Comex eligible gold down nearly 2 mil oz while JP Morgan eligible gold is down 1.5 mil.
3. Germany's gold repatriation program from the FED is a 7 year program of 674 metric tons. Simple math means 8 tons a month are going out of the NY banker system.
4. The FED is doing QE3 open ended still, and while hawks have made some noise, there is no end in sight or even an outline. The FED has telegraphed all rate hikes since the '94 rate hike surprise that messed with Wall St.
5. The US is still running trillion dollar deficits.
6. Governments are still dumb and pawns of the banking interests.
7. Governments have started confiscating assets to cover for the banks.

We are in the middle of a long event that is the end of a financial order. These events take years if not decades. When Nixon closed the gold window and ended the Bretton Woods agreement, it took the world roughly a decade to figure out the new system. Spikes up and quick drops down happen along the way. Gold should not be viewed as a capital gains type investment but more like an insurance policy against the idiocy of our leaders.

Gosnell + Defining Extreme

"Because, you know, there are nuts on the right too, like people who kill abortion doctors" - My former Congressional intern sister responding to my statement that the left has lost touch with reality

The Gosnell story has been a horror show with disgusting and disturbing details coming out daily. The media blackout of the story is cathedral information flow control in action. They can't have the natives seeing the terrible side of a practice that kills thousands daily. After all, we just had an entire election where the main narrative was the GOP War on Women. We can't possibly allow people to question one of those fundamental rights of modern women. The spinmeisters spent months focusing on rape and health of mother abortion causes when those make up 3-5% of all abortions. Those reasons speak to many, if not all, people as horrible events that would give abortion a get out of jail free card. That takes the focus off of the other 95-97% of abortions that are purely a woman's decision that her lifestyle is more important than a soul's right to life on earth.

The terrible thing about Gosnell is that had he been killed by a pro-life activist, he'd be canonized. He would have died in service of a modern, progressive article of faith. That murder would've swept away all of the horrors he performed, the spinal cord slitting of living babies he delivered, all because he could be added to the small list of victims of pro-life, troglodyte violence. It is extreme to consider life precious. It is backward to support the pro-life side. It isn't PC or polite. His death would have served a purpose to the cathedral media in advancing their belief system. Gosnell wasn't shot. In fact, he was enabled by a morally corrupt state government. Killing abortion doctors is a crime and wrong, but also a statistical rarity. Abortions are commonplace. They happen at a rate of nearly two per minute. One side is called violent and aggressive. One side is extreme, but I am having a hard time figuring out why they are considered so. It might be because no one is ever allowed to discuss the truth of abortion.

"Proving my point. You can only think of abortion doc killers, and you can't even remember the last one." - My response

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Allen Ginsberg, Useful Idiot Rebel

My freshman year roommate was a big Allen Ginsberg fan. He would read Howl out loud in our room. This was when he wasn't swinging between manic and depressed phases or debating if fire was alive. Ginsberg and the Beat writers were a romantic touchstone for my roommate and other silver spoon sons of Scarsdale, seeking meaning and justification for their drug abuse. They didn't have wikipedia then, so no one knew of his association with NAMBLA. Ginsberg was a bit of a douche, and also a useful idiot for the liberal media to sell the hippie, druggie counterculture.

Ginsberg was hooked up to the establishment. Below is taken from a letter sent to Dr. Timothy Leary by Allen Ginsberg,

"Yesterday got on TV with Norman Mailer and Ashley Montagu and gave big speech... recommending everybody get high... Got in touch with all the liberal pro-dope people I know to have [specific pro-drug report] publicized and circulated... I wrote a five page letter to this friend Kenny Love on the New York Times and he said he'd perhaps do a story (newswise)... which could then be picked up by U.P. friend on national wire. Also gave copy to Al Aronowitz on New York Post and Rosalind Constable at Time and Bob Silvers on Harper's..."

Ginsberg was on television and then promoted his message to establishment media figures for wide dissemination. Ginsberg was content fodder. He was a hyperaggressive, energetic self promoter. Ginsberg was a bohemian, enlightened dabbler in drugs ready for mass consumption. Not the drugs, but the type. This was a packaged personality for other users of these mind expanding drugs to model themselves after and identify with. This helped spread the use of the drugs as well as safely cordon them off as alternatives to the mainstream. It would be far more dangerous to have Americans dabbling in LSD or smoking weed and still working a 9 to 5. Crafting a semi-attached or oddball type to model, these drug users could fall into that form as well as be smeared by the mainstream, therefore the drugs get smeared by the users. The entire drug counterculture was marketed to the rest of America with direct input from middle aged beatniks passed their prime. Be a rebel, be enlightened, drop out, turn on, be a free spirit... be just like this bearded, Buddhist oddball.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Collapsing Countries: South Africa

If you take the red pill, you know that South Africa is sliding down the Zimbabwe pole. Power switched from the ruling, educated whites governing to educated blacks with a massive group of illiterate adults (SA: 30% adult illiteracy rate) voting the same cronies into power. Since the end of apartheid there has been a rise in nationwide problems like corruption, rape, murder, electric grid and infrastructure decline, rape, worker exploitation by black management, HIV/AIDS, security issues, rape, and some more rape. Just over 400,000 whites have fled South Africa since 1994. Black on white violence is reaching levels associated with genocide, and pundits think Mandela's death would spark even more. Population has increased significantly since 1994, so why is everything falling apart? It's a mystery says the liberal media. Masking the societal decline has been the run out of the tremendous industrial and economic base that was in effect in 1994. That amazing economic base has declined and is heading for collapse. This will have a much larger impact on the globe than the North African uprisings or a year ago.
Since the discoveries of diamonds and gold, South Africa has had a healthy balance of trade. Going back 25 years, one can see the consistent good balance of trade trend sharply to the negative after 1994. In the 2000s emerging market bubble, South Africa was treated like many other emerging markets but had an extra boost because of the long period of South African economic growth when under white rule. South Africa had a developed mining and commodity sector and was open to foreign investment after the end of apartheid. This fit perfectly in the secular commodities boom the world has had as well as the easy money FED practices that began in the early '00s. South Africa attracted investment and received lots of hot money in their high yielding commodity country currency due to past performance, which does not reflect the reality of SA today. They have grown the public debt, and the FED's ZIRP policy has helped keep their yield low (lower than their inflation rate). They have a well traded currency and keep depreciating. A perfect storm is set up for SA.
South Africa has experienced high rates of inflation, massive strikes and rough union negotiations, a decrease in investment, and a lack of infrastructure maintenance. This has created a major problem with electricity generation, which in turn hurts their mining operations. Mining is of the utmost importance for South Africa and the world because SA is the source for 75% of the world's platinum and 39% of the world's palladium. Platinum production peaked in '06, declining 19% since then. Gold production peaked in the early '70s and has dropped 80% since then. Some of this is resource exhaustion, but how much of this is replacement of the Boers who ran the show with Africans who do not have the same organizational and educational skills. South Africa's education scores are horrendous, land reform (white farm confiscation) is hurting farming and most socioeconomic measures are worse now. Government went from racist (anti-black) and efficient due to global pressure to corrupt, disorganized, bloated and racist (anti-white) with global enabling.
There is a possible out. If South Africa does fall into economic chaos and proves to be too big or too reluctant to change for IMF treatment, China could come riding in to save them. This would be a big, juicy target for China. China would have the cash to lend to SA in exchange for those rich natural resources. China would probably send their own crews to extract minerals. China could even help SA set up a tighter government to control the crime in SA. This would fall right in line with Xi Jinping's speech on respecting diversity of governments, refraining from meddling, and welcoming China's friendly help. The elites of the ANC selling out their nation's natural wealth to the Chinese while brutally cracking down hard on their people would count as a not in 1 million years unintended consequence of the end of apartheid.
The problem with South Africa is that the global community enables the bad governance of their nation. They get a free pass on many problems due to the memory of apartheid. They have 'freedom' but dysfunction. South Africa has expanded government spending for the people with redistribution and confiscation, but their future is Zimbabwe. Apartheid ended 15 years after Zimbabwe's switch to black rule, and their decline has tracked Zimbabwe's at a roughly 15 year differential. All of those government programs looked good when nice, South African natural resource companies were operating as they did in '94. It is not '94, the whites are leaving and the debts underwritten on past economic assumptions are racking up. As the machinery runs down, mining will shift to a trickle (crushing exports), their economy will suffer massive inflation, blowing up unemployment (25% now), and there will be a suspension of government services. Timed with Mandela's death, the already sky high crime rates could explode in the rainbow nation.
South Africa collapsing would destroy a more stable, large nation in sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa currently takes in refugees from other African crapholes. South Africa is also a well traded currency with a fair amount of foreign debt. The nation still exports many minerals, and still is a player in gold production, which is a commodity watched very carefully by our bankocracy. The media will never give this attention until it has blown up. By then, the media narrative will be that is was the legacy of apartheid that created failed South Africa. The mass media makes comic books whitewashing Mandela's life for kids. The real lesson is that people do matter. I'm willing to bet a majority of liberals thought South Africa could replace the whites for blacks and the economic gem in southern Africa would keep shining. Their materialistic, people are interchangeable cogs worldview, is refuted by SA's decline. The demographic change correlated to economic decline in SA is a real life experiment in replacing one set of people with another and testing the hypothesis. The results of failure are in. When South Africa has collapsed economically and socially, the whole world will be watching. Some will understand why, fewer will say why.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

The Quick Bitcoin Bubble

Bitcoin is an interesting idea. I do think it can be considered money. I prefer a gold standard, but admire its representation of idealism into reality through the Internet. Bitcoin seems like the late night, idealistic anarchist ideas I would laugh but consider very interesting the next morning when in college. Moldbug has written well on this one (here, here and here), but Bitcoin was always going to be killed if it ever posed a true threat. The other problem would be the low barrier to entry, inspiring other entrants. Killing an idealistic and rebel idea is a bit risky in the age of faux rebellion, so why kill what you can reduce to ridicule and smear before strangulating.

Bitcoin has a '90s Internet feel to it. Back in the '90s, us nubes didn't know the porno theater-shopping mall-forced family reunion that the Internet would become. The Internet was sold to us as anything we wanted it to be. A virtual currency sounds straight out of Internet 1.0. "Dude, my money is totally in cyberspace". With widespread attention and enough information for early adopters and Etsy styled microbusinesses, I could see Bitcoin catching on, then add in the black and grey markets and you have a base. In an era of competitive currency devaluations, Bitcoin would be a small problem and challenge to the US leadership. Snuffing out Bitcoin would appear heavy handed. Before icing Bitcoin, it would be best to smear it and spread propaganda of its danger and weakness to manipulation. It is not just about Bitcoin, but any type of virtual Internet currency.

That is most likely behind the Bitcoin mini-bubble. Zero Hedge has reported on its spike and crash (1, 2). Hinted in ZH's Winklevoss Twin post is how the central banks might be holders of Bitcoin, waiting to sell it off again. The feds have been warning of potential money laundering issues with Bitcoin. This is an anthill compared the HSBC drug money laundering, but HSBC is part of the ruling bank cartel. The feds might fear the attention Bitcoin received after the Cyprus money grab pushed some people into holding Bitcoin. The feds then could sick Kevin Henry, FED trader extraordinaire, on Bitcoin's incredibly thin market. If the FED can keep the long end of the UST bond curve in line for years, then manipulating Bitcoin's tiny market would be easy. Bitcoin : UST market = flea : 'roided up elephant. Bubble up, media attention, crash, more media attention, and then "look at the dangers of virtual currencies, they must be regulated".

The feds could use a sledgehammer to Bitcoin's face or they can do what they do to many entities, act like a velvet gloved Gestapo. It is true they have no intrinsic value, and that while the US $ is fiat, it is the lube for the USA Godfather protection racket. Another reason why we need to move back to a gold standard. Bitcoin now can be discussed by low information news consumers, mocked on Saturday Night Live, and smeared from use by middle adopters. The Bitcoin bubble and crash can be used as an example by our powers that be to regulate virtual currencies or dare I say, outlaw all virtual currencies. The folks at home can rest soundly, unaware that the men and women at the Federal Reserve and other central banks are the only ones allowed to create money at a computer terminal.

Melissa Harris Perry's Hitler Echo

Sometimes the mask slips from the faces of the progressive mouthpieces. Do not invoke Godwin's Law. This is a proper use of Hitler as the mindset of state power is at work in both individuals' comments.

"We have to break through our private idea that children belong to their parents, or children belong to their families, and recognize that children belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s, we start making better investments." - Melissa Harris-Perry (MSNBC propaganda specialist)

"When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community." - Adolf Hitler (Fuhrer of the Third Reich)

At the heart of both statements is that a person's kids belong to the community for proper raising and for raising in the mindset of the ruling community. Public education has been the means of brainwashing multiple generations of Americas in the ruling ideology. While Hitler was hoping to turn children into good Nazis, Harris-Perry wants to brainwash them into good little progressives. While there are some differences between the two groups' beliefs, the core desire to control and mold the future is there. Much easier sell for the state if the kid comes from a one parent home, too. Loosen all natural bonds and replace them with bonds to the state.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Collapsing Countries: Egypt

It has been roughly two years since Mubarak's overthrow in Egypt. The media has given the consequences 1% of the attention compared to the spotlight during the Arab Spring. Was Egypt's phony revolution a creation of the State Department to reward Islamists, a genuine uprising yearning for democracy or a hungry crowd protesting price increases thanks to Chairman Bernanke? This does matter as the conditions are coming back for more problems in Egypt. If money related, we could change the monetary policy (stop laughing) and if created by the State Department, we could just blame them and prevent them from interfering in the next round of revolution. With 82 million people, Egypt is a bit different compared to other piss ant countries with problems in the Middle East. The US had a friendly secular autocrat, who with the military, protected religious minorities, was slightly positive towards Israel, and was anti-Islamofascist. We helped boot him out, and now complete social chaos is a step away. Egypt will most likely collapse economically in the short term with that situation followed by a civil war. Egypt is a collapsing country.
Mubarak's state was incredibly inefficient, but they did one steady thing: raw material and food subsidies. They are a net oil importer, which especially kills them in today's oil market. These government subsidies helped the little internal manufacturing they had as well as kept food costs down for the commoners and energy costs down for the irrigation systems. This subsidy contributed to the boost in population in a nation with a much lower human carrying capacity. The subsidy bill is over 25% of government expenditures. After the democratic revolution (stop laughing), social welfare spending rose enough so that subsidies and social program outlays rose roughly 50% from summer 2012 to January of 2013. Egypt's budget deficit is skyrocketing, they have had debt downgrades, and owe roughly $190 billion. Only about 20% of that is held by foreigners. Side note: Egypt has $4 billion in gold for western banks to plunder. The sick perversion of the bond markets even affects Egypt, as their debt is roughly 6% higher than Treasuries. ZIRP is forcing everyone to look for any high yield fixed income investment, regardless of risk. If Egypt runs into problems, any debt default or odd event is going to crush people internally. The kind of people who will fund revolutionaries and private security groups.
The elections put Islamists into power. They have taken a club to Coptic Christians and followed down the path of other secular dictator to democratic Islamist countries like Libya, Iraq and in '79 Iran. A perverse consequence of opening up the nation to elections is that now the elections are an excuse for people to riot and incite armed rebellion and protest. If you read one of the links below, a member of a minority or losing party uses the idea of corrupt elections, lost elections as a reason for protesting or that the ruling power would lose a new election so they would resort to violence to protect the state from what they would deem an improper election. There is even the mention of threats and intimidation at election time. Egypt's moved from violence due to what they deem oppressive tyranny to violence due to elections they deem fraudulent (much lower hurdle). Chaos and violence are commonplace in Cairo's neighborhoods because there is little control, the ruling power is perceived as weak, and violence gets results. In a country suffering from economic collapse and basic security issues, all elections will be considered fraudulent by someone, therefore violence will continue as long as democracy lives in Egypt.
Egypt has even bigger problems because their foreign reserves have dropped by 2/3 since the revolution. They are reduced to  combination of begging and blackmailing for foreign aid. "Give us that money or the people get it." The average Egyptian spends 45% of their income on food. Removing food subsidies will begin a new round of protests and revolution. Last time around, Egypt had higher reserves, a better global economic situation and a ready made organization to take over the civilian reins. Will the world be there to extend monetary lifelines? Egypt never implemented IMF required reforms listed in the prior aid packages. If the Muslim Brotherhood loses face in a collapse, who is left? The military would have the organization (they're calling the shots anyway), but didn't the West just usher out a secular autocrat aligned with the military? The time might be right for China to step in with aid and support for a nation run by its military, but Egypt doesn't have what China wants or needs. If there is no further bailout, we'll have economic chaos in a nation of 80 million followed by civil war (read here, here and here) as different power groups tussle for control in a basketcase region.

Tuesday, April 09, 2013

An Alternative Solution to the Public Pension Problem

Public pension liabilities continue to be a problem in America. This will not end until the collective bargaining agreements are changed and the end of the FED's ZIRP. We face a pension tsunami as Boomers retire en masse. This will grow into a more disgusting problem as municipalities and states shift more money to retiree funds and away from actual public expenditures ($2 mil for cop pension instead of cars/guns/equipment). The problem with collective bargaining agreements is that changes often just alter current active employees (future retirees). Rarely can changes to retiree benefits occur as the union reps have to protect them at all costs since it is a tool to use on active union guys of "look, we give up something in negotiations when active but you never get touched as a retiree, so you need us". If union reps want to play hardball and will do so because the jobs can't be outsourced, governments should tax the pension payments about X amount at 100%.

Just step away from the union negotiation table. Back away from it. Move over to the policy side and do your work there. We have taxes that are refined and surgical in their application and others that are sledgehammers. A silly thing about the public employee retirement system (PERS) is that they are well organized, automated and know where every nickel and dime goes due to the benefit aware public employees. Take advantage of that. How easy would it be to collect taxes from those automated systems? Set the line at whatever you can get enough votes in the legislation for, and tax away (income indexed for inflation). In California, the line could be 100,000. That has a nice, round look to it, and no one would think legislators would be cruel to tax income from pensions for early retirees at 100% if 100,000 is the line. It would be an easy propaganda movement in the mass media. Now $100,000 might not be low enough, so use $50,000. Now you are talking. Fifty thousand can be negotiated up in the inevitable back and forth. The media would have a hard time saying that $50,000 is not enough to live on as a retiree, and it is a higher amount than a vast majority of Americans make when actively working. This is a winner.

It is a winner because while inefficient, you can recoup the money poured out that taxpayers poured in for years. Legislation and technology can make that money sealed off for use right back into those departments or a specific niche in the state's general fund. It is also a winner for one more reason: the unions might negotiate rather than face such a great idea. How many people love to say, "I pay their salaries" about public workers? Plenty. Supporting taxing those same employees that you think are underworked and overpaid will be the common voters' privilege. Public employee unions can't hide behind discrimination protection because discrimination statutes don't protect a type of employee. The public employee unions would cart their wide asses to the table and cave. What is great about the legislation tactic is that a governor or mayor has multiple points that ratchet up the threat. It passed council/house, will they bend? It passed the senate/voter referendum, will they bend? Oh gosh, all he or she has to do is sign it into law, oh, will the union bend?

They will bend. The economic pie is stable or shrinking and debt loads are still too high. We have not had any structural reform or debt write downs to spur capital expenditure investment or personal savings. As the engine stays stalled, the easy targets will be the first picked off. Welfare leeches are an early target, but welfare leeches that have friends in the state house are usually later. Public employee unions have friends now, but the media attention on them has been at a steady, low level for years now. Fat cats of all stripes make good copy. Their time will come. The threat of 100% taxation will get them moving. When opponents drag their feet, it is best to start up the wood chipper in front of them.

Monday, April 08, 2013

China's Speech on Different Governments

China recently made some waves with a speech (full text) that the world should be more open minded and respect diversity of forms of government. Is China feeling some heat from the West's pressure to move to democracy or expand political freedoms? Not at all. China is calling the shots economically for Europe as nations cast their eyes to China's sovereign wealth fund for potential bailouts, excuse me, investments, and the USA is dependent on China to fund it's deficit. China's diversity of governments statement is not to protect China. This statement is meant for current and future clients and signifies change in the global game. It is to protect China's investments, current foreign policy and future foreign policy.
China has been developing it's string of pearls foreign policy to secure raw materials and natural resources for the giant manufacturing engine that is mainland China. China has client states in the Middle East and North Africa that supply (or used to supply) them with that wonderful input, crude oil. China has witnessed within the last few years an overthrow of one client (Libya) and harassment of other clients (Iran and Sudan). Because China now imports as much if not more crude than the USA and is growing its manufacturing sector, this is of supreme importance to them. China has also been directly investing in Africa and southern Asia with no strings attached to the development. Unlike Western aid, China just wants the goods, and their approach and this speech appeals to the dysfunctional sub-Saharan African nations.
China has been bumping into Western investment opportunities in Africa, which is their newest source for raw materials. The West can use cathedral apparatchiks like Dambisa Moyo (Harvard, Goldman Sachs, World Bank) to push the Goldman line (my review of her bestseller Dead Aid). Africa has many resources but corrupt institutions and complete dysfunction. The West and China will get their hands on them using their current systems. Africans might choose the Chinese model of economic progress without political progress, but the West will push the "DEMOCRACY NOW" line as usual. Sec. Clinton even called China's moves creeping neo-colonialism. The West needs dysfunctional democracies so that the countries will be dependent on Western aid, end up selling resources for nothing, and ultimately get in trouble with loans so that vulture funds can pick up the impaired debt and then use the international court system to get repayments in the form of mineral or resources rights. The strong will use the weak, just as it always has been.
What system is right? The West's decades of post-colonialism aid have created more problems than good. Will it stop the West from pushing propaganda attacking China's moves? No. China also has plenty of reason to fear Western funded and supported rebellion movements in their client states in Africa. They don't want their resource centers tinkered with or else it drives up the cost of extraction. This Chinese speech is an advertisement to 3rd world countries and a statement of strength. China's statement about respecting different political systems reveals a heightened sense of confidence as well as an offensive move in the public relations realm. This signifies a big change, that I did not see in the reports on the speech. Twenty years ago, Bush 41 and Bill Clinton could prod and threaten China on reforms in the wake of Tiananmen. As China hosted the Olympics in '08, all Bush 43 could encourage was the freedom of religion (smart but nothing like his dad's statements). In 2013, China doesn't feel the need to defend itself, and instead, exports its model of governance and development to the rest of the world. The score changes but how many people notice.

Sunday, April 07, 2013

An Anthony Weiner Theory (very late)

Anthony Weiner got into hot water over twitter problems. The guy got plenty of media protection and the last push over the cliff was when he was linked to sending messages to an underage woman. Democrats may defend their brethren when cheating, but underage girls is where they draw the line. Weiner had eyes on much bigger seats than a Congressman from NY. Weiner wanted to be Mayor of NYC, and sit there until he got a crack at either the US Senate or Governor. He had a stocked war chest to campaign and name recognition for filling the seat. Mayor of NYC is one of the top three patronage jobs in America (POTUS, governor of southern state + NYC mayor). Weiner wanted it bad, and it was there for his taking. He pissed it away. He and Huma are still being coddled by Clinton cronies. Time had her as a woman to watch in their "40 Under 40" propaganda PR; these two are hooked up. The cathedral does nothing by accident. The sex was indirectly steroid driven. It wasn't reckless behavior due to a drug, it was the need for a family.

One Weiner problem: he wasn't married and had no kids. In America, we have an aversion to singles in politics. Part of it is that stamp of family man, but there is a deeper element. To work up the political ladder, you do need ambition, and someone without kids or a wife but playing that political game might rub people as too driven. This is a farce, as is a lot about democracy, but people find that off-putting. Weiner needed to get married. He decided to follow the Bill Clinton playbook (c'mon, you think Clinton was meant to be married).

1. Find like minded, driven woman willing to look the other way as you sleep with other women just as long as she has access to power. Huma Abedin = possible lesbian hungry to be Secretary of State someday.
2. Get hitched + have one kid. Baby Weiner born late 2011.
3. Run for office with phony multiethnic family in tow for 20 years. A Muslim + Jew happily married. Hope for us all.

Weiner timed this all perfectly for that 2013 run. Why do I think Huma is a lesbian? Besides the Hildawg rumors, Huma was pregnant when Weiner was tweet sexting. They announced her pregnancy literally right after his resignation. She had the kid in late 2011. Who stays with a man who cheats on her while pregnant + who has lost his access to power? A lesbian who is in a sham marriage. Had he stayed clean, Weiner could've run for re-election in '12 with new baby in tow, look great as a father + husband for photo ops for a year, and then run for mayor in 2013. He needed the family. He was 46 when he got married. At his age, Weiner may have needed help with fertility. Weiner was described as proud of his ripped physique (barely any muscle but probably felt like a lot to his pencil neck self). He was probably prescribed human chorionic gonadotropin. HCG is a testosterone booster banned in sports due to its anabolic nature. Sure, the steroids may have contributed to his recklessness, but really, he was a sleazeball bachelor for years. He needed a kid. He took the juice for the kid. He needed to check off that box on his political resume so people would vote for him, subconsciously thinking, "He could be a selfish bachelor, but he's got a family. He's an OK guy". Weiner might be done for good, but we'll hear from Huma or him in the future. They've been pushed too much too young not to be used later. Democracy.

Side Note: Why did the Daily Show avoid skewering Weiner? Check out Jon Stewart's political donations. Weiner's his only one.

Saturday, April 06, 2013

Those Cookie Cutter SWPLs

True SWPLs are so cliché that they can read the website that began the mocking of their kind and laugh at how perfectly it describes them. They cannot deny how cookie cutter they are. Even as they fight to be individuals and unique, they fall deeper into the SWPL abyss. The very search for a unique image within accepted guidelines only reinforces their conformity. They seem so fake, and act like little dilettantes with everything they dabble in. The problem is that being a SWPL is a lifestyle selection, not an organic status.

SWPLs are not born, they are made. A SWPL is attempting to project the highest level of status for modern Americans. SWPLs are a late Gen-X, Gen-Y phenomenon. Being white is being part of the majority and the power group. Even more important, it's the desired romantic partner group, just ask OKCupid. SWPLs do not come about to SWPLdom organically but through a series of choices and research. They pick their lifestyle. They want to be seen as open-minded, liberal, well-read, enlightened and not those types of whites (NASCAR whites). They have to learn certain words and phrases. They used to say establishment, but as the ascendant taste maker group, they are the establishment so they say 'privilege'. By not being an organic setting, they are in effect buying into a subculture that is already packaged and marketed to them. They may think they are creative and unique, but they are just following the built in norms for their distinct group.

"Oh my god, you must try my hand made mustard, hold on, let me adjust my horn rimmed glasses, did I tell you about our hike up Machu Picchu? We ate with the natives, we slept with the natives" - same SWPL story, rinse, lather, repeat.

They can never be unique in their way. It must conform to the group. They can not have independent thoughts as a heresy may result in excommunication. They also can't push the edge too much with the self modifications or clothes or they risk drifting into the weird, alternative white realm that is prole and uneducated. They are internally denying a part of themselves. They are restricting their individual freedom for acceptance in the group. There is a trade off. They have denied their lives real individualism or true expression for the benefits of being a SWPL. They have traded freedom in for the status marker of being one of those good whites. This involves rigorous research into staying on top of what is correct, orthodox and cool. Their cultural critiques carry weight for the common masses. These couples have become the new organization man and organization wife. What they deem cool is cool. What they deem appropriate and right is, until a new righter thing is found by them, right.

Friday, April 05, 2013

Secretary of the Treasury

The Secretary of the Treasury is in charge of 180,000 employees. He can fire roughly 100, and there is another small pool that he can fire but the obstacles in the way of removing them make it problematic and useless. Even without a corrupt individual at the top, how hard is it to remove corruption within the hierarchy at UST if we can't fire anyone? Financial Crime Enforcement is a bureau under Treasury. Supervision of our national banks is a responsibility of the Treasury. Five of our last six Treasurers, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner and Jack Lew all have been major players or minions of the bankster cartel. The system must be replaced if they will not enforce the rule of law.

Thursday, April 04, 2013

Nation of Bastards

Reading up on baby stats, one can quickly read those headline grabbing stats about the rising percentage of births of illegitimate children. Looking at the stats with tables, the bastard rate isn't shockingly high. What is odd is how quick that number has risen since 2002 considering the plateau from the mid 90s to 2002 (see graph). Digging into the stats, the under 18 birth rate isn't up; the issue is adult women and men failing to have children within the structure of marriage. These are not stupid teens not knowing the power of sex. These are adult women choosing to sleep with men in unsafe manners and start children out at a disadvantage. These are adult men not acting responsible with sex and then being irresponsible for the consequences of their unsafe sex. I blame men and women equally: women for their stupidity & cavalier attitude towards sex & child rearing and men for their sleazy, selfish behavior. Wear a fricking condom, especially men who were children of single moms abandoned by their dads. It's also stupid as you're on the hook for child support guys. I know guys exist who want to be with their kids, but let's drop the make believe picture that every father of an illegitimate child is some saint wishing to be with his kid (looking at you MRAs). The Wall St. Journal even spotlighted this recently, months after the NY Times noted that the new class divide is marriage. The left has started to realize that this dysfunction threatens their well being. Slate is right, our growing nation of bastards is a national catastrophe.

The Wall Street Journal and the NY Times dance around reality. I'm afraid to admit Slate does a better job with this. The older Slate article does point out how people try to explain this as educated women making that decision and refutes it with the stat that only 4% of college educated women have kids out of wedlock. This is decades after Sen. Moynihan completed a report in the '60s that tried to tackle the socioeconomic issues of the black community and placed specific emphasis on the illegitimacy rate (40% for blacks in '60s). Now it is 40% nationwide (28% white, 53% Hispanic, 72% black). Obama commented on this and cast blame elsewhere on some giant economic inequality excuse, "Many black men simply cannot afford to raise a family". Thanks Bastard in Chief.  As the author points out the stupidity of Obama's statement: they can't afford to raise a family, so they run out on the family? That makes no sense, and shifts blame elsewhere. There is a weird counter causality argument here where people blame poverty on not being able to be together to raise a family rather than say that only having one income earner in a family causes children to grow up in poverty. The Wall St. Journal article focuses on the 20-somethings with bastards, which is purely a product of social engineering through the media and social welfare creep. The USG and the destruction of religious and traditional norms allowed it to be acceptable in the middle class. The USG allowed the social safety net to expand in scope.
This does matter as illegitimate children are more likely to live in poverty, drop out of high school, be incarcerated, have drug abuse & other negative social behavior issues, and then continue the cycle as an unmarried parent (source). Buy pumpkin pajamas so they get used to an orange jumpsuit. I'm not saying productive members of society can't grow from out of wedlock circumstances. I'm not saying shotgun marriages are the answer. The Wall St. Journal and Slate both miss the idea that we could remove social welfare programs or make them more limited in flexibility to remove incentives to having kids out of wedlock. God forbid we require birth control in order to receive welfare so 'no more children are born into poverty'. We can restrict or remove social welfare programs that would force people to deal with the consequences of their actions. Stop socializing negative consequences. We've all seen episodes of "Intervention"; stop the enabling and the bad behavior will stop.

The pill gave women a great way to control their reproductive destiny (as did abortion). Had you told a feminist in 1968 that in 2013, the pill would be dirt cheap or free, abortion would be legal, and premarital sex would be encouraged, they NEVER would believe that America would have 3400 abortions a day and 40% of children would be bastards. Not all women are enlightened master's degree holding, long term thinkers. Broken record alert: gender battles are elite pissing contests and socialist efforts to destroy women's natural tendencies towards men, marriage and children. They forgot that r-selection groups operate entirely different than k-selection groups. They also forgot that there is a significant population of men who want nothing to do with kids. Replacing dads with the state is horrible for kids but beneficial to impulsive women and a Godsend to idiotic, irresponsible men.

Men and women both need to consider the great power they have in creating a life. The cliche states that with great power comes great responsibility. We're a nation of bastards and have a bastard as president. It is up to us and our communities to police this. America has failed the last 50 years as we ceded that authority to someone else (the state) who benefits from dysfunction and dependency. It is up to us to explain the advantages for the child to be born into a two parent home. It is up to us to use social norms and mores to curtail less than stellar behavior. Shaming works. I say this while stressing the term illegitimate children vs. born to single moms. Far more PC and far less of a stigma to be a son of an unmarried mom than to be an illegitimate bastard. We see simple sins and bad behavior every, single day and condone or even praise them. Why? We're weak. We don't want to be ostracized or shunned for not supporting them. If we want things to change, we cannot encourage them. If harsh shaming is not soft enough for the lefties, we can just remove the money. The Russians and Chinese will force that on us anyway. This starts small, but can expand if we want to put in the effort. Stop enabling.