Abstract: Krugman plays the uncertainty game with the effects of the stimulus that has, as yet, failed to stimulate anything but the egos of the leftist Democrats. The goal here is to squeeze as much money out of the taxpayer as possible, make excuses for the misadventures, and then regrub for endless tax increases using fear and bullying.  They only non debatable option here is stimulating the job market by cutting taxes for small corporations. Tax cuts always ‘cost too much’ and are ineffective in stimulating the economy despite the successes of JFK, LBJ and RWR. Qualified economics experts, like House Chief Economist Christiana Romer who disagreed and predicted an economic turnaround by the end of July, and also Warren Buffett who predicts massive inflation as a solution to our federal debt are ignored in this propaganda piece. This is a classic example of leftist propaganda from a master in the art.

Tax whoring, the only profession that allows the far left the privilege of having enough money enough to eat and affording some modern conveniences like a warm place to take a good dump, is more an art than a science. The quest for other people’s money [OPM] is a parasitic adventure similar to leprosy only heightened in enormity, adorned with pretty speeches and song and based on simple slogans that attract the attention of a simple mind.[1] Thus to survive, the left must pander and slither through the mystical alleyways for platitudes that encourage losers to endorse their phony economic programs. It isn’t enough that we watched the USSR for 74 years play this silly game which resulted in the complete collapse of the brightest leftist empire the world has even seen. It was not enough to see much of Marxian Asia dump these policies after brief tests that showed that liberalism’s views on socialism are a failure.

So, we are treated to another plug for more loot by our wonderful  Dr. Krugman of the Walter Duranty Papers: [2]  In the spirit of an academic inspection of this work let us look for the usual slogans and propaganda elements required to generate such a preposterous notion that we need another failing stimulus and see what kind of score we can give the good doctor:

 We begin:

“O.K., Thursday’s jobs report settles it. We’re going to need a bigger stimulus. But does the president know that?

Let’s do the math.”[3]-- That ’30s Show By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: July 2, 2009 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes unless specifically indicated as in the original.]

I thought we were in recovery and ready to celebrate Obama’s wise economic program?? Yes, by all means. We would like to hear how Obama was able to save 3 million jobs with the first round of stimuli and how successful that measure turned out to be so we can be pleased that we can save another 3 million and maybe more with some liberal economic efficiency. [Would tax cuts and fewer regulations for small businesses produce more hiring thus lowering unemployment?]

“Since the recession began, the U.S. economy has lost 6 ½ million jobs … Once you take into account the 100,000-plus new jobs that we need each … we’re about 8 ½ million jobs in the hole.”-- Paul Krugman July 2, 2009

I seem to remember, recently, asking what the first stimulus—not to mention the 1.8 trillion dollar deficit in the Obama budget—has done to reduce job loses. Didn’t I ask that?? Maybe we can find it later in this article:

“So what do we have to counter this scary prospect? We have the Obama stimulus plan, which aims to create 3 ½ million jobs by late next year.”-- Paul Krugman July 2, 2009

This video sums up the grim facts that Obama promises failed and we lost 1 million more jobs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJu0DgpiK8c

Apparently we lost 1 million more jobs than if we had done nothing at all given the Obama numbers. Now, that is liberalism at its finest. [Would tax cuts and fewer regulations for small businesses produce more hiring thus lowering unemployment?]

Now, I wonder where this “late next year” stipulation came from. Did Obama, this Feb, tell us that the 3 million jobs would be saved by late in 2010???

Off topic and revisionist:

“All of this is depressingly familiar to anyone who has studied economic policy in the 1930s. Once again a Democratic president has pushed through job-creation policies that will mitigate the slump but aren’t aggressive enough to produce a full recovery. Once again much of the stimulus at the federal level is being undone by budget retrenchment at the state and local level.”-- Paul Krugman July 2, 2009

This constant whine is also depressingly familiar and consistent with the NYT and their articles that call for massive tax hikes for any old occasion since the 1930s. [Would tax cuts and fewer regulations for small businesses produce more hiring thus lowering unemployment?]

But, now, we have the excuse [mentioned by Obama when he brayed and honked for a quickie stimulus??] that the states now sandbagged his program? Oh, can we blame California, New Jersey, Maryland and other states now teetering on the rusty edge of default for truncating the wonderful Obama Plan?? Gee, why didn’t Obama just mention this as a stipulation in Feb 2009 and then poop up the stimulus to, say, a few odd trillion? He can still save California with the printing press.

Well Obama did predict this:

“"None of this will be easy," he said.” The road to recovery will not be straight. We will make progress, and there may be some slippage along the way."”[4]—AP President Obama Feb. 17, 2009

Okay, we can consider this to be some ‘slippage’ that happened “along the way” to the poor house. So, Krugman is technically correct when he places a firm date on political mush. That is good economics, or, to be fair, a good example of how they operate.

More taxes!! More spending!! Print more money!!

“What I don’t know is whether the administration has faced up to the inadequacy of what it has done so far.

So here’s my message to the president: You need to get both your economic team and your political people working on additional stimulus, now. Because if you don’t, you’ll soon be facing your own personal 1937.”-- Paul Krugman July 2, 2009

A prediction from Krugman from Feb 17, 2009:

“The $787 billion stimulus is not nearly enough to fill the "well over $2 trillion hole" in the economy, Krugman said. "A fair bit of the bill is not really stimulus," he adding, noting that just about $650 billion would actually spur consumer spending and other types of stimulus.”[5]-- Paul Krugman: Stimulus Too Small, Second Package Likely (VIDEO)

Fair enough. Krugman is consistent. So, can we blame Obama for NOT following Krugman’s obvious advice as PK did predict that this wouldn’t work?  Can we forgive Krugman for criticizing the stimulus and revealing the facts that much of it is not stimulus? Probably not.

What we have here is the same form of logic and theater that we find in the phony Global Warming Follies: We must do something to avoid a disaster and if that something is the wrong recipe for success then we just haven’t spent enough money on that wrong recipe. The threat that the Great Depression will gobble up our financial resources before the oceans boil from CO2 pollution is part of the same problem: we haven’t spent enough money on projects that don’t seem to be sound or are just plain phony so let’s spend some more! The importance here is not any solution to any problems, social or financial—the objective is just spending and taxation and bigger government.

Missing from the Krugman essays today is the absence of any way to pay back the debt. He does mention inflation in the same sentence with deflation thus nullifying the prospect that our currency may collapse from too much printing press excitement and a world-wide boycott of the dollar. Even Warren Buffett predicts massive inflation.[6]

Would tax cuts and fewer regulations for small businesses produce more hiring thus lowering unemployment?

This is a well-constructed propaganda piece[7][8][9][10] that focuses in on the finality and absolutism of big government at all costs. This is typical of the left and their nostrums of governance. This piece points out a legitimate danger to our economy, ignores several alternatives to mere mindless taxation, debt and wanton printing of money.  An accepted remedy in the guise of a stimulus was the correct idea but was not sufficient in magnitude to be successful. The objective was to build government at any cost. More printing of money, higher taxes and bigger spending are thus indicated given the lack of progress noted since Feb 2009. Salient facts about debt, deflation, inflation[11] and the impact of such debt on other generations are confidently omitted here.

We are saddened to report a conflicting message that White House Chief Economist Christiana Romer had endorsed the Obama Plan and predicted:

“Romer stated, “We have put in place the biggest, boldest recovery package in history....incredible medicine for economy, and we fully expect it to work.” She maintained that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are sound[12] and continues to expect a turnaround in the second half of the year. “We have our eyes on the fundamentals....the day-to-day ups and downs of the stock market are a bad way to judge policy,” she said, voicing one of the Obama administration’s mantras.”[13]-- White House Chief Economist Christina Romer Mar 15, 2009.

But, she has no Nobel Prize.

This is a fine and well-crafted propaganda piece.  It ignites the fires of fear and frustration among the unwashed and mentally disnimble, conceals the obvious caveats and pitfalls of the present course, obfuscates the notion that a financial recovery is really important to leftists and denigrates the Republicans. It also ignores the predictions from many leftist quarters that this thing would work by July end, just a few days away.  The views of experts like Romer and Buffett are omitted as they contribute only unhandy truth to this piece. .

We should salute Paul Krugman for another fine example of how to construct a proper propaganda piece and thank him for the instruction. He will change his views about economics about the same time Katie Couric decides to wash her hair or when Whoopie Goldberg peroxides her mouth. The liberals are firmly committed to disaster and we can watch Krugman calmly blame Bush for everything that happens even if it takes two or three decades more.  But, to be fair, they couldn’t succeed in capitalism anyway so what the heck.

rycK

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Krugman Offers a World-Wide Trade War as He Argues for Cap and Trade.

 Abstract: Krugman bounces off the economic wall again and disagrees with his master and benefactor over the key issue of tariffs on those who refuse either to believer in EcoNazism or to participate in this folly. He ignores the union dues Obama has to pay and trades that nonsense for a fat  tax hike.  The US takes on the War on CO2 with only some Euro-Peon allies and our economy crashes in inflation and inefficiency. China and India ignore the EcoNazi follies and refuse to tax carbon or buy goods that have such a burden or tax. Taxes soar and the stock market tanks some more. Our government expands, capitalism is blamed and we embrace socialism. This is a liberal dream.

The idea that economics is all about economics is so preposterous, given the incoherent blather and flat slogans that soar among the clouds in great abundance, that  we must laugh. Secondly, we must then acknowledge the salient fact that this recurring parade of nostrums on economic views, theory and predictions somehow seem to blossom and spring to life after they have some instant political backing. It is as if government, an unconnical ensemble of incompetents all groping for money and power, comprised mostly of bribees and other parasites, would even consider the best economic course for a given country.  There is no glory or worth endorsing the wishes of the opposition even if those might be a reincarnation of the sainted FDR, our esteemed Anglo Scott brother Gordon Brown, soon to be dumped in the U.K. for trashing their economy,  and then the sorry case of Peanut Jimmy Carter are but a few examples of how to use politics to wreck an economy. Obama may set new records for destroying the world’s economy if he gets the chance. The voters are stupid enough to allow that for a change even if it means poverty for all. I think his objective is the destruction of the US economy using a blend of radical racism and Marxism. We shall see. His kind cannot, as we have seen for centuries, make progress under capitalism.

But, when the political winds blow a certain way, the compliant stooges straight away mount their soap boxes and now find theories, dance and song to support whatever their masters might need to bolster up the new thoughts.

Then, we get to the strange case of Dr. Krugman of the Walter Duranty Papers [1]  and his stubborn tactic of reversing himself on matters of taxes and deficits[2] and now, suddenly,  of obstructing the current views of his Lord and Master:

“President Obama on Sunday praised the energy bill passed by the House late last week as an “extraordinary first step,” but he spoke out against a provision that would impose trade penalties on countries that do not accept limits on global warming pollution.”[3]--The conscience of a liberal by Paul Krugman, New York Times July 1, 2009. 2009   [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

It appears that Mr. Nobel Laureatte hisself has written a book that dumps on the Smoot Hawley Tariffs, often blamed for the Great Depression. Others [a blogger], [4] among many, picked up on this view as he suddenly becomes in favor of a tariff:

This is worth thinking about:

Kbh asks: “What tools should we use to try to convince the government of China to impose a positive carbon price as part of a global effort?  (choose one or more)”

“[1] Leadership:  U.S. goes first and self-imposes a price.  Then we use diplomacy to try to convince the Chinese to do the same.”

“[2] Carrots:  The U.S. pays the Chinese to reduce their emissions.”

“[3] Sticks:  The U.S. imposes import tariffs on Chinese goods as long as the government China does not impose a carbon price.”  --The Smoot-Krugman carbon import tariff

Posted on May 29th, 2009 by kbh in climate, energy, featured, int'l 

Yes, nice options. The blogger kbh admits that “Given this uncertainty, I believe there is a small but non-trivial risk that there will be severe climate change over the next century or two.”

But, kbh correctly emphasizes the very essence of the Krugman thought process:

“As the United States and other advanced countries finally move to confront climate change, they will also be morally empowered to confront those nations that refuse to act. Sooner than most people think, countries that refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face sanctions, probably in the form of taxes on their exports. They will complain bitterly that this is protectionism, but so what? Globalization doesn’t do much good if the globe itself becomes unlivable.”—Paul Krugman.

We can presume that moral empowerment allows lies, phony science, sleaze and outright fraud for political reasons. This makes sense in the Party of Democrats. There are dozens of good posts on this very theme and some even come from Tibet and China and from places where I cannot identify the language.

I think that it is clear that union-demanded protectionism is at the center of the Obama statement and that Krugman ignores this important political point. Krugman, in contrast, is tenured and not subject to the incoherent variances in voter’s habits and responses to bad news.

Analysis:

Krugman and Obama are thinking with different sets of data. Both must juggle science, politics and economics and neither is that competent in things other than politics. Both are correct in their decisions if confined to their narrow isolated spheres, but both, in my view, ignore the stark scientific and economic facts and Krugman invariably waffles off to the far left on the economics.  He can see nothing but high taxes and socialism. Krugman is now, after observing his waffling, a superstar similar to some re-embodiment of Pee Wee Herman[5] as he puts out his little thingy for fun and applause, dances for  a while in the spotlight and puts it back. Obama is a radical Marxist ideological racist[6] so it matters not whether he believes in either the economics or science or anything else. He is a stooge plugged into some teleprompter to modulate his stuttering and mental escapades. Here is what I think:

[a] There is no global warming attributed to CO₂. 21,000 scientists attested to this. [7] The idea is so much crap. It is totally political in nature and as such is a Lysenko-style political farce[8] led by a bribe taker, flunky, Marxist and EcoNazi. The whole point is taxation.

[b] There is abundant evidence of China and others violating WTO ‘rules’ for decades [such as Japan and France] where the ‘buy local’ mantras are sung constantly in low tones while shouting free trade slogans. There is no evidence of free trade in the world and we all know that. France says buy France when they talk about subsidizing their cars. The Germans do the same. The US cannot for some reason, mostly union oriented. The Asians will not tax energy for business reasons.

[c] India has just announced that it will NOT take on carbon limits, period.[9] China only mumbles.

[d] Europe has bought into the Green Weenie[10] ‘science’ and embraces carbon caps like a hooker embraces the nearest john. England’s Parliament recently voted[11] to ruin their economy with carbon caps and taxes. They flipped into the game.

[e] Even if Global Warming is not a farce, the absence of half the world’s industrial production’s participation in this circus ensures that CO₂ levels will not decreases at least based on smokestack and auto emissions. What the US does is not important then.  They win in the mercantile arena and we lose.

The prize is clear here for the three major players: China, India and the Liberals: If the US excessively taxes energy she will be less competitive in world trade thus favoring China and India and parts of Europe. IF we prop the GDP up with higher energy costs and phony green jobs the consumer will buy more cheaply overseas. The US unemployment will soar, social unrest will emerge and the economy will contract and these maladies can be blamed on the idiot Bush so the liberals win in the short run.  The voters might be persuaded that ‘more change is needed’ and vote out some more Republicans. Wild spending and printing money will eventually devalue the US currency except that the fed is frantically buying up the debt by monetizing the debt[12] and bolstering the dollar. That will hold for a while. The low velocity of money keeps inflation in check for the short term and keeps the GDP pumped up with phony dollars. This gives time for the foreign creditors to shift their reserves from dollars to other currencies like the yuan or euro or gold or even commodities as China is doing.  Krugman, on the side of the liberals gets his tax increases. US citizens get the shaft and the liberals blame Bush for everything.

Everybody wins here except US business owners and employees and the few taxpayers we have left. We can choose both [1] and [2] from blogger  kbh where we burden ourselves, wreck our economy and then bribe the Chinese to pretend to do the same in the old diplomatic way we solved the nuclear problems in North Korea. The US will not put into force option [3].  India gets a great expansion and captures many of our old customers.

So, we tax energy, drive up costs and inefficiency, drive our balance of trade deeper into the red direction, create fewer jobs, cheapen the dollar, raise taxes to the roof and wildly expand our government and bow to Islamo-Fascists and maggots like Hugo Chavez and apologize for ever confronting them.

This is the perfect liberal dream.

rycK [a 5^th generation Californian in exile]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Arnold Makes a Noble Stand. We will See if He Can Fight Off the Hoards of Barbarians at the Gates.

Abstract: California is finished and can only beg Obama for alms. Arnold is standing firm. Some lessons will be learned from this, we hope.

California has so many drug-crazed loony-bin yoyos in circulation that they have no financial future.[1] [2][3]Their credit rating is crap;[4] their society is misdirected[5] toward feel goodisms, drug follies and group sex. They believe that endless tax increases[6] will provide a Great Society with justice for all even the loyal illegal aliens who vote for more handouts and freebies.

Arnold now stands like Conan and the voters stand behind him.[7] He has sharpened his ax and confronts the charging hoards of barbarians and now asks: Do you want to live forever? He stands firm but cannot stop the slide into the financial abyss. Issuing IOUs is an interest free loan that may or may not ever need to be paid back. The greedy, drug-crazed leftist parasites that hold the majority in their so-called government in Sacramento refuse to cut salaries of their benefactors and masters. The end is at hand.

To wit:

“It’s time for the legislature to send me a budget that solves our entire deficit without raising taxes.”[8]-- Deficit forces California to issue IOUs By Matthew Garrahan in Los AngelesPublished: June 29 2009   [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

“Education funding is protected under the state’s constitution while payments on the state’s bond debt are also guaranteed under state law.”-- Deficit forces California to issue IOUs

Will that law protect all the teacher’s salaries?? The highest in the world?

Tax-whoring is all they know in the cities of California.

Only O’Bozo can save the left from cutting thousands of losers, parasites and druggies off the public dole in what is now the Brown State. The gold is gone, the morality is gone, the sobriety is gone.

rycK [a 5^th generation Californian in Exile and removed from this mental infection. ]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

An Economic Parade of Swans: White, Black and Now Brown, the Ugliest Swan.

Science has progressed to lofty heights since Aristotle mismanaged the thought processes necessary to mathematically describe and unravel the laws that govern our environment. We have impressive mathematical theories and models that give us predictions like what we were prepared to experience from the Limit to Growth published at MIT in the 70s. Here, using the best minds and the power of the computer the ‘Club of Rome’ was able to confidently advise us that we would run out of oil and natural gas by and other disasters. This should have been a warning. This was hatched from hokum and blow from the beginning.

The details of phony science in this instance:

This  famous and phony ‘computer study’ was conducted by MIT in 1970  and published in a book title: Limits to Growth [1] whose sophistical computer models clearly predicted, with ringing praise from the ‘scientists,’  that we would run out of oil, copper and lead by 1992 by and natural gas reservoirs by 1993.  Apparently, they missed a few inputs as their GIGO[2] reward is all they have left as material results. I confronted the original authors in person in the 90s in an ‘innovation conference’ attended by many scientists from some major corporations where they proudly announced that they were working on a second book. They could not seem to apologize for the implausible predictions in the first book and refused to admit that they were scientifically foolish, at best, so I failed to buy and read this second essay on the extended political corruption of science and dropped the matter.  Here, we get a peek into the inner sanctum of the politically driven ‘scientist’ of the leftist persuasion: they carry a mandate to compel the findings of any scientific study conform to their sleazy, left-wing political prejudices.  Thus, they can make weightless cars that run on cold fusion or other magical propellants and prevent the rest of us from greedily destroying our planet during our sordid lust for money. They know what Nature wants for us. They are wonderful.

But, we cannot say that the publication of this scientifically hollow piece of political fluff was not without its fanatical praise and song from the left, a bunch always looking for a new way to lose.  It was a sensation.[3] The liberals need ongoing stimuli from dark follies and hand-wringing chronicles like Silent Spring[4] to keep their fevers high and their morale low.[5] That may explain whey so many liberals are drug addicts, sodomites and alcoholics.[6] I offer Tim Leary and Carl Sagan as examples.

So, that problem is with us and is apparently part of the genetic makeup of the left.  It must be like grits in the Carolinas: it just comes on the plate.

But, in a more serious arena where real money is on the drum, so to speak, the ‘scientific’ types need to conjure up some models and prediction algorithms that actually work in the market place if they want to keep their jobs.  Their nattering and propaganda messages work politically but cannot pay the bills. A product that performed fiscally like Limit to Growth would get the whole group terminated in the business world. Profits are a more serious element in business than in academia where nothing is sacrosanct.

Some years back the market traders decided to employ physicists, mathematicians and other persons trained in the hard physical sciences to develop models to make money in hedging and other investment techniques in equity markets. The philosophy here was similar to what Dr. Edward O.  Thorpe[7] developed for the game of 21 or black jack [8]and published in his book Beat the Dealer in 1962. This actually worked well and was thoroughly tested in the U.S. Navy by this person during the View Nam war. It functioned by adjusting the bet size according to a card count scoring system where little cards favored the dealer, big cards the player and 7, 8 and 9 were neutral. As the deck was consumed during the progress of the game the count might shift in favor or the player or dealer depending on randomness.  So the player bets the minimum at times and only enlarges his bets when he gets a favorable card count. It is interesting that in informal play [in the military in this case] the  player who counts can use the card count to advantage as a player and also as the dealer when the deal goes to the next black jack hand[9] if the players will permit the dealer to shuffle at any point in the deck. They always did. Thorpe apparently went on to be a hedge fund manager. He reports “an annualized 20 percent rate of return averaged over 28.5 years,” which is as convincing as his black jack results, or mine in two cruises to Viet Nam.[10]  White Swans work for the successful.

So, it can be done…it seems.

Another version was LTCM or Long Germ Capital Management.[11] This bunch of scientists and a Nobel Laureate in Economics averaged 40%returns on their investments in the years after its founding in 1984 and then promptly lost nearly 5 billion dollars very quickly and folded. It seems the math models functioned well, for a while, as they were working bond arbitrage deals with sovereign bonds from the U.S., Japan and European countries. They leveraged their working capital 25:1 and something snapped. One notable causality was Jon Corzine, the current governor of New Jersey. This leverage is very high risk, so they must have truly believed that their model would treat all variables, however remote or probabilistically improbable they might be. The model failed because of the Black Swan effect.

So, it can be done…it seems—if the math model is alert for certain unseen events to avoid massive loses.

The concept of the Black Swan comes to us from the epistemologist[12] Nassim Nicholas Taleb[13] and is based on the notion, seen everywhere in complex systems, that a confluence of events can produce “…randomness, particularly large deviations […from predicted norms.]” thus producing erratic results and nasty outcomes.  Advancing this notion a bit further we note that many ‘scientists’ can form elegant theories and explain the mysteries of the universe from a set of randomly generated numbers. Great discoveries like polywater[14] and cold fusion[15] are based on this method.

“Taleb regards almost all major scientific discoveries, historical events, and artistic accomplishments as "black swans" — undirected and unpredicted. He gives the rise of the Internet, the personal computer, World War I, and the September 11, 2001 attacks as examples of Black Swan events.”

This is a polite way of saying that the White Swans theories, taught at good schools by honest persons, are seriously defective and that our notions of planning and experimentation are based on the proffered offal from the Goddess of Serendipity.  Chaos is the final designer according to him. So, we make our best ‘educated’ guesses and we guess wrong and we try again in the normal world until we stumble on to something new. The steam engine was created in that manner. We suffer, for example, under permissible White Swans theories such as the nonsense that Colin Powell gives us in his sophomoric military theories.[16] If we follow the Powell Doctrine carefully we can never go to war in the first place as the process is as complex, or more so, than the LTCM mess out on Long Island a decade or so back. We can never answer his questions with any degree of certainly. This, then, becomes something like a Gray Swan where there is no substance and it swims by unnoticed. Powell’s doctrine is no sounder than the nonsense we got from Rachel Carson in Silent Spring, the sophistry in  Limit to Growth or the story of LTCM. His phony doctrine is an essay in circular logic and obfuscation is the prime objective of this theory. Fumblers like this are useful idiots to the anti war swarms and Colin is one of their case stooges. Al Gore, for example is our new Lysenko[17]. His lack of respect for simple logic, the truth and the scientific method are legendary.

So, White Swans are okay for a while and work most of the time until a Black Swan swims by and sullies the pond. There is nothing unusual or startling about the notion that our models and such cannot accommodate wide variations in parameters in any physical, chemical or economic system. We are just not that bright. But, ignorance is important in political arenas and the masses don’t even know about swans in the first place. But, it can be much worse. We can have [or create] a Brown swan.

The Brown Swan thus becomes a useful political tool as the  theory is simply based on using White Swan rhetoric, but holding the Black Swan’s appearance in reserve as the excuse for the failure of the original theory. We can conveniently construct a phony plan that will fail miserably and then accuse the Black Swan of pooping into the serene waters. Thus, when Global Warming turned to Global Cooling and made the EcoNazi jerks look like fools[18] because they promised and promised that the earth’s surface was warming and warming and it didn’t. This form of a Brown Swan may be subcategorized as a Green Striped Brown Swan so as to properly move this into the loony bins with the rest of the EcoNazi rants.  We can have Red Striped Brown Swans to describe lies from social maggots such as Hugo Chavez as their command economies always seem to crash in the near future and they know that so they need a good slimy lie to entice the masses to jump over the cliffs. We wait anxiously for ‘land reform’ from Hugo and his stooges.

Now, for the immediate future, Obama can parade a variety of striped and polka-dotted Brown Swans before us to explain how his programs to ‘stimulate the economy’ and ‘save or create 3 million new jobs” and “solve the health care problems” and so on and so forth failed because of the interference of Black Swans. So far, nothing this guy has tried has worked. The Idiot Euro-Peons[19] failed to accept his psychotic notion of quantitative easing [printing money with reckless abandon] and have thusly criticized the US for trashing their own credit ratings and probably the currency as well. The ‘stimulus’ only stimulated the growth of government.

Any form of failure may, thusly, be attributed to Errant Swans who sail into a perfectly good pond and scatter the wildlife and scramble the laws of physics. Any lie or perversion can then be explained and such excuses parlayed into a vast political network to show that liberalism is always perfect and that capitalism, the Blue Swan, has wrecked, again, our wonderful society.

The Blue Swan works for me.

rycK [a 5^th generation Californian in exile]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Copulating with Coprolites: The Unveiled Mechanism of Governance by Progressive Liberalism in California[1]

There has been much imbecilic blathering and blue sky gazing since our ancients attempted to organize various societies into some form of governable mass. Most of the attempts [and even histories of the attempts] are worth not so much as their weight in dry cat litter given even a brief reflection on how things turned out in many societies. The historians are not reliable, we find after some analyses and comparison of parallel accounts of the same incidents, as the temptation to redact the original records and to insert excuses and plain lies are irresistible. There are so many theories that the path forward to what some think might be a just and equitable society is merely an overgrown jungle festooned with toxic notions and far-away  pipe dreams lurking near every tree. The quest for firm solutions to such problems is like copulating with coprolites; there is no possible issue so to speak—unless you are a Californian.

The Greeks were marginally successful, arguably in a limited sense, until they lost hegemony of their security awareness and became slaves or all sorts and flavors to an interesting array of masters. The Romans did a bit better for a thousand years although they were practicing unvarying warfare with the known world and many times with themselves. We can wonder how societies progressed from cave dwellers to high priests and note, with some cloudy visualization, that most social systems were failures if you care to inspect the outcomes and compare them with modern notions of societies. In theory, we might want to put up a rigid set of metrics to measure and evaluate various governments based on human rights, murder rates, caloric intake, war, opera and other key parameters and bring into line governments from the ancient Egyptians to the present in some proper order. When we attempt this we tend, not surprisingly, to notice that nasty leaders like Attila, Hitler and Genghis Khan have had their counterparts all along the historical trail. It is difficult to ignore the similarities among Hitler, Stalin, Robespierre, James Jones, Pol Pot, The Ayotollah Khomeini and Robert Mugabe when you start to count bodies and look at the supply of food and tabulate who sleeps where.  The salient fact that these unsavory creatures are randomly spaced along the historical timeline from the earliest known periods of recorded history, or from legends, which is probably more accurate in some cases, thus this observation nullifies the perception that we, as a society, learn from our mistakes and misdeeds and make continuous improvement in our states. Actually, the data point to the reciprocal conclusion: we have learned nothing from the past. Repeating the past is good politics. Worse, we probably know less about the present[2] than the redacted past[3] and essentially nothing about the short-term future. [4] The ignoranti have a cornucopia of alternatives thus broad license to experiment.

Thus, we find a compelling reason to adjust or redact certain obtuse portions of history for social reasons and can safely ignore complaints about accuracy if the outcomes are potentially rosy or aligned with leftist wishes. Observers of our society like the Fabian maverick George Orwell have fairly well characterized the ultimate methods of governments with the following:

"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past".—Slogan from 1984 by George Orwell.

There is much to be said about the political efficacy of this slogan. It contains all the necessary elements to fix up the present, future and past and roll then into one tight and juicy egg role for all to enjoy.  Karl Marx had a grand opportunity to meld the romantic elements of J. J. Rousseau with some vigilantly selected tidbits of history, glossed over, necessarily,  by forcing a strict theory upon the helpless little accounts, and thus by manufacturing  a grand plan to eliminate not only inequities in our production of goods and services but government altogether. You can have a nice administration that way if you merely use lies and firing squads to glue together some of the more flaccid elements of a given society.

Winston Churchill summed up the results of his opposing line of thinking some three years after the October Revolution:

"....But my hatred of Bolshevism and Bolsheviks is not founded on their silly system of economics, or their absurd doctrine of an impossible equality. It arises from the bloddy and devastating terrorism which they practise in every land into which they have broken, and my which alone their criminal regime can be maintained...."— Text of Winston Churchill's July 8th, 1920, British House of Commons, Amritsar Massacre Speech By Winston Churchill  given July 8th, 1920[5] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Of course, he had a bad attitude. This inspection sweeps a lot of mystery, fluff and hokum away from the totalitarian chimera and unveils in bright lights the sordid prevarication that Marxism was making some contribution to society at that early date and, recall for a moment, that the acolytes of Bolshevism persisted until 1989 in the USSR alone. In Africa, it has flourished since 1948, or so, and is the most popular form of government on the southern half of that continent. In order to get positive results from the process of Marxism it is necessary to plaster up a stipulation that shooting the dissidents in order or at random provides extra staples and good times for the blindly obedient even though the theory for this positive outcome borders and brushes upon the recalcitrant capitalist supply and demand schedule that was summarily abolished. A little tribalism helps too. Pol Pot was able to homogenize his people by fairly and judiciously deselecting members of his society using a reverse cognitive skill scale. This worked out quite well and most of his people were finally essentially equal.  A lot of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

This, then, leaves us with a fine theory, although unworkable as it is in the primitive sate, to move forward and convince or intimidate the masses with the indomitable notion that capitalism is at the very root of all social problems. The obvious conclusion [and also the  posted premise before any tedious research], thusly, is that we must eliminate or suppress capitalism and that that commission, alone, will offer society the kind of relief from capitalist oppression and that we need to restructure government. California has reached that authentic shining pinnacle with their current government. [6] It has also broached a stubborn conundrum.  Can this process bear fruit? Can we continue to make political love to ancient rocks that bear opposing messages? Yes, in California!  All it takes is massive quantities of somebody else’s money in grand supply and some drugs.  It is as simple to understand as a late-term abortion.

Everything is running smoothly in California and other state entities that emulate the Sacramento government. They mature politically as they noisily proffer ‘concern’ for the Little Guy and lament the meager intake of tax returns.   Others can approach the apex of their educational skills and egalitarianism by exercising California-style norms. We offer examples such as New York[7], New Jersey and probably Maryland. Of this esteemed group, the wheels of education and levers of government are serenely greased by narcotics, high taxes, reverse racism and lofty song. They have solid majorities in the legislative branches, strong support in the executive and judicial branches in most examples and have fine educational and instructional programs in place to train or retrain, if necessary by force, the polis. The ballot boxes are overflowing with the absentee votes of illegal aliens who are thankful for the tax-free work environment, the state’s placid toleration of violent crime, which is a necessary element of their dope business, and free medical service. There is no reason that well-meaning Californian legislators cannot create fine ideas in the form of offspring from love-ins with boxes of rocks, some handy crack pipes or other phantasms. This is just a rerun of Woodstock.

This was all achieved by being generous and progressive with hiring state employees of the strictest union bent, of running the tax spigot at full throttle whenever possible and of showing benefits unseen in the world to date upon their loyal partners in government. Gladness is everywhere and the degree of happiness spreads arithmetically with each and every greedy capitalist who flees the state in search of a less hostile environment to do traditional business at tax levels that permit small profits. Profits are evil and CEOs are lazy and stupid. California is refining its society in the image of pure liberalism.

Everything wonderful has happened that could happen except that some Republican has signaled that the spending is too high and taxes cannot be raised high enough to pay for the current government. He was actually elected after a recall of a Democrat. There is a major error here. There is the tacky right-wing problem of debt. This unnecessary distress that has interrupted this melodrama of late is caused by the ‘rich’ avariciously avoiding taxes coupled with the constitutional inability of the state to tax them to such an extent that we can all enjoy prosperity and sing songs of joy at every special increment in the tax load. California’s progress is limited only by Winston Churchill’s aversion to devastating terrorism and the absence thereof. They cannot, for the moment, just whack their opponents Cuban style. Thus, we face some alternatives:

[1] The state can receive well-deserved alms from the federal government or elsewhere while the tax battle continues to whittle down capitalists, private property disputes and tax levels or…

[2] The state can confiscate wealth in any and every form and monetize those assets to pay for the current social programs and cover the 24 bln debt[8] or

[3] They can use the Cambodian Method of Social Cleansing to eliminate those excesses that clog the system with capitalists and their greedy corporations.

With [1] we return to bliss and continue on building the ideal society.  Why shouldn’t the Other 49 be charged for this advanced instruction in government? With [2], as only a few Republicans stand mired in the error of their ways, the natural flow into egalitarianism follows in due course.  The money will be properly collected and more properly spent. The greedy will be made to apologize for their abuses. But, [3] is still a little messy with the current state of talk radio and other communication avenues.  They cannot, as yet, pull a Waco in just any old political district in California without good cause. But, a tax revolt might set up such a tactic. Full control of the media is mandatory for a successful society as we find in Cuba and the shrunken remains of the USSR. Such programs were highly successful in Cuba and North Korea and continue today to offer a faultless example of how the best societies can be had only by solving the difficulties in identifying and promoting the right leaders to power with minimal opposition.

But, saved by the notion that ‘California is too big to fail’ we can press onward with our educational systems[9], confiscative taxation of the rich and control of most goods and services, particularly medicine, food and transportation. The hope that Obama will bring gifts of quantitative easements and such are promising and the only proper solution to the problems they face in the Golden State.

Thus, the direction is clear and we need to dig deep into our white male pockets and extract as much money and wealth as we possibly can to give the artists and innovators in Sacramento the freedom to create the kind of society they deserve. Call your legislators today and beg them to hike your taxes so Obama can send some of that to California. We have to be fair.

rycK

 Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Vinegar John Kerry Talks about Thinking about Iran?? Did Jimmy Carter Think out his plans?

Abstract: John Kerry makes a fool out of himself by dissing members of the opposition for mild and unobtrusive comments on the instant Iranian Revolution. His essay, founded squarely on his unfamiliarity with thinking processes, reveals the scope of  his insufficient cognitive skills in this critical area to discuss this topic in public although it becomes one of his better propaganda pieces, to be fair. One conclusion is that this screed was written for him by some loyal lackey in his camp. Another possibility is that his façade is peeling off thus revealing his debilitating imbecilities. The most promising is that he is just a hate-twisted loser with a mandate to vent.

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [1] operates like a drug-laced lazy Susan for characters like Vinegar John Kerry[2] to ‘offer some thoughts’ on some important subject--this time Iran--and write some nasty propaganda screed. Hop on, dance the Dunciad, and hop off with flair. This one, however, reads oddly like a sophomoric polemic penned in delirium or haste.  Proffered as some mysterious glow cascading down upon us from his lofty seat on Olympus[3], he only attacks Republicans, in his accustomed manner, thus his analysis might have to be rendered as worthlessly biased as the bulk of his prattle has been for a few decades.[4] But, he might just wander away from his ditch and make some sense and surprise us.  So, we must be alert. If you filter out his wart-squeezings and other mental hysterics, driven simply by the existence of more than one conservative on this planet, his advice is actually a self-deprecating treatise on folly. He has to say something as Obama has mangled his foreign policy over some anti-meddling nostrum in Iran’s case although he meddles quite candidly in the politics of Iran’s first future nuclear weapon’s military target.[5] Johnny to the rescue; Johnny reports for duty.

His theme booklet was probably placed in his wrinkled hands in a fill-in-a-few-blanks format by some doting staffer under the pressing mandate that his boss sorely needs some fresh face time and reassuring applause from the loyal liberals and also based on the urgent compulsion to ‘clarify’ some talking points on the Iranian revolution now smoothly in progress by hammering the political opposition. That is good politics in Massachusetts. It is the image—not the words that count.  Puff yer stuff John!

Sifting with a coarse sieve, we can get this much from this fluff:

“If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran’s hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for “interventionist” statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch.”[6]-- With Iran, Think Before You Speak By John Kerry Op-Ed Contributor. Published: June 17, 2009 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Interestingly, the “interventionist” statements cannot be clearly identified in the link Vinegar John uses in this op-ed[7]although we find the Canadians and some EU types were summoned to Allah’s carpet to hear such complaints. It would help the reader to understand what an “interventionist” statement looks like and who made it, but clarity of thought [or textual accuracy] is not the strong suit of John Kerry and his followers. But, using the usual sandbox political logic peculiar to leftists, we can inspect this comment from John McCain cited in this article:

“… Senator John McCain… denounced President Obama’s response as “tepid.” He has also claimed that “if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail.”-- John Kerry quoting McCain.

This is interventionist?

I thought this rather tepid too if we can compare it to: “Mr. Gorbachev —tear down this wall!”—President Ronald Reagan June 12, 1987 at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin.

That was interventionist in my view—a little light given the history of the Soviet social maggots—but very strongly interventionist. Perhaps the translation of this, taking a few months to circulate, precipitated the stock market crash in 1987 and even the USSR crash in 1989—a potential talking point for Democrats. [8] Can we blame Reagan for both crashes?? Perhaps we can blame Reagan for the Polish uprising too.

Looking back on some liberal history, we might raise the question of whether Jimmy Carter influenced the course of events in Iran when he made the following thoughtful comments and worked a few political levers some behind the scenes:

[a] “Carter pressured the Shah [e,g, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ] to release "political prisoners", whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists.” [This link[9]  includes quotes and is used for this list].

[b] “Carter pressured Iran to permit "free assembly", which encouraged and fostered fundamentalist anti-government rallies.”

[c] “…the Carter Administration reportedly ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop $4 million per year in funding to religious Mullahs who then became outspoken and vehement opponents of the Shah. “

Perhaps if we are ‘steadfast’ the American people will find out if Obama is a citizen or not or whether he took in 100 million dollars in bribes  in $200 dollar bundles from the Middle East terrorists disguised as ‘contributions’  in the last election. Can we please be ‘tepid’ like ACORN? Should we cut off funds to North Korea?

So, channeling back into the logic stream here, we are counseled that we can ‘empower’ the Iranians by watching out how our ideological enemies or, more accurately, propaganda crafters in Iran might use our ‘words.’ We cannot rattle our sabers.

Extending this feverish unilateral notion, can we wonder if Obama provoked the North Koreans with some of his words?

Here is a somewhat ‘tepid’ set of words from President Obama:

“WASHINGTON -- Declaring North Korea a "grave threat" to the world, President Obama on Tuesday pledged the U.S. and its allies will aggressively enforce fresh international penalties against the nuclear-armed nation and stop rewarding its leaders for repeated provocations.”[10]--President Obama Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Apparently, either Vinegar John has not read these words, or, more likely, cannot comprehend them in any objective context, but someone of a more objective persuasion might see significant differences between counseling Iran to remain “… steadfast …[then] eventually the Iranian people will prevail”  and more forceful language. Can we compare this comment with words like "grave threat" or “….the U.S. and its allies will aggressively enforce fresh international penalties against the nuclear-armed nation…” No saber rattling here?

I would imagine, in my own little world, that propaganda wordsmiths in North Korea might create some interesting overtones from these flames. To empower the North Korean people perhaps Obama might avoid “interventionist” rhetorical diatribes like this, but what do I know? As a Democrat, representative of my party, I know little of diplomacy. If Obama keeps silent maybe the North Koreans will get to eat a sufficient amount of food for a change.

It is okay for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to publicly announce he would ‘wipe Israel off the face of he earth’ and build nuclear weapons to enforce this threat, but John McCain’s comments are considered provocative and supply fodder for propaganda machines that thwarts opposition to the newly elected Iranian leader. John is an impediment to peace, whatever that word now means in the feverish minds of a liberal. I don’t want to waste any more time lecturing the left on diplomacy, logic or morality.

Confusing—is it not? It seems that John Kerry, of three Purple Hearts fame, is being inconsistent in his analysis of what is confrontational and undiplomatic about comments by his party and those of the opposition. Is this merely a hereditary mental problem or is it due to his old age?  Was he wearing his lucky tie? Or, is this just another example of John’s sleazy and hypocritical attacks on others? Apart from his lack of abject public alcoholism, he smells talks and acts like the other senator from Massachusetts.

Was John thinking when he wrote, or perhaps just signed, this piece? We might speculate as to the particulars of what he authorizes us to do to empower the Iranian people. I think he would wildly support any criticism, especially self-criticism by our elected ‘leaders,’ of the former US policies as he has done for decades.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

Obama to California: Drop  Dead [maybe]. The End Battle Begins. Default is the Next Step.

Abstract: California grovels like a diseased hooker in some North Beach alleyway and is in frenetic need of a quick fix of money or alms from anywhere.  The battle is over the usual tax and spends mentality of the parasitic left and the fiscal constraints of those who can see that spending and hiring of useful idiots as political puppets is out of control. The state needs to fire nearly half the current ‘employees’ and just quit wasting money. Tax hikes are the only solution the union oriented left offers and such taxes will only drive away businesses and more people will leave the state in economic distress. Like the hopeless Latvian situation[1], the future of California hangs in the balance here. We cannot afford to subsidize the Golden State’s 67 bln dollar debt and add on 25 billion more this year and then 30 or 50 or 100 in the next few years.  California needs to crash as an example to the world so as to warn the rest of us what the left can do for their victims.

Wasn’t this predictable?? The ‘experts,’ like Paul Krugman of the Walter Duranty Papers [2] tell us that the constitutional limits to taxation in California are the problem and we need to raise taxes![3] Higher taxes will bring us prosperity. This is a fool’s message to other fools.

The sad goodbye message is recorded in the NYT:

“WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has gone on the record again that it will not use federal stimulus money to prop up California as it wrestles with its fiscal problems”[4]-- Another No to Federal Propping of California By Helene Cooper Published: June 16, 2009 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

The brush off:

“After a series of meetings in the past few days between Mr. Geithner and White House officials, the administration concluded that the state could hold out for a while longer.”-- Another No to Federal Propping of California

Isn’t this worse than water boarding? Here the master lets the loyal slave die of thirst because there are a few drops left in the old bottle.  Hang on for a while and maybe some Republican will turn coat and join the progressive party.

Now, here are the leftists and their tax-whoring solution to the problem:

“Democratic lawmakers proposed raising taxes on tobacco and oil companies and refused to cut state worker pay as a key budget committee finished its plan Tuesday to solve the state's $24.3 billion deficit.”[5]-- California lawmakers ready to battle over taxes by Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, June 17, 2009.

And, of course, the Dems have a long list of tax hikes.  Tax whoring is the only thing they do well.[i] The ONLY thing they can do, while they diddle their comrades in the misty fumes of narcotics smoke in Sacramento, is to RAISE TAXES AND HIRE MORE LOSERS FOR THE STATE.  This mindset is cast in stone and will never stop.

“Republican opposition to tax increases is "non-negotiable," Hollingsworth told Reuters in a telephone interview.”[6]-- California Republicans draw line on taxes.  Jun 16, 2009 5:05pm EDT By Jim Christie

This is emblematic of leftists. The ONLY obsession they have is the self-aggrandized mental aberration that the wealth of this world needs to be redistributed by drug-crazed losers, noisy and intolerant, militant gays and tin pot intellectuals. The liberals thus stand firm in their intention to spend our money away for some short term gains and now endorse the probability that the economy in California will crash in a blizzard of debt.  They hope to win more power from the chaos.

If Obama gives them money then they will have hooked the federal government and converted it into a useful teat that will forever drip tax money from the other 49 states to subsidize the most perverted, disgusting and slimy group of leftist politicians outside of Rwanda. And, if California gets some blood money then New York and New Jersey and the other rust belt hookers will want their alms too. Bailing out the Loony State will only encourage the leftist parasites to spend more  American tax monies on illegal aliens, drugs, sloth, sodomy and rest blissfully and defiantly  in the conviction that they can spend what everybody else has on their follies. The pigs are no longer equal. California pigs are superior pigs.

California will have Somalia’s social structure and Zimbabwe’s financial success in the near future.

This is hopeless. Move out!

rycK [a 5^th generation Californian in exile]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com

Latvia Goes Down the Financial Latrine: Will this be a Model for California and New Jersey?

We all live  in a canonical ensemble of  mini tunnel visional worlds where  we observe that a very few  entrepreneurs can set up successful societies, make products and give services in a manner that generally benefits most of our citizens. These people are despised as capitalists. Numerous political theories and mantras exist for the sole purpose of tearing these systems down.  Thus, there are other political operatives[1] who believe (or who probably really do not believe) that they have a ‘better system’ or can provide ‘justice’ or ‘equality’ or honk out similar words and social programs  with noisy, rusty kazoos that elegantly toot forth elastic attributes and malleable definitions of political slogans as proof of their sincerity. Thus, we have successful societies in a few places and the rest of the world is mostly a dung heap of racism, poverty, war, tribalism and manifold ignorance besotted with propaganda. California use to be of the first sort.

We might be able to academically rank some of our more ignorant and battle-tested ideas and philosophies of economics and governance after diligently raking the muck in political and economic histories over a few centuries and settle on some ladder of authenticity or metrics of suitability and assign numbers correspondingly to various programs.  We should be able to cast out the obvious losers from such a study. We cannot do that. Marxism still clings to the favorite spot. We seem to be mentally truncated to only view a list of governmental methods that allow three possibilities: capitalism, socialism and communism. Fascism is not allowed although this is simply a blend of socialism and authoritarianism of the far left persuasion, but has been reincarnated as some left wing myth because of some internal squabbles among the far left.  The Nazis and Commies were really the same kind of wonderful people who stumbled into a nasty dog fight. Imperialism is gone.

So, for Latvia, California and New Jersey and, perhaps New York the salient divisions of society break down into: dumb ideas, dumb people and dumb decisions.  Dumb de dumb dumb as the old beat goes. Their failures merely enhance the tone and volume of the slogans and maudlin pleas for more and more taxes.

The histories of the Baltic states are complex, but here is the rough history:[2] Latvia [and here two unattractive sisters] was a form of door prize for sloth and buffoonery offered to Stalin after Hitler did his part in the agreed blitzkrieg of Poland and the astonished Russians were left gawking sans sous-vêtements [3] in their paper-lined boots and got just one little slice of the Polish prize in 1939.[4] It seems they were too inept to carry out their part of the bargain in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and even later as specified in the pages of the Secret Protocols and.[5] They got the Baltics as a consolation prize for just showing up but were forced to give up the rest of Poland in 1941 as they ran for cover to escape obliteration. Later, after 1942 Russian troops steadily milked the Baltics for food and shelter until 1989 when the USSR crashed and then, some more, until about August 1994.[6] They left the Baltic States almost completely dependent upon the shrunken remains of Russia for energy, mostly in the form of gas pipelines. The Latvians,--a service based-economy[7]--treated to capitalism for the first time, went on a spending spree. Whee!

We can sing Dumb de dumb dumb as we now acknowledge that Latvia and her two uninviting sisters were offered some soggy slots in the EC provided they pegged their currencies to the Euro and also kept their deficits within guarded limits. [8] Let us think about this.

Dumb 1:

To think, for even  a microsecond, that you could cobble together a junk assemblage  such as the Common Market or the European Union or the trendy “Euro zone”  and  blend this in with fallen Marxist states and just fix ‘rules’ for each of the players to play and expect all to meet such arbitrary goals.  Their deficits and such were proscribed within narrow limits, something California or New York would never agree to. Here there are about 27 unappealing sisters[9] in this mess with some 16 actually using euros[10] and the battered balance ‘pegging’ their ‘currencies to the same paper. To peg or unpeg! That is now the question! The Latvians use some currency called the “Latvijas rublis,”[11] or “Lati” or “lats” as they still think they are wedded to the Russians.  They want to be able to use the Euro by 2012.[12]The lats are soon to be nearly worthless as their recent bond offering failed to rake in a single shekel and overnight rates are about 25%. [13] VAT taxes would be raised to 23 percent from 21[14] The Swedish Stockholm-based Swedbank AB is now in jeopardy as the other two Balts may crash and take this bank down with them. The new slogan in the financial world might be “less than a Lati” or “lags like a lat.” The California solution, bar none, would be to double that VAT. It is too bad California does not have a VAT yet. Can they borrow from the IMF??

Dumb de second dumb:

To embrace capitalism while lingering hard-wired into the decayed USSR and its phony economic systems and then to build a weak bridge to the idiot Europeans,[15] who are trashing their societies with EcoNazism and other follies, gives Latvia the label as the Duncess of Baltica. They are shrieking out their lungs to grunt and grab more money.[16] They now feel urges for Mother Russia.

Dumb de thoid dumb:

“Latvia looks well-advanced in this political chain. As our Moscow correspondent reports, three of Latvia's eight Euro-MPs elected last week are pro-Kremlin. The Harvest Party of ex-Communist strongman Alfreds Rubiks came first in local elections, backed by both ethnic Russians and disgusted post-capitalist Latvians.”[17]-- The crucifixion of Latvia. By Ambrose-Evans Pritchard

 This is like the dog returning to its vomit, and California needs to be bolder and more openly embrace the government leadership of either Kim or North Korea or the new, trendy Hugo of Venezuela to survive capitalism and be more like Latvia. Either of these glorious selections would bring prosperity to the Golden State.

“If the purpose of Baltic euro pegs is in part to keep Putin's Russia at bay by locking the region deeper into the EU Project, the strategic gamble has gone badly wrong. It has created a reservoir of Russian irredentism [I had to look t his one up….see footnote[18] ed] in both Latvia and Estonia that gives Moscow a pretext to intervene at any time. The Baltics are being offered to Putin on a platter.”-- Ambrose-Evans Pritchard

“Latvia is firing a third of its teachers. The welfare state is being dismantled. Pensions for those in work will be cut 70pc. The salaries of doctors, nurses, and police (nota bene) will be cut 20pc. Unemployment has risen from 6pc to 17pc in a year, and is still rising. Jobless benefits for most will run out in the autumn, reducing support to £40 a month. "It is time to take to the streets," said union leader Valdis Keris.”

Dismantling the welfare state? Never! Will we hear this cry for help soon in California?? Probably so.  We wonder how well marijuana grows in this latitude. But Obama may be the California’s Putin. They may get unlimited funds from the US printing presses so they can continue on with their progressive society and this must be soon as the US AAA bonding rating may be crumbling.[19] The drug-crazed Californians have taken to the streets before with good results.  If they bawl loud enough maybe they can raise their credit rating from 50^th in the states a notch or two. Many of these activists from the 60s are now legislators in Sacramento and struggle only to employ a single word in their lexicon: tax. It is a shame California cannot print money or the problem would be solved. Maybe we can sell it to Mexico.

Today [June 16, 2009] Latvia will vote to cut government spending.[20] Good luck. They were loaned 7.5 b in Euros on the condition that they would peg to the Euro.

The penultimate dumb:

Raise taxes and refurbish the glory and splendor of the Golden State or ask Gordon Brown for advice.

The ultimate dumb:

To forget to get out of California as fast as you can places you in the upper reaches of dumdom. That place may look like Latvia very soon. Latvia has no chance unless she cuts spending and rejects Mother Russia as a benefactor. California will NOT cut spending for any reason and that includes default and bankruptcy. There will be lessons to be learned in these two cases for some. For others, the quest for taxes and power over others soars beyond any notion of financial integrity or display of reason. Maybe Californians can soon experience the splendor of being post-capitalists!

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

A Mystery: The Stock Market Keeps Rising on a Weak Economy. Possible Reasons Explained.

The Dow continues to surge despite some major problems. This may be a ‘bear rally’ of the sort seen some seven times during the Great Depression.  A month ago several of the international experts, notably Ambrose Evans-Prichard said things like this:

“Bear market rallies can be explosive. Japan had four violent spikes during its Lost Decade (33 percent, 55 percent, 44 percent, and 79 percent). Wall Street had seven during the Great Depression, lasting 40 days on average. The spring of 1931 was a corker.”[1]-- Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Enjoy the rally but expect sucker punch

Submitted by cpowell on Sun, 2009-05-10 09:17. Section: Daily Dispatches. By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard The Telegraph, London Sunday, May 10, 2009 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Gross US wealth is declining as home prices fall and net worth fell 1.33 trillion dollars in this second quarter of 2009. We have probably lost 20 trillion from the 2007 high. [2]

There are other explanations and some are not so good for growth:

[1] Corporations have been forced to go ‘mean and lean’ and have cut frills and unnecessary expenses. This means that they may be much more efficient than in 2007-2008. This suggests higher profits with fewer people hence the definition of efficiency.

[2] Loses on loans and other assets may have lowered the net corporate tax rate and some loses may be carried over for several years to offset earnings in 2010 and beyond.

[3] Inventories may be burning out to maximize cash flow for 2009 at the expense of next year.

[4] The massive infusions of printed federal money into the banks has boosted their ‘profits’ if not their share prices as they can borrow at zero percent and loan at 5 for the full spread.

[5] Mortgage rates and oil prices are rising; these are counter indicators for growth and profits. Gas prices are soaring. The demand is probably from India and Asia.

[6] “Retail sales climbed 0.5% in May”[3] and are not so strong. Also:

"Basically the consumer is still dead in the water," he said. "We're not going to see a rise in consumer spending in the second quarter like we did in the first. Household balance sheets are a disaster.”[4]-- Dow's up for 2009 Blue-chip measure moves into positive territory, other stocks gain after higher retail sales and a larger-than-expected dip in jobless claims. By Alexandra Twin, CNNMoney.com senior writer

Something stinks here. I think this is just some bursting bubble in the ‘confidence’ program by president Obama to give us the impression that there is some recovery unfolding. There are no good indicators here that would justify such a market surge. I agree with Cody Willard that fascism has given some kind of boost to the government programs and that there is some kind of delirium on Wall Street. Taxes will soar, cap and trade costs will wreck industry, and socialized medicine [aka single payer] will cost hundreds of billions due to government waste and inefficiency.

I am holding tight and waiting for the next downturn. I am also watching gold and bond sales. Something is about to go sour.  Our currency is in jeopardy with all this spending. I may go short for the first time since the 60s and I think the market may sink to 6,000 or lower.

This phony ‘stimulus’ may be feeding a false stimulus to the markets and are debt-driven—the kind of thing that sank our economy in Nov 2007.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com

As Predicted: California Heads for the Financial Latrines.

California heads for financial oblivion, but the drooling lefties in Sacramento still cling to the crack-pipe dream that Obama will chuck some money out West to allow them to perpetuate this insane and cancerous growth of leftist government. NY, NJ and MD will probably follow.

“SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's government risks a financial "meltdown" within 50 days in light of its weakening May revenues unless Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers quickly plug a $24.3 billion budget gap, the state's controller said on Wednesday.”[1]-- California nears financial "meltdown" as revenues tumble Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:05am EDT by Jim Christie

They will not stop taking dope, sodomizing children or bawling for taxes.

All this was predicted by this blogger:

California Begs for Alms and Descends into Whoredom. The Inferno is at Hand.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2009/05/28/california_begs_for_alms_and_descends_into_whoredom_the_inferno_is_at_hand.thtml

California Voters Reject Phony Budget Scams.

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2009/05/20/california_voters_reject_phony_budget_scams.thtml

California Gets a Temporary Reprieve from the Financial Abyss: The Leftists will NOT Stop Spending. 

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2009/03/10/california_gets_a_temporary_reprieve_from_the_financial_abyss_the_leftists_will_not_stop_spending.thtml

California Sinks into the Financial Abyss: The Leftists will NOT Stop Spending.  http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/16/california_sinks_into_the_financial_abyss_the_leftists_will_not_stop_spending.thtml

California Sinks into the Financial Abyss: The Media Mentality of this Circus Follows

http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2009/01/27/california_sinks_into_the_financial_abyss_the_media_mentality_of_this_circus_follows.thtml

California