Slashdot Mirror

And some perspective can come from this graph: https://www.financialsense.com...

Nice graph, but it would be good to see it extended through 2017 if you wanted to look for the effect of LED lights and other such things.

And some perspective can come from this graph: https://www.financialsense.com...

Funny, then, that they keep creating it at every opportunity. Almost all government economists are Keynesians. The government has followed policies suggested by Keynesians, including Krugman's infamous suggestion that we "fix" the bursting internet bubble by creating a housing bubble. In fact, looking back through history, I can't think of a single instance of stagflation that didn't occur under any but a Keynesian administration.

Of course, we don't have stagflation now, because the idiots in charge keep changing the rules about how things are calculated. But hey, who's counting? No-one "important"!

http://www.shadowstats.com/
http://www.financialsense.com/...

Well conservatives downright hate the poor - cuts to SNAP and food stamps tucked into the farm bill? Hell yeah! (yes, that is sarcasm)

My problem with liberals usually has more to do with the money. They want all these fancy social programs but don't want to pay for them, so the programs are doomed to go belly-up starting in about the next decade likely with Medicaid. If you want these fancy programs, either increase taxes, fix the broken corporate tax system so corporations pay taxes (most pay zero tax, 94% of US corporations pay less than 5%, and yes the tax rate is 35%), or make cuts (military spending would make sense, since we're not actively in any wars, yet Obama is asking for more spending here) to pay for them. I miss Clinton in this regard, but also hate him for burying the actual debt numbers that show money needed to be able to keep social programs running, mainly to garner favor of older voters (and every president since has continued this).

The US may have a high corporate tax rate on paper, but not in actual practice:

http://www.financialsense.com/...

• Imperial presidency: judge jury and executioner.
• Unconstitutional detention.
• Unconstitutional wiretapping.
• Unconstitutionally waging war and not even bothering with the War Powers Act.
• Taking credit for Iraq ending when it was Iraq that kicked us out on Bush II's timetable and Obama was trying to stay longer. Assange has a much bigger claim for the removal of troops from Iraq.
• Cut deal with insurance industry while touting the public option. In the end, we get the No Insurance Company Left Behind Act. Lobbyists got their money's worth.
• Recent financial reform legislation so weak it would not have even slowed the meltdown had it already been in place. Lobbyists got their money's worth.
• Forgiving torturers Excusing them makes him complicit.
• Not even a show-attempt to prosecute fraud in the meltdown. Instead its bailouts and bonuses.
• Made deepwater horizon more likely.
• And the famous "hire the lobbyists for the industry you bow to" tactic. Good for what I don't know.
• Whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing should not be treated as Manning has been, and we don't even know if manning was responsible. He'll probably just get indefinite detention because the president says so. Welcome to Napoleonic America.

• Stop unconstitutional execution of the American citizenry.
• Stop unconstitutional detention.
• Stop unconstitutional wiretapping and prosectue AT&T's complicity (and that of any other carrier).
• Stop unconstitutionally waging war. From Korea onward, all our wars have been illegal, but Obama doesn't even feel constrained by the weak tea requirements of the war powers act. Our founding fathers never intended for the president to be a Napoleon.
• End the wars we are in. And please don't cite Iraq. The ONLY reason we are pulling out troops is because Iraq would not succumb to Obama's lobbying for a longer stay with immunity from war crimes. Thanks to wikipedia for that.
• Quit sucking insurance industry cock, i.e., real nice move touting the public option while secretly cutting a deal for the No Insurance Company Left Behind Act. I guess they got their money's worth.
• Quit sucking Wall Street cock, and don't pretend that the financial reform legislation would have even been a mild hindrance to the meltdown had it already been in place.
• Prosecute torturers rather than let them off the hook. Excusing them makes him complicit.
• At least make a show of investigating fraud on Street. The S&L crisis was 1/40th the size and 1000 bankers went to jail. This meltdown isn't even being investigated, instead, their handing out bonuses. A big "Fuck You Very Much Mr. Obama" for that.
• Thanks for helping to enable Deepwater horizon, it was exactly the gift I wanted!
• Quit hiring Keystone Pipeline lobbyists for your campaign.
• Bradley Manning. We know you have a hardon for anyone that might stand in the way of relentless war, but Christ, grow a soul and a sense of morality.

Nobody is even looking for the crimes so of course they will never be found. In the S&L crisis, 1000 FBI agents investigated banking fraud and 1000 bankers went to jail. The current meltdown 40x the size of the S&L crisis, there are 120 agents spread out over the country. Just going after Enron took 100 investigators, so 2 or 3 in each state isn't going to accomplish anything at all.

You should hear William Black, top litigation director in the S&L crisis -- not even a hint of hippie: http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/guest-expert/2011/09/14/william-k-black-phd/why-nobody-went-to-jail-during-the-credit-crisis

Listen to this non-tinfoil podcast: http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/guest-expert/2011/02/17/chris-nelder-bill-powers/shells-doomsday-scenario-wti-versus-brent

"Change"... is all you'll have left in your pocket or bank account once Obama is done.

Well yeah, all you'll have left is change. Coins don't burn nearly as well as bank notes ;)

Well .. I haven't read Atlas Shrugged and now I may want to.

You might also want to check into Alan Greenspan's background. His essay Gold and Economic Freedom appeared in Ayn Rand's (nonfiction compilation of essays) Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Read Greenspan's 1966 essay, and compare it to this speech from Atlas Shrugged, which was published in 1957. (Good speech; it stands on its own, and it gives away no spoilers.)

Then you'll be ready for Atlas Shrugged, and your final exam question: Was the real-life Greenspan (who joined the Federal Reserve, rejected the Gold standard in favor of fiat money, and as recently as a few years ago suggested at the bottom of the interest rate cycle that subprime mortgages were a great idea) styling himself after the character of Francisco D'Anconia?

Continue my thought experiment, then, into the future so far that each atom of gold is worth, say, a galaxy class starship. But what if I want to exchange my pocket change for gold? I guess I just get a quark or two shaved off of a gold bar?

LOL... indeed, this is a problem I have considered, but that's a looooong way off. :-)

There's another reason not to worry about it: even taking into account population growth and a vast increase in the amount of gold and silver mined over the past 700 years, the "value" of gold and silver in terms of what a particular amount buys has remained relatively stable over that period.

For example, see the following graph, paying particular attention to the nominal price/gallon of gasoline:

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_adjusted_gasoline_price.jpg

Until the 70's, gasoline was stable between $0.25 and $0.35/gallon. When Nixon withdrew from the Bretton Woods accord in 1971, closing the gold exchange window, oil suddenly became more expensive and never looked back.

Here's a graph of some measure of consumer prices. I have no idea how accurate this is, but I'm most interested in its demonstration of how stable prices were for a long time, until the final gold backing for the dollar was removed:

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/hodges/2006/images/0106_1.gif

Anyway, there's a lifetime of reading out there about money. The best way to start IMO is to read Murray Rothbard's "What Has Government Done to our Money?", available for free.

So he partied out who cares....

Like any politicians who lie all the time are repentant but are liing scum who have ugly wifes.

Hey judge, get some real crims, like the ones stealing 17 trillion from american citizens, this is called wall street.

http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/2008/Burrell.html

yes naked short sells.

So im OT a bit, FU.

Doesnt matter, all those rich asses dollars will be devalued like zimbawae soon.

Too stupid to see the truth who the real criminals are, CONGRESS & WALL STREET.

The 'economic feasibility' of gas has NOTHING to do with supplies being exhausted, unless you're referring to the 'supply' of other nations being willing to accept US dollars.

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/bms/2005/0422.html

Once we get to where we cannot trade dollars for gas, we also will find Mercedes unwilling to accept those same dollars.

Then where will we be?

The reason for this is cost. They have plenty of leases on public land, but:

1) The surveys show little or no oil possibility.
2) Surveys show reserves, but the cost to recover those reserves are negative.

Oil companies aren't here to extract the oil at a loss just so the United States can continue to drive our beloved SUVs.

Most wont believe, but the cost to recover oil is increasing greatly. A deep water rig can cost close to a million dollars a day to operate. Ever look at what it takes to extract oil from shale? Just the cost to extract is would make the oil worth $70 a barrel. Not to mention the fact that our energy consumption goes up by simply attempting to extract it.

Drill more isn't a solution. We need renewables. But, enough renewables to satisfy energy demand are decades away. Until then we still need fossil fuels to drive the trucks, trains, and planes in large quantities (the things that make an economy tick). We can move electrical and auto fuels over more quickly, but getting a 747 retrofitted for alternatives isn't cheap (and takes time). The answer is drill now and make serious investments into renewables.

I digress when i think of how much further we could be in renewables with the money sunk into the Iraq war....

In closing, if you want some good commentary on the financial impacts, listen to Jim Puplava:

Financial sense news hour, specifically the "Third Hour: Big Picture".

This episode specifically covers what we're talking here.

There are some real geniuses working on Wall Street, in VCs, Consulting, and yes, even marketing.

The same geniuses who thunk up "derivatives"? the sub-prime scam? The Bear Stearns bailout? The rising prices of commodities? The Ponzi Scheme and Musical Chair based economy which is about to collapse? I hope the IMF goes easy on Uncle Sam.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562291,00.html
http://business.theage.com.au/imf-finally-knocks-on-uncle-sams-door-20080629-2yui.html
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2008/06/30755.php
http://www.financialsense.com/Market/kirby/2008/0630.html

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

The true CPI hasn't been calculated since 1986.

Gasoline: 1997: 1.04 / gallon. 2007: $3.22 / gallon. 300% in 10 years.
Housing: 1997: 196,000. 2007: $299,000. 50% in 10 years
Medical expenses: http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692.pdf
1990: 2,813. 2007: 7,498.

No way that this is reflected in the "official" annual figures of ~2% per annum.

The real CPI has not been reported since 1986. Here's some of the tricks used.

Gasoline has more than tripled in price in the last decade (1.04 to 3.27) . Housing? Doubled or tripled. Food? Don't even ask. Sure, you can substitute for some items, but for the stuff you actually NEED, like a roof over your head, food in your stomach, and transportation to and from work?

Also, the calculators of the CPI have already done the "substitution", to such an extent that they use USED cars instead of new cars, and "owner's equivalent rent" instead of the actual cost of the roof over your head. Its a lie.

Instead of using new car prices, which were going up each year, the BLS substituted used car prices, which were falling. In place of exploding real estate prices, the Bureau gave more weight to the price of rents, which were falling as more households bought homes. Rents were given more weight even though 69% of households own a home versus the 31% that rent.

Price of gasoline 10 years ago: $1.04.
Price of gasoline now: $3.27

They exclude energy from the inflation calculations for just that reason - it affects the cost of everything, and it's HUGE.

Then there's housing: http://therealreturns.blogspot.com/2007/06/median-and-average-house-prices-in-usa.html

The average house price in January of 2000 was at $200,300 and in April of 2007 the average house price stood at $299,100. The average house prices grew about 50% from January 2000 to April of 2007.

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

One way to lower entitlements would be to bring the inflation rates down, which would translate into lower Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA). The way to do this was to bring down the rate of inflation. However, this was not done by natural means, but artificially through statistical manipulation. The supply of money and credit began to go parabolic in the 1990s as shown in the graph of M3. The rise in money and credit would mean higher inflation rates. Higher inflation rates would mean higher COLA adjustments, which would lead to bigger deficits.

As for the "it is assumed that the cost of energy will be picked up by cost increases in all other goods" - when calculating the CPI, they substitute goods preferentially so as to lower the calculation, as well as "adjusting" the price of a good downward!!! if it's better than last year's model...

Hedonics

The manipulation didnt stop there. The bureau also began to adjust prices for quality. This practice became known as hedonics. Hedonics adjusts the prices of goods as a result of the increased pleasure a consumer derives from a product. A few examples will illustrate how removed the index has moved away from reality. Tim LaFleur is a commodity specialist for televisions at the BLS. In December last year he adjusted the price of a 27-inch television set for quality improvements. The 27-inch television set had a retail cost of $329.99. However, he decided the new model, which still sold for $329.99, had a better screen. After putting this improvement through the governments complex hedonic adjustment model he determined the improvement in the picture was worth at least $135! Taking in this improvement he adjusted the price of the TV by $135, concluding that the price of the TV had actually fallen by 29%! [1] The price reflected in the CPI was not the actual retail store cost of $329.99, but $194.99. The only problem for we consumers is that if we went to Best Buy or Circuit City to buy that TV, we would still pay $329.99.

Another example of hedonics at work is the way the BLS treats rising automobile prices. Mr. Reese, a specialist for autos, took a 2005 model car, which went from $17,890 in 2004 to $18,490 in 2005. After adjusting for quality items and making antilock disc brakes standard, the bureau adjusted the actual $600 price increase down by $225. The problem for we consumers is that the price of the car in dealer showrooms was still $18,490.

Instead of using new car prices, which were going up each year, the BLS substituted used car prices, which were falling. In place of exploding real estate prices, the Bureau gave more weight to the price of rents, which were falling as more households bought homes. Rents were given more weight even though 69% of households own a home versus the 31% that rent.

Real inflation has been understated since 1986, when they changed the way it was calculated. Anyone who says they believe the "official" CPI is a fool or a liar.

When the Fed decided to stop printing the M3 report, Ron Paul was the only person who attempted to stop them two years ago. Anyone who cared could see the Fed was going to fuck every single American via inflation, and Ron Paul was the only one on the hill who gave a shit. Inflation is now at the highest it has been in more than three decades. Ron Paul tried to prevent it.

This "interview" is thoroughly disappointing.

To me, if you're picking a candidate based on their words rather than looking at their actions in the legislature, then your vote will be an uninformed one.

Step 1. Take away the gold standard.

Step 2. ???

Step 3. Somebody Profits! (And it ain't me)

But seriously, here is a nice interview with the author:

http://www.financialsense.com/transcriptions/2006/1018griffin.html

Washington idiocy aside, the worst assumption that this story makes is that the Cold War is over... http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pasta nalysis/main.html. Read up. There is a world chess game going on and Americans are not paying attention.

For a totally different perspective check out J. R. Nyquist... I've been reading his stuff for years because its so intriguing and apocalyptic.

That was not my point. Growing corn for ethanol uses up arable land, large quantities of irrigation water, and scores of other resources that can otherwise be used to grow food crops, corn or wheat or anything else. There is still controversy http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/cooke/200 7/0202.html on how efficient it really is to use ethanol fuel. It seems to me that the government is buying into an agenda that has not yet fully examined for its faults. Why not use wind energy, or invest in solar technology so that it becomes more viable? There are numerous societies that run entirely on renewable sources of energy. Just because windmills and solar panels are an ugly sight to some people?

See this article, skip dpwn to 'indirect manipulation'. The short of it, inflation - using the flawed definition of increasing prices - is closer to 10% than 2%.

Second, your examples of unstable gold prices are deeply flawed, simply because you measure them in terms of US dollars. A tailored suit costs about the same in gold now as it did 200 years ago. Investment demand can only exist when you do not have a gold standard. (and investment demand is a key cause of gold's volatility - but it is nothing more than a reflection of underlying volitility in the US dollar.)

"When the currency isn't pegged to some commodity, the Fed can make adjustments to track whatever they want. By manipulating the monetary supply..."

Any manipulation of the money supply artifically changes prices. Prices determine whether suppliers increase or derease production, whether consumers demand more or less, or switch to something else, whether they save, invest, or go into business themselves. Artifical price changes can cause demand to exceed supply - without motivating suppliers to increase supply, and many other similar distortions. In almost every case an artificial price change trades a short term benifit for a long term loss. The result is disbalanced and fragile economies - what we see today almost worldwide - and usually ends in crashes.

About the only thing that your post was right about is the fact that even a gold standard can have inflation and deflation - it just usually is not big enough to harm the economy - and it sometimes helps. Fiat currencies always end in disaster.

But could you name even one fiat currency that isn't inflating and hasn't been inflating?

> The Yen was deflating fairly recently. It has since gone back to very modest inflation, which is a good thing because it means the Japanese economy is finally growing again.

Inflation isn't just a function of money supply, its a funciton of velocity - how quickly that money changes hands.

This is to point out but one reason that the notion that there would be no inflation under a gold-backed money regime is clearly wrong. To pick historical examples of inflation in gold-backed economies, there was significant inflation throughout Eurasia during the 12th to 14th centuries, the 16th-17th and centuries, and the later 18th and early 19th century.

Brazil's vehicle fuel mix has about twice as much diesel as gasoline; ethanol is up to about 60% of the gasoline number, but Brazil's "miracle" is 90% oil drilling vs. 10% ethanol.

And yes, my blog IS the first on Rapier's blogroll. That ought to tell you something.

Well, quite a few folks have been writing about this stuff.

I understand the official policy is that pure fusion devices don't exist. The big thing to get though is that pure fusion devices were considered by the Orion team as the key to getting their stuff to work-and they fully expected pure fusion devices to be created.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Gore: 50,999,897 48.38%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_ele ction,_2000
Due to the way our electoral system works, it went Bush's way due to the 537 vote victory in Florida, getting him the needed votes to surpass the 271 count electoral vote requirement. The issue at hand was that the Gore camp called for a recount in 4 counties in Florida, 4 counties which were heavily Democratic, but the final margins didn't indicate that heavy bias.

Do I think we would have been better off with Gore? Now, maybe. Short term, no. Long term, yes. But that's just my particular view.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/02/04/outr age-at-attacks-on-nasa-science/
And yes I do consider Bush a dictator. Suppression of science based on religious views speaks loudly to that effect.

Do I lean left? Absolutely. Bush cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Reagan showed that cutting taxes works great to stimulate the economy. But then Bush spends and spends like there's no tomorrow (increasing national debt).

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2006/ 0206.html
Basically Japan did in the 90's what we're doing now (ultra low rates and print money as fast as it can). They still haven't recovered and are under a huge pile of debt as a result. The only reason they're climbing out now is because they can export product that they can create because of the pool of cheap labor. Here in the US, we do not have that cheap labor.

To paraphrase, we in the US are on a downward trend to equalizing our standard of living with the rest of the world. It's only natural of those in power to fight it, but it's a losing battle. Remember, finite resources...

According to the projections of Uranium reserves on this page, conventional nuclear power won't get us very far: http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/petch /2005/0703.html

However,if we ever get past the "pilot plant" stage in designing and building breeder reactors: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/ fasbre.html ,which actually create more fuel than is used, then the viabilty of nuclear fission as an alternate energy source might be enhanced considerably: http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste% 20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm The final waste products from plutonium fission have much safer radioactive by-products in terms of half-life, but plutonium itself presents problems as it is an extreme security risk and a very hazardous material

On the other hand, the supply of Deuterium and Tritium is vast, and the fusion reaction is clean, except for the need to absorb the free neutrons that are carrying the most of the energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Maybe our market is right and theirs is wrong, and what a country really needs for long-term prosperity is lots of lawyers and real estate agents.

http://www.financialsense.com/ http://www.dailyreckoning.com/ http://www.lewrockwell.com/ A number of sites out there with plenty of information explaining how Federal Reserve policies will be probably be very disasterous. We have a centrally managed economy, make no mistake, and the devaluation of the dollar thanks to a whirlwind of easy credit (thanks Federal Reserve!) over the last 3-4 years will have serious ramifications.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/reality/2 005/0403.html

they own a lot, but not more than US citizens. http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/chart ing/2005/0302.html

The governments dont need our tax money, they just dont want us to be rich and free to learn and get smart to make a new revolution and install a new socialist replacement.

The government can make its own money for free, just print more its 100% legal, they can print $500billion a year out of thin air (whoops, they already do , check the fed M1/M2/M3 money supply M Supply
They can print more, and take less from us. That is what you call inflation rate, for zero income taxes (inflation would rise to 11-12%). But at least we would keep all our money except sales tax/levies/state taxes. Taxes are a way to reduce inflation, not to get our money, inflation is an invisible tax any way.

Let me direct you to picture of "The Laws of Demand and Supply 101" paragraph of Powershift - Oil, Money, & War. (it is basic financial economic knowledge i want to point out, although the article is interesting ;) )

The theorie is that people willing to pay at price is equal to Q -- P=Q (Price=Quantity). Also a portion of below P or a Quantiy P will be found in the "black Market".

Unlike traditional goods, software can be produced in unlimited quantity at near zero cost. therefore the entire triangle beyond (P,Q) is furfilled. The Good news is that you have twice as much customer (2x triagle or a full box from (0,0) to (P,Q). In other world, your sales are more that the double of what you find on kazaa. ;)

The ultimate proof is that M$ product are on kazaa as RIAA product are, but neither are broke.

Let me direct you to picture of "The Laws of Demand and Supply 101" paragraph of Powershift - Oil, Money, & War. (it is basic financial economic knowledge i want to point out, although the article is interesting ;) )

The theorie is that people willing to pay at price is equal to Q -- P=Q (Price=Quantity). Also a portion of below P or a Quantiy P will be found in the "black Market".

Unlike traditional goods, software can be produced in unlimited quantity at near zero cost. therefore the entire triangle beyond (P,Q) is furfilled. The Good news is that you have twice as much customer (2x triagle or a full box from (0,0) to (P,Q). In other world, your sales are more that the double of what you find on kazaa. ;)

The ultimate proof is that M$ product are on kazaa as RIAA product are, but neither are broke.

Roadmap for War on Iraq and the New American Empire brought to by:

Elliott Abrams , Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney , Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes , Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld , Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

xyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzy