Idle musings

I reread this article today and I thought to myself why do totalitarians hate Jews?

On a whim I put that into Google to see what was returned and what I found was rather interesting. Obviously articles such as that tend to lump people in a way that helps their argument but the basic premise rings true for me - totalitarians need the ignorant and the cowed. Free thinkers will poke holes in their model.

That line of thinking makes a great deal of sense to me but I don't understand why it is only the Jews that are brought up. Totalitarians are equal opportunity killers of the independent of thought as well as the independent of means (e.g. kulaks).

Continuing the line of thought from the previous post, it strikes me that the ever present need of totalitarians is to control the narrative. Widespread teachings of how totalitarians treat intellectuals and those that aren't dependent on state would be bad for the narrative while narrowing the scope will bring the unbalanced out of the woodwork.

Ah, now I'm painting with a very broad brush.

Western yin and yang

Western Civ, before the postmodernists got to it, was about the Occidental yin/yang of Roman and Greek thought.

Roman in the sense that if another culture (conquered or not) did things better than the current Roman method, the new method was adopted. This allowed them to roll over all opposition and only slowed to a stop when it was found that spending other people's money on bread and circuses got you into power easier than continuing to adapt. The Roman way can be seen in the Renaissance and laissez-faire.

Greek in a way that can be summed up in how Archimedes died (in Plutarch's account): Marcellus's men came upon Archimedes and commanded him to come and meet the general. Archimedes told soldiers "do not disturb my circles" and the enraged soldier cut him down. Greek thought is what led to theoretical mathematics and science vs. Roman applied mathematics and science. It also led to utopian/idealized thinking that becomes blind to facts when those facts do not conform to theory/model. Models are wonderful tools as long as you do not lose sight of the fact they do not take into account all the confounding variables of life.



I feel that for far too many decades the US has allowed Greek thinking to prevail. We, as a culture, have become unbalanced. Worse, we are making more use of bread and circuses. While there is much chatter to "throw the bums out", little is done at the ballot box.

Strange times we live in.

Governmant and the Ruling Class

Much is made of the differences in the various forms of government. Some are called more enlightened or fair and others are considered more admirable. It is my opinion that the form of government is chosen/maintained by those with a will to power to garner the most support. Regardless of the form of government, the ruling class constantly shifts between a legitimate aristocracy (those that hold true to the same laws and cultural norms as the rest of their society) and a plutocracy (those that act on whimsey without regard to their society). Revolutions are carried out in order to rearrange the standing of a group of households. It should be kept in mind that revolutions can be peaceful. As well they can be undertaken under false pretenses in order to gain time to entrench before implementing changes society would not accept otherwise.

I do not hold to the idea that old families of wealth are somehow better. Rather, I acknowledge that their wealth and family connections allow them far greater social influence. I also acknowledge that the majority of society gives little attention to the workings of government and as a consequence are greatly affected by propaganda. One example of this propaganda would be communism's promise of a classless society vs the reality of the power held by members of the central committee over the governed

Old households were once held in high regard by their societies and were encouraged to stand as exemplars. I hold that such encouragement made for better governance. Whereas these days they are ignored or demonized which has them stepping away from an active role in society. This allows the plutocracy free reign to our detriment.

A democracy which does not take account of any kind of superiority, or even which does not take into account all kinds, can not escape continual and wretched agitation It will consume itself and surely fall a victim to chance and transient despotisms, with intervals of anarchy - Henri Baudrillart, Aristocracy - Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States

Musings on US Education

There have been a number of articles on the drive to get all children into college at the expense of the trades over the past few years. This harms both the individual and society in general.

The harm to society can be mitigated through outsourcing and automation but these are problematic as well. Automation requires sufficient volume of goods sold to cover the cost of maintaining the equipment as well as its debt/lease. If the volume can not be maintained, the manufacturer must raise the price which brings the demand curve into play. Outsourcing only pushes a society's problem off for a period of time. What is forgotten is that labor is cheap in these areas because they are poor at present. With continued investment they will no longer be poor and labor will become more expensive. One could think this as altruistic but when it comes at the expense of your own society it is nothing more than selfishness.

The harm to the individual is much more intense. A young child will not understand why they are falling behind their peers. The child will continue to struggle or may simply quit and think themselves a failure. The tragedy here is that the child may have so little confidence that they will not put forth any effort into STEM instruction/careers. The problem is that not everyone learns the same way. Some will not grasp the topic unless it is presented in an applied manner and others will require a basic/theoretical approach. Along with that base method students have different learning styles. When wood/metal/auto shop classes were removed from the basic curriculum a useful avenue of applied learning was removed which left many directionless. Happily some of those poor souls join the military and once in that crucible of applied learning find success.

What of those who require an applied learning method that do not join the military? Some stumble into the training they need. Where they determine the need for a specific skill and take a vocational class. At which point they learn that they are not failures. With their confidence restored they seek out the applied types of education that will move them towards their goals.

What of those who have no luck at all in picking up skills that lead to gainful employment? I'm not referring to wastrels, only those who assume they are failures because they never experienced an applied educational environment. Now, much like the 70s, it appears that welfare programs are the chosen medicine. The age old problem with welfare is that it breeds dependence and soon you will have generations of families that are fully dependent on the state. With the more recent advent of open borders into the US and Europe, welfare immigration comes into play. Welfare creates a downward spiral of resentment between the individual and society that in the extreme will lead to revolution (see Soviets, NAZIs, etc). Signs of this can be seen in France's immigrant community.

It is my opinion that the widespread elimination of shop classes was driven by a desire to increase the success rate of liberal arts degrees without regard to applied learning. What may seem like menial job training to those who have a basic/theoretical approach to life, is something altogether different to someone with an applied approach. The applied individual will make connections from what they learn in shop class to what they learn in their more basic/theoretical classes. Connections that will serve as a Rosetta Stone to all basic/theoretical material. Artistic individuals of both approaches may find success as well as it could open the door to mediums that they would otherwise be ignorant.

Welcome To The Machine

What did you dream? It's alright we told you what to dream.

People are strange

People are strange when you're a stranger

Faces look ugly when you're alone

Women seem wicked when you're unwanted

...falling down...

...falling down...

...my fair lady.

Strange Days

How Republics Die


London bridges falling down, falling down...

...falling down...

Hmm

TED spread

Shows how willing the banks are to loan to one another.

Click on the five year button to get a better idea of where things stand. Before May of last year it was rarely above 0.5.

9/07 - 3/08 it hit 2 three times.

And then in 9/08 it hit 3 and now has hit 4.5.

If things continue in this fashion it will drop to 4 again before heading north of 5.

Or this could be a huge peak and it will drop just as dramatically.

But all this might be moot. If all western banks can borrow from the government why should they make loans to each other?

Truth

The dawn of the end of freedom

Something I wrote to a friend

And thought I might just post here as well.

This was in response to speculation that the government will start examining what happened and determining who's to blame.

===========

I'm not so sure the heat has passed.

Also, here are more details on how this bailout is not only for Wall Street, but for the world.

"Larry Kudlow:

Let me just ask you one question. I think you are referring to foreign banks headquartered in the United States. I do not see how foreign investors get bailed out.

Rep. Brad Sherman:

Larry you have to read the bill. It's very clear. The Bank of Shanghai can transfer all of its toxic assets to the Bank of Shanghai of Los Angeles which can then sell them the next day to the Treasury. I had a provision to say if it wasn't owned by an American entity even a subsidiary, but at least an entity in the US, the Treasury can't buy it. It was rejected.

The bill is very clear. Assets now held in China and London can be sold to US entities on Monday and then sold to the Treasury on Tuesday. Paulson has made it clear he will recommend a veto of any bill that contained a clear provision that said if Americans did not own the asset on September 20th that it can't be sold to the Treasury.

Hundreds of billions of dollars are going to bail out foreign investors. They know it, they demanded it and the bill has been carefully written to make sure that can happen."

What the executive branch started (FED and Treasury - Repub controlled) was knocked down by the legislative branch (Dem controlled) the first time. But only because of a large and loud grassroots roar. The Senate (legislative - D) tacked on all sorts of pork (a tax subsidy for wooden arrow makers? sheesh). There are claims that there are new provisions for accountability. But from my reading, the audit board has no teeth. They can't stop anything.

I like Palin and I think she'll come along nicely. My problem with her is on the topic of immigration. I know McCain is for open boarders and I know AK has sanctuary cities. I have no problem with skilled immigrants that 1) come here legally and 2) seek high US salaries (meaning they don't lowball Americans).

At this point is seems to me both parties support this kind of thing.

It is bad enough that we have so many idle hands due to cheap, illegal low-end labor. But now that model is moving up into "professional" employment.

Going back to gold/silver -- I was speaking with my wife about going ahead and starting to buy physical metal as an insurance policy. What my concern was/is that while gold's value stays the same, the dollar moves wildly. Meaning, what I buy now may be worth $30/oz in ten years and $1500/oz in twenty. On thinking about it some more, if physical metal is insurance and as it moves in cycles, I shouldn't buy if I'm anywhere near the peak. So I hunted around for some long term price graphs --

gold -

Gold 1975 to present.
Gold 1985 to present.
Gold 1995 to present.
Gold 2000 to present.

silver -

Silver 1985 to present.
Silver 1995 to present.
Silver 2000 to present.

Those tell me two things -

1) The metals have peaked
2) The metals show the nature of the economy before it is felt

#1 assumes one of two things 1) that at some point soon interest rates will be hiked and the dollar made strong or 2) like oil, there is demand destruction because people don't have the money to buy.

#2 Note the 1980 gold peak. I was pretty young but I remember things being pretty tight in the early 80s. I remember in the late 80s people decrying the rise of the consumer nation. That tends to happen when only a small potion of the population gets to play. Note that by the 90s most of those types of complaints disappeared when every single household started to get all the shiny baubles. By the late 90s everyone was tossing around money. What I'm getting at here is that I think that the next 2-4 years might be tight.

1976 bottom was around $100/oz. That climbed to a 1979 peak of $750/oz (750%) and then dropped to $350/oz (47%) low in 81. Final low in 99 at $250/oz (72% off 350/oz and 34% off peak).

From that 1999 bottom we've hit 1010/oz (400%). Does that mean it will climb near 1875/oz (750%)? I'm continuing to hold my GLD shares in case it does make a move like that.

I don't know. But I'm not sure it is prudent to buy physical metal now that it has climbed more than half the old peak.

I do know I will be buying physical gold once it hits the bottom of its cycle again. That'll be around 343/oz if 1010/oz was the peak and 637/oz if it gets to 1875/oz.

My thinking is this: if by the time I'm 60 and we're going through this again, my gold will be worth something. Should there be a huge boom going on when I'm 60, I know my girl can make use of the gold I've bought.

Also, looking at the historical silver charts, I can't see any reason to hold physical silver. Perhaps if there is total government collapse it will be needed for day to day money, but I don't see that happening.

I suggest eliminating all debt and getting a good low energy freezer. We've finally found a good price on one and are now starting to stock meat and other spendy type items when they go on sell for bulk purchases. I'd also suggest putting 6-12 months salary into a very liquid savings account of some type, regardless of what tiny return you'll get.

Why? Well, considering that both parties are moving so close together on policies, take a look at the possible ramifications of something Obama wants to pass --

"Biden -"Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.""

Why would any bank make any loan to anybody if they could be forced to adjust the principal so that they are losing on the deal? Sensing, and I agree with him, suspects that down payments of 20-30% or more along with crazy high interest rates will be on their way.

Take care.

Truth

Ticking Time Bomb Explodes, Public Is Shocked

I find a lot of truth in this link

It's frustrating.

I found some things I didn't like with Bush after his first term, but when Kerry came up as the Dem candidate I felt I had no other choice (like this time around if it's Hillery). Except now, the Republicans seem to have fully joined with the Democrats in only fielding people from the ruling class. By ruling class I mean people that have little to no connection to the middle class. Any connection displayed to the middle class is nothing more than smoke and mirrors designed only to get votes and money.

In my amateur's view of history I've seen this before. Both parties like the lower class because it is easily controlled with incentives. The lower class lacks the ability/desire to be free actors in life. The upper class does everything in its power to keep more households from joining its ranks as that would mean its influence would become watered down. The upper class *hates* dealing with direct competition.

"Competition is sin." - John D. Rockefeller

"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite." - Gary Allen, author

That leaves the middle class. It is what moves society forward. The middle class, in effect, is society/culture.

What I've seen in other countries that have done well for themselves only to up and die in under a century is the ruling class (aristocracies, theocracies, and plutocracies) kills off (literally or through sanctions) the middle class.

In the US and too many other countries, I'm seeing the middle class having less and less of a say in how things get done. I'm seeing in the US the ever increasing debt load carried by people who should know better. I'm seeing the middle class killing itself through manufactured need for shiny toys that have no use beyond limited entertainment.

Bread and circuses.

Makes me worry.