January 07, 2007
First up, the weather. Every year at about this time, a large stationery front parks off the east coast. This creates a pattern that draws cold Arctic air down from Canada along the Eastern Seaboard. The result is that we have several weeks of painfully bitter cold. Home heating oil, and natural gas prices spike. People scream for investigations of price gouging. The news is full of stories about the poor and downtrodden forced to choose between eating cat food for dinner and heating their home. The front eventually moves on and temperatures moderate and things get back to normal.
This year that front seems to have parked inland. Probably related to the same ocean current and wind patterns that gave us our non-event hurricane season. The result is that all of that cold air is getting dumped on the western states and burying them in huge snows. Meanwhile here in the northeast when we would expect to be dealing with a frostbite inducing two degrees, yesterday was sunny and 70°. Today is forecast to top out at 54°. The coldest forecast high for the next five days is 41°.
When I called my mother in Maine on Christmas day she joked that she was celebrating Hanukah. One day's worth of home heating oil had lasted eight days.
But there are two things people must remember. Eventually, the stationery from will move on. Temperatures will moderate and things will be back to normal. Weather is not climate. Weather is variable based on an almost infinite number of factors. Just because it's warm today - doesn't mean the sky is falling. So don't talk to me about Global Warming - I'm not joining that religion.
Armchair generals are all busily trying to decide what our military strategy should be in Iraq. While the actual generals are being shuffled around and different strategies are being debated. First let me say that I find the public debate of military strategy, and the expected presidential announcement of the eventual strategy rather odd. This seems to me to be one of those things you might want to keep close to the vest. It's one thing for a bunch of average and even above average Joe's to weigh in on blogs about what they think we should be doing, but quite another for the government and the military to be determining strategy in public debate.
I mean do you really want to let the enemy know well in advance that we're going to "surge" troop levels, and what those troops are going to do, when they are coming and when they are leaving? This gives enemy time to plan one of two things. One, they prepare for a counter offensive so that the American media and the Democrats in Congress can point to the strategy as the cause of further problems and another Bush administration failure. Or two, they lay low and minimize their activity then come on strong after the "surge" is over so the American Media and the Democrats in Congress can point to the strategy as the cause of further problems and another Bush administration failure.
At least they wont get to blame much of this on Rumsfeld.
The Democrats have officially taken control of congress - they do not however have sufficient majorities to override presidential vetoes. It remains to be seen if Bush will use the veto at all, let alone effectively. I will not be surprised if he spends the next two years kissing Democrat Congressional posteriors in the name of bipartisanship. The GOP had some success complaining about Democrat obstructionism that I wonder if they will be hypocritical enough to make aggressive use of the filibuster in the Senate. Given that there is apparently no limit to the level of hypocrisy to which a politician will sink - I expect we will see this tactic used by the GOP.
In the end the best we can hope for is a government incapable of accomplishing anything. In other words a government that does less to us.
Speaking of Congressional Democrats, Nancy Pelosi's boast that she would run the most ethical house ever is certainly proving to be problematic. It may well go down as one of the dumbest boasts in political history - right next to "Read. My. Lips." and "Mission Accomplished."
Apparently a bunch of leftist, bleeding-heart, ACLU types (aka the Mainstream Media) are upset not just over the fact that Saddam was executed, but the manner in which it was done. It seems one or more of the guards or executioners was not nice to the Butcher of Bagdad as they put him to death. Apparently they taunted and teased him. Boo Fricken Hoo. They could have done a full blown Abu Ghraib on the S.O.B. and it wouldn't have bothered me. Taken in the context of Hussein's decades of brutality, I would think it would be difficult to come with anything that would qualify as cruel and unusual.
It's been all over the internet and the news that Israel is drawing up plans to take out Iran's nuclear facilities using tactical nukes. No real shock there. I bet they are also planning to take them out using conventional weapons too. I bet somewhere in the Pentagon there are people who have planned, reviewed and refined plans for taking out Iran's nuclear facilities in any number of ways. That is what they are supposed to do. Make plans. Study the plans. Refine the plans. So that if the day comes they need a plan, they have one ready. I believe it's called planning ahead.
I was listening to Larry Kudlow on the Radio the other day. He was talking about the recent jobs report that shows how strong the U.S. economy continues to be. He broke down the raw unemployment numbers by education - and I can't remember the figures exactly (and I'm too lazy to go look for them) but among the population with a Bachelors degree, the unemployment rate is about 1.5% If you have less than a high school diploma, the unemployment rate is 4.6%. Kudlow's take on this is that it demonstrates the importance of education, and he's right. He seemed to ignore the fact that it also demonstrates the importance of immigration reform.
If you are among the portion of the population with 4.6% unemployment, chances are the job that you could be doing - the one that you are qualified for - is being done by an illegal immigrant. Because if you didn't finish high school, chances are you are only qualified for one of those "jobs Americans don't want to do." But don't worry, that illegal who has your job is going to get amnesty and some sort of "path to citizenship." Once he becomes "legal" he'll be paid the same about to be increased minimum wage as you, and he'll be out a job too.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 02:40 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
A very thoughtful blog entry for the new year. The forest is something that so many of us loose sight of.
Regarding immigration, I think that we have to ask ourselves why it sucks so bad for these people to live in Mexico. Why are tens of millions of Mexicans pouring over our borders? There is no war there, no brutal dictator - Just currupt leadership and a crappy economy. We have military bases in 131 countries yet we can't effectively influence economic or immigration issues in Mexico? So much for NAFTA, CAFTA or any of the other deck chair games on the Titanic.
These "illegal immigrants" are merely responding to powerful economic incentives to risk their lives to come here. Why, in today's America do we have so many freebees for any foreigner who can fog a mirror? Without them, they would stay home or come here in far fewer numbers. There would be no "system" to "work".
Is building a wall the answer? Let us never forget that the Berlin Wall was originally built to keep the evil capitalists out.
Why not just create REAL REFORM in our political and economic systems? I may be cynical, but that's not likely to happen until we stand face to face with an epic crisis in this country. As we stand here today, America is looking more and more like the old Roman Empire crumbling in its later days, rife with corruption, delusion, self-righteousness and bankruptcy. Let us not repeat the same mistakes.
If you think that the U.S. isn't an empire look at history and think again. The telltale signs are there. Sooner or later an empire always falls.
Posted by: Wayne at January 08, 2007 06:46 AM (Kmrqj)
We probably can influence Mexico and foster change there, but we don't because both sides of the aisle like things the way they are - for their own reasons.
Let us not forget that Berlin Wall was also built as much to keep people from getting out as it was to keep them from getting in.
As for an "American Empire" I'm not buying. What conquered lands do we rule? If this is an empire, it is certainly the least empirical in history.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at January 08, 2007 06:54 AM (UquFN)
An Empire can operate in many ways. The term "rule" does not necessarily work like it did in the days of the Roman Empire, or even the British Empire. History can either repeat itself or rhyme with the past. In 2007 we are far more covert and sophisticated in the way we operate our empire. The primary way we rule other nations nowadays by forcing our quickly devaluing dollars down the throats of other nations as a reserve currency to engage in international trade. Since the empire can create an unlimited amount of these dollars out of thin air, we are essentially robbing other nations who are conned or coerced into using them. Of course, the citizens of America are also being robbed by this process as well. What are your property taxes today compared to seven years ago? State and local governments can't print money like the feds so they have to squeeze you to maintain their purchasing power. Do your pay raises ever keep up with the real inflation rate? Oh, but the "Core Rate" of inflation is "only 2%".
Having military bases in 131 countries isn't too shabby either. This is massively expensive and unnecessary unless you have an empire to maintain. Why can't these countries defend themselves? What was that thing about entangling alliances that George Washington warned us against in his farewell address? BTW: He did not call for isolation, just the avoidance of foreign wars and military adventurism.
An excellent book on the subject is "Empire of Debt" by Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin. Also, read Washington's farwell address here: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm
Have a prosperous 2007, my man.
Posted by: Wayne at January 08, 2007 09:05 AM (Kmrqj)
If you simply define "Empire" by describing America I guess that would make America an empire.
An empire is defined as
1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
2. a government under an emperor or empress.3. (often initial capital letter) the historical period during which a nation is under such a government: a history of the second French empire.4. supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe.Simply being the most powerful nation - militarily and economically - does not an empire make. On the contrary America is the most powerful nation in history to not become an empire.
(An empire is also a very delicious variety of apple, but that is not really relevant.)
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at January 08, 2007 02:39 PM (Z3kjO)
I would argue that your quoted definition of Empire is outdated, except for the section in line 1 that includes "other powerful sovereign or government". The word "ruled" is also important here, as people can be ruled in many ways, both covertly and overtly. For example, how will you pay your bills if you refuse to use dollars? Other countries under the wing of the US Empire are also dealing with this same question. Sure, there are other alternatives like the Euro, but the US will not allow this to happen on a large scale without a fight, as this has been the bread and butter of their empire.
Like I said previously, empires are done differently in todays world. Kings, Queens, Emperors and kingdoms are a pre-20th Century phenomenon. In the 21st century, the real power centers are now financial institutions and large corporations, not kings. Therefore, the way people are "ruled" is a bit different.
The study of history is hollow and somewhat meaningless unless you overlay it with a thorough understanding of financial and monetary history.
I'm not saying this as a commie leftist, I am far removed from those illusions. I'm saying this as a person who is very concerned that power is becoming too centralized, with the people losing control over their governments and their lives at virtually every level. Of course, the answer is decentralization and individual liberty, but it won't happen until the masses wake up. Complacency breeds contempt.
Posted by: Wayne at January 09, 2007 07:05 AM (Kmrqj)
In the big picture, our economy is now devouring itself from within because we are consuming wealth faster than we are creating it. We are now borrowing several billion dollars per day from foreign countries to maintain our economy (and empire) - This is unsustainable. We are not making enough things that consumers (and other countries) want to buy, so we have to buy them from others rather than make them ourselves. If a household or a private business spends more than it takes in for too long, it goes bankrupt. Maybe if the US became a business-friendly, economically free country once again, we would begin to attract companies and create jobs which produce things. Then our employment statistics would show more balance and have some real meaning.
"The encouragement of mere consumption is no benefit to commerce because the difficulty lies in supplying the means, not in stimulating the desire for consumption; and production alone furnishes those means. Thus, it is the aim of good government to stimulate production, of bad government to encourage consumption."
- Jean-Baptiste Say, A Treatise on Political Economy, 1803
Have you been following the list of the most economically free countries? The US has been slipping down the list sharply in the last 20 years.
We have hit a critical point where the composition of our economy is now dominated by non-producers rather than producers. Even if accurate, employment numbers don't really mean much when the real economy (making stuff, creating real wealth) is losing jobs while the parasitical sectors of economy (ie: government, et al) are gaining jobs. Many economists would argue that the Financial and Service sectors are also parasitical if they get too large in proportion to the Production sector. Further, the unemployment rate does not include those who are layed off and don't find a job within 6 months. There are more people in this category than most of us realize. Take a look here for an insightful analysis of the recent gov't employment numbers: http://www.europac.net/externalframeset.asp?from=home&id=7293
If we fail to make the needed changes, we will soon face a financial disaster of epic proportions, brought on by Uncle Sam's cumulative unsound economic/fiscal/monetary/foriegn policies, often painted with a shiny, happy face. Much of this was caused over time by resources being diverted from the productive economy to the parasitical economy to build our empire. Today this is yet another sign of a declining empire.
The forest can look very different from the individual trees, especially if you fixate on trees which are not yet scheduled to be cut down for firewood.
Posted by: Wayne at January 09, 2007 08:58 AM (Kmrqj)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/englund/englund36.html
Posted by: Wayne at January 10, 2007 06:03 AM (Kmrqj)
I wish I could do that. I could redefine my "rent payments" to mean "polite suggestions".
By the way, when you say that US borrowings are unsustainable? You're wrong. US debt as a percentage of GDP is falling, which means that the current level of borrowing is sustainable. I'm not saying it's necessarily advisable; just that you are wrong.
Also, when you argue that "production" jobs are falling and "parasitical" jobs are increasing, you don't bother to define "production". Production of physical objects is a rapidly shrinking part of the economy of first-world nations, for quite a number of reasons, almost all of them positive. It's like wailing that the farming sector is collapsing because it only employs 1% of the population instead of 90% in the good old days, that is to say, unmitigated ahistorical bilgewater.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at January 10, 2007 09:14 PM (GaSFI)
I didn't say indirect influence, I implied direct covert and overt influence. In many cases, it won't be on the TV news.
GDP is yet another distorted gov't statistic when you consider the real inflation rate, rather than the Core Rate which is total B.S. The real deficit level is approaching 60 trillion dollars when you consider future obligations for which they have already spent the money - They should have been setting the money aside for future retirees. The ratio of workers to recipients has been declining sharply in recent years.
If you think that our borrowings are sustainable, just wait a few years - the dollar will probably be gone within the next five to ten years. Let me know when you get your first Amero bill.
Production can include many tangible things created from raw inputs which people want to buy. Among them are cars, computers and other factory production, software, art, etc. I am not lamenting about the old days, I am merely stating a longstanding economic principle that does not go away because some genius decides that this is a new era. When you buy more than you sell, when you spend more than you take in, a day of reckoning will follow. Period.
Posted by: Wayne at January 11, 2007 07:54 AM (Kmrqj)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
