That's the symbolic way of asking, "Is Washington DC racketeer central ? To give credit, a friend gave me this intriguing metaphor which under analysis seems to be more than a metaphor.
What is a racketeer ? A person who commits multiple, perhaps serial, crimes which might be minor in some sense (perhaps non-violent at first). In this case we mean crimes against the common man. I'm using "crime" here in a broad, general sense, not necessarily unlawful now, but an immoral, or amoral, unethical behavior. And of course "Racketeer Central" is a place with a very high concentration of racketeers who work together - in this case to loot the people.
Focus on what happens in DC now in the current and past 100 years. As Walter Lippmann pointed out in 1922 in his exquisite book, "Public Opinion", the DC politicians simply don't have any knowledge of the issues they address. They are elected from districts and states under democratic elections, but the voters don't have much real knowledge of the issues either. Elections are won by sloganeering, patronage and favors paid to supporters.
The politicians get information on issues from lobbyists of industry or lobbyists from so-called public interest groups. The politicians in turn pass laws that favor the industries or "public" interest groups. The industries get favorable tax laws, favorable industry rules and even government contracts. The "public" interest groups get contracts that hire their people and rules or laws that favor their supporters (such as trial lawyers, etc.).
Who pays ? The people. What do they get in this exchange / bargain ? Nothing of net positive value. Aristotle in Nichomachean Ethics expressly calls this type of unfair transaction, unjust.
Here's a specific example from the current debate on ObamaCare. [This is from my friend.] ObamaCare was created by politicians in DC and legislative staffers with information and urgings from health and drug lobbyists. It would require individual people to buy health insurance policies - for their "protection". And not just any policy or a policy they really like. A policy approved by bureaucrats picked by DC. That "protection" is designed to provide profits for drug, medical device, health insurance and other health industries. If a person declines to buy or prefers something else, he will be fined. If he doesn't pay the fine, he gets thrown in jail or loses his home.
Sounds like a mafia protection racket, no ? How do the politician racketeers collect ? From campaign contributions from the industry. Why do you think in the recent Massachusetts Senate election campaign that the Democratic candidate raised large sums in health industry lobbyist ?
A racketeer running a crime syndicate pays off local police, judges and politicians to let him run his rackets as he sees fits (within limits of bad press). He then extracts extortion and protection racket money from the common people - usually the poor, the working class and weekly organized middle class people and businesses.
In racketeering, both the crime syndicate and the corrupt police and politicians are racketeers; after all they are working together to loot the people. In DC style racketeering, it's the lobbyists and their industries, the politicians and the entrenched bureaucrats who are the racketeers. The same group pays, viz. the common man, the people.
The racketeers in DC use propaganda to fool the people, whether it's government sponsored, or distributed by sycophants in the media or industry paid commercials. Al Capone gave out chickens to the poor, holiday dinners and very large tips to all sorts of people. This bought him good publicity as being generous. The current practice in State of the Union speeches is to highlight some beneficiary of a government program. Sound familiar ? Who notices if 10,000 entrepreneurs are run out of business by oppressive rules.
The answer is yes, DC = RC.
What can be done ? Voters must vote only for the most honest candidate regardless of party. And cease giving any credit for "bringing home the bacon": they are paying for a whole pig and receive just bacon bits. Demand honesty and make no exceptions.
And for information, legislators and the executive branch MUST stop relying on lobbyists. Use nonpartisan, independent research. If it's not available, commission it.
In Memoriam
Late Saturday night a bright white star, Spica, affectionately called Spikie by us, blinked out quietly. For almost 16 years, our best friend. She is missed deeply.
Markets
Je ne fais rien.
Ich machte nichts.
Nic nie robię.
Estoy haciendo nada.
Non faccio nulla.
Nihil facio.
I am doing nothing.
Word of the Day
"Qua" - conjunction [$10] from Latin, ablative feminine singular for of qui, 'who'
Qua means in the capacity of, as being.
Sentence: Voters must stop evaluating legislators qua godfathers to dole out favors and protection, but accept only honest people with good principles.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
A Sign ?
Washington DC gets a mountain of snow dumped onto it. Surely the ancient Greeks would say that's a sign and punishment from the gods for the colossal hubris in DC that politicians or man can control or influence the climate.
And for me, could I have schadenfreude* in seeing DC get over two feet of snow ... ? With respect the politicians, greenie lobbyists and climate change bureaucrats, that's a big 10-4 ! :-)
And for me, could I have schadenfreude* in seeing DC get over two feet of snow ... ? With respect the politicians, greenie lobbyists and climate change bureaucrats, that's a big 10-4 ! :-)
But for the common man, nope. I've been in storms that laid down that much snow. It can get bad, especially if one loses power. In built-up areas, there just isn't anywhere to put the snow. I hope they hunker down and help each other cope.
Word of the Day
"Schadenfreude" - noun [$10]
Schadenfreude means enjoyment derived at the misfortunes of others.
Sentence: see above.
Word of the Day
"Schadenfreude" - noun [$10]
Schadenfreude means enjoyment derived at the misfortunes of others.
Sentence: see above.
Friday, February 5, 2010
A Hot, Hungry Black Hole
That's the big black hole at the center of 1H0707-495, which is an active galaxy far, far out in space. This post is a bit different from the usual fare here, as this blogger is responding to request by a commentor known as "Sun Boy" for Mrs. B to write about this topic. She didn't write this, but did point me to the sources. I know a little bit about the subject, so knew what questions to ask.
For a jocular nickname, let's call 1H0707-495, "Bubba". Why Bubba ? Well, it's very heavy, about 3 to 5 million times the mass of the Sun, and hungry. Imagine a real life Bubba with a big belly at McDonald's eating some double quarter pounders with cheese. Our galactic Bubba "eats" bigtime, too, swallowing matter at the rate of two Earths per hour. That's a lot !
Bubba is heavy, but really quite small. The radius of Bubba itself is about 9 to 15 million kilometers. For a comparison, the radius of the orbit of the planet Mercury around the Sun is much larger - 58 million kilometers. The diameter of the Sun itself is 0.7 million kilometers. [OK: a kilometer is 0.6 miles]. That means Bubba compacts the mass of 3-5 million Sun's into a "ball" with a diameter just about 80 times larger.
Bubba attracts matter with its gravity, which near it's "edge" is so strong the even light can hardly escape. The mass of Bubba curves space so much that light almost curves back onto Bubba. Over it's edge, the light cannot escape.
As gaseous matter is drawn to be swallowed by Bubba, it gets heated by compression. As Bubba is rotating quite rapidly, the gaseous matter forms a disk, sort of like how a dancer's dress will swill around to the horizontal. There is no centrifugal force along the axis of rotation, so the matter compresses into a disk. All that matter is still being drawn into Bubba's pie hole. It gets hotter and hotter, eventually so hot that it emits X-rays. That's how Bubba is seen.
Here's a good source for information on Bubba:
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMTIX0OWUF_index_2.html
That article mentions a theoretical limit on how much matter that Bubba can swallow. Why is there a limit ? As the matter is drawn to the "edge" of Bubba, the matter's gravitational energy is converted to heat and then to radiation. That radiation has a pressure and the compressed gas has a pressure, too. As matter is drawn into Bubba at greater and greater rates, the force of those pressures eventually balance the gravitational attraction. This produces a theoretical limit. However, that might not be the practical limit due to other considerations: streaming, the flat accretion disk, magnetic fields, etc. It's actually a very complex calculation.
Why does streaming matter ? Easy, think of a highway with everyone staying in lane and going fast. Then suppose a bunch of boobs start to change lanes to exit. That can break the streams of cars and cause a jam. Magnetic fields can confine the gas to create streams where more matter can flow.
Well, that's enough for now.
Markets
Another big drop. The Green-Red rule and paying attention to the fundies save me big time. I'll swing the bat again soon.
Krypto has some re-allocations on order: putting cash to work in GLD, SLV and the European ETF, VGK. This cash was waiting for better prices on TIPs, but I'll put it to work now.
Word of the Day
"Revenant" - noun [$10]
Revenant means a person who has returned, esp. from the dead.
Sentence: There is no matter revenant from a black hole, except for quantum processes near the edge that can permit some particles to escape slowly from it.
For a jocular nickname, let's call 1H0707-495, "Bubba". Why Bubba ? Well, it's very heavy, about 3 to 5 million times the mass of the Sun, and hungry. Imagine a real life Bubba with a big belly at McDonald's eating some double quarter pounders with cheese. Our galactic Bubba "eats" bigtime, too, swallowing matter at the rate of two Earths per hour. That's a lot !
Bubba is heavy, but really quite small. The radius of Bubba itself is about 9 to 15 million kilometers. For a comparison, the radius of the orbit of the planet Mercury around the Sun is much larger - 58 million kilometers. The diameter of the Sun itself is 0.7 million kilometers. [OK: a kilometer is 0.6 miles]. That means Bubba compacts the mass of 3-5 million Sun's into a "ball" with a diameter just about 80 times larger.
Bubba attracts matter with its gravity, which near it's "edge" is so strong the even light can hardly escape. The mass of Bubba curves space so much that light almost curves back onto Bubba. Over it's edge, the light cannot escape.
As gaseous matter is drawn to be swallowed by Bubba, it gets heated by compression. As Bubba is rotating quite rapidly, the gaseous matter forms a disk, sort of like how a dancer's dress will swill around to the horizontal. There is no centrifugal force along the axis of rotation, so the matter compresses into a disk. All that matter is still being drawn into Bubba's pie hole. It gets hotter and hotter, eventually so hot that it emits X-rays. That's how Bubba is seen.
Here's a good source for information on Bubba:
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMTIX0OWUF_index_2.html
That article mentions a theoretical limit on how much matter that Bubba can swallow. Why is there a limit ? As the matter is drawn to the "edge" of Bubba, the matter's gravitational energy is converted to heat and then to radiation. That radiation has a pressure and the compressed gas has a pressure, too. As matter is drawn into Bubba at greater and greater rates, the force of those pressures eventually balance the gravitational attraction. This produces a theoretical limit. However, that might not be the practical limit due to other considerations: streaming, the flat accretion disk, magnetic fields, etc. It's actually a very complex calculation.
Why does streaming matter ? Easy, think of a highway with everyone staying in lane and going fast. Then suppose a bunch of boobs start to change lanes to exit. That can break the streams of cars and cause a jam. Magnetic fields can confine the gas to create streams where more matter can flow.
Well, that's enough for now.
Markets
Another big drop. The Green-Red rule and paying attention to the fundies save me big time. I'll swing the bat again soon.
Krypto has some re-allocations on order: putting cash to work in GLD, SLV and the European ETF, VGK. This cash was waiting for better prices on TIPs, but I'll put it to work now.
Word of the Day
"Revenant" - noun [$10]
Revenant means a person who has returned, esp. from the dead.
Sentence: There is no matter revenant from a black hole, except for quantum processes near the edge that can permit some particles to escape slowly from it.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
A Command State ?
The Ruling Classes in DC seem to have decided to grab powers that were never contemplated in the US Constitution. I mean the power to order the people - you, each person - to do whatever the ruling classes desire, or suffer punitive fines. This is a positive order to command an action / behavior, not a subsidy or prohibition.
The instantiation* of this seizure of power is the mandate in ObamaCare that each person MUST buy health insurance or suffer a fine.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has no power to order States to do positive actions; Congress gets its way by subsidies or threat to withhold other funding. Such rulings were based on the Tenth Amendment, which states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Notice that "the people" have an equal status in this Amendment.
Where else does the US Constitution permit the Federal Government to command the people ? I can find only in its right to raise armies, viz. draft people into the military. There is plenty of power to regulate and restrict activity, but that's NOT the power to give you orders to do something which you may not wish to do. There is power to tax in several places, but imposing fines for not doing something is not a tax.
One can find strong evidence that contrary view holds, viz. that the Federal Government has no powers to command the people except through a military draft.
The 13th Amendment in part states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Is not a command to do something a form of involuntary servitude ? What else could it be but that power of a Baron to command his slaves or serfs to do work. There is no exception here for a general or implied power of the United States to command the people.
The Third Amendment states, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This was put into the Constitution because of centuries of abuses by English kings in forcing the people to quarter soldiers [here, "quarter" means to house and feed]. The kings did that either to avoid asking parliament for funds, as King Charles I did in the English Civil war, or as the English Parliament did in 1765 to force the colonies to pay for the support of British troop, and not the English people. That abuse was cited in the Declaration of Independence and led to the Third Amendment.
I see no logical conclusion but that the individual mandate in ObamaCare is unconstitutional and an abuse of power.
That doesn't mean that I don't support a universal health care benefit in the US. My blog post of October 21, 2009 specified the right way to provide this. You can find it in the Blog Archive on the right, but here's a direct link:
http://viewfromthebunker.blogspot.com/2009/10/solution-to-health-care-dilemma.html
My view on how to raise the money has changed, however. See my blog post of November 24, 2009; here's the link:
http://viewfromthebunker.blogspot.com/2009/11/to-solve-twin-deficits.html
If Congress would do the right thing, it could solve the three largest problems facing America: lack of jobs, budget deficits, and access to health care for the people. If Congress did this, I'm sure they would go down in history as the greatest Congress since the 1st Congress. But their current path is to go along the path of King Charles I and King George III in seizing more power and oppressing the people.
Markets
Waiting. I was a bit disappointed in the ISM Services #. Jobs in the US will mostly come from services, so that sector need to get a lot stronger.
PS: Sold the spec longs out. The crappy jobs number made the decision for me. If I hadn't, the Green-Red rule would have told me to sell anyway. Small net loss. Standing aside for now.
Word of the Day
"Instantiation" - noun [$10] noun, from "instantiate" = verb [$10]
Instantiate means to represent by an instance; (alternate) to represent (an abstract concept) by a concrete or tangible example.
Sentence: See * above.
The instantiation* of this seizure of power is the mandate in ObamaCare that each person MUST buy health insurance or suffer a fine.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has no power to order States to do positive actions; Congress gets its way by subsidies or threat to withhold other funding. Such rulings were based on the Tenth Amendment, which states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Notice that "the people" have an equal status in this Amendment.
Where else does the US Constitution permit the Federal Government to command the people ? I can find only in its right to raise armies, viz. draft people into the military. There is plenty of power to regulate and restrict activity, but that's NOT the power to give you orders to do something which you may not wish to do. There is power to tax in several places, but imposing fines for not doing something is not a tax.
One can find strong evidence that contrary view holds, viz. that the Federal Government has no powers to command the people except through a military draft.
The 13th Amendment in part states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Is not a command to do something a form of involuntary servitude ? What else could it be but that power of a Baron to command his slaves or serfs to do work. There is no exception here for a general or implied power of the United States to command the people.
The Third Amendment states, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This was put into the Constitution because of centuries of abuses by English kings in forcing the people to quarter soldiers [here, "quarter" means to house and feed]. The kings did that either to avoid asking parliament for funds, as King Charles I did in the English Civil war, or as the English Parliament did in 1765 to force the colonies to pay for the support of British troop, and not the English people. That abuse was cited in the Declaration of Independence and led to the Third Amendment.
I see no logical conclusion but that the individual mandate in ObamaCare is unconstitutional and an abuse of power.
That doesn't mean that I don't support a universal health care benefit in the US. My blog post of October 21, 2009 specified the right way to provide this. You can find it in the Blog Archive on the right, but here's a direct link:
http://viewfromthebunker.blogspot.com/2009/10/solution-to-health-care-dilemma.html
My view on how to raise the money has changed, however. See my blog post of November 24, 2009; here's the link:
http://viewfromthebunker.blogspot.com/2009/11/to-solve-twin-deficits.html
If Congress would do the right thing, it could solve the three largest problems facing America: lack of jobs, budget deficits, and access to health care for the people. If Congress did this, I'm sure they would go down in history as the greatest Congress since the 1st Congress. But their current path is to go along the path of King Charles I and King George III in seizing more power and oppressing the people.
Markets
Waiting. I was a bit disappointed in the ISM Services #. Jobs in the US will mostly come from services, so that sector need to get a lot stronger.
PS: Sold the spec longs out. The crappy jobs number made the decision for me. If I hadn't, the Green-Red rule would have told me to sell anyway. Small net loss. Standing aside for now.
Word of the Day
"Instantiation" - noun [$10] noun, from "instantiate" = verb [$10]
Instantiate means to represent by an instance; (alternate) to represent (an abstract concept) by a concrete or tangible example.
Sentence: See * above.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Uses of Wealth
Herein I reprint a blog post from Sunday, August 19, 2007, with a current update and application.
*** Reprint Begins ***
The private enterprise system and private property [aka that Marxist term "capitalism" that I dislike] fantastically motivates people to create wealth. Some create great wealth. Here's a quote from Thucydides that sparked my thinking - perhaps I first read it referenced in Erasmus' "Praise of Folly". The quote is from the famous oration of Pericles.
"We cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without effeminacy; wealth we employ more for use than for show, and place the real disgrace of poverty not in owning to the fact but in declining the struggle against it." [note 1]
Other than Bill & Melinda Gates, who among the modern mega-rich emulates the beneficence of Andrew Carnegie who donated everything to create libraries in multitudes of small towns in America, including my home town? [See below for a couple other examples] Following Pericles, his great wealth was quickly used to increase the intellectual capabilities of the entire nation. It was not hoarded in trust or a foundation to perpetuate the glory of the donor. The Gates Foundation has a fixed time limit to spend - use - all the money.
Modern rich and powerful people lobby to eliminate the rule against perpetual trusts, so they can create a new de facto nobility [not de jure as no titles can exist in America thanks to the Constitution, Article I, Section 9]. Named foundations are created that, barring stupid investments, last forever as independent institutions. Their independent boards of trustees over time can completely diverge from the donor's wishes - only the name is perpetuated. The Ford Foundation is the quintessential example.
And then I read Bill Gross in the WSJ, August 4-5, 2007 issue, page B4: "... now is the time, long overdue in fact, to admit that for the rich, for the mega-rich of this country, that enough is never enough ..." and "... "A thirty million dollar gift for a concert hall is not philanthropy, it is a Napoleonic coronation."
Much of the mega-rich seem to just want more, or to be able to brag about their "returns", hence the current infatuation with hedge funds. Or the money is spent in great shows of extravagance. Many modern mega-rich emulate dukes & princes in the past courts of Europe in their opulent parties, colossal mansions, and vast landholdings. Or endowing events and groups with the primary purpose of creating a perpetual edifice inscribed with the donor's name. Or donating to universities for fund named endowed professorships or named institutes therein. Younger scientists - those actually making most of the discoveries ... get little.
Is using the funds for increasing the capabilities of the human race ever a consideration?
...
...
*** End Reprint ***
Almost 30 months have past since that post. Unfortunately, it seems I had few readers among the rich then. Warren Buffet is giving his billions to the Gates Foundation, so maybe he did. I found an example from the recent past and a more distant example that were done prior to that post.
My original post contained an example of a gift that establish an institute to help advance the frontiers of mathematical knowledge. Last month I learned of a large gift that helps advance the humanities. Heiress Ruth Lilly gave $100 million to endow The Poetry Foundation. [NB: Its name is NOT Lilly, showing some humility and true generosity.] The foundation runs Poetry magazine and funds numerous poetry programs nationwide and provides prizes for new poetry. It is a bit controversial, as some think the money could have been better used - of course that will depend on the trustees [see http://www.slate.com/id/2240323/]. Perhaps. Maybe a time limit to distribute the funds would be a good idea. But at least it's not another named building. Btw, I subscribe to Poetry Magazine.
Recently I realized that historic preservation is another place that perhaps the wealthy could put their wealth to a fine use in the manner of Pericles' charge. In my hometown over 40 years ago a local wealthy man endowed a foundation to restore a historic section of the town and ensure it was maintained and preserved, as well as providing programs for modern people to understand the way of life that existed circa 1840 in Ohio. [Note: the name of the benefactor is nowhere excessively displayed, showing humility that Pericles would approve.]
This particular development has been quite helpful to the local economy, too. The tourism provides a fine boost for local jobs. At a time when government funding for historic preservation is under pressure, perhaps rather than send money to some university to endow some named chair for a grey eminence (and not a younger scholar), persons seeking to do something good with their wealth might consider historic preservation in their own communities. If well-designed, these provide economic help to the communities as well and cultural value.
Markets
Waiting, holding. I have no preconceived targets for this speculation. I'll just follow the trend and news. The Green-red trading rule applies now.
Word of the Day
"Ekphrasis" - noun [$10,000] from a Greek word of same spelling, meaning "a description"
Ekphrasis means the use of language to describe, or to speak on behalf of, a silent work of art.
Sentence: Poetry provides many examples of ekphrasis, perhaps the most famous being Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn."
*** Reprint Begins ***
The private enterprise system and private property [aka that Marxist term "capitalism" that I dislike] fantastically motivates people to create wealth. Some create great wealth. Here's a quote from Thucydides that sparked my thinking - perhaps I first read it referenced in Erasmus' "Praise of Folly". The quote is from the famous oration of Pericles.
"We cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without effeminacy; wealth we employ more for use than for show, and place the real disgrace of poverty not in owning to the fact but in declining the struggle against it." [note 1]
Other than Bill & Melinda Gates, who among the modern mega-rich emulates the beneficence of Andrew Carnegie who donated everything to create libraries in multitudes of small towns in America, including my home town? [See below for a couple other examples] Following Pericles, his great wealth was quickly used to increase the intellectual capabilities of the entire nation. It was not hoarded in trust or a foundation to perpetuate the glory of the donor. The Gates Foundation has a fixed time limit to spend - use - all the money.
Modern rich and powerful people lobby to eliminate the rule against perpetual trusts, so they can create a new de facto nobility [not de jure as no titles can exist in America thanks to the Constitution, Article I, Section 9]. Named foundations are created that, barring stupid investments, last forever as independent institutions. Their independent boards of trustees over time can completely diverge from the donor's wishes - only the name is perpetuated. The Ford Foundation is the quintessential example.
And then I read Bill Gross in the WSJ, August 4-5, 2007 issue, page B4: "... now is the time, long overdue in fact, to admit that for the rich, for the mega-rich of this country, that enough is never enough ..." and "... "A thirty million dollar gift for a concert hall is not philanthropy, it is a Napoleonic coronation."
Much of the mega-rich seem to just want more, or to be able to brag about their "returns", hence the current infatuation with hedge funds. Or the money is spent in great shows of extravagance. Many modern mega-rich emulate dukes & princes in the past courts of Europe in their opulent parties, colossal mansions, and vast landholdings. Or endowing events and groups with the primary purpose of creating a perpetual edifice inscribed with the donor's name. Or donating to universities for fund named endowed professorships or named institutes therein. Younger scientists - those actually making most of the discoveries ... get little.
Is using the funds for increasing the capabilities of the human race ever a consideration?
...
1. Citation: Great Books, Vol. 5, Thucydides, page 397, section 40.
...
*** End Reprint ***
Almost 30 months have past since that post. Unfortunately, it seems I had few readers among the rich then. Warren Buffet is giving his billions to the Gates Foundation, so maybe he did. I found an example from the recent past and a more distant example that were done prior to that post.
My original post contained an example of a gift that establish an institute to help advance the frontiers of mathematical knowledge. Last month I learned of a large gift that helps advance the humanities. Heiress Ruth Lilly gave $100 million to endow The Poetry Foundation. [NB: Its name is NOT Lilly, showing some humility and true generosity.] The foundation runs Poetry magazine and funds numerous poetry programs nationwide and provides prizes for new poetry. It is a bit controversial, as some think the money could have been better used - of course that will depend on the trustees [see http://www.slate.com/id/2240323/]. Perhaps. Maybe a time limit to distribute the funds would be a good idea. But at least it's not another named building. Btw, I subscribe to Poetry Magazine.
Recently I realized that historic preservation is another place that perhaps the wealthy could put their wealth to a fine use in the manner of Pericles' charge. In my hometown over 40 years ago a local wealthy man endowed a foundation to restore a historic section of the town and ensure it was maintained and preserved, as well as providing programs for modern people to understand the way of life that existed circa 1840 in Ohio. [Note: the name of the benefactor is nowhere excessively displayed, showing humility that Pericles would approve.]
This particular development has been quite helpful to the local economy, too. The tourism provides a fine boost for local jobs. At a time when government funding for historic preservation is under pressure, perhaps rather than send money to some university to endow some named chair for a grey eminence (and not a younger scholar), persons seeking to do something good with their wealth might consider historic preservation in their own communities. If well-designed, these provide economic help to the communities as well and cultural value.
Markets
Waiting, holding. I have no preconceived targets for this speculation. I'll just follow the trend and news. The Green-red trading rule applies now.
Word of the Day
"Ekphrasis" - noun [$10,000] from a Greek word of same spelling, meaning "a description"
Ekphrasis means the use of language to describe, or to speak on behalf of, a silent work of art.
Sentence: Poetry provides many examples of ekphrasis, perhaps the most famous being Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn."
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
A Smoking Gun Appears
A article appeared in the WSJ of January 29, 2010 that had an innocuous title: "Slowdown in Warming Tied to Less Water Vapor". Anyone without a scientific interest or interest in global warming might have skipped it. The article itself makes excuses for why the hugely expensive climate models failed to forecast the fact the recent cooling. "Climatologists have puzzled over why global average temperatures have stayed roughly flat in the past decade, despite a long-term warming trend. New research suggests that lower levels of water vapor in the stratosphere may partly explain the anomaly."
"The study, appearing in the journal Science, points out that the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere has dropped about 10% in the past decade, triggered by unexplained cooler temperatures at certain high altitudes above the tropics. The study concludes that in the last decade the decline in water vapor slowed the rate of rising temperatures by about 25% ..."
Here's a well-hidden fact: water vapor - not carbon dioxide, is the dominant "greenhouse gas". Water vapor accounts for about 30 times the warming of carbon dioxide. Surprised ?
The climate modelers ASSUME that water vapor has no independent changes and is in permanent equilibrium. That means they can mostly ignore it in their calculations and simply treat it as being perturbed a bit by other "forces" like carbon dioxide.
Here's a metaphor: The elephant and its tail. Watching the elephant's tail can tell you where the elephant is going and one could build elaborate "models' to forecast the movement of the tail, perhaps based on the number of flies landing on the elephant's back. And it might work for awhile. BUT when that elephant turns, that model would collapse and be completely wrong.
Water vapor is the elephant and carbon dioxide is the tail. Remember, water vapor produces 30x more greenhouse warming than does carbon dioxide.
What else does the facts of the article prove ? That water vapor is NOT in permanent equilibrium. That means a core assumption of the climate models is WRONG. The entire house of claims that humans cause global warming is built on sand. Unless a model independently and correctly forecast amounts water vapor in the atmosphere at all levels, it will simply be wrong when used to make claims of warming in the distant future.
How can a model that is wrong for the most recent decade be used in any rational sense to make forecasts about future trends ? It simply is nonsense to use it for such. Anyone doing do is a mountebank and charlatan, selling solid gold watches for $1. Willing buyers are chumps.
Another analogy: Imagine a stock market model that missed the tech stock crash of 2000 and the Panic of 2008. Who would use it for forecast stock price levels now ? No one.
Don't expect the scientists to trumpet this. They want their grant money to continue in the huge amounts they've gotten for years.
Book of the Week
"New England's Riotous Revolution" by Robert Ellis Cahill. This is a superb little book, fun to read and provides insight on the initial years of the American revolution at the street level. The book is quite short at 67 pages and is cheap (I paid $4.95), but reading it is like finding a small purse full of gold coins. ISBN 0-916787-12-5.
To quote the author: "This little book was prepared not only to give you an insight into the true character of the heroes and villains active in the early stages of the American Revolution, but to introduce you to some of the characters who got little or no publicity then or now, yet played a vital part in the rebellion - and to provide information on some of the hilarity and hardships experiences by the average Yankee as he struggled for freedom in enemy-controlled New England."
Find it, buy it and read it. You'll love this book.
Market
Good rally. I'm waiting now. Speculative longs are FCX, BHP, MT, all green now.
Word of the Day
"Surd" - noun & adjective [$10]
Surd means (adjective) 1. (Math) (of a number) irrational; 2. (Phonetic) (of a sound) uttered with the teeth and not the voice (e. g. f, k. p. s. t); (noun) 1. (Math) a surd number, esp. the root of an integer; 2. (Phonetics) a surd sound.
Sentence: (from Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann, page 186 of 1997 paperback edition) "Coercion is the surd in almost all social theory, except the Machiavellian. The temptation to ignore it, because it is absurd, inexpressible and unmanageable becomes overwhelming in any man who is trying to rationalize human life."
"The study, appearing in the journal Science, points out that the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere has dropped about 10% in the past decade, triggered by unexplained cooler temperatures at certain high altitudes above the tropics. The study concludes that in the last decade the decline in water vapor slowed the rate of rising temperatures by about 25% ..."
Here's a well-hidden fact: water vapor - not carbon dioxide, is the dominant "greenhouse gas". Water vapor accounts for about 30 times the warming of carbon dioxide. Surprised ?
The climate modelers ASSUME that water vapor has no independent changes and is in permanent equilibrium. That means they can mostly ignore it in their calculations and simply treat it as being perturbed a bit by other "forces" like carbon dioxide.
Here's a metaphor: The elephant and its tail. Watching the elephant's tail can tell you where the elephant is going and one could build elaborate "models' to forecast the movement of the tail, perhaps based on the number of flies landing on the elephant's back. And it might work for awhile. BUT when that elephant turns, that model would collapse and be completely wrong.
Water vapor is the elephant and carbon dioxide is the tail. Remember, water vapor produces 30x more greenhouse warming than does carbon dioxide.
What else does the facts of the article prove ? That water vapor is NOT in permanent equilibrium. That means a core assumption of the climate models is WRONG. The entire house of claims that humans cause global warming is built on sand. Unless a model independently and correctly forecast amounts water vapor in the atmosphere at all levels, it will simply be wrong when used to make claims of warming in the distant future.
How can a model that is wrong for the most recent decade be used in any rational sense to make forecasts about future trends ? It simply is nonsense to use it for such. Anyone doing do is a mountebank and charlatan, selling solid gold watches for $1. Willing buyers are chumps.
Another analogy: Imagine a stock market model that missed the tech stock crash of 2000 and the Panic of 2008. Who would use it for forecast stock price levels now ? No one.
Don't expect the scientists to trumpet this. They want their grant money to continue in the huge amounts they've gotten for years.
Book of the Week
"New England's Riotous Revolution" by Robert Ellis Cahill. This is a superb little book, fun to read and provides insight on the initial years of the American revolution at the street level. The book is quite short at 67 pages and is cheap (I paid $4.95), but reading it is like finding a small purse full of gold coins. ISBN 0-916787-12-5.
To quote the author: "This little book was prepared not only to give you an insight into the true character of the heroes and villains active in the early stages of the American Revolution, but to introduce you to some of the characters who got little or no publicity then or now, yet played a vital part in the rebellion - and to provide information on some of the hilarity and hardships experiences by the average Yankee as he struggled for freedom in enemy-controlled New England."
Find it, buy it and read it. You'll love this book.
Market
Good rally. I'm waiting now. Speculative longs are FCX, BHP, MT, all green now.
Word of the Day
"Surd" - noun & adjective [$10]
Surd means (adjective) 1. (Math) (of a number) irrational; 2. (Phonetic) (of a sound) uttered with the teeth and not the voice (e. g. f, k. p. s. t); (noun) 1. (Math) a surd number, esp. the root of an integer; 2. (Phonetics) a surd sound.
Sentence: (from Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann, page 186 of 1997 paperback edition) "Coercion is the surd in almost all social theory, except the Machiavellian. The temptation to ignore it, because it is absurd, inexpressible and unmanageable becomes overwhelming in any man who is trying to rationalize human life."
Monday, February 1, 2010
Right about Water
We are all bombarded by screeching about "conserving water". And the ruling classes in DC pass laws mandating devices like toilets that can work poorly for every home in the US. This one size fits all mentality in DC really disturbs me: it's an imperial attitude. They rule, we must obey, even if the 'rule' makes no sense for us. Why push these mandates on so many places that don't need them ? This is the same imperial attitude by DC that screens old, infirm air passengers and children to the same standard as persons having many markers in common with almost every air terrorist since and including 9/11. "They" simply refuse to use the brain as a tool.
Back to water. From my post of November 19, 2009:
Rain falls from the sky for free. This is a true statement. evaporation caused by the Sun creates water vapor that circulates in the atmosphere, eventually condensing out and falling as rain. All free. The Sun provides the external energy and the Earth's gravity and rotation provide the forces for weather circulation.
Water is almost never truly destroyed. It's simply used in physical processes (e., g. washing, cooling, etc.) or chemical processes (e. g. plant photosynthesis). However, even for the chemical processes, when looked at as an entire system, the net gain or loss of water is practically zero. Why ? Water is an exceptionally stable molecule. If broken apart by energy in one process, another process tends to re-form the water molecule, releasing energy.
[End of quotes]
My town here in Massachusetts was forced by the state to impose water restrictions in the summer. The town is rather rural, and draws its water from shallow wells; the entire town uses septic systems, meaning that almost every single molecule of water drawn from the wells and used by the people is returned to the watershed. The water comes from the wells, goes to the homes and is used in their showers and toilets and washing machines and goes into each home's septic system back to the ground. Even water used for sprinkling lawns and plants goes back into the ground, like rain. A complete, renewable cycle.
Sounds soooo green, no ?
It is. But the State doesn't care. A much larger city next door pumps water from upriver to us, and uses the water and then dumps the waste water into the sea. The water is lost from the natural watershed. So you would think it would be forced to treat the water and return it to the watershed. That would be rational.
Nope. They have even fewer water restrictions than us. More votes, I guess.
I wrote some letters to the local newspaper complaining. There's an excerpt [I've changed the name of my town to 'Anytown']:
"The allotment for each 'Anytown' resident is 65 gallons per day of water to be in compliance with the state Department of Environmental [Protection] regulations.” Let’s see what that means for a rural community like 'Anytown'. For a home with a two acre lot and an average year, the rain falling from the sky for free and that recharges the groundwater is approximately 2,378,000 gallons per year. A two person household’s state allotment is 47,450 gallons per year. So the allotment is just 2% of the water the household’s land contributes. Remember, in 'Anytown' our septic systems return almost all that household’s use back into the groundwater. Actual water taken from the watershed is practically zero."
The local officials understand this and agree, but that doesn't matter. We get oppressed by the same mandates from the State regarding watering and toilets and all that other garbage.
Government that doesn't think just doesn't work. It acts stupidly and hurts the people. Government should do the RIGHT THING, and stop being expedient and treating every situation uniformly.
Aside: Some places to have water problems. Los Angeles, for example. All those people living in a natural desert. I wonder what LA does with its waste water ? My guess is that it flows to the sea. Why not treat the water and return it to a watershed somewhere, like the Central Valley ?
Markets
I bought some BHP Friday and added a bit to MT. I'll keep making small moves like these over time and price points. These are trades for a bounce back. I'm not that bullish, but the beefers seems a bit too anxious to dump their stocks and go short. I'm just trying to hit a single or double with these trades. No base stealing.
Word of the Day
"Catachresis" - noun [$10] plural - catachreses.
Catachresis means an incorrect use of words.
Sentence: Many slogans of the environmental movement are catachreses and pure propaganda: "Save the Earth", for example. The earth has suffered such colossal natural disasters that would make anything puny man can do seem like the proverbial molehill compared to Mt. Everest. The next Ice Age will put modern civilization to an test unlike no other perhaps within 1,000 years. Unfortunately, so far governments show no capability to act rationally.
Back to water. From my post of November 19, 2009:
Rain falls from the sky for free. This is a true statement. evaporation caused by the Sun creates water vapor that circulates in the atmosphere, eventually condensing out and falling as rain. All free. The Sun provides the external energy and the Earth's gravity and rotation provide the forces for weather circulation.
Water is almost never truly destroyed. It's simply used in physical processes (e., g. washing, cooling, etc.) or chemical processes (e. g. plant photosynthesis). However, even for the chemical processes, when looked at as an entire system, the net gain or loss of water is practically zero. Why ? Water is an exceptionally stable molecule. If broken apart by energy in one process, another process tends to re-form the water molecule, releasing energy.
[End of quotes]
My town here in Massachusetts was forced by the state to impose water restrictions in the summer. The town is rather rural, and draws its water from shallow wells; the entire town uses septic systems, meaning that almost every single molecule of water drawn from the wells and used by the people is returned to the watershed. The water comes from the wells, goes to the homes and is used in their showers and toilets and washing machines and goes into each home's septic system back to the ground. Even water used for sprinkling lawns and plants goes back into the ground, like rain. A complete, renewable cycle.
Sounds soooo green, no ?
It is. But the State doesn't care. A much larger city next door pumps water from upriver to us, and uses the water and then dumps the waste water into the sea. The water is lost from the natural watershed. So you would think it would be forced to treat the water and return it to the watershed. That would be rational.
Nope. They have even fewer water restrictions than us. More votes, I guess.
I wrote some letters to the local newspaper complaining. There's an excerpt [I've changed the name of my town to 'Anytown']:
"The allotment for each 'Anytown' resident is 65 gallons per day of water to be in compliance with the state Department of Environmental [Protection] regulations.” Let’s see what that means for a rural community like 'Anytown'. For a home with a two acre lot and an average year, the rain falling from the sky for free and that recharges the groundwater is approximately 2,378,000 gallons per year. A two person household’s state allotment is 47,450 gallons per year. So the allotment is just 2% of the water the household’s land contributes. Remember, in 'Anytown' our septic systems return almost all that household’s use back into the groundwater. Actual water taken from the watershed is practically zero."
The local officials understand this and agree, but that doesn't matter. We get oppressed by the same mandates from the State regarding watering and toilets and all that other garbage.
Government that doesn't think just doesn't work. It acts stupidly and hurts the people. Government should do the RIGHT THING, and stop being expedient and treating every situation uniformly.
Aside: Some places to have water problems. Los Angeles, for example. All those people living in a natural desert. I wonder what LA does with its waste water ? My guess is that it flows to the sea. Why not treat the water and return it to a watershed somewhere, like the Central Valley ?
Markets
I bought some BHP Friday and added a bit to MT. I'll keep making small moves like these over time and price points. These are trades for a bounce back. I'm not that bullish, but the beefers seems a bit too anxious to dump their stocks and go short. I'm just trying to hit a single or double with these trades. No base stealing.
Word of the Day
"Catachresis" - noun [$10] plural - catachreses.
Catachresis means an incorrect use of words.
Sentence: Many slogans of the environmental movement are catachreses and pure propaganda: "Save the Earth", for example. The earth has suffered such colossal natural disasters that would make anything puny man can do seem like the proverbial molehill compared to Mt. Everest. The next Ice Age will put modern civilization to an test unlike no other perhaps within 1,000 years. Unfortunately, so far governments show no capability to act rationally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
