When will the revolution begin, after TARP-15 or TARP-25?

Roger Wiegand wrote on Feb. 10:

We can tell where this all goes next. Our revered new leader gets the TARP II approved, and the gazillions voted in by the Party-In-Control.  Almost 95% is wasted just buying new votes. This herds the Sheeple into a brain-dead assemblage of political groupies who can be counted upon to re-elect the brainless dolts who gave them these handouts in the first place. Watta game!

Rome is burning and we see no fire department. The U.S. and the world at large is about to discover there is no free lunch. Next comes those inevitable recriminations, more drama, and a long hot summer in the cities; and of course more TARP robberies. When would you think we see torches and pitchforks in the streets? Would this be after TARP 15 or, TARP 25?

The enabling-instigating-political-gang-leaders and their zombie-welfare followers, according to history, soon visit a shocking come-uppance. In the day of the American Pilgrims, William Bradford discovered community gardens didn’t work as the shirkers lay-down and feed-off the workers. This time the workers, an army of three million gun owners along with their buddies and others sick of socialistic-commie-liberal crap rise could rise mightily to the occasion and take charge.

In our view, we hope to be in heaven before this happens but the way things are moving now, I guess we get ringside seats. Buckle-up for a once in a century exciting event. -Traderrog

Kitco Commentator’s Corner.

“With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.”

Read the CATO Institute’s ad against Obama’s Keynesian “stimulus” plan, signed by hundreds of economists, click here.

The paradox of thrift? No. Deficit spending is not the answer.

Keynesian Politicians like Barack Obama and economists like Paul Krugman think the problem is that we aren’t spending enough, so the government needs to spend our money for us.  Krugman says:

The key thing, when you’re in a situation like this, is realizing that normal rules don’t apply. Ordinarily we’d welcome an increase in private saving; right now we’re living in a world subject to the “paradox of thrift,” in which private virtue is public vice. Normally we want to be careful that public funds are spent wisely; right now the crucial thing is that they be spent fast.

The plan is to run up the deficit by cutting taxes while increasing government spending.  There is a natural response when we hear stuff like this, an uneasy feeling, like something is wrong with it.  Trust your feelings on this folks.  There is no “paradox of thrift”.   Remember…

“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
— Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged)

There is no paradox.  Thrift is good.  Saving is good.  the problem is we weren’t doing enough of it and now we have to readjust, and it’s going to take some time.

But we want a strong economy now!  Make the tough times go away, Mr. President!

Sorry.  Not only is deficit spending not the magic wand they say it is, it will make things worse.

Keynesianism (the deficit spending philosophy) assumes that the problem is only that people freaked out and stopped spending.  The neglect the real causes–distortions in the markets (caused largely by previous government intervention).  These distortions cannot be fixed by more distortions.

This article by Robert Murphy at Mises.org is very clear.  I like his conclusion:

No matter the scenario, government spending channels resources away from the private sector. Even if the project employs workers who were previously unemployed, this still retards the genuine, private-sector recovery from the slump, because that is one less worker available to be hired by an entrepreneur.

If the government wants the economy to recover as quickly as possible, the solution is simple: cut spending, cut taxes, stop inflating the money supply, and stop changing the rules every three days. But this solution won’t be adopted, since it doesn’t allow the politicians to pose as generous saviors.

No matter the scenario, government spending channels resources away from the private sector. Even if the project employs workers who were previously unemployed, this still retards the genuine, private-sector recovery from the slump, because that is one less worker available to be hired by an entrepreneur.

If the government wants the economy to recover as quickly as possible, the solution is simple: cut spending, cut taxes, stop inflating the money supply, and stop changing the rules every three days. But this solution won’t be adopted, since it doesn’t allow the politicians to pose as generous saviors.

Shocker: Huffington Post carries climate realist essay « Watts Up With That?

I was surprised to read this:

Shocker: Huffington Post carries climate realist essay « Watts Up With That?.

Is the power of the climate alarmist propaganda machine on the wane?

Obama wants to redistribute the opportunity

This week, Obama claimed his plan is not socialistic, he just wants the government to “make sure everybody’s got a shot–when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month…”  He’s trying to muddy the water, to confuse the issue.  No one is against more opportunity.  That’s what the free market and Laissez-faire economics is all about.  But Obama is no free-market, Laissez-faire economist.  He’s a soild socialist.  To him, the government should be the dispenser of opportunity.  It is the classic socialist viewpoint of government as parent, planner and provider.

But don’t take the bait.  The government is not the dispenser of opportunity.  The government is not our provider, not God.  The government can give nothingto us that it does not take from us or others through taxes–nothing, not opportunity, not health care, not education, not cash.  If Obama gives one person cash for college, he got it from someone else.  If he pays for one persons health care, then he got the money from some taxpayer.  Sure this may increase “opportunity” for the person on the receiving end (but don’t imagine that the gov’t will give without regulating and reducing your freedom), but it will decrease opportunity for the taxpayer.  What Obama is proposing is a redistribution, call it a redistribution of wealth, or a redistribution of opportunity, call it what you like, it is socialism.

Obama went on to say defend his socialistic view of redistributive justice: 

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

Mr. Obama, all virtue is rooted in selfishness.  That’s why the free market works.

Thanks to  Political Punch  for the quotes (and thanks to texasdarlin for the link).

August nice and cool, sun with record inactivity

August was nice and cool here in CT.  The sun hasn’t had a single sunspot in August.  The last time that happened was 1913.  Coincidence, I’m sure.  But the Farmer’s Almanac doesn’t think so, and there is science to back them up.  The earth is getting cooler, they say.

Liberal Elitists Don’t Stacation, But They Expect the Rest of Us To.

Yep.  Obama is off to Hawaii, using up all kinds of fossil fuels, pumping tons of carbon dioxide into the air, spending thousands of dollars.  The rest of us are told by the media elite to “stacation.”  Just stay at home this summer.  Save your budget.  Save the planet.  They will wave to us from their private jets on the way to Hawaii while we ride our bikes around the block and camp in the back yard.  This is the hypocrisy of oligarchy, my friends.

Apathy

The End Is Near! and the Climate of Fear

“The end is near!”, or so one might think if keeping up with the apocalyptic headilines of this recent string of articles from Science Daily. A closer look reveals what appears to be wild speculation. Now, maybe there is a threat, but this smacks of propaganda.

Nov. 1: Children At Increased Risk From Effects Of Global Climate Change, Report Says

Direct health impacts from global warming include injury and death from more frequent extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and tornados. For children, this can mean post-traumatic stress, loss of caregivers, disrupted education and displacement. Increased climate-sensitive infectious diseases, air pollution-related illness, and heat-related illness and fatalities also are expected.

As the climate changes, the earth’s geography also will change, leading to a host of health risks for kids. Disruptions in the availability of food and water and the displacement of coastal populations can cause malnutrition, vitamin deficiencies and waterborne illness, the statement said.

Nov. 1: Climate Change Threatens Human Health, According To Australian Report

Released by Research Australia, the ‘Healthy Planet, Places and People’ Report found that:

Deaths from heart attacks, strokes and respiratory disease, from increases in heatwaves, could double or triple by 2050;
Asthma — already affecting 3 in 20 children and 1 in 10 adults — is likely to increase in some groups;
The incidence and geographic range of some mosquito-borne infectious diseases will increase;
Food poisoning — with 5.4 million cases reported each year — is also likely to rise;
Viral infections such as avian flu and SARS will spread more readily as population density, people movement, trade and land clearing increase.

Oct. 29: Arctic Ice Breaking-up Faster Than Predicted, Icebergs Risk To Shipping

“The Arctic is already experiencing an increase in shipping, primarily for oil and gas development and tourism, and we can expect to see further increases as diminishing ice extent makes Arctic marine transportation more viable. The International Ice Charting Working Group (IICWG) cautions that sea ice and icebergs will continue to present significant hazards to navigation for the foreseeable future.”

Oct. 26: Methane Bubbling From Arctic Lakes, Now And At End Of Last Ice Age

Methane bubbling from arctic lakes could have been responsible for up to 87 percent of that methane spike, said UAF researcher Katey Walter, lead author of a report printed in the Oct. 26 issue of Science. The findings could help scientists understand how current warming might affect atmospheric levels of methane, a gas that is thought to contribute to climate change.

Oct. 25: Volcanic Eruptions And Global Warming Likely Cause Of Great Dying 250 Million Years Ago

Those studies, combined with the new data from Powers and Bottjer, support a model that attributes the extinction to enormous volcanic eruptions that released carbon dioxide and methane, triggering rapid global warming.

The warmer ocean water would have lost some of its ability to retain oxygen, allowing water rich in hydrogen sulfide to well up from the deep (the gas comes from anaerobic bacteria at the bottom of the ocean).

If large amounts of hydrogen sulfide escaped into the atmosphere, the gas would have killed most forms of life and also damaged the ozone shield, increasing the level of harmful ultraviolet radiation reaching the planet’s surface.

Oct. 24: Massive California Fires Consistent With Climate Change, Experts Say

“This is exactly what we’ve been projecting to happen, both in short-term fire forecasts for this year and the longer term patterns that can be linked to global climate change,” said Ronald Neilson, a professor at Oregon State University and bioclimatologist with the USDA Forest Service.

Oct. 17: Hidden Costs Of Climate Change In US: Major, Nationwide, Uncounted

“The true economic impact of climate change is fraught with ‘hidden’ costs,” the report concludes. It adds that these costs will vary regionally and will put a strain on public sector budgets. For example, even under current conditions, the combined storm impact for the nation since 1980 has surpassed $560 billion. More frequent and intense storms would raise the price tag even higher.

All of this is speculation, of course, but it is being sold to us as hard data. In fact…

Oct. 27: Like It Or Not, Uncertainty And Climate Change Go Hand-in-hand

Despite decades of ever more-exacting science projecting Earth’s warming climate, there remains large uncertainty about just how much warming will actually occur. . .

In essence, the scientists found that the more likely it is that conditions will cause climate to warm, the more uncertainty exists about how much warming there will be.

“Uncertainty and sensitivity have to go hand in hand. They’re inextricable,” said Gerard Roe, a UW associate professor of Earth and space sciences

And, despite the fact that it was a major premise of Al Gore’s argument in Inconvenient Truth…

Oct. 2: Carbon Dioxide Did Not End The Last Ice Age, Study Says

“There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express.

“You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.”

Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown — but was not its main cause.

But of course…

The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate

“I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” Stott cautioned. “It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.”.

All in all, I’m not sure were getting a clear picture of what’s going on with the climate. It seems to me that there are hidden (or not so hidden) agendas at work that are obscuring the truth. It’s true that there may be agendas on both sides of teh issue, but when I read a string of headlines like the first seven above over a two week span, I feel like I’m being sold something.

Global Warming and the Consensus Cascade

Dr. Laurence Gould at the University of Hartford sent me this October 9 piece in the NY Times. It raises some interesting questions about the current global warming frenzy.

The article by John Tierney, entitled Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus seems far removed from global warming, but the parallels are striking.

According to Tierney, there has never been strong evidence for a link between fat and poor health, and yet an erroneous “consensus” developed by what economists describe as a “cascade”.

Consider the audience on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”, says Tierney. The audience “usually votes for the right answer”.

But suppose, instead of the audience members voting silently in unison, they voted out loud one after another. And suppose the first person gets it wrong. If the second person isn’t sure of the answer, he’s liable to go along with the first person’s guess. By then, even if the third person suspects another answer is right, she’s more liable to go along just because she assumes the first two together know more than she does. Thus begins an “informational cascade” as one person after another assumes that the rest can’t all be wrong.”

Tierney states that cascades are especially common in medicine, where “Unable to keep up with the volume of research, doctors look for guidance from an expert — or at least someone who sounds confident.”

This is what happened with the fat-health connection, says Tierney. A National Academy of Sciences report pointed out the lack of evidence…

But the report’s authors were promptly excoriated on Capitol Hill and in the news media for denying a danger that had already been proclaimed by the American Heart Association, the McGovern committee and the U.S.D.A.

The scientists, despite their impressive credentials, were accused of bias because some of them had done research financed by the food industry. And so the informational cascade morphed into what the economist Timur Kuran calls a reputational cascade, in which it becomes a career risk for dissidents to question the popular wisdom.

With skeptical scientists ostracized, the public debate and research agenda became dominated by the fat-is-bad school. Later the National Institutes of Health would hold a “consensus conference” that concluded there was “no doubt” that low-fat diets “will afford significant protection against coronary heart disease” for every American over the age of 2.

Amazing how this sounds like the current environment surrounding the global warming cause.

And the concluding quote from Dr. Edward H. Ahrens Jr. is particularly pertinent:

“This is a matter,” he continued, “of such enormous social, economic and medical importance that it must be evaluated with our eyes completely open. Thus I would hate to see this issue settled by anything that smacks of a Gallup poll.”

It’s scary how much this has become the case. We are a nation governed by opinion poll, a society ruled by fad and social whim. The consensus creates the truth, and I suppose he who shapes the consensus shapes the truth.

I wonder if Mr. Tierney is funded by ExxonMobil?

Note: Dr. Gould’s website (see text link above) has a link to a document he has written to encourage critical thinking about about “global warming”.