The Latest on the Global Warming scam

Reality has taken another swipe at the religion of Global Warming. The Global Warming cult is not just annoying, they may potentially deal a devastating blow to economies and freedom worldwide based on the premise that man-made carbon emmisions are building up in the atmosphere and bringing about catastrophic global warming. Mother nature begs to differ.

A new study published online in Geophysical Research Letters, states: “New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.”

In plain English, the oceans and land are absorbing our carbon emissions as fast as we can put them out. The catastophic greenhouse scenario is not happening. From PhysOrg.com: “The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.”

In other words this study deals with reality, whereas the nightmare scenarios are based on commonly held belief.

There is some confusion among scientists, particularly those seeking new grants to combat global warming, as to why the atmosphere is not absorbing the CO2. I’m not a scientist, but I know that mixtures have saturation points. When you stir salt into a glass of water, and continue to add salt, there will come a point where the salt will no longer dissolve into the mixture and you’ll simply get a bunch of salt resting on the bottom of the glass. My unprofessional guess would be that the atmosphere has absorbed about all the CO2 it is capable of absorbing. That’s a good thing. The Earth is recycling our carbon for us.

As you read this, the United Nations is conducting a Climate Change Conference, where world leaders will debate what to do about the non-existent build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Proposals include payments from countries like the United States to developing countries which emit less carbon; a carbon-debt system, which would be enforced by a newly formed, unelected, global governing body. Here at home, Congress is attempting to pass the infamous “Cap and Trade” bill, which will enrich traders, at our expense, and accomplish very little else.

It’s not that good information is not available to the powers that be. Global Warming or Climate Change is just the most recent vehicle to drive the real agenda; world government. If this crisis comes apart at the seams, they’ll find a new one. It’s never been about protecting you. It’s always been about controlling you.

More info: http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html

Capping executive pay, You asked for it.

The federal government’s new Pay Czar, Kenneth Feinberg, has determiined that executives at several bailed out firms must take substantial pay cuts. This has predictably sparked a heated debate about whether the government should be involved in pay decisions and what constitutes “excessive pay”. I believe Wall Street has made its own bed, and now must lie in it.

When firms accept themselves as “too big to fail” and take money from taxpayers through the federal government, they lose any right to make free market arguments. These firms turned their backs on the free market system because they didn’t want to face the pain of failure. Now they have to accept their new masters.

Will government meddling and bureaucracy make the situations at these companies worse? Probably. Will talent walk away? Of course. Then again, it was the alleged “best and brightest” that helped create this fiasco. What about “mission creep”? What if the government decides to cap pay at companies that weren’t bailed out? The optimum time to put the brakes on the government takeover of the free market was before they started doling out TARP loans. Where were the shouts from the free market champions back then?

Eventually the government will wind down its takeover of big business because it will fail. Whether it’s this administration or the next one, reality will set in over time. For now, we’ll get a demonstration of what happens when entrepreneurs are replaced with czars and committees. I believe individuals are entitled to every dime they can make honestly in the free market, but I also believe that individuals and companies have to take the consequences of their actions and inactions. If you want out from under the thumb of the government, give the money back or find a new career.

No More "Lesser of two evils"

The Republican Party may have thought it had a great ally in the "Tea Party" movement. However, they're beginning to learn that opposition to liberal Democrats does not automatically mean support for Republicans.

The most obvious illustration is the race in N.Y. for the 23d Congressional District seat up for grabs this November. A liberal Republican, Dierdre Scozzafava, is vying for the seat against Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman. While old-guard Republicans like Newt Gingrich are supporting Scozzafava, many of the "Tea Partyers" and conservatives such as Dick Army, are supporting Hoffman. Critics say that by splitting the vote between Hoffman and Scozzafava, the third party supporters may be handing the Democrat a win in a traditional Republican stronghold.

The fact that Republicans would even make that argument is a sign that they still don't understand what's going on out in the real world. People who are concerned about ever-growing government, outlandish spending, runaway deficits and the destruction of the free market system, don't give a hoot about the welfare of any political party. They want to vote for individuals who will work for what they believe in. Voting for the lesser of evils is no longer tolerable.

The grass roots rebellion that has become known as the Tea Party movement is comprised of individuals looking at the long term and not liking what they see. They see a real crisis upon us right now. They aren't interested in the numbers game played by the ruling parties in Washington D.C.. They want credibility, accountability, commitment.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. We are always told that it is our duty as a citizen to vote. However, if I don't like the choices put in front of me, I believe the better option is to not vote. Maybe we have to take another step or two in the wrong direction before we move to the right track. If one or both major parties becomes extinct in the process, so be it. If Republicans think that conservatives, capitalists, libertarians and independents have nowhere else to go, they're wrong...dead wrong.

America, you ignorant slut!

President Obama addresses Congress on health care, 9/9/09

President Obama addressed both houses of Congress tonight in a speech intended to boost support for his health care proposals. If you expected him to state that he’d heard the voices of the opposition and is willing to consider alternatives, you were sorely disappointed. Here is the complete text of the speech. From NYTimes.com.

In it, he implies that fierce opposition to the plan stems mainly from people bent on stopping reform in any incarnation for their own greedy and/or evil purposes. Others are either ignorant, mislead, paranoid idealogues or some combination of the above.

The reason the health care debate has been so intense is that it goes to a very fundamental issue. At the foundation of the argument is whether or not it is the proper role of government to take direct responsibility for the health and welfare of its citizens. Proponents believe it is. Opponents believe it is not. When proponents start with that premise and envision the future it will bring, they see Utopia. When opponents do the same, they see disaster.

When the President tugs at our heart strings and appeals for compassion in the form of support for his plan, it’s not touching, it’s insulting. It’s insulting because it assumes that a reasonable, compassionate, thinking adult can’t possibly be against a caretaker government. Of course if you believe a caretaker government will lead to widespread misery, supporting one wouldn’t be very compassionate, would it?

Both sides of the issue believe they are right. Both cannot be right. There are undecideds and “don’t knows” but there is no middle ground. So, where do we go from here? We could start by taking on the fundamental issue instead of dressing it up as health care reform and dancing around it. This is about collectivism versus individualism. If you have confidence in your convictions, call them by their name and let’s have the debate.

Premature Indoctrination

Turning a capitalist democracy into a socialist autocracy is no easy task. It can be done. But, it takes cunning, planning and lots of patience. The movement was well underway in this country, but the left may have tried to implement the final phase a decade or two too soon. Now they have to try to pull it off in broad daylight before an unreceptive audience.

Before you can put absolute power in the hands of a few for the good of all, you must first lay the groundwork; set the tone, create the proper atmosphere. You need allies in the education sector. You need allies in the media. You need to get big companies on board. All that was done fairly successfully over the past several decades. However, before you can make the final play, you must have the majority of the population at the point where they’re ready to throw up their hands and say “anything is better than this”.

Higher education is staffed mainly with leftists. No problems there. Major media outlets are dutifully providing the right coverage. In fact, the CEO of General Electric (owner of NBC) is now on the board of the New York Federal Reserve and is a chief Obama economic advisor. Everything’s going well there. Big businesses don’t mind tight regulation and expensive mandates. It keeps the competition down. Keeping up the guise of capitalistic activity also allows for blaming capitalism for everyone’s woes when the time comes to make the big switch. Everything looked to be in place. The public was dissatisfied with the status quo. The left made its move.

The Feds took over the mortgage industry, the financial industry, the auto industry, but health care was a bridge too far. The problem is, they misread the mood of the public. We were annoyed, angry, maybe even outraged, but we weren’t miserable. We were outraged at the players, not the game.

Now the White House is staffed with people who openly supported communism not twenty years ago, but twenty weeks ago. They were feeling confident their time had come. No need to hide the agenda anymore!

But the people aren’t buying it. The genie can’t be put back in the bottle. They have to try to play this out. Obama has to either embrace capitalism and free markets, which he will not do, or go down with the ship.

However it goes from here, we’ll still have massive deficits and a debt that can only be dealt with by inflation of epic proportions. Will we take it on the chin and get back to free people, freely associating in free markets or will be all become willing servants of a great society? I’m betting on the former.

China, Apple and the economics of free

Apple recently announced that it has reached a deal to bring the iPhone and its Apps Store to China. This is a very interesting and potentially very insightful proving ground for technology and economics which was actually made possible by the Chinese government keeping the masses poor.

The iPhone handsets will be purchased by China Unicom, who will not share subscription revenue with Apple. This means, for Apple to capitalize on this opportunity to reach such a huge market, they have to sell Apps, lots and lots of Apps.

But, that huge marketplace is made up mainly of very low income individuals. Apple, and its army of application developers must come up with highly desired software at a price point that’s agreeable to poor people. In many cases that price point may be zero, or close to zero. The game will be to figure out how to get a little money from an enormous amount of people, consistently. New streams of revenue related to applications may have to subsidize the production and distribution of the applications. It could be advertising, data collection, storage, establishing networks, or some function nobody has imagined yet. There are further challenges. The iPhones in China will not be WiFi enabled. It sounds like a tough bed to grow in, but the parallel processing nature of the world of iPhone application development should make it up to the challenge.

Some believe the “economics of free” is a threat to capitalism. It’s not. Capitalists adapt and continue to find ways to improve their own lot by improving the lot of others. Government can change the rules, but they can’t kill the game. That’s because capitalism takes advantage of and works with human nature, whereas socialism aims to suppress it.

Of course, I don’t endorse repressive dictatorships as a means of market-testing ideas, but there it is. Americans, through commerce, have the opportunity to try to improve the quality of life of people across the globe, under severe restriction. Demonstration of the power of free markets and free people is a far more effective tool than either diplomacy or force in making the most of such an opportunity.

It's the volume stupid!

In response to lower revenues and budget shortfalls due to the recession, many state and local governments and agencies have resorted to raising fees, taxes, fines and whatever else they can think of. In my neck of the woods, the City of Fountain is contemplating a sales tax increase to pay for infrastructure projects. While I applaud the proponents for getting their plan before the public well in advance of even attempting to get it on the ballot, I think the focus is in the wrong direction.

It seems to me a better strategy would be to look for ways to increase sales volume rather than the sales tax rate. Government should be looking for opportunities to get out of the way. If government needs to cut spending, how about cutting in areas that make doing business cumbersome. Look for paperwork to eliminate, outdated or unnecessary codes or regulations. Less bureaucracy means fewer man hours. There's your savings.

Yes, that would mean a reduction in government's work force, but I believe those jobs would be made up many times over in a more vibrant private sector. Business doesn't want advisory boards, cheerleaders, commissions or more government assistance. It just wants you out of the way.