The bailout is bad for us

Many have been claiming that the bailout is needed to keep the economy from melting down. The problem here is that we are giving money to the investment banks to keep them from failing. This ignores the fact that the money that was “lost” was not lost, but merely changed hands. This money is still circulating in the economy, having been acquired and spent by the people who sold their homes to the now defaulting borrowers.

The amount of cash that will be injected into the US economy is staggering. By some estimates, over $1 trillion dollars will be placed into circulation to bail out the banking industry. That is in addition to the $400 billion that has already been spent since Feb 5. The entire country only produces $14 trillion a year in goods and services, so this amount represents 10% of our annual productivity.

A currency becomes worth less when there is an increase in the amount of money which is not supported by growth in the output of goods and services. This devaluation is called inflation. The amount of goods and services being produced in this country is falling, therefore we should be needing LESS money in circulation, not more. As the demand for cash falls and the supply rises, the law of supply and demand dictates that the value of the cash will fall.

The Federal Reserve’s normal response to inflation is to raise interest rates to constrict the money supply, thus forcing the supply and demand balance to increase the value of the money. This is not happening because it is an election year, and because increasing interest rates will only increase the default rates on the loans already out there. What does this mean for us as citizens? It means that everything you buy just got more expensive. Oil, gas, food, clothing.

Governments often hide true inflation, as I believe the United States is doing now. The methods for hiding inflation are:

  • Outright lying in official statistics such as money supply, inflation or reserves. They have been telling us that inflation is lower than it is. What did gas, milk, and clothes cost last year? Gold is $900 an ounce and gasoline is $3.67 at the corner store as I write this. A year ago, an ounce of gold was $734 and a gallon of gasoline was $3.01, two years ago gold was $589. If those numbers are representative, inflation is really hovering around 20%.
  • Suppression of publication of money supply statistics, or inflation indices. Maybe this is why the M3 money supply statistics are no longer published, and haven’t been since 2006.
  • Price and wage controls. This can be accomplished by Federalizing industries like oil, banking, or health care. This idea is being suggested already. One only has to look at the TSA to see what will happen there- costs will dramatically increase because of government inefficiency. These increased costs will inject even more cash into the system, and will create a black market where the real prices will drive sales.
  • Forced savings schemes, designed to suck up excess liquidity. These savings schemes may be described as pensions schemes, emergency funds, war funds, or something similar.
  • Adjusting the components of the Consumer price index, to remove those items whose prices are rising the fastest. Like publishing the “core inflation” rate- excluding food and energy from the calculation and trying to convince us that the core rate is more accurate.

Look next for the government to begin price and wage controls.

The cure of a bail out may well be worse than the disease it is supposed to fix.

Censorship for everyone but pedophiles

A court this week blocked a group of hackers from releasing their findings on how to circumvent the payment system used by Boston’s subway system, saying that “It is extremely important to maintain the security and integrity of the Fare Media systems, with an insecure, compromised system, even basic revenue controls, to name one example, become significantly challenging.”

Meaning, of course, that we do not want to interrupt the government’s revenue stream.

Meanwhile, Amazon continues to sell books that are instructions on how to commit pedophilia. Now, I understand that this is a free speech issue, and I agree that the pedophiles have a right under our constitution to say what they want, as long as they do not actually carry through and commit the acts that are talked about.

However, don’t the hackers deserve to have their free speech rights protected as well?

More insanity

This time the insanity comes from a court in Quebec. It seems the courts in the great white north are deciding what punishments are appropriate when a parent grounds a child.

The Canadian court has lifted a 12-year-old girl’s grounding, overturning her father’s punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet. The girl used a free, court appointed attorney to appeal the punishment- the father had grounded her from participating in a school trip- the judge in the case ruled that the punishment was too harsh.

The girl had chatted on websites he tried to block, and then posted “inappropriate” pictures of herself online using a friend’s computer. Couple this with the article discussed here, where a thirteen year old girl has been lying about her age in order to have sex with men, who are then thrown into jail when they find out the girl’s true age and contact her parents, and we see that the children of today are learning how to play the system.

This is a “Lord of the Flies,” or even a “Children of the Corn” system where parents are unable to control their children or teach them right from wrong, but are still legally responsible for what they do. What we wind up teaching them is that right is what you can get away with, and wrong merely means you got caught and couldn’t wriggle free on a legal technicality.

Shame on all of us for allowing our legal systems to become so twisted.

What is the difference

You keep hearing from the Republicans that we should vote for McCain because he is better than Obama. Yet, here he is saying that oil companies should “return” their profits to the American people.

In the past McCain has indicated he would consider a tax on oil companies, saying he didn’t want to see companies making “obscene profits” that distort the market.

The Democrats are ready to nationalize the oil industry.

Both want to Nationalize the health care industry.

I have been searching my copy of the Constitution, and I cannot seem to find the section that grants this power to the executive.

Tell me again how it matters which dictator I vote for.

The protection from Government Intrusion

“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.”—Amendment III, Bill of Rights

This amendment was considered important enough to be the third listed protection in the bill of rights, right after the freedom to associate with other citizens, speak out against abuse, and to keep arms to resist tyranny. One has to wonder if there was a large problem with soldiers over staying their welcome while staying in people’s homes.

It is a fairly effective form of intimidation: putting an agent of the State inside the houses of people whom the State considers “troublesome.” Having an agent of the State live with the troublemakers has an absolutely chilling effect, and most especially when the agents start abusing the power—”pushing the envelope,” as such agents so often do. This would have been known to the authors of the Bill of Rights. The Third Amendment was put there to prevent just this sort of thing.

It was impossible for the founders to foresee the advent of electronics, video cameras, microphone “bugs” and the like, but the fact remains the same: the presence of agents of the State present in people’s homes, intimidating them by their very presence, and by their presence also enforcing the State’s policies, as well as reporting (to a superior rank or office) any opposition towards the State. Whether the actual person is present, or the person is “virtually” present, the effect is the same: a chilling of the rights of the people to oppose the policies of their Government.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”—Amendment IV, Bill of Rights

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” —Amendment V, Bill of Rights

Why am I mentioning these particular parts of the Bill of Rights this morning? Because I woke to find that the police in our Nation’s Capitol are searching people, demanding their papers, and wanting to know what their business is. Even scarier, some citizens are cheering them on, demanding that the Government keep them “safe,” whatever that is.

We are searched to enter aircraft. We submit to random searches at work, school, and in our cars. We outlaw guns, “hate speech,” legislate morality, and agree to allow our email and telephone calls filtered and monitored. We submit to “random drug screens” and allow our tax rates to climb to pay for it all. Still crime increases, and the government tells us that things would only get better, and we would all be safer, if they had just a little more power.

This is how the Republic dies. Not by invasion, nor by enemy action- but to be destroyed by our own demands, sheep bleating demands for our own safety.

March 17, 2008

Mike is a man like any other. He runs a business. He kisses his wife goodbye in the morning before he leaves for work. Mike has only one trait that makes him different from nearly every other human being on the planet.

You see, Mike is alive, but he should be dead.

Mike left the restaurant where he had lunch, and began to walk back to his office. That is the last thing he remembers about that day, and about the week that followed. The rest of the events of that day have been reconstructed from those who witnessed the events that transpired.

As he walked down the sidewalk, Mike clutched his chest and slumped to the sidewalk. As luck would have it, Mike’s first lucky break of the day was that three nearby citizens saw him fall, and they knew CPR. One of them called 911 while the other two began CPR. Mike received his second break when the ambulance beat the train to the crossing a block away. Had they not done so, the ambulance would have been delayed by several minutes at a time when minutes count most.

The paramedics on the scene took over CPR and placed him on the monitor. Noting that Mike was in ventricular fibrillation, they shocked him at 200 joules. He converted, as often happens, to asystole. CPR was resumed. Mike was transferred to a backboard and placed on a stretcher. The paramedics noted that Mike was again in V-Fib, and again shocked him at 200 joules. This time, he converted to a sinus rhythm, albeit with frequent PVC’s. A pulse check found a weak pulse. The medics started an IV, and intubated Mike. The medics then started a 150mg infusion of cordarone, and rushed Mike to the hospital.

He spent a week in the hospital, and during that period, Mike received an implanted pacemaker/defibrillator. He was discharged and I got to meet him again yesterday. He could not thank me enough for being the paramedic on that call. He also reminded me that March 17th was not the first time I had met him. You see, I had also taken him to the hospital 2 years ago, when he had a stroke. During that event, TPA had ensured that he had no lasting deficits.

Days like this are the reason why we become medics. To the citizen bystanders that performed CPR on Mike that day, I say: Thanks. Mike would be dead without you. To the rest of you:

Learn CPR. You might just save a life.

Real spies look for virtual terrorists

In yet another sign that the Feds have too much money, the US intelligence (huh?) community is data mining online games such as World of Warcraft to try and catch terrorists who try and infiltrate the online world.

My best guess here is that some analyst at the CIA got caught playing video games, and he managed to convince the chain of command that he was hunting Bin Laden by looking for him in the online gaming community.

On rights and duties

I admit that posting has been light. A week long cruise to the Caribbean, two jobs, and a full time course load will tend to do that. Without further delay, here is the rant of the day:

On the campaign trail in Lewiston, Maine, Hillary Clinton made the following statement:

“I am the only candidate left in this race on either side who is committed to universal health care,” she said. “It is a core value, it is a human right. It is not a privilege.”

In order for something to be a right, it means that a person is entitled to it by merely existing. The right to be free from unreasonable searches, free speech, and others are rights which are due all people. Governments are established to ensure that no one tramples on the rights of others.

Calling health care a right means that a person gets health care whether or not they have the ability to pay for that care. That means that if a person cannot pay for the care that they receive, then one of two things has to happen: either the doctor (and other health care workers- everyone from the maker of the drug to the guy who mops the hospital floor) must work for free, or that people who work and pay taxes must have a portion of their pay taken from them in order to pay for it.

What I don’t understand is how one man’s right can create a duty upon another. The fact that the money stolen to pay for the health care is spread across a country is irrelevant. Let me use an example:

1 A man meets me as I leave my bank, and threatens me with death if I do not give him money. Is this morally wrong?
2 That same man, it turns out, is robbing me because he makes less than half of what I make. Does that make a difference?
3 That same man gets 5 neighbors who are in similar circumstances to assist him in robbing everyone who leaves my bank. Does that make it better?
4 Those 5 neighbors become a network of 5,000 people all across the state. Is it now OK for them to rob me, and others who make more money than them?
5 What if those 5,000 become a million?

What changed? nothing. Taking money from one person, simply to give to another, in order to correct some perceived inequality of outcome is robbery no matter what spin you put on it.

People in this country have gotten the idea that equality of opportunity means that the result should be equality of outcome, and if this does not happen it means that the successful have somehow cheated and should be punished. Ridiculous.