The Exigent Duality
Right choice - 15:44 CDT, 5/21/13 (Sniper)
Now that all three eighth generation consoles are either out or unveiled, I can definitely say that I made the right choice with the Wii U.
I wasn't at all impressed with Sony's presentation some weeks ago-- more focus on Hollywood cinema-style games, hooray-- and Microsoft's presentation today was a total train wreck; they spent 50 of the 60 minutes basically demonstrating how you can alt-tab between TV and a game, while having a web browser open. They spent the remaining 10 minutes showing cinematic trailers for games that basically just look like 360/PS3 games graphically (we've definitely hit the ceiling as far as graphical quality/budgets go).
I actually don't think any of the three consoles are viable from a business standpoint-- demographics, they are a changin'-- but I maintain that at least the Wii U will get quirky Japanese stuff that the other two platforms don't, and of course the Nintendo first-party titles will be good.
I wasn't at all impressed with Sony's presentation some weeks ago-- more focus on Hollywood cinema-style games, hooray-- and Microsoft's presentation today was a total train wreck; they spent 50 of the 60 minutes basically demonstrating how you can alt-tab between TV and a game, while having a web browser open. They spent the remaining 10 minutes showing cinematic trailers for games that basically just look like 360/PS3 games graphically (we've definitely hit the ceiling as far as graphical quality/budgets go).
I actually don't think any of the three consoles are viable from a business standpoint-- demographics, they are a changin'-- but I maintain that at least the Wii U will get quirky Japanese stuff that the other two platforms don't, and of course the Nintendo first-party titles will be good.
Let's just split it up now - 19:50 CDT, 5/20/13 (Sniper)
Hah, what will college tuition be if the Democrats get their way with this legislation? $1000 per credit? $10,000? $20,000?
Like I've said before, we just need to split the country-- let the liberals have their half, and the conservatives have their half-- before the liberals destroy the whole damned thing.
On that topic I saw a sign on the side of a truck today advertising Concordia College: "Get your next degree at Concordia!" Next degree?? It's hilarious to see advertising created due to the government student loan bubble.
Like I've said before, we just need to split the country-- let the liberals have their half, and the conservatives have their half-- before the liberals destroy the whole damned thing.
On that topic I saw a sign on the side of a truck today advertising Concordia College: "Get your next degree at Concordia!" Next degree?? It's hilarious to see advertising created due to the government student loan bubble.
Massive conformity - 09:42 CDT, 5/19/13 (Sniper)
Every time I'm out and about in public it strikes me how plastic and phony today's society is. Almost everyone I know is sort of rote and mechanical-- boring. Our culture is just endlessly rehashing tropes from eras gone by, it has no personality of its own. It hit me this morning that the world around me seems puritanical, like what it would be like to live in an extremely religious society-- total conformity of opinion.
If that's true, then what is the religion? Political correctness, of course!
But how can a society have strongly-defined mores and norms, yet have decidely so little personality-- be the very opposite of Dickensian? I think the reason is because the people that tend to be the most interesting are the ones that are prone to vices. But in today's overly moralistic society-- where the moral compasses are homosexuality, "equality", Statism, and climate change-- and the path to righteousness is so narrow that the term "black hole" is deemed a racial epithet, there are so few people off the well-beaten path that we've reached some sort of dull and massive macro-consensus.
Our culture has hit a brick wall as a result.
If that's true, then what is the religion? Political correctness, of course!
But how can a society have strongly-defined mores and norms, yet have decidely so little personality-- be the very opposite of Dickensian? I think the reason is because the people that tend to be the most interesting are the ones that are prone to vices. But in today's overly moralistic society-- where the moral compasses are homosexuality, "equality", Statism, and climate change-- and the path to righteousness is so narrow that the term "black hole" is deemed a racial epithet, there are so few people off the well-beaten path that we've reached some sort of dull and massive macro-consensus.
Our culture has hit a brick wall as a result.
Plethora of articles - 09:04 CDT, 5/19/13 (Sniper)
Kind of a hopping weekend for news, I'll cover off on a few things I found interesting.
First, there was this article offering some colorful imagery regarding the meltdown of the Obama administration.
I get a lot of things wrong, so I'm not trying to brag here-- but minutes into reading about this Obama character prior to the 2008 election I had the dual reaction of rolling my eyes and baring my teeth; the first reaction came about because it was obvious he was one of these clueless liberal Woodstock clowns, and the second reaction because he was a lawyer from Chicago with Saul Alinsky-style training whose signature resume bullet was being a "professor" in academia, who had cookouts with Socialist terrorist Bill Ayers, and who was part of a revolutionary Marxist group in college.
The probability of someone with that makeup being both arrogant, inept, and dangerously out-of-touch was high. Seeing his adminstration being exposed as both incompetent and remarkably immoral is a total validation of my initial premise regarding this joker.
Speaking of immorality, that leads me to the second interesting article, which discusses the absolute dearth of ethical standards practiced by huge swathes of Generation X, and how that is leading to yet another sub-prime bubble-- this time with student loans-- since the people involved with the housing collapse were not prosecuted by the corrupt and incompetent Obama administration I discussed in the paragraphs above. Still in their jobs, they continue to play the same old games.
Which leads right into the third article that caught my eye. This "Bermuda Triangle of Economics" sounds exactly like the "money" economy I described here; it's obvious according to classical economics that all logic and common sense is completely on its head today, yet the system is so complex and unprecedented that no one can truly say what will happen.
First, there was this article offering some colorful imagery regarding the meltdown of the Obama administration.
I get a lot of things wrong, so I'm not trying to brag here-- but minutes into reading about this Obama character prior to the 2008 election I had the dual reaction of rolling my eyes and baring my teeth; the first reaction came about because it was obvious he was one of these clueless liberal Woodstock clowns, and the second reaction because he was a lawyer from Chicago with Saul Alinsky-style training whose signature resume bullet was being a "professor" in academia, who had cookouts with Socialist terrorist Bill Ayers, and who was part of a revolutionary Marxist group in college.
The probability of someone with that makeup being both arrogant, inept, and dangerously out-of-touch was high. Seeing his adminstration being exposed as both incompetent and remarkably immoral is a total validation of my initial premise regarding this joker.
Speaking of immorality, that leads me to the second interesting article, which discusses the absolute dearth of ethical standards practiced by huge swathes of Generation X, and how that is leading to yet another sub-prime bubble-- this time with student loans-- since the people involved with the housing collapse were not prosecuted by the corrupt and incompetent Obama administration I discussed in the paragraphs above. Still in their jobs, they continue to play the same old games.
Which leads right into the third article that caught my eye. This "Bermuda Triangle of Economics" sounds exactly like the "money" economy I described here; it's obvious according to classical economics that all logic and common sense is completely on its head today, yet the system is so complex and unprecedented that no one can truly say what will happen.
Great philosopher of our time - 18:10 CDT, 5/18/13 (Sniper)
James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams-- clearly Harry Reid belongs in this same breadth; reading this exchange leaves no doubt in my mind that he's one of the great philosophers of our time.
Minnesota United 2 Tampa Bay 3 - 17:46 CDT, 5/18/13 (Sniper)
A lot of my fellow supporters passed the bemusement-irritation threshold after last week's loss to previously winless Fort Lauderdale, and were calling for wholesale lineup changes-- everything from benching Barbara to replacing Reed with Takada to restoring Van Oekel in goal. But I was still optimistic; as I'd written before, the level of quality in the side is unmistakable, and the football they were playing was some of the best I'd ever seen at this level, even if the goals and results weren't quite flowing as I'd hoped.
After today's match, however, I've completely lost patience. Unlike some others though I pin the blame squarely on Manny.
Those that have been reading this blog for the past few years know that I really like Manny generally, and his tactical nous in important games is fabulous. But these same readers also know that I think he's extremely ideologically rigid. When his teams invariably come off the rails, as they're prone to do during long stretches of every season, he refuses to make changes that might help alleviate the situation. It's his system or bust.
I didn't agree with but could at least understand the rationale for his "system's first" approach back when he had a team full of mediocre, no-name players that were essentially interchangeable parts, like he did a few seasons ago (remember Melvin Tarley and Chris Clements?)-- you pick a system, educate the players in it, and stay disciplined.
This is not one of those Minnesota teams of yore however; on this year's entire roster it's tough to even pick out the marginal player without going to the outermost fringes (Edi Buro? Nate Polak?).
I remember an announcer during one of our road games saying something to the effect of, "There is an unbelievable level of talent among Minnesota's players individually, but they don't seem to be working well together." To me, this clearly indicates a tactical problem. More specifically, now that he actually has quality at his disposal, it's time the players available dictate the system, not the other way around.
For example, even out wide Etienne Barbara plays like a centerforward, basically just standing stationary waiting for service. The solution is to switch to a 4-4-2 and move Barbara back to centerforward, his natural position.
With that shift, two of Barbara, Campos, and Bracalello can play up top, allowing the vastly underrated Lucas Rodriguez to slide back in on the left side of midfield, with Ibarra taking the other flank, and two of our seeming army of viable holding players (Pitchkolan and Arguez perhaps?) occupying the other two midfield slots.
Not only would this change eliminate the one glaring weakness in our squad-- the lack of a trequartista, which Ibarra is most obviously not, and which Manny's current system is utterly dependent on-- but it also allows for two players from our massively talented centerforward pool to play closer to each other, as partners. And on top of it, it gets Ibarra back out wide, where he was so destructive last season.
The downside is that Bracalello, possibly the team's best player this season so far, gets thrown under the bus, since I don't think he really fits as a wide man in a 4-4-2. But the way I see it, while Manny's current system benefits Bracalello immensely, it's at the expense of several other players and, ultimately, our ability to consistently create chances and score goals.
After today's match, however, I've completely lost patience. Unlike some others though I pin the blame squarely on Manny.
Those that have been reading this blog for the past few years know that I really like Manny generally, and his tactical nous in important games is fabulous. But these same readers also know that I think he's extremely ideologically rigid. When his teams invariably come off the rails, as they're prone to do during long stretches of every season, he refuses to make changes that might help alleviate the situation. It's his system or bust.
I didn't agree with but could at least understand the rationale for his "system's first" approach back when he had a team full of mediocre, no-name players that were essentially interchangeable parts, like he did a few seasons ago (remember Melvin Tarley and Chris Clements?)-- you pick a system, educate the players in it, and stay disciplined.
This is not one of those Minnesota teams of yore however; on this year's entire roster it's tough to even pick out the marginal player without going to the outermost fringes (Edi Buro? Nate Polak?).
I remember an announcer during one of our road games saying something to the effect of, "There is an unbelievable level of talent among Minnesota's players individually, but they don't seem to be working well together." To me, this clearly indicates a tactical problem. More specifically, now that he actually has quality at his disposal, it's time the players available dictate the system, not the other way around.
For example, even out wide Etienne Barbara plays like a centerforward, basically just standing stationary waiting for service. The solution is to switch to a 4-4-2 and move Barbara back to centerforward, his natural position.
With that shift, two of Barbara, Campos, and Bracalello can play up top, allowing the vastly underrated Lucas Rodriguez to slide back in on the left side of midfield, with Ibarra taking the other flank, and two of our seeming army of viable holding players (Pitchkolan and Arguez perhaps?) occupying the other two midfield slots.
Not only would this change eliminate the one glaring weakness in our squad-- the lack of a trequartista, which Ibarra is most obviously not, and which Manny's current system is utterly dependent on-- but it also allows for two players from our massively talented centerforward pool to play closer to each other, as partners. And on top of it, it gets Ibarra back out wide, where he was so destructive last season.
The downside is that Bracalello, possibly the team's best player this season so far, gets thrown under the bus, since I don't think he really fits as a wide man in a 4-4-2. But the way I see it, while Manny's current system benefits Bracalello immensely, it's at the expense of several other players and, ultimately, our ability to consistently create chances and score goals.
Someone else who saw it coming - 16:29 CDT, 5/16/13 (Sniper)
Why couldn't I have gotten this message when I was getting out of college, as opposed to when I'm 31? I almost feel like it's too late-- I can still learn, but it's becoming more and more difficult every year.
In any event, this is one of the most inspiring speeches I've ever heard.
In any event, this is one of the most inspiring speeches I've ever heard.
Hated hipsters - 18:19 CDT, 5/13/13 (Sniper)
Throw me in with the Republicans on this one. Take gaming for instance: I can't stand 75% of today's games-- not coincidentally, that 75% is made by hipsters. "...soullessly appropriate cultural tropes from the past for their own ironic amusement", couldn't have said it better myself.
Don't buy property unless you can afford it - 19:57 CDT, 5/11/13 (Sniper)
Buying a house has been by a mile the biggest mistake I've made in my entire life; I was a dumb kid that didn't know any better (doesn't everyone buy a house??), and now I'm $70k underwater and starting to hit the big ticket maintenance points, like a $10k roof. Why in the world we think ordinary people should own a Lamborghini is beyond me, because that's what a house is-- it's a Lamborghini, except the upkeep is more expensive. Only truly wealthy people should own houses.
Even setting the housing bubble aside, houses are not viable as an investment vehicle either. You dump at least a thousand dollars into it a month, and what are you left with at the end of the mortgage? A dumb house worth less than it was originally-- it's a depreciating asset, like a computer or a boat! Put that same money into a 401k and you wind up with a few million bucks-- it's not even close.
Doing the math on various options, like leveraging up to get the new roof, or foreclosing. Every option is super ugly... if only I'd been listening to Schiff back in 2005 like I do today!
Even setting the housing bubble aside, houses are not viable as an investment vehicle either. You dump at least a thousand dollars into it a month, and what are you left with at the end of the mortgage? A dumb house worth less than it was originally-- it's a depreciating asset, like a computer or a boat! Put that same money into a 401k and you wind up with a few million bucks-- it's not even close.
Doing the math on various options, like leveraging up to get the new roof, or foreclosing. Every option is super ugly... if only I'd been listening to Schiff back in 2005 like I do today!
Cutting our arms off - 14:43 CDT, 5/10/13 (Sniper)
Some of the results from this polling make me laugh, especially the ones-- which constitute almost the entire theme of the inquiries-- asking about who the public blames the most for the "lack of cooperation" in Washington.
The reason I laugh is because I don't get why people want them to "cooperate". What does "cooperate" even mean in today's America? That Republicans should just "go along to get along" and pass pointless gun control measures? "How about if we ban magazines that hold 25 rounds instead of 20?" Such a debate would be absurd! Or that Republicans should "go along to get along" with gay marriage?
Or take it from the liberal standpoint-- should the Democrats in Congress just give up trying to pass climate control legislation? Or go along with legislation to make abortion illegal?
"Well but Mike," you might say, "they could compromise by each putting elements of things they like in the legislation." But that's ridiculous; by that logic if someone came to you and said "Hey, I have an idea: let's cut off both of our arms!", you'd best serve everyone's interests by saying, "Well, let's compromise, how about just one arm?"
Both sides are so far apart ideologically that I can't even define what "getting along" would look like-- things the Republicans bring forward are the liberal equivalent of proposing to cut our arms off, and vice versa. Take my view for an instant: I'm proud of the fact that Republicans are being blamed for the "gridlock": good! Sometimes the last thing you want is compromise!
"Business as usual", as its been for the past 80 or 90 years in this country, is simply not going to cut it. Ted Cruz is my hero for holding the line, and John Boehner is one of the hugest villains in my life for compromising on his-- and my-- principles (or supposed principles in his case).
So what's the answer then? Civil war? Well, to me all of this is simply a product of trying to manage such a large area from one place, with "one size fits all" solutions. As the Federal government got bigger and bigger, and usurped more and more of the States' power, this kind of political stalemate was inevitable.
The only remedy I can see involves either taking 95% of what the Federal government does and handing that back to the states, or just splitting the country in half and giving the liberals one side and the conservatives the other.
The reason I laugh is because I don't get why people want them to "cooperate". What does "cooperate" even mean in today's America? That Republicans should just "go along to get along" and pass pointless gun control measures? "How about if we ban magazines that hold 25 rounds instead of 20?" Such a debate would be absurd! Or that Republicans should "go along to get along" with gay marriage?
Or take it from the liberal standpoint-- should the Democrats in Congress just give up trying to pass climate control legislation? Or go along with legislation to make abortion illegal?
"Well but Mike," you might say, "they could compromise by each putting elements of things they like in the legislation." But that's ridiculous; by that logic if someone came to you and said "Hey, I have an idea: let's cut off both of our arms!", you'd best serve everyone's interests by saying, "Well, let's compromise, how about just one arm?"
Both sides are so far apart ideologically that I can't even define what "getting along" would look like-- things the Republicans bring forward are the liberal equivalent of proposing to cut our arms off, and vice versa. Take my view for an instant: I'm proud of the fact that Republicans are being blamed for the "gridlock": good! Sometimes the last thing you want is compromise!
"Business as usual", as its been for the past 80 or 90 years in this country, is simply not going to cut it. Ted Cruz is my hero for holding the line, and John Boehner is one of the hugest villains in my life for compromising on his-- and my-- principles (or supposed principles in his case).
So what's the answer then? Civil war? Well, to me all of this is simply a product of trying to manage such a large area from one place, with "one size fits all" solutions. As the Federal government got bigger and bigger, and usurped more and more of the States' power, this kind of political stalemate was inevitable.
The only remedy I can see involves either taking 95% of what the Federal government does and handing that back to the states, or just splitting the country in half and giving the liberals one side and the conservatives the other.
Evening walk brings clarity - 20:59 CDT, 5/09/13 (Sniper)
As I took my evening walk I retraced the conversation I had with the cop earlier today, and I realized what had struck me so funny about the incident: he summed up his complaints about my driving by extolling me with the line, "These are public roads; there are all of these other people out here trying to drive normal."
And that right there was his big Freudian slip-- what he saw with my driving wasn't potential danger, but a nail sticking up that had to be hammered down. I don't think it was explicit in his thinking; he was just an automaton following the script his training as a police officer had provided for him. But deep down, I'm convinced that was the underlying psychology behind both that script and his execution of that script.
Right after I'd finished writing my driving manual back in 2011 I noticed afterwards that almost every point wound up using conventional driver's ed training as a contrarian indicator-- what not to do. "How could it be", I wondered, "that nothing they teach you in driver's ed has any connection to what actually works or makes driving safer in the real world?"
What about that incident I had at work with the supposed VP or high-up exec who got pissed at me for doing absolutely nothing wrong, except annoying him by taking a corner at 15 mph instead of 10 mph like other normal people?
What about the time when I took a friend at work for a ride in the Z, and she kept emphasizing to me "imagine how these other people feel about you zooming off of a freeway entrace ramp at 80 mph right alongside them?"
It extends to politics too. I select policies based on what I think will work. Most people pick policies based on what makes them feel good, and what everyone around them says are good ideas. They get visibly annoyed when I present some alternative course of action to them.
In the end, people hating my driving and hating my politics has nothing to do with whether my driving is safe or whether or not the policies I advocate would actually lead to prosperity or not. Rather, most people are sheep and go with what's comfortable, and what fits in with their pre-conceived worldview about "the way things are and should be."
By no means am I saying the world is conspiring against me or any such nonsense. But I do think I make people uncomfortable because I, and my actions, don't fit any already-constructed mold that most people have. I can see it in my daily interactions with people who are meeting me for the first time-- they are almost always very awkward until they get to know me-- and in other occasions, such as the ones listed above.
And that right there was his big Freudian slip-- what he saw with my driving wasn't potential danger, but a nail sticking up that had to be hammered down. I don't think it was explicit in his thinking; he was just an automaton following the script his training as a police officer had provided for him. But deep down, I'm convinced that was the underlying psychology behind both that script and his execution of that script.
Right after I'd finished writing my driving manual back in 2011 I noticed afterwards that almost every point wound up using conventional driver's ed training as a contrarian indicator-- what not to do. "How could it be", I wondered, "that nothing they teach you in driver's ed has any connection to what actually works or makes driving safer in the real world?"
What about that incident I had at work with the supposed VP or high-up exec who got pissed at me for doing absolutely nothing wrong, except annoying him by taking a corner at 15 mph instead of 10 mph like other normal people?
What about the time when I took a friend at work for a ride in the Z, and she kept emphasizing to me "imagine how these other people feel about you zooming off of a freeway entrace ramp at 80 mph right alongside them?"
It extends to politics too. I select policies based on what I think will work. Most people pick policies based on what makes them feel good, and what everyone around them says are good ideas. They get visibly annoyed when I present some alternative course of action to them.
In the end, people hating my driving and hating my politics has nothing to do with whether my driving is safe or whether or not the policies I advocate would actually lead to prosperity or not. Rather, most people are sheep and go with what's comfortable, and what fits in with their pre-conceived worldview about "the way things are and should be."
By no means am I saying the world is conspiring against me or any such nonsense. But I do think I make people uncomfortable because I, and my actions, don't fit any already-constructed mold that most people have. I can see it in my daily interactions with people who are meeting me for the first time-- they are almost always very awkward until they get to know me-- and in other occasions, such as the ones listed above.
Barney Fife - 15:14 CDT, 5/09/13 (Sniper)
Got pulled over by a cop on the way home from work today, he "let me go" with a warning. It was the first time I'd been pulled over in eight or nine years.
After going that long without having a single interaction with a police officer-- besides the fact that I've grown and changed a lot in as many years-- I was taken aback by what a douche bag he was. He told me rather forcefully, "Stop arguing with me", as if I don't have a right to defend myself when some guy forces me to stop my car, walks up to my window, demands my driver's license, and then starts accusing me of shit.
I'm not angry about it, but it was an alarming reminder of the lessons from the Stanford prison experiment. I was pretty close to reminding the guy that as a tax payer I'm essentially his boss, and that just because I've ceded an extraordinarily limited number of my rights in order to enable him to do his job, there are repercussions for not talking respectfully to people.
Of course, I didn't say any of that because I was sure he would have trumped that up into some sort of threat, as if I was the one exhibiting the use of force and not him.
After going that long without having a single interaction with a police officer-- besides the fact that I've grown and changed a lot in as many years-- I was taken aback by what a douche bag he was. He told me rather forcefully, "Stop arguing with me", as if I don't have a right to defend myself when some guy forces me to stop my car, walks up to my window, demands my driver's license, and then starts accusing me of shit.
I'm not angry about it, but it was an alarming reminder of the lessons from the Stanford prison experiment. I was pretty close to reminding the guy that as a tax payer I'm essentially his boss, and that just because I've ceded an extraordinarily limited number of my rights in order to enable him to do his job, there are repercussions for not talking respectfully to people.
Of course, I didn't say any of that because I was sure he would have trumped that up into some sort of threat, as if I was the one exhibiting the use of force and not him.
Do unto others exclusively - 16:23 CDT, 5/07/13 (Sniper)
I got a real laugh out of the first question in this poll-- even though most people thought the Federal government shouldn't take an active role in anyone's lives, the percentages swung 9 points downward when asked if the Federal government should take an active role in their lives.
That echoes the pattern I hear from every liberal I talk to. They want higher taxes... just not on them. They want more regulation... just not in their industry. They want longer waits at the airport after the sequester... just not on their flights. And it goes on and on.
Everyone is a libertarian when it applies to themselves. Weeding out the hypocrites means finding those that don't apply that same wisdom to others.
From the same poll, I am a little surprised that as many people as did said the government should be a partner in their pursuit of the American Dream. It goes back to the sentiment that I expressed in posts like this; you can pursue the American Dream with nothing other than protection from force-- everything government does beyond that just gets in the way.
Hell, even if you take a police force and military into account, government isn't a partner, that's the completely wrong word; "government" in a free society (as in, not in today's America) is simply the name applied to the actions of people organizing their own military and police force. The word "partner" only makes sense if you're a statist and view government as being separate from the people (which is indeed the case in America today, but wouldn't be the case in a free, voluntary society).
That echoes the pattern I hear from every liberal I talk to. They want higher taxes... just not on them. They want more regulation... just not in their industry. They want longer waits at the airport after the sequester... just not on their flights. And it goes on and on.
Everyone is a libertarian when it applies to themselves. Weeding out the hypocrites means finding those that don't apply that same wisdom to others.
From the same poll, I am a little surprised that as many people as did said the government should be a partner in their pursuit of the American Dream. It goes back to the sentiment that I expressed in posts like this; you can pursue the American Dream with nothing other than protection from force-- everything government does beyond that just gets in the way.
Hell, even if you take a police force and military into account, government isn't a partner, that's the completely wrong word; "government" in a free society (as in, not in today's America) is simply the name applied to the actions of people organizing their own military and police force. The word "partner" only makes sense if you're a statist and view government as being separate from the people (which is indeed the case in America today, but wouldn't be the case in a free, voluntary society).
Razorfist video game crash commentary - 12:04 CDT, 5/05/13 (Sniper)
Thoroughly enjoyed this commentary, he brings up a lot of good points.
History of America in a nutshell - 11:15 CDT, 5/05/13 (Sniper)
When: 18th and 19th centuries
Where: America
Philosophies followed: Those of Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand
Outcome: America went from being a fledgling newcomer to one of the world's great economic powerhouses. During this period the country saw the greatest prosperity the world has ever seen. Entire cities and sprawling industrial complexes sprung up where there was nothing before, and innovation reached an all-time high, with the inventions of the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, the radio, the photograph, the electromagnet, the typewriter, the sewing machine, fiber optics, the elevator, the telephone, contact lenses, and the steam engine, among many others. As a result of this prosperity, brought about by individual liberty, small government, low taxes, low regulation, and an emphasis on rational self-interest, the plight of the common man was raised to previously unimaginable heights.
When: 20th and 21st centuries
Where: America
Philosophies followed: Those of John Maynard Keynes, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stiglitz, Saul Alinsky
Outcome: Industrial complexes built during the 19th century and so strong entering the 20th century end the 20th century crumbling and in terminal decline, crushed under the weight of "social safety net" and hyper-regulatory policies instituted by political actors with collectivist agendas. America, under the easy fiat money and manipulated interest rates of central banks, accumulated debt many times its GDP, leading to the two greatest economic calamities in the country's history-- one in 1929, and one in 2008. As once great cities like Detroit are left in ruin, America is seen bickering and arguing about what went wrong. Few are open-minded enough to look at the core, underlying philosophies that had worked, and those that had failed.
Where: America
Philosophies followed: Those of Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand
Outcome: America went from being a fledgling newcomer to one of the world's great economic powerhouses. During this period the country saw the greatest prosperity the world has ever seen. Entire cities and sprawling industrial complexes sprung up where there was nothing before, and innovation reached an all-time high, with the inventions of the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, the radio, the photograph, the electromagnet, the typewriter, the sewing machine, fiber optics, the elevator, the telephone, contact lenses, and the steam engine, among many others. As a result of this prosperity, brought about by individual liberty, small government, low taxes, low regulation, and an emphasis on rational self-interest, the plight of the common man was raised to previously unimaginable heights.
When: 20th and 21st centuries
Where: America
Philosophies followed: Those of John Maynard Keynes, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stiglitz, Saul Alinsky
Outcome: Industrial complexes built during the 19th century and so strong entering the 20th century end the 20th century crumbling and in terminal decline, crushed under the weight of "social safety net" and hyper-regulatory policies instituted by political actors with collectivist agendas. America, under the easy fiat money and manipulated interest rates of central banks, accumulated debt many times its GDP, leading to the two greatest economic calamities in the country's history-- one in 1929, and one in 2008. As once great cities like Detroit are left in ruin, America is seen bickering and arguing about what went wrong. Few are open-minded enough to look at the core, underlying philosophies that had worked, and those that had failed.
Minnesota United draw, Lazio win - 10:20 CDT, 5/05/13 (Sniper)
Last night, Minnesota United saw 89.5 minutes of hard work and super class undone by .5 minutes of total lapses in concentration, as they fell asleep on two set pieces and wound up conceding two goals to Carolina. Wound up a draw in an exciting fixture.
Lazio just wrapped up a 6-0 win over Bologna, with Klose hitting five goals in the match. In all of my years watching Lazio, I don't think I've ever seen us score 6 goals in a game, and in all of my years of watching football, I have never seen or even heard of a player scoring 5 in a single fixture. As for Bologna... they're a quality side, but I think their manager got the tactics totally wrong-- Petkovic caught him completely unawares with the switch to a 4-4-2. That said, our season is still over and pointless unless we can somehow win the Coppa final.
Lazio just wrapped up a 6-0 win over Bologna, with Klose hitting five goals in the match. In all of my years watching Lazio, I don't think I've ever seen us score 6 goals in a game, and in all of my years of watching football, I have never seen or even heard of a player scoring 5 in a single fixture. As for Bologna... they're a quality side, but I think their manager got the tactics totally wrong-- Petkovic caught him completely unawares with the switch to a 4-4-2. That said, our season is still over and pointless unless we can somehow win the Coppa final.
Head into wall over and over - 15:46 CDT, 5/03/13 (Sniper)
Why in the hell does Piers Morgan keep inviting Ben Shapiro onto his show? He reminds me of Sagat from the Street Fighter universe after he keeps getting his ass kicked by Ryu: "I'll get Shapiro one of these days, I swear it!!" as he nurses the big scar on his chest from their gun control debate.
An analogy - 15:30 CDT, 5/03/13 (Sniper)
I thought of a great analogy to help explain my dual concepts of "natural" and "money" economies that I laid out here.
Let's say you've got standing in front of you an expert in the internal combustion engine. You drive a car up to him and ask him if he can service it. "Yup, I'm pretty optimistic I can!" he responds with a nod. "Ok then", you reply with a smile, "take a look above you." As he lifts his eyes to the air, the cigarette drops out of his mouth as he takes in the sight: a Borg cube hovering not three hundred yards above. "Can you service that?" you ask.
Classical economics is a comprehension of the internal combustion engine. We know how those work with great confidence, and we know what will happen if we tinker with its various pieces. But our economy today is a Borg cube. Not only is our comprehension of classical economics of limited application, but not a human on Earth understands even a small fraction of today's economic complexities.
My prescription of course is to unravel the thing until we're back to having an internal combustion engine before we accidentally blow up this Borg cube. That means a government that does just the small number of things necessary, returning to relatively unhampered markets, and regulatory and tax codes that are short and sweet.
Let's say you've got standing in front of you an expert in the internal combustion engine. You drive a car up to him and ask him if he can service it. "Yup, I'm pretty optimistic I can!" he responds with a nod. "Ok then", you reply with a smile, "take a look above you." As he lifts his eyes to the air, the cigarette drops out of his mouth as he takes in the sight: a Borg cube hovering not three hundred yards above. "Can you service that?" you ask.
Classical economics is a comprehension of the internal combustion engine. We know how those work with great confidence, and we know what will happen if we tinker with its various pieces. But our economy today is a Borg cube. Not only is our comprehension of classical economics of limited application, but not a human on Earth understands even a small fraction of today's economic complexities.
My prescription of course is to unravel the thing until we're back to having an internal combustion engine before we accidentally blow up this Borg cube. That means a government that does just the small number of things necessary, returning to relatively unhampered markets, and regulatory and tax codes that are short and sweet.
Nutritional information and the role of government - 17:46 CDT, 5/02/13 (Sniper)
A friend of mine mentioned to me today that they are in favor of regulations that force restaurants to display the nutritional info for all of their menu items. I was mulling that topic over on the way home, and like I did regarding an "assault weapons" ban decided to write a post articulating my views.
As opposed to my friend I am against such regulations, and for a handful of reasons. Here are a few of those:
Such regulations misallocate capital in our economy
On the first point, let me provide a very real scenario that plays out every day all across the world. There is a restaurant owner, let's call him Joe. He operates Joe's Bar and Grill, which he founded fifteen years ago and has been expanding through investment. On average, he has a thousand dollars per month in profit-- capital-- which he spends to grow his business.
What might he spend that capital on? Well, a nearby competitor introduced some new menu items that he knows are doing quite well-- so one month he invests in new ingredients to experiment with some new items of his own. Another month, he invests in some new knives, so he can more efficiently cut the onions that are in so many of his dishes. Another month he expands his seating area because business has been so brisk. Another month he hires a bus boy to keep the new tables clean. He's had a number of people calling in asking about wheel chair access, so he saves six month's worth of profits and installs wheelchair access to his restaurant.
What do Joe's customers not value? Well, not one person has asked Joe to print nutritional information for his meals. And so he hasn't ever invested the capital in doing so-- it's not worth it because his customers don't care about it as compared to other priorities.
At each juncture, the one person in the entire world who knows best about what to invest into Joe's Bar and Grill is Joe. He's the one most vested in making his customers happy. He's the one with his own monetary and psychic capital on the line. He's the one dealing with and talking to his patrons day in and day out. He's the one that best knows the local status of his community and competitors. Joe is, by a mile, the one who is most able to make decisions regarding his restaurant. And the allocation of capital, by Joe and into his own business, is going to be the most efficient when made by him.
Now, let's say we pass a regulation requiring Joe to create new menus with nutritional information every time he changes a recipe, creates a new entree, or switches sourcing for an ingredient, such as his bread. Let's say these costs come up to 300 dollars per month.
Instead of expanding his menu to stay competitive, Joe has to spend that capital-- both dollars and time-- filling out government paperwork, getting all of his food tested and retested for caloric contents, and maintaining and printing new menus. His competitors, who have entrees that change less frequently, or who are much larger (McDonald's) and can take the hit more easily, get ahead, and Joe's business suffers. Rather than expanding his seating over three months, between the regulatory costs and his now slowed business, it takes him a whole year to expand. And because it took him so long to expand his seating, rather than building that wheel chair access, he eschews the idea altogether. Rather than Joe-- the person closest to, most vested in, and most knowledgeable about-- deciding how to allocate his finite profit, a bureaucrat has decided for him. And the capital is hence wasted on something that Joe's customers, frankly, don't care about-- otherwise he'd have already printed the nutritional info on his own.
Joe is a small restaurant owner. But the same example applies to restaurants managed by large corporations. They are coerced, forcefully, to expend capital towards things they wouldn't normally have. This malinvestment has a very real, serious cost to our economy.
During Obama's first term, 11,700 new pages of regulation were added to the books, pushing the capital cost of compliance across the economy to 1.7 trillion dollars. As you can see in the case of Joe's Bar and Grill, that's 1.7 trillion dollars that was malinvested into either partly or wholly unproductive uses. That means fewer businesses, less profitable investment, and fewer jobs. What's more, every last one of those 11,700 pages came about in "nickle-and-dime" fashion via well-meaning laws just like this "nutritional info" regulation. Slippery slope indeed.
Laws like these always have contrary unintended consequences
After the recent school shooting in Connecticut, Obama and his Democrat allies started pushing for additional gun control. Simultaneously, gun and ammo purchases skyrocketed, with firearm stores and vendors seeing business the likes of which they'd never seen before, and manufacturers totally unable to keep up with the flood of demand.
Ultimately, the Democrats utterly failed in their quest to pass even a single sentence of additional regulation at the Federal level. But even with just the talk of new laws, their crusade ended in the exact opposite of what they'd intended; indeed, their purported goal was to have "fewer guns on the streets"-- and instead they wound up with record numbers of guns on the streets.
You could go through practically every law ever created by a politician and find the same story of unintended consequences. No human being is omniscient enough to know what the outcome of coercive laws, enforced at the point of fines or imprisonment, will actually be when put into motion. Therefore, the number of laws passed should be as few as possible-- it's better to leave well enough alone, and let local communities and individuals solve their problems.
The same logic applies to forcing local restaurants to print nutritional info. Who knows what kinds of strange and detrimental, totally unforeseen consequences would stem from such a law?
You don't need to coerce people to act in their own self-interests-- they do that automatically
This one is self-explanatory. I don't necessarily agree with, but can at least understand the reasoning behind, laws that prevent people from not acting in other people's interests. For instance, a business owner might have a smoke-belching factory that's poisoning the populace, even if he happens to live in another city and isn't necessarily impacted negatively by the pollution.
But if the pollution is poisoning his own products and, thus, customers, there is absolutely zero point in passing regulation forcing him to fix his products-- he'll do that all on his own!
In general, there is no purpose to inhibiting the freedom of everyone to coerce people to act in their own self-interest. The entire concept makes no sense.
Every law inhibits our freedom-- the trade-off simply isn't worth it in this case
As I wrote about here, every law we pass is, by definition, a reduction in our freedom. Liberty should be the one thing that we hold most dear, and sacrifice only when the probable gains far outweigh the loss of freedom.
In this case, I simply do not see-- as I explained with the previous points-- the gains worth having a bureaucrat tell every single person in the entire country who happens to own a restaurant what they can and cannot invest their profits-- earned by their own hands, hard labor, and entrepreneurial foresight-- in.
In fact, not only can I not see that the gains outweigh the costs, but I can't see any gains at all; rather, I think the institution of such laws would be an absolute net loss to society, on top of the reduction in freedom!
As opposed to my friend I am against such regulations, and for a handful of reasons. Here are a few of those:
- Such regulations misallocate capital in our economy
- Laws like these always have contrary unintended consequences
- You don't need to coerce people to act in their own self-interests-- they do that automatically
- Every law inhibits our freedom-- the trade-off simply isn't worth it in this case
Such regulations misallocate capital in our economy
On the first point, let me provide a very real scenario that plays out every day all across the world. There is a restaurant owner, let's call him Joe. He operates Joe's Bar and Grill, which he founded fifteen years ago and has been expanding through investment. On average, he has a thousand dollars per month in profit-- capital-- which he spends to grow his business.
What might he spend that capital on? Well, a nearby competitor introduced some new menu items that he knows are doing quite well-- so one month he invests in new ingredients to experiment with some new items of his own. Another month, he invests in some new knives, so he can more efficiently cut the onions that are in so many of his dishes. Another month he expands his seating area because business has been so brisk. Another month he hires a bus boy to keep the new tables clean. He's had a number of people calling in asking about wheel chair access, so he saves six month's worth of profits and installs wheelchair access to his restaurant.
What do Joe's customers not value? Well, not one person has asked Joe to print nutritional information for his meals. And so he hasn't ever invested the capital in doing so-- it's not worth it because his customers don't care about it as compared to other priorities.
At each juncture, the one person in the entire world who knows best about what to invest into Joe's Bar and Grill is Joe. He's the one most vested in making his customers happy. He's the one with his own monetary and psychic capital on the line. He's the one dealing with and talking to his patrons day in and day out. He's the one that best knows the local status of his community and competitors. Joe is, by a mile, the one who is most able to make decisions regarding his restaurant. And the allocation of capital, by Joe and into his own business, is going to be the most efficient when made by him.
Now, let's say we pass a regulation requiring Joe to create new menus with nutritional information every time he changes a recipe, creates a new entree, or switches sourcing for an ingredient, such as his bread. Let's say these costs come up to 300 dollars per month.
Instead of expanding his menu to stay competitive, Joe has to spend that capital-- both dollars and time-- filling out government paperwork, getting all of his food tested and retested for caloric contents, and maintaining and printing new menus. His competitors, who have entrees that change less frequently, or who are much larger (McDonald's) and can take the hit more easily, get ahead, and Joe's business suffers. Rather than expanding his seating over three months, between the regulatory costs and his now slowed business, it takes him a whole year to expand. And because it took him so long to expand his seating, rather than building that wheel chair access, he eschews the idea altogether. Rather than Joe-- the person closest to, most vested in, and most knowledgeable about-- deciding how to allocate his finite profit, a bureaucrat has decided for him. And the capital is hence wasted on something that Joe's customers, frankly, don't care about-- otherwise he'd have already printed the nutritional info on his own.
Joe is a small restaurant owner. But the same example applies to restaurants managed by large corporations. They are coerced, forcefully, to expend capital towards things they wouldn't normally have. This malinvestment has a very real, serious cost to our economy.
During Obama's first term, 11,700 new pages of regulation were added to the books, pushing the capital cost of compliance across the economy to 1.7 trillion dollars. As you can see in the case of Joe's Bar and Grill, that's 1.7 trillion dollars that was malinvested into either partly or wholly unproductive uses. That means fewer businesses, less profitable investment, and fewer jobs. What's more, every last one of those 11,700 pages came about in "nickle-and-dime" fashion via well-meaning laws just like this "nutritional info" regulation. Slippery slope indeed.
Laws like these always have contrary unintended consequences
After the recent school shooting in Connecticut, Obama and his Democrat allies started pushing for additional gun control. Simultaneously, gun and ammo purchases skyrocketed, with firearm stores and vendors seeing business the likes of which they'd never seen before, and manufacturers totally unable to keep up with the flood of demand.
Ultimately, the Democrats utterly failed in their quest to pass even a single sentence of additional regulation at the Federal level. But even with just the talk of new laws, their crusade ended in the exact opposite of what they'd intended; indeed, their purported goal was to have "fewer guns on the streets"-- and instead they wound up with record numbers of guns on the streets.
You could go through practically every law ever created by a politician and find the same story of unintended consequences. No human being is omniscient enough to know what the outcome of coercive laws, enforced at the point of fines or imprisonment, will actually be when put into motion. Therefore, the number of laws passed should be as few as possible-- it's better to leave well enough alone, and let local communities and individuals solve their problems.
The same logic applies to forcing local restaurants to print nutritional info. Who knows what kinds of strange and detrimental, totally unforeseen consequences would stem from such a law?
You don't need to coerce people to act in their own self-interests-- they do that automatically
This one is self-explanatory. I don't necessarily agree with, but can at least understand the reasoning behind, laws that prevent people from not acting in other people's interests. For instance, a business owner might have a smoke-belching factory that's poisoning the populace, even if he happens to live in another city and isn't necessarily impacted negatively by the pollution.
But if the pollution is poisoning his own products and, thus, customers, there is absolutely zero point in passing regulation forcing him to fix his products-- he'll do that all on his own!
In general, there is no purpose to inhibiting the freedom of everyone to coerce people to act in their own self-interest. The entire concept makes no sense.
Every law inhibits our freedom-- the trade-off simply isn't worth it in this case
As I wrote about here, every law we pass is, by definition, a reduction in our freedom. Liberty should be the one thing that we hold most dear, and sacrifice only when the probable gains far outweigh the loss of freedom.
In this case, I simply do not see-- as I explained with the previous points-- the gains worth having a bureaucrat tell every single person in the entire country who happens to own a restaurant what they can and cannot invest their profits-- earned by their own hands, hard labor, and entrepreneurial foresight-- in.
In fact, not only can I not see that the gains outweigh the costs, but I can't see any gains at all; rather, I think the institution of such laws would be an absolute net loss to society, on top of the reduction in freedom!
Another comment - 18:09 CDT, 5/01/13 (Sniper)
One other thing I forgot to mention about Schiff's guest: he made a comment something like, "wait, savings rate has nothing to do with production!"
That's an absurd statement: production is a direct reflection of investment. I don't think he would dispute that point because it was an argument he was trying to make repeatedly: "we're more efficient because we've invested in productivity improvements." And investment is simply consumption foregone-- in other words, savings.
That he was wrong isn't what's interesting though. What's interesting is that the statement was a betrayal of how I'd be willing to bet he's formulating his conclusions almost exclusively: through empiricism.
How else could you come to such a goofy conclusion that savings rate isn't related to production if not by comparing charts from a couple of "studies" written by partisan hacks-- whether closet or otherwise-- that fudge data by failing to account for thousands of variables? I can just see him squinting at two graphs by the phosphorescent light of his computer monitor-- one of savings rate and one of production-- and concluding that there is no correlation.
Of course, what he's not grasping is that even if the studies weren't fudged-- which is unlikely-- having savings isn't the only prerequisite for production. If you're regulating the holy hell out of everybody, just to name one example out of a hundred, you can have all the savings you want and you're not going to get production.
As I've said many times before, I think the only road to economic understanding is through logical deduction. If you simply obey the fundamental laws you'll have the highest possible probability of being well off and avoiding the kinds of economic cataclysms that are currently befalling us (because we weren't following the fundamentals).
That's an absurd statement: production is a direct reflection of investment. I don't think he would dispute that point because it was an argument he was trying to make repeatedly: "we're more efficient because we've invested in productivity improvements." And investment is simply consumption foregone-- in other words, savings.
That he was wrong isn't what's interesting though. What's interesting is that the statement was a betrayal of how I'd be willing to bet he's formulating his conclusions almost exclusively: through empiricism.
How else could you come to such a goofy conclusion that savings rate isn't related to production if not by comparing charts from a couple of "studies" written by partisan hacks-- whether closet or otherwise-- that fudge data by failing to account for thousands of variables? I can just see him squinting at two graphs by the phosphorescent light of his computer monitor-- one of savings rate and one of production-- and concluding that there is no correlation.
Of course, what he's not grasping is that even if the studies weren't fudged-- which is unlikely-- having savings isn't the only prerequisite for production. If you're regulating the holy hell out of everybody, just to name one example out of a hundred, you can have all the savings you want and you're not going to get production.
As I've said many times before, I think the only road to economic understanding is through logical deduction. If you simply obey the fundamental laws you'll have the highest possible probability of being well off and avoiding the kinds of economic cataclysms that are currently befalling us (because we weren't following the fundamentals).
Cruz and Schiff - 17:23 CDT, 5/01/13 (Sniper)
Conservatives have to be careful-- as much as I like Ted Cruz, he's a bit like the right's Obama at this point; not much experience, not much of a resume, engenders hatred in his opponents and euphoria in his supporters... the only difference is that he won't promise to lower the oceans. Cruz Missile ready for President? As much as I like the guy, I have to say-- probably not. Maybe in 2020 or 2024, if the country still exists by then.
In other news, Schiff had one of his usual "get someone who completely disagrees with me" guests on his show today, and like every economics-related "debate" I've ever seen or heard on television or radio, it just wound up with both sides throwing anecdotes that their opponent can't discount on the spot. But that's not why I bring it up: I mention it because one of the things Schiff posed that his guest couldn't explain is why England is struggling despite increasing government spending and engaging in lots of stimulus. His guest described England's economy as "a mystery."
I have an explanation though that I think is plausible: in England, huge portions of their economy is consumed by government. For instance, I remember reading that in some northern parts of their country 70% of their "workforce" is employed in the public sector.
Even setting aside for a moment the negative aspects of inflation, every dollar that government consumes is allocated towards some alternate use than the one it would have normally been. For instance, rather than staying in someone's pockets where they could spent it in the way that maximizes their utility, or invested it in something to improve their or someone else's production towards the sectors that warrant the investment, it gets diverted to something that a bureaucrat thought was more important.
It just gets back to that age old debate about who is better at allocating finite resources: individuals acting in their own best interest, or a government central planner.
Back to England, if you've got 70% of the labor force plus all of the capital required to pay their wages tied up in the latter-- government central planning endeavors-- then that means that 70% of the labor force and all of that capital is being malinvested. And therein lies England's problem: not all investment is equal, and huge portions of their economy is being diverted by their bureaucracy away from the entrepreneurs and investors that could make better use of those resources.
In other news, Schiff had one of his usual "get someone who completely disagrees with me" guests on his show today, and like every economics-related "debate" I've ever seen or heard on television or radio, it just wound up with both sides throwing anecdotes that their opponent can't discount on the spot. But that's not why I bring it up: I mention it because one of the things Schiff posed that his guest couldn't explain is why England is struggling despite increasing government spending and engaging in lots of stimulus. His guest described England's economy as "a mystery."
I have an explanation though that I think is plausible: in England, huge portions of their economy is consumed by government. For instance, I remember reading that in some northern parts of their country 70% of their "workforce" is employed in the public sector.
Even setting aside for a moment the negative aspects of inflation, every dollar that government consumes is allocated towards some alternate use than the one it would have normally been. For instance, rather than staying in someone's pockets where they could spent it in the way that maximizes their utility, or invested it in something to improve their or someone else's production towards the sectors that warrant the investment, it gets diverted to something that a bureaucrat thought was more important.
It just gets back to that age old debate about who is better at allocating finite resources: individuals acting in their own best interest, or a government central planner.
Back to England, if you've got 70% of the labor force plus all of the capital required to pay their wages tied up in the latter-- government central planning endeavors-- then that means that 70% of the labor force and all of that capital is being malinvested. And therein lies England's problem: not all investment is equal, and huge portions of their economy is being diverted by their bureaucracy away from the entrepreneurs and investors that could make better use of those resources.
Most Americans want Obamacare repealed - 07:30 CDT, 5/01/13 (Sniper)
They never break out the libertarian opinions in these types of polls, but I bet the margin is something like 99-1 repeal. You can obviously count me in the "repeal" crowd; I predicted that it would be a total disaster, and sure enough premiums are sky-rocketing, States are ignoring or nullifying as much of it as they are able, and the bureaucrats in Washington are unable to manage such a large project.
Atlanta 2 Minnesota United 3 - 20:39 CDT, 4/27/13 (Sniper)
I can't believe the level of quality in this Minnesota United side... even when we fell behind not once, but twice, I got the sense that there was never any real doubt that we'd take at least a point from the game, if not the full spoils.
Bracalello has really turned the corner with his maturity, which has caught up to the rest of him-- he's been our best player this season so far, followed very closely by Pitchkolan. The latter, paired with the wonderful Michael Reed, has formed the best central midfield tandem I've seen in a Minnesota side, by a mile. Even the attacking third seems to be coming into a rhythm.
In any event, top of the table we go, and I think we're going to stay there throughout the rest of this Apertura.
Bracalello has really turned the corner with his maturity, which has caught up to the rest of him-- he's been our best player this season so far, followed very closely by Pitchkolan. The latter, paired with the wonderful Michael Reed, has formed the best central midfield tandem I've seen in a Minnesota side, by a mile. Even the attacking third seems to be coming into a rhythm.
In any event, top of the table we go, and I think we're going to stay there throughout the rest of this Apertura.
Gassy Girl 1.3.1 - 18:01 CDT, 4/27/13 (Sniper)
Not exactly austere, in graph form - 16:58 CDT, 4/27/13 (Sniper)
Thanks for proving me right - 08:39 CDT, 4/27/13 (Sniper)
Remember back when I wrote about Eric Schmidt being a typical statist hypocrite with regards to his inane rant about civilian drone usage? Well, it only took him two weeks to prove me right. From his Harvard appearance this week, talking about Google Glass:
"We're acutely aware of those questions... so we want to be very careful that this new invention is not misused. But I'm always concerned about premature regulation based on fear, as opposed to understanding what's possible."
So it's ok to ignore individual liberty, blunt potentially revolutionary innovation, and have premature regulation based on fear when it comes to some other industry. But when it comes to his own industry, we get a little different tune from this guy. What a surprise!
"We're acutely aware of those questions... so we want to be very careful that this new invention is not misused. But I'm always concerned about premature regulation based on fear, as opposed to understanding what's possible."
So it's ok to ignore individual liberty, blunt potentially revolutionary innovation, and have premature regulation based on fear when it comes to some other industry. But when it comes to his own industry, we get a little different tune from this guy. What a surprise!
Ron Paul interview - 16:01 CDT, 4/26/13 (Sniper)
Perfect example of why I like Ron Paul so much-- what a great interview. Pretty much everything he says-- in general, but specifically in this interview-- just makes so much sense to me, we view the world in very much the same light.
Comedy of errors - 15:13 CDT, 4/26/13 (Sniper)
How is this any different than the China/America relationship? The Chinese own our asses. My favorite specific example of this was that goofy battery company that Obama and his liberal pals were funding via crony capitalism.
The company was only diverted capital-- meaning, it only existed-- in the first place because of the government subsidies. Government gaffe number one. Then, even with the subsidies the company wound up going bankrupt, swallowed whole by the bloated, defecating, hyper-regulated, debt-saturated, sinking monstrosity that is the US economy. Government gaffe number two.
But lo, then came a savior, a buyer on the horizon! Who is it? I can squint my eyes into the sun as they approach! They're getting closer, I can see their faces now! They're... Chinese. And they're here to buy the company with all of the USD that the Fed has been printing, and which they'd been hoarding as Americans maintained their standard of living on all of the goods the Chinese had been providing them all of these years (remember that massive trade deficit?). Government gaffe number three.
So what's Obama's reaction? An attempt to block the sale by government fiat so the Chinese don't get our trade secrets. The entire sequence was one big comedy of government errors.
The company was only diverted capital-- meaning, it only existed-- in the first place because of the government subsidies. Government gaffe number one. Then, even with the subsidies the company wound up going bankrupt, swallowed whole by the bloated, defecating, hyper-regulated, debt-saturated, sinking monstrosity that is the US economy. Government gaffe number two.
But lo, then came a savior, a buyer on the horizon! Who is it? I can squint my eyes into the sun as they approach! They're getting closer, I can see their faces now! They're... Chinese. And they're here to buy the company with all of the USD that the Fed has been printing, and which they'd been hoarding as Americans maintained their standard of living on all of the goods the Chinese had been providing them all of these years (remember that massive trade deficit?). Government gaffe number three.
So what's Obama's reaction? An attempt to block the sale by government fiat so the Chinese don't get our trade secrets. The entire sequence was one big comedy of government errors.