Friday, July 16, 2010

"Don't Blame You, Don't Blame Me, Blame that man behind the tree"

"By the year 2012, projected outlays for entitlements and interest on the national debt will consume all tax revenues collected by the federal government … There will not be one cent left over for education, children's programs, highways, national defense, or any other discretionary program." – Bipartisan U.S. Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform

OK, so its "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree". I like my version better.


Wall Street and Government sucked Americans into debt? BULL SH*T!! Where is the concept of personal responsibility? If ANYTHING or ANYONE is guilty... it was Television, Hollywood Movies, and MTV that sucked Americans into debt. (Why is it that the tie-dye and sneaker set do not begrudge Paul McCartney or Mick Jagger their Billions yet they absolutely freaking despise some small business man that broke his b*alls to become a Middle Class Millionaire?) We have been so manipulated by advertising and messaging that we need to be "cool", we need to drive a car like James Bond (in order to get the "Bond Girl"), we need to dress like the movie stars do, and we need to live in a castle. Well, if these are your needs, and you don't have the income to support them, you will go into debt to support those "needs".

The other problem is, no matter how much money you make you can blow it all and wind up in debt. Look at Mike Tyson, M.C. Hammer, Nicolas Cage and many, many other rich and famous that went broke (and these folks weren't your run of the mill high earning professional... nope, they spent hundreds of millions on some really silly stuff.) If you accept the premise that any fortune can be squandered then by definition you must accept the premise of personal responsibility.

But when was the last time you saw an article saying "Americans squandered their incomes on senseless materialism", or "Americans are risking their lives and the well being of their families by overeating"? NAFC. What you do hear is that "Wall Street and the Government sucked Americans into debt", and "The processed food and fast food corporation sucked the American people into being obese".

No wonder people are so freaking angry! We are all VICTIMS! "Those scum-bag corporations did this to me!"... "Wall Street (the Devil) made me do it!"

WTF??!!


Americans are watching more television than ever before, both through conventional TV sets and on the web, as the range of channels continues to expand, the screens get bigger and the quality of the picture increases as new hi-definition and 3D technologies arrest and shorten attention spans to a greater and greater degree.

Americans are now a nation of spectators, watching a shocking average of nearly 5 hours of TV a day, up 20% from just 10 years ago.

Hooked in to this matrix medium that tells them how to behave, what to care about, and how to treat people who deviate from this spoon-fed consensus, people are literally being programmed into accepting a contrived false reality that bears little or no resemblance to what is actually taking place in the real world. This is why the assembly line of zombies being manufactured by this process will roll their eyes when warned about real issues that affect them – the crumbling economy, unemployment, the BP oil spill – yet will become visibly upset when an event that has no bearing on their existence whatsoever, like where LeBron James throws a basketball around, takes place.

We are literally being trained like dogs to react to meaningless stimuli while burying our heads in the sand in reaction to issues of real significance. This behavior training encompasses an entire outlook, an entire lifestyle that people have adopted to the point where their moral compass, they way they dress, the way they speak, what they eat, what drugs they take, the way they respond to events and how they treat other people is solely a construct of the babylon system to which they are addicted.

The fact that this matrix system constantly promotes damaging and destructive messages is why people are fat, unhealthy, unhappy, addicted to drugs, and unsuccessful in maintaining relationships. They are a product of their brainwashing. Downloading viruses from an infected culture on a daily basis, people’s hard drives – their brains – are corrupted, lethargic, and barely able to function. This is why people seek out destructive pursuits that do nothing to benefit their long-term personal interests. This is why people no longer talk to their neighbors or get involved in their communities. This is why people care more about LeBron James than their own country collapsing around them – because that’s the content of the programming they have downloaded.
Think about our last presidential election. We elected a young man with no business experience, no economic background, no financial experience, and little political experience because he was half black, supported abortion rights, looked good standing at a podium and could read a teleprompter (I referred to this in previous posts as the MTVization of politics).

In addition to Goldman Sachs and the USDA I am now going to add T.V. to my "Anti-Christ" list.

Given all of the above and the myriad data I have posted on in the past there is absolutely NO reason to believe that a macro, society wide solution proffered by the government will come about. This is like climbing Mt. Everest - you are on your own.

And that's how it should be.






35 comments:

bureaucrat said...

We elected Obama to do three things, which he has not done: we did not vote for him to expand the wars, bail out all the wealthy people, and give us this complex mess of a health care "fix." We asked for simple things. He apparently is listing to others now. Jimmy Carter he shall be, if necessary.

Dan said...

Jimmy Carter didn’t go to war and he had a genuine provocation.

Anonymous said...

whatever happened to the energy crisis blogspot? There used to be some valuable information about oil and natural gas prices here, now this has turned into a senseless anti-government, anti-abortion rant by another poorly educated insecure redneck who wants to blame the government for his problems.

Anonymous said...

And by the way, don't worry - once the Chinese take over the world the abortion issue will be a non issue. Their one child per couple will go from being a Chinese policy to a global policy. Be careful what you wish for it may be here sooner rather than later

bureaucrat said...

I agree! Where's the energy commenting! :)

John said...

It is so simple to solve all our problems. Abolish fractional reserve banking, re-institute the gold standard, abolish income and property taxes, reinstitute a national sales tax, and slow immigration down to a hundred thousand a year. By slowing immigration, one could stop the liberal voting block. A national sales tax is the only moral tax on a free man. Income and property taxes are both unconstitional and immoral. Re-instituting the Gold standard halts inflation(another hidden tax liberals love). Abolishing fractional reserve banking also thwarts inflationists. Encourage self reliance, and rugged individualism. Accept responsibility for your own life. Try to become 90% self reliant and 10% dependent on others. It really is that simple.

Dextred1 said...

John,

Beautiful

Bur and anon,

It is obvious that all of the different things that are brought up in this blog are relevant to the situation. Let's say the dollar was 50% stronger, would that not change how peak oil would affect the U.S. Or if the dollar was 50% weaker which would increase the price of oil. The world is one large system with billions of inputs. The geology, geopolitical, financial, business and other aspects all help you understand the conundrum. Plus peak oil is only fun to talk about if you examine the outcomes of what will happen. Since 2005-2007 period most of us have come to the conclusion that we have now reached the sea-saw stage of Peak oil. We will vacillate back and forth, but this means nothing unless we understand the consequences of Issue. Just my two cents!!

Dextred1 said...

So I got a question Jeffers,

If china exercised the nuclear option on treasuries would it really hurt us? I say this because if they sold treasuries they would be left with dollars to buy commodities, manufactured goods etc. But would this not mean that since our money is generally not convertible into local currencies the nations which received the money would then have to plow the money back into treasuries. We are the only market on earth large and liquid enough to absorb this money anyways which forces them to bring it here. Like to her your thoughts on this.

The only other option is that like inflation the first spender gets the most benefit and as such China would have a hard time trading dollars for goods if other nations if they were already weary of dollar trouble (dollar trouble implied if China wants to dump treasuries). If china sold why would anyone step in to mop up the flow of dollars? The more I think about the situation it arises to me that maybe china has no strength in the situation. They are either left with worthless treasuries or worthless devalued greenbacks. Would this not also make the Yuan explode upwards, causing there trade surplus to go negative.

oOOo said...

Yea, well said man. I haven't watched TV at all for the last 7 years. Boring as hell most the time, too many ads, complete nonsense on anyway. Joe Badgeant is always on about the media hologram, nice stuff to read if you dont know it.

In america they do (or did) make it VERY easy to get in debt. Over here in Europe, your Credit card balance is taken automatically once a month from you main bank account.

When I lived in the states I bought a car once, and it was sooo hard to find out the cost of the car. All they wanted to tell me was how much it cost per month. Nothing else seemed important to them, and they were really surprised when I kept trying to find out the full price, and were extremely reluctant to tell me.

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Dear Anon @ 6:26:

You said:

"rant by another poorly educated insecure redneck who wants to blame the government for his problems."

I must take offense to that. You see, I am self educated white trash from a factory town just north of NYC... there is a subtle difference between southern red-neck white trash and norther industrial working class white trash.

When addressing my background In the future please check back here for your reference point.

Oh, and one other point... I should have said "working class, self educated white trash, grew up next to the Greenburg projects, and self made multi millionaire".

Has a better ring to it, don't ya think?

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Dex:

I do not believe China has ANY strength in this situation. Further, I think that the Chinese, like us, are just kicking the can down the road because the endgame is so untenable.

But you asked a much more complicated question, and one that I will tackle in a post in the very near future.

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

On energy:

There is nothing to report. The U.S. continues to import less and less crude Oil. The rate of change has remained within range (.7% per month) for the past several years. When that changes, I'll let you know.

Donal Lang said...

American real per-capita income has been dropping since 1993, and its worse than that if you're below the median; the rich are getting richer so the poor get poorer even faster.

90% of people are sheep, and the sheep will keep on eating and doing what all the other sheep do right through the slaughterhouse door.

Sometimes there has to be a crisis to change things, like the collapses of every other nation or state. The real surprise is how short a time Americn hegemony has lasted - just 60 years since WW2 and 20 since the collapse of communism! I wonder whether history will judge that the US squandered their opportunity for greatness, opting instead for a mess of consumer pottage?

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Donal!

Good to hear from you... but I must say that the idea that the poor have to get poorer because the rich get richer is absurd... and you know that, so I am not sure where you were going with that... please clarify.

Financial asset creation in a MONETARY inflationary environment seems to concentrate those assets in fewer hands, or at least it did so in this last go around. For better or worse, I expect that the West is and will continue to go through monetary deflation for some time... and by mathematical necessity the rich will get poorer, faster, than the poor.

Should the government do anything about these phenomena? Not in my view. Life is not fair, and every attempt by any government to make it so has not worked anywhere near as planned.

In addition to monetary deflation, peak oil will be an incredible leveler, if you will, in the West.

bureaucrat said...

Naw, Donal is more or less right. The gulf between rich and poor hasn't been this wide since the 1920s. I'm not ready to say this was some kind of conspiracy to move wealth up the ladder and gut the middle class, and have an American nation of 80% debt serfs, but that has been the end result. We overpromised benefits, we let the rich fool us into thinking a tax cut for them was a tax cut for everybody, we allowed our industrial capacity to China, and we wonder why three Chicago cops have been killed in two months (guys without jobs are dangerous).

We know where the money is, and until we gel around the idea of why Obama was elected (including Obama figuring out why he was elected as well), our "American Greatness" will be short and wasted. It is hurtful to see where my country is heading.

And then there is the OIL! :)

bureaucrat said...

And if there is nothing to report in the energy news, pick an alternative vehicle fuel (ethanol, hydrogen, natural gas, electric, etc.), or an oil-producing nation (K of Saudi Arabis, Venezuela, Mexico, etc.), and "teach" us why peak oil may indeed occur. There is LOTS of information on this topic (my own notes are 50 pages long) ... but if "goat meat for dinner" is the topic du jour ;) ...

Dan said...

“the idea that the poor have to get poorer because the rich get richer is absurd” that only held until we ran into energy constraints. Now, the energy is contracting so the pie must contract as well; it’s a negative sum game until we reach some sustainable level. If anyone gains in this environment it must necessarily come at the expense of someone else. Furthermore, just about the only way to consistently make gains in this environment is via government support/sponsorship.

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

How is wealth defined? Financial assets? Number of lovers, cows, or acres?

Financial assets have no constraints - we can keep printing stock certificates, bonds, currency....

bureaucrat said...

Wealth is defined by money, for better or worse (lots of charitable things that make no money are hugely beneficial to society as a whole), but for lack of a better gauge, money is the dipstick.

A strong country has a solid middle class. China will determine its strength in the future by how its middle class develops. The 1940s and 50s were a time of an emerging American middle class, which almost everyone wants to have back (the Tea Baggers especially). The oil situation isn't going to help that, but tax policy can.

Dan said...

I define it as quantity of assets divided by quality of assets. If I have $500k and a loaf of bread is 25¢ then I’m not doing too badly however if I have $2M and a loaf of bread is $2.5K than I’m not doing so hot. It’s how the financial economy relates to the real economy that matters.

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

How is "middle class" defined?

bureaucrat said...

Between the top 20% of income earners and bottom 20% of income earners (60% of population), or, whatever brackets you think you can get away with. :)

Dan said...

That’s much tougher to define. I know people with high incomes that will never have much more than two nickels to rub together. On the other hand until I moved had a neighbor that was a janitor with an income below the poverty line yet owned his own home outright as well as his car. However, today he would not even be able to rent in that same neighborhood had he not secured his future during the 80’s oil bust.

I would reckon middle class means you can save 10% of your income after necessary living expenses, regardless of the dollar amount that may be. However relatively few can meet that reasonable definition after being fleeced for: federal income tax, state income tax, FICA, State sales tax, county sales tax, city sales tax, federal excise tax, state excise tax, tax on the tax… If you make decent money you get hit with progressive taxes, if not then the more regressive taxes eat up what little you do have.

Donal Lang said...

Greg, two answers;
If US national income is falling, everyone gets poorer. But if rich are, at the same time, getting richer then the poor MUST be getting poorer; there's a limited pot to share.
Printing more money is irrelevant, we're talking real wealth which is based on the total NET trading position of the country.
If a few bankers and traders make a lot on money on international markets, two things occur; they get personally and corporately much richer, but hardly any of that money filters down to the average Joe. But also the US GDP looks good even though most people are getting poorer as manufacturing and 'real' jobs disappear.

Secondly, read your Marx about the reasons why capitalism ALWAYS makes the rich richer and the poor poorer; its because of the rent on capital. Marx saw that as related to the State as the most powerful entity, but today we see it as particularly relevant for the international corporation. Why did the US Founding Fathers effectively ban corporations?

Anonymous said...

Greg,

Seems to me that the MSM are the propaganda arm of the Elite. They pump out that drek with a purpose. To the extent that TV is serving the interests of the government and High Finance, the article is on point. The sheeple take the bait, hook line and sinker.

Absent government bailouts, the rich would already have taken it in the neck, and rightly so. It remains to be seen how long the inevitable can be forestalled. Those who control the media have a responsibility that they have abdicated, with horrible consequences for us all.

Regards,

Coal Guy

Dextred1 said...

Donal,

The Marxist have it wrong because for them it is a zero sum game, but as proven by every major tax cut in the last 100 yrs and the whole existence of mankind. Existing capital expands when productivity increase, leaving more for everyone. Now maybe peak oil changes this, but I don't think so. People will find ways to expand business, productivity and income. Now is this perfect, no! It can be real ugly watching old dying industry/governments collapse.

The ultra rich control too much and have way too many ways to abscond taxation (talking billionaires here). The thing is it will not change anything to try; the Jacobins tried this in France and collapsed the nation.

Did anyone watch the Video series I linked to? James burkes connections. You will be surprised how the church used the basis of knowledge from Rome to improve productivity across Europe and set the stage for the Renaissance. In a collapsed world such as post Rome the Europeans slowly built themselves into the world’s premier economic powerhouse for half millennium. I think you will like it, a lot of valuble info.

Dextred1 said...

Now I say that with the caveat that the first few yrs of massive contraction following the downside of Hubert’s peak will eventually portend a more efficient and sustainable growth model. When you model is based on exponential growth from increased production from oil sources and infinite borrowing and printing, it will always fail. I do not deny that it will be hard at first, but I can’t wait for the first wave of white-collar to have to start plowing a garden with their soft hands. LOOKING AT YOU BUR. :)

Donal Lang said...

Ultimately, in a finite world it IS a zero sum game.
But also in The American Economy as a whole it is also a zero sum game for the reasons I gave earlier; the NET U.S. position is decline.
However Marx doesn't say it a zero sum game, Marx says that capital accumulates rent on capital, and therefore rich people (or governments, or companies) will get richer, whilst poorer trade their labour and any capital for income (e.g. wage slaves) and therefore competitive pressures will always decrease their income to the lowest that any other person will accept.
The Middle Class only exists in a country with excess, primarily from fossil fuels. Every other country (and many with fossil fuels too) just have 5% rich people who own the capital, and the rest are poor. That's what's in store for the USA and other Western economies.
Even today in Britain, 70% of agricultural land (the ultimate Capital) is owned by 1% of the population!

Dextred1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dextred1 said...

What you are actually rallying against is fractional reserve banking and likely the hybrid capitalist/fascist model we work by. Case in point is that the largest companies get special treatment by the federal government that promotes their interests above anybody else. Lobbyist to pursue their agenda over the citizens, special tax protections and government grants to “promote” common goals (ethanol, defense, grants for auto efficiently, etc) The Sherman anti-trust act tried to rectify some of this in the 1890. I am for free markets, but you can hardly call what we have a free market. It is a highly regulated government funding mechanism and as with all great empires will fail when outlays for debt become larger than outlays for defense. Not a big deal right now, but when the bond cycle changes we will spend more on debt than defense.

As for capital, I do agree that without properly protecting the people that the ultra rich will direct all control of money to themselves. Contrary to what you say though, 80% of new Jobs come from companies with less than 10 employees. I don’t know how long this will last because of the onerous new regulations from the healthcare bill. We will become like Europe with high unemployment because small companies cannot accumulate enough capital.

As for wages the problem is not capitalism, because as you know lower wages lower the price of finished products. If you have a hard currency to hold value you would not need constantly rising wages because price stability. I think it is pretty common knowledge that for 1800-1900 almost no price inflation was shown in the United States. Something like less than 3 %. Why, simple the goods became more plentiful while the medium of exchange remanded steady. The only exception was during the civil war(lincoln printing money) which was quickly fixed. People actually became richer (obtained more assets) with almost no fossil fuels till the very end which had little effect till 20th century. So I do not think that it is impossible to increase standard of living in a post peak world. There are sources of energy which will be exploited, it will not be as easy to accumulate capital, but you still can and will.

My problem is I argue for the idealist market economy while reality is something much more sinister.

Dextred1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dextred1 said...

Donal watch connections james burke episode 5. you will see the "connections" haha with what we are talking about. episdoe 4 is also awesome. I sound like a salesman for the show.

Donal Lang said...

Dex; I understand where you're coming from but you're misunderstanding. Suggest you go read Adam Smith, "Wealth of Nations", then read Marx. THEN we'll talk again!

Dextred1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dextred1 said...

Donal,

Marx might not explicitly say that it is a zero sum game, but in practice it is. This is why all leftist believe raising taxes will increase revenue, but in practice the taxes revenue goes down because it takes productive capital and transfers it to useless consumption leaving a investment capital hole. Peak oil is only a small event in the grand scale of things. Automation of weapons manufacturing in the British shipyards gave way to a nation of automation in the United States starting with weapons manufacturing during the revolutionary war. The assembly line was more important than oil to the middle class because it created repetitive jobs with little skill and exponentially increased excess goods, which ultimately created wealth through trade.
My argument is that this is not capitalism and certainly not what Adam Smith meant by the term. I agree that the founders here would not have been for what we are seeing. But to compare a system much more akin to a fascist state and then say see that is what happens when you live in a capitalist state is a straw man argument. I hate talking about Marx sometimes because ultimately his ideas were foolish and never work in practice, to quote him to me in antithetical. His ideas have been proven wrong. What validly do his arguments have? Of course it is easier to make money if you already have capital. You earn it and want to put it to productive use. The reason that our conclusions are different is because we start with different premises, not because we necessarily disagree.