Wednesday, August 4, 2010

"Peak" Victimization, Peak Wheat?

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." – James Bovard

I sincerely HOPE that the USDA, enshrined on my list of the Anti-Christ, is taking in a good, long, and hard look at what is happening in Russia's grain producing region with the advent of their record breaking heat wave and 22 month drought. (I sold my wheat position several weeks ago, thinking I was a genius after buying at the exact bottom... woulda, coulda, shoulda held on to that position.)

There is absolutely no risk in the near term for fertilizer shortages or insufficient fuel for tractors... or what ever techno failure doomers or Hollywood can conjure up (I said NEAR TERM). The risk is, has been, and always shall be the WEATHER. The U.S. has the mother of all militaries, a massive Strategic Petroleum Supply, and a nationwide network for 911 and first responders... but, unbelievably, the U.S. has no plan for a multi year drought in the nation's grain producing region NOR for an earthquake in California resulting in the demolition of their reservoir system that would stop the production of well over half of the nation's fruits and vegetables. What, exactly, does the USDA do? Well, they do inspect meat, but only at the time of slaughter... and given that the real risk is after slaughter, well, I certainly feel better and better about their $48 gazzilion budget, don't you?

Our government is always fighting the last war... and they confiscate the resources people might use to make better arrangements in order to fight that wrong war.

-----------------------------------------

The Media Manipulation Machine was busy doing its dirty work this past week... but before I get on with my rant about what I fervently HOPE is "Peak Victimization" I want to point out this fantastic treatise from a self described "workers bee" at one of the Federal Reserve Banks.

Now, assuming you read that link... the writer makes a couple of fallacious assumptions, but not that Macro economics is hard.... it IS hard, he has that one correct... his first f***ed up assumption is that we need a Federal Reserve in the first place! Macro economics IS hard, and a couple of young, penniless PhD's (or even an army of them) working at the Fed is not a better alternative to the free market's million's of participants, each making rational decisions with his or her own money. As somebody recently pointed out with respect to this article and the economics "profession" general... Economics is not a hard science!! In economics, 2 + 2 does not equal four necessarily, although it certainly could.... but it does not have to. I assert that self-educated, professional Wall Street traders that made a lot of money taking risks with their capital and using their noodle everyday are a much better research vehicle than these "worker bees" at the Fed.

Worse, if you read this elitist B.S., the writer pretty much tells us that we shouldn't worry our slow and little minds about the subject.... after all, only input from PhD's in economics is required and worth listening to. These are the very folks that create these problems and then request greater resources to FIX the problems they have created... thereby creating more and greater problems... this is exactly how the U.S. got to the point where its government runs a deficit equal to 10% of GDP per year.

Neither I, nor any of the other professional investors/traders that blog only for fun and to vent ever said that any of this WAS easy. We merely saw the housing and banking disaster long before you, Greenspan, Bernake, Treas. Sec. Paulson, et al... Read my Blog, Mr. Athreya! If a self-educated average Joe like (and many other economic bloggers) me called: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman, Bear Stearns, Housing, Banking, and the CMO market's well in advance... why, exactly, didn't you and the rest of your credential stamped weenies? Could it be that our experience is of greater use than your "training"? Maybe this is like swimming.... you simply have to get wet before you can call yourself educated?

Nothing sharpens and focuses the mind like having your own skin in the game. We don't need the Federal Reserve whatsoever. Nor do we need Bloggers to set interest rates... let the Free Market make these decisions.

----------------------------------------------------

OK. Peak Victimization.



Oh.......... My............... G-d.................

No doubt, the Left will see this mass murder in terms of gun control... and NOT the fact that they have spent decades convincing everyone that they are a victim. This guy was a thief and a liar, and likely mentally ill, and now a mass murderer... and then you tell a person with these kinds of character defects, over and over and over again, that someone else is to blame... and he murders a bunch of "these" people in cold blood... and who exactly is at fault here? The NRA?

------

The Mommy Victim. That's right. You "gave up" a career which would have CERTAINLY been all that you dreamed of as college student (LOLOLOLOLOL) to actually breast feed your own children, read to them in bed, and provide a nurturing, loving home for your children and their father?!! What kind of professional ARE YOU??!! Don't you know that breeding and child rearing are the work of the underclass??!! Those g-d d-mn men did this to you!!!

Earth to the Media and to our last few presidents. There were PLENTY of married women with children (or single women with children, for that matter) that you morons should have considered for the Supreme Court!!! The nit-wit writing this article only sees this in terms of reproductive options for careerists?? What about the American PEOPLE? Remember them? Our Supreme Court Justices, for the most part, come from only 5 Law Schools! This was NOT the norm down thru the court's history, but it has become the rule over the past 4 decades. There is NO REQUIREMENT that a Supreme Court Justice even need be a lawyer. I have read the U.S. Constitution... I am not a lawyer... and I am more than capable of interpreting this document, thank you very much (non of the framers, you know, they guys that wrote the document went to Law School as we know it). It is high time we had a "soccer mom" Supreme Court Justice. It is high time we had a working class, non lawyer Supreme Court justice. Not everything is black man, white woman, Jew, Muslim... there are plenty of other backgrounds and experiences that would make a significant contribution to the Court.

But the media has an agenda... and that agenda has all career women, everywhere, as victims of their biology... is there any wonder at the state of the family here in the U.S. ?

G-d save our kids.



34 comments:

bureaucrat said...

Stuff, stuff ....

1) On the one hand, you complain about no government drought "plan". On the other hand, you complain about the existence of the Federal Reserve, which isn't government-owned, but it is connected to Congress in its decision-making big time. You want government involvement in the U.S. or not, Libertarian? :)

2) I guess the USDA was doing something right in the 1930s. I saw again "The Grapes of Wrath" (1940) last night. At the end, the poor Joads find the well-run, super clean USDA migrants camp, with toilets and everything! I do not know what part of the USDA did that function (it wasn't the CCC), but that part of the film must have come from something, or at least it was John Steinbeck, who wrote the book's, idea.

3) There will be a big rethink on Keynesian vs. Austrian economics before this is depression is over. 90% of economists are pump-priming, pro-borrowing and stimulating Keynesian economists. They didn't see the current depression coming, and they have no idea how to get out of it now (Obama follows these "experts" -- that's why his poll numbers are in the crapper). Austrian economists (who are more attuned to credit and debt) are eating the Keynesians' lunch so far.

bureaucrat said...

Oh, DBA all the way! :) Mine finally went positive.

tweell said...

To be even-handed about this, Mr. Athreya and his fellow worker bees don't set the government's budget, I would not consider them responsible for the deficit. All they are in charge of is the Pyatiletka (5 year plan looks and sounds much better in Russian).
Comrade, are you questioning the wisdom of the Supreme Fed? Perhaps some 'sensitivity training' is in order!

Anonymous said...

Sensitivity training indeed. We were sitting in a restaurant next to a couple from the former Soviet Union a while ago. We overheard one of them comment to the other "The US is becoming just like the Soviet Union. If you say one thing that's not politically correct, they ruin your life."

Who's better to know?

Regards,

Coal Guy

Jehu said...

Bureaucrat,
Planning and preparing for droughts and famines is one of the things that governments are actually GOOD at historically. Managing a money supply, not so much. Goes all the way back to the book of Genesis with Joseph and Egypt. Back in the cold war era, the US used to maintain a 3 year supply of food grains in the US. We don't have that anymore, which IMO is a very bad thing. Possession of such a stockpile greatly lessens the impact of nearly any large scale disaster.

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Bur:

1: If you are going to charge me $48 billion you really must see the correct risks. 9/11 anyone?

2: Even a blind squirrel will find a nut every once in a while.

3: Too late.

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Jehu:

Precisely.

I am a Libertarian NOT an Anarchist. There ARE somethings the government must do - national defense, property rights and contract rights and the enforcement of these, food security... but at the very least... if you are NOT going to help get out of the G** D*** way!

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Coal Guy:

Beyond truth... one of my friends, after reading my stuff, said I should be careful what I say in case I ever want a job with a major investment bank ever again...

Thankfully, that ain't the plan, and I am not running for office, either.

Fatkitten said...

Re: Women and the Supreme court
It is unfortunate that the three ladies on the Supreme court won't be mothers but remember a Supreme court justice is probably going to be at least 50 years old, which means if she is a high acheiving lawyer she probably wasn't able to have kids. In the 1960s and 1970s you couldn't exactly leave for ten years and then come back. the only reason women can have a career and kids nowadays is because there are laws to protect their rights to return to the work place. Remember when Sandra Day OConnor graduated from law school she couldn't get a job because she was a woman.
Ideally it would be great to have an exact proportion of every race and ethnic minority on the Supreme Court but that isn't possible. And the worse thing you can do is appoint someone just because he is black like Clarence Thomas.

But don't worry - women always get what they want eventually even if it takes millions of years.

westexas said...

The most interesting news regarding wheat was Russia's decision to ban wheat exports. I call it FELM--Food Export Land Model.

Dextred1 said...

Clarence Thomas was not nominated because he was black; it helped but not the reason. If you read any of his opinions in the majority of a judgment or in dissent he has a great logical legal mind. He is a textualist (reads the document for what it says) and usually strongly favors federalist views of the constitution. Thank God for good men like him.

bureaucrat said...

Jeru,

If government's supply of grains gave you a positive impression of them/us, I can only imagine what the U.S.'s 300 million barrels of oil in storage (a figure that hasn't changed much since 1930) is making you feel. :)

Jeffers,

So you are ok with defense, paying back people who loan us money, and food programs. I believe you are fine then with the operations of the Federal govt., :) 80% of whose money goes to: Defense, Interest on the Debt & Social Security (definitely a food program). What's left .. Medicare and Medicaid ... Hey, I'm all for a single-payer medical system which provides services in a competitive setting, with the govt. serving as middleman & referee. We aren't so different. :)

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Fatkitten:

Glad to have new commentary here.

Enough with the niceties... your politics are blinding you! Clarence Thomas would likely not have been nominated were he not black, nor have gained entrance to Yale Law School.

Sandra Day O'Connor would not have been nominated had she not been a woman, either.

We have to many appointees all OVER THE PLACE to assuage the ethnic and gender groups... but none for the economic groups.

Lastly, couldn't possibly disagree with more on:

"Ideally it would be great to have an exact proportion of every race and ethnic minority on the Supreme Court"

Ideally it would be great to have very competent people from varied backgrounds that respected the fact that their VERY POSITION was created by the U.S. Constitution and that they should not be taking liberties with the very document that legitimates their position.

There is no way to have the "most competent people" ... after all, what could be done? A national IQ test? The post is appointed without much more knowledge than party, religion, marital status, gender decisions and the location of part time study 30 years ago.

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Jehu:

Just read your blog. Really quite excellent.

Economist? Sociologist?

Just wondering.

We continue to collect thinking folks to this discussion.

PioneerPreppy said...

I don't know if Ginsburg has children for sure (although I actually thought she did) but I am pretty sure she is married actually. I maybe wrong and I am not going to go look it up.

The dems have not appointed or even nominated a white, evangelical male to a higher court position in almost 50 years I believe. Certainly not to scotus.

Every government entity (federal anyway) is way over percentages in affirmative action employees. The lowest interesting enough is NASA at 49% over mandate while one of them is at something like 300+%.

I couldn't tell you how to fix any of it. I only know many people are tired of it and it will change one way or another soon (historically speaking).

Personally what really gets to me in the end are the double standards. I can adapt to any set of rules whether they be social or racial I really don't care but what we have today is a complete favoritism based society with a select few holding what they look on as the ultimate "get out of Jail card" namely that everybody is a racist or male chauvinist.

Fatkitten said...

Mr. Jeffers:
Yes, we should have the most competent people on the Supreme Court regardless of race , ethnicity or gender. But someone does have to make the first move - it wasn't that long ago that everything in this country was run and controlled by WASP men. (Some people still wish it was).

Reagan probably appointed Sandra Day because she was a woman, but she was also a highly qualified jurist. I disagree with the previous gentleman who spoke highly of Clarence Thomas, not only because I disagree with Thomas's views, but because the man spent the vast majority of his legal career in academia. In fact, the only Supreme Court justice who has any experience as a practising lawyer now is Sonya Sottomayer. Even the Cheif Justice Roberts has never practiced law in the traditional sense and never tried a case. Kind of like having a surgeon general who has never treated a patient.

Stephen B. said...

Bur said: "If government's supply of grains gave you a positive impression of them/us, I can only imagine what the U.S.'s 300 million barrels of oil in storage (a figure that hasn't changed much since 1930) is making you feel."

It's one thing to have 300 million bbl of oil in storage at 1930 rates of consumption, and quite something else to have that same 300 Mbbl on hand when a country is burning through it at 18 million bbls a day.

In terms of days of oil in storage, commercial inventories are MUCH lower than they used to be. They aren't anywhere near what they used to be, no matter how one tries to say otherwise.

bureaucrat said...

I'm sure the amount of oil we burn has gradually increased every year since the 1930s, at yet, aren't all these houses, buildings, cars & trucks supposed to be so much more energy efficient? Does a 2010 Honda Civic burn as much gasoline as a 1962 Chevy Landboat? Hmmmm ...

Anonymous said...

By the way Dextred1, if Clarence Thomas interpreted the constitution the way it was written I am afraid that he would be a slave. The writers of the Constitution were very clear about one thing: A slave was 3/5 of a person and had such rights. So he might like to think that he is a strict Constitutional lawyer but I am afraid he would not like the circumstances very much if that were actually true.

Stephen B. said...

Gradually increased since the 1930s? Off hand I'd say this country uses at least double to triple the oil we used 80 years ago, though I can only find online figures back to about 1980 offhand.

But it really doesn't matter if cars and houses are more efficient. If we have oil production and/or import failures, less days of oil in storage is less days of oil in storage,regardless of whether our daily oil use is blown on cars averaging 15 mpg, or 25.

Also: cars weren't that much bigger back then, or if they were, they weren't always that much heavier. MPG averages over the years haven't improved as much as one might think, but again, that's all beside the point that we have much less oil in storage, in terms of days of use, than we had historically.

Dextred1 said...

1Anon,

Weak Argument, first learn some history. It was a compromise to form a nation. It had a opt out provision for 20 yrs later exactly and the exact day 20 yrs later it was brought up in congress. The principles enumerated where for all of history and mankind. Why do you think it ended in a civil war? Maybe because the conflict it caused. Then understand we have a system that allows for change (called amendments), third spend some time referencing real decisions and understanding the issue behind the document. I will debate you on this. Just bring some facts. Something like “I think the due process clause in the 14th amendment means this or that”. Or we could debate the fact that almost every other nation on the earth ended slavery through non-violent means. The main problem in the United States is that the more populous northern states were forcing their will on the southern states and refused to reimburse them if they let the slaves go. Almost every European nation did this. It is easy to say that you would just free them, but what if the government came to you took your car and told you to F**k off. Just trying to bring the issue to light for you. Most people in the south did not have slaves, not even close. Then maybe look up the Missouri compromise and understand all the issues there.
Easy to sound like a smart ass 200 some yrs later when you have nothing to lose.

Fatkitten,

Almost no one can make it to the court with judicial experience now because it leaves a paper trail. As for sotomoyer she is one of the most unqualified jurists ever hands down. I think every case that came through her was reversed except one when it went to the court. Even the dems admitted she was not anything special. I am not one who thinks you have to be a lawyer to be a jurist.
As for clearence You do not like him because his philosophy and nothing else, I say this because you brought that up and that usually shows you have prejudice you are trying to hide.

Jehu said...

Bureaucrat,
I approve very much of the Strategic petroleum reserve. 300 million barrels is in the neigbhorhood of 15 days or so of total US oil consumption (which is near 20 mb/day if memory serves). Far more in an emergency where less important uses are deprioritized. We used to have a large food grain reserve that we've not had since the end of the cold war. That too would be a good use of the capabilities of a government. My objections to our current government are that it fails to do those things that it is actually GOOD at, in favor of doing things that governments are horrid at. As far as our historic oil usage, US oil production peaked in the 1970s at around 10 mb/day. Before that, we were a (ok, frankly THE )major exporter. So my guess is that in the 30s we were using less than 5 mb/day internally.
Jeffers,
My training and profession is as an engineer, but I've no shortage of interest in other disciplines. Thank you for your vote of confidence.

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Oh my goodness...

ANd because some of the Framers were slave holders we should scrap the greatest political achievement since the advent of civilization?

Can you and your ilk get a f***ing hold of yourselves?
The Constitution was, in fact, expanded to include all men (and women). Every Federal Office, elected or appointed, draws its legitimacy from that founding document.

The Framers' risked life and fortune, established this country with that framework, and then left the country that the document forms to US as an inheritance.... but not one that we are allowed to squander.

So what's your f***** point? That Current officials that draw their legitimacy from this document do not have to follow the precepts of this document because the guys that wrote it were hypocrites?

Please. Enlighten me.

PioneerPreppy said...

So what's your f***** point? That Current officials that draw their legitimacy from this document do not have to follow the precepts of this document because the guys that wrote it were hypocrites?

Please. Enlighten me.

I believe Greg that in fact your statement or question/musing are exactly correct. They (progressives) do feel that the constitution is flawed. Obama himself said slavery is the white man's "original sin" in one of his speeches right before the Nov. election.

From that one quote alone one can only follow two roads. Either he doesn't firmly know enough Christian Dogma to know what "original sin" is or he does. If he does know, which I think is the more likely road, then the Constitution is flawed and white men must forever and always pay for their original sin and anything created or touched by them is flawed.

bureaucrat said...

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, maybe it would be safer if we just talked about energy. :)

The Constitution is a living document. The Founders had no expectation that it would be looked to for a decision on the legality of abortion or a hundred other controversial issues. It is designed to change with the times, including if a time comes where it just isn't doing the job anymore, and needs to be replaced.

That slaves were "3/5ths of a person" was removed from the Constitution after the Civil War (14th and 15th Amendments). Life changes.

Dextred1 said...

Jeffers,

I think the peak oil thing draws a lot of progressive Looney’s.

Back to my point

Would also like to point out that every nation on earth had slaves at or close to this time. This extended all the way back to Babylon, Mesopotamia, Egypt and every other nation. Africa still has slaves and many parts of the Middle East still do also. Is it white people’s fault for all this to?

The point every one missed on this whole topic is that the rapid industrialization of the north and corresponding efficiency of production caused the south to fall behind economically. The north’s free labor was kicking the butts of the slave labor in the south and this mostly had to do with the increase in energy usage along with the corresponding increases in technology. Our slaves today are Oil. This is why the car in my last statement is so important. The ability to do lots of work with no labor is the ultimate form of freedom; thank goodness we have oil now. We used to have to have slaves to pick the fields efficiently. Slavery was going to come to an end because machines could do the work cheaper and were never hurt or needed breaks. The cotton gin being a perfect early example. Market forces prevail over all issues!!!!

The thing is that most liberals have never worked a hard day in their life. I have been around construction and have never met a liberal, some democrats (Reagan Democrats mostly here in Michigan, hunters, fishers, pro life, low taxes, but pro union because of auto industry); point being that the liberals would be the first ones to want to have slaves again. It was not the Free states that needed slaves to survive, but the aristocratic class of the southern states that played on the sympathies of the people. The left wing elitist are the same ones that count on the state (federal government) to do forced slavery through the income tax system (unconstitutional until the 16th amendment).

I do want to point out that the north also enforced tariffs that hurt the south on things like shovels, plows and other things needed in farming, thereby raising the price to do business and taking profits from farmers. This was part of the wigs platform, which was somewhat of the same ideas that Madison was implementing under Washington with the federalists. Remember most in the south did not have slaves, there representation was falling in the house because of the population growth in the north and as mentioned they were subsidizing northern industry by having to buy American goods instead of cheaper goods from Britain. And we lost 600,000 to 700,000 men who would have been much more useful alive.

Dextred1 said...

Bur,

Not living, if it was the government would just be arbitrary and unjust. It does have an amazing amendment process though. That was the point. We are a people of laws, not of men. The government derives their powers from the people, well at least use to. This is why the court issues pisses people off, they through judicial fiat make law which was never in the constitution. Judicial review came from the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803. If you think abortion should be legal don’t hoodwink the people saying the constitution provides a right to privacy. WHERE!!!

Paleodoctor said...

Peak Wheat?
Peak Fish probably.

http://maltatoday.com.mt/news/greenpeace/bluefin-tuna-landings-register-massive-32-3-drop
It is time to learn how to grow food:gardening,farming,aquaponics,etc.

Anonymous said...

Please, people do not have genders, they have sexes. Human beings are born male and female, not masculine, feminine, neuter, and whatever else can be thought up.

Regards,

Coal Guy

westexas said...

Regarding US commercial crude oil inventories, the US has only a few days of supply in excess of the MOL (Minimum Operating Level), which is about 270 mb.

Current inventory levels in excess of MOL are well below what the industry used to carry in the early Eighties.

Anonymous said...

I love the white man's original sin, white guilt thing. It is the purest, most unadulterated form of racism. Somehow, I'm guilty of something that occurred in the southern US at a time when my ancestors were in Europe, because of the color of my skin.

Really.

There is no reparation possible for those already dead and gone. Neither is there reparation or punishment deserved today for the descendants of the oppressed or the oppressors. Let alone the standers-by. There is only the possibility to do the right thing today.

The propensity of the left to sort the human race according to race, ethnicity and sex is unrivaled. Then, they stand on their holy altar of self-righteousness and condemn the rest of us as racists. Actually, it is a pretty typical tactic.

The history of the courts and race has been a complete travesty since the end of the Civil War. An eight year old can grasp the concept of equal protection, why can't a judge with a law degree and 30 years of experience?

Regards,

Coal Guy

Anonymous said...

As I remember, most of the wheat reserve was sold to the Soviet Union during the Nixon administration to prevent a famine there.

Regards,

Coal Guy

Anonymous said...

You mention Wheat a staple crop of worldwide food production, so one must mention UG-99 which as devastated some countries wheat crops.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=14649

Don Quixote “People don’t like Facts that get in the way of the truth.”

-Meiyo

Dextred1 said...

Coal Guy,

We are gonna have to get together one time. I think we would have lots to talk about.