The Battle For the Human Soul

There are those Christians - me being one of them - who believe there is a cosmic battle being waged between the forces of light and dark, good and evil, God and satan if you will. They call it the Warfare Worldview. There have been many scholarly books written on the subject and obviously plenty of the entertainment variety books and movies dished up for our pleasure. Clearly the concept is familiar to all of us.

Given the state of the world and the perpetual inability of science and reason to explain the problem of evil it must at least cross your mind from time to time. Some things are so vile that there is no rational explanation for the depravity we see in mankind other than evil itself. This is not a rejection of science at all, rather it's an admission that there are some things that can't be explained mathematically or molecular-ly. In my view it was when the intellectuals dismissed evil as a phenomenon made-up by "religious nuts" that the world came off it's tracks. Science is great and all, it just doesn't tie up everything into a nice knowable bow for us.

I don't advocate for "religion" either. Religion is more often itself a vessel for evil in the name of good. The difference maker is love. Not romantic love, or even brotherly love, but agape love. The essence of agape love is self-sacrifice. It is the exact opposite of evil. When you hear the answer God is love to the question of what is God think of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for the forgiveness of sin, all sin - that's love, agape love. God is love.

So, you don't buy all that he died for your sins business, okay, that's your prerogative. Sometimes I think Jesus is for those who need him. I'm one of them, you may not be, your love may be strong and unshakable. But please don't dismiss agape love out of hand. If you have children, you have given over to agape love... Yes, you do understand...

In the battle for the human soul you have the two conduits that feed into it. One is the spirit the other the body, one ethereal and one earthly. What comes into the soul is projected out into the world through your thoughts, words and deeds. The innate part of you that knows what's good and right, fair and just comes from your spirit. Your lusts and base desires, like greed, gluttony, envy and violence is fed by your body. Uncontrolled this conduit is ripe for the invasion of evil.

Only practicing agape love and controlling your body's desires keep us from falling into perpetual darkness. Study this simple graphic to lock this concept into your psyche. It may be the difference in the war of light vs dark.

[click on the picture to enlarge]

Ugh

It Cantor End Well

A quick thought on Eric Cantor's primary defeat. Good.

With that said...

This man made my skin crawl. He is a greasy slime-ball that never ever once answered the question he was asked. Despite the amount of air time this guy got being the Majority Leader in Congress he never said one thing that was enlightening or in the least bit interesting.

These thoughts are admittedly based on emotion. I would venture that if examined closely I would agree with Cantor more often than not. But a national leader has got to be more than that. He has to communicate effectively, has to actually say something important and has to attract, not repel.

Is there a politician who fits this bill ( on the GOP side)? I used to be so impressed with Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. He was one of the only politicians I ever heard that answered the questions he was asked. He was sharp and able to defend his statements effectively while not being off-putting or greasy - like oh, say, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D - NY). Unfortunately for Ryan being chosen as Romney's running mate against the royal one, Barack Obama, put him behind the eight-ball in more ways than one. He was purposely toned down by the Romney team and then of course made to be the devil's spawn by Obama's team. He's faded into the woodwork after the 2012 election.

Obviously, I was not the only one who was turned off by Cantor. My dislike had little to do with his stand on immigration. His immigration stance was probably the least offensive thing about him. However the Democrats and their media lapdogs will play that up while they cynically move to destroy what's left of the "European" culture this country was founded on for some shithole backwater culture they import from the south. They don't give a damn about poor immigrants just trying to create a better life. It's just another sub group they can exploit so they can rile them up for votes. If our country played up the melting pot culture that we lived until the 1970's instead of the victim culture it would be impossible for progressives to sell their brand of crap. But if the progressives can divide the culture up by some offense or another and prod the "victims" into rage against the majority it means votes.

They never intend to solve any problem, they more often than not make things much, much worse. It's all a cynical and frankly destructive agenda to stay in power - forever. Made all that much easier by having greasy slime-balls on the GOP side. How utterly sad this is. They will purposefully destroy our culture, our way of life to cling to power. If you oppose this destruction in any way - you are a racist, a homophobe, evil or heartless.

Eric Cantor and those like him on the opposition side, with all the cards stacked against them have got to offer a better way and it won't happen with the flim flam man approach.





Ugh

Alternative Energy and other Insanities

This is being written the day after President Obama formalized the lethal injection that will kill the American Experiment for once and for all. The new EPA emission rules will have zero effect on "Climate Change" and everyone knows it, the EPA even admits it. If China and India don't follow suit - and they won't - then anything America does to lessen the amount of C02 emitted into the atmosphere will be for naught. So what is the "real" purpose behind this insanity?

Good intentions aren't enough. Idealism isn't enough. I have my theories... Population control and the deconstruction of America as we know it are among them.

I understand, I really do. The dream of clean and reliable non-polluting energy is righteous. God Bless those technical pioneers and policy makers for all the effort. It is (probably, eventually) going to pan out, I hope. I'm guessing some technological breakthrough we aren't even considering will make this dream come true. But it isn't here yet. So, why are we willing to tie our hands behind our backs as a nation, as a society? Why are we willing to go broke for this? Why do we - the people - sit by and do nothing as our wealth and future prospects are being stripped away?

Think back to the days when automobiles started showing up on the roadways. Can you imagine if policy makers decided because horse manure and the flies were such a health problem that they passed laws forcing everything about horses and by extension everything that relied on them to become more and more expensive. This was a time when there were very few roads that were even passable by car. The demand for transportation of all kinds was growing and trains couldn't go everywhere. Cars were great, no doubt the wave of the future, but it would be decades before horse and carriage were obsolete.

Well, they didn't do that because that would have been insane. Yet that's is exactly what today's policy makers are doing with this alternative energy charade. They are forcing energy costs to rise, which they freely admit. They, the greens and their benefactors, want us all to pretend that the available clean energy solutions are just waiting, ready to provide for us, but are just being suppressed by the evil capitalist cabal bent on choking the air and water with pollution.

The truth is none of the energy solutions trotted out even come close to providing what we need. They know this. The point isn't to replace what we have - or could have - it is to create scarcity by putting the cost of energy out of reach - and for no good reason. The country is in an energy boom right now due to enhancements in extraction of fossil fuels. Natural gas is replacing coal as a fuel for power plants and a decent clip. Natural gas produces far less CO2 than coal, in fact most of he reduction in CO2 emissions is directly related to this fact. So why are the greens not celebrating? Simple. It's still fossil fuel. It still raises living standards and worst of all it's getting cheaper.

Despite what the current regime might say they've had little to do with the boom in natural gas and oil extraction in the lower 48. Believe me when I tell you they hate it. They focus on wind and solar power precisely because it will never be up to the task. It may be a nice supplement, but that's all it will ever be. In order for wind and solar to supply electric power consistently 24/7 storage is the key. As it sits today every lithium battery in existence hooked up to the "grid" could power just the United States alone for about 5 minutes. In this sense we are so far off from the day when these darling technologies could make even the slightest dent in demand that its laughable to push this as alternative energy, simply laughable. 

It's the same mentality that is shoving light rail and other trains at us these days. They know trains will never do for us what cars and roads will. But the point is not to actually provide useful transportation or adequate energy - it about control. The progressives, liberals or whatever you want to call them simply must control everyone's lives. Apparently freedom and making your own decisions is bad...

 It's seems obvious that burning coal for electricity in the long run isn't necessarily wise. Currently the use of coal is decreasing through attrition anyway, in part due to environmentalist activities - three cheers. The issue is that the powerful interests fighting on both sides make doing the intelligent things so difficult. The slow transition from one power source to another and the adoption of emerging technological enhancements is the least disruptive course. For activists and their policy maker friends this isn't acceptable. They are willing to plunge us into economic chaos and untold hardship for millions for their dreams. Some if not most of their goals are laudable. It's their methods - which borders on cruelty  -   that should alarm us all. 

I liken the wacko environmental activist crowd and their benefactors as insane in their practices, but who really are the insane ones? Them or the rest of us who sit by and let them have their way time after time.


Ugh

Money Money Money: Concluded

Part III

Over the years I've said I'm fascinated by something called MMT (Modern Monetary Theory). I don't want to give the impression that I buy it all lock, stock and barrel. While I have no more than a rudimentary understanding of economics in general I became much more interested after the housing bubble burst and the subsequent economic collapse and malaise that followed. This week we learned that the U.S. economy contracted in the first quarter of 2014. No matter what excuse the current regime wants to cite (like bad weather) it's clearly bad news. The malaise continues.

MMT seems to me to be a version of classic Keynesian economic philosophy that factors into the equation the reality of fiat currency. They seem to want to follow the Keynesian prescriptions for government reaction to economic downturns, namely having the central government pump money into the economy to stimulate and reinvigorate demand. That is to say growing aggregate demand is the key to economic turnarounds. However, the part that fascinates me the most is their take on debt and deficits. To be clear MMT is talking about central government debt, not personal debt or local government debt. This is crucial because neither the public nor the local government can create money out of thin air, but the issuer of the currency can.


It is of course absolutely true that the U.S. Federal government can just create money by either printing it outright or selling bonds. They also regulate the banks that can create money out thin air by writing loans. The question is then: what is the "real" effect of this activity and at what level?

This is where reality separates from theory. I don't know enough to even venture a semi-intelligent answer. There are some things that seem pretty clear or fall under the rubric of common sense. To hear the Republicans/right-wingers carry on about debt and deficits you wonder how we've gotten this far without complete economic collapse and another Great Depression. Even I, and center-right guy, think a Federal balanced budget is a fool's game. Clearly sky high Federal debt is not the death knell of the economy. But then neither is it the savior. Since Obama has been president the yearly deficits are the highest in history and the aggregate national debt has grown exponentially to levels never seen before, yet this economy totally sucks. Clearly just pouring in gobs of Federal cash doesn't bring about economic heydays.

In a dynamic society and equally dynamic economy there are so many factors that make up the trajectory of economic trends it's impossible to put your finger on any one thing. Things like war, taxes, regulation, trade and immigration are all factors that are within the Administration's wheelhouse and can have profound impact on the economy if for no other reason than the potential for breeding of uncertainty. This has been a constant complaint about this regime since 2009. Things like automation, M and A, outsourcing/off shoring, natural disasters and bad weather can wreak havoc on the economy and those things can't be directly laid at the feet of a president. We've seen these things too.

So, what to do? Do they do something constructive? Or play the blame game?

The Administration and their sycophants (particularly the national media) have let loose a strategy with a goal of pinning this horrible economic malaise on income inequality. Scripted and in lockstep the plan was set into motion to coincide with the start of the 2014 mid term election campaign. For the faithful it's like selling ice cubes in the desert - who the hell likes rich people. What are the Republicans to do? Defend ultra-billionaires?

So along comes Thomas Piketty a French economist with his new book, a book I've not read, called Capital in the Twenty-First Century that has the nerdy economic world all atwitter. The MMT guys love this book. Since I haven't read it I can't say two hoots about it, but there are finally some counterpoints being printed that take the superstar Mr. Piketty to task.

The premise that I can gather is that Piketty plays right into the hands of the income inequality squawkers, the 1% vs the 99%. Again I'm not smart enough to know the real effect this so-called inequality has on normal people like me and my peers, though I'm sure it has some, both positive and negative. I am smart enough to know that ideology has everything to do with the numbers game guys like Piketty play. Essentially you can make the numbers say what ever you want. It seems that's exactly what Piketty does in this book.

For progressives and their Marxist brethren it's all about stealing the wealth of the rich and the mechanism to do that is government. The way to do it is scapegoating the wealthy and the best way to to breed this hatred and envy is to cook the numbers. Recently the Financial Times published a challenge to Piketty's numbers that compelled him to respond in a letter to Bloomberg News. Does anyone lash out when criticized if they are secure in the facts they put out? Again, I'll back down here because I don't have the facts myself.

In general the progressives treat economics as a knowable and demonstrable science, that if you just create the right formula (one that doesn't presumably have income inequality) you will get the perfect economic outcome. Sounds like communism to me actually. While the the Austrian School of economics likens economics to climate science - unpredictable and chaotic, a product of billions of individual transactions/interactions whose outcome can't be planned only ridden like surfer rides a wave.

I have gotten to the point of disbelieving everything the progressives say primarily because their track record is so poor. On the other hand the conservatives and market capitalists betray their own belief systems at every turn, as if they don't believe in them anymore than their sworn enemies.

The key it seems to me is the fact of income inequality. One: it is a fact. Two: it will always be. Therefore; Three: learn to live with it. The effort it takes to destroy it destroys everything.



Ugh

Money Money Money: Part II

I rarely do this but I want to repost an article found online that really clarifies the point I was so clumsily trying to make in my recent post called Money Money Money.

Original article click here:


Federal budget process: What did Leon Panetta mean?
May 19, 2014 6:00 am  •  By Duane Catlett and Dan Metzger


Leon Panetta was recently the guest lecturer at the University of Montana’s annual Jones-Tamm Judicial Lecture. Mr. Panetta is a true patriot, having served with distinction for more than 20 years under two presidents. Under President Clinton he directed the Office of Management and Budget and later served as Clinton’s chief of staff. Under President Obama he served as secretary of defense and later as director of the CIA.

Mr. Panetta stated in his lecture that “the nation’s biggest security issue was its inability to deal with the budget.” Although many will interpret his statement as a call to cut the deficit, what he was really criticizing was the Congress’ inability to produce and pass a spending budget that would put some certainty into the ability of the nation to do strategic long term planning.

Like most Washington public servants, Mr. Panetta holds the old-fashioned view that federal budgets should be balanced and the magnitude of deficits is an important metric for the economy. This view is appropriate for households and businesses that have limited financial resources. However, the federal government issues the nation’s currency and is not constrained by financial resources. It has all the financial resources it needs and is constrained only by the nation’s productive resources.

Both political parties are dominated by the false view that the federal budget must be balanced. The only difference is that conservatives think the government has a spending problem and liberals think it is a revenue problem. Both are wrong and it is hurting America’s competitive global advantages.

In the modern world of fiat currency the federal government must focus on real resources (available materials, factories, infrastructure, labor, knowledge) instead of financial resources (money and bonds) in managing the economy. Money is the vehicle that allows the smooth movement of goods and services from sellers to buyers in the economy. The federal government as the sole issuer of the U.S. dollar can issue all the money it needs to move any resources of the nation.

The U.S. and most other nations of the world have used a fiat monetary system since President Nixon defaulted on the gold standard in 1971. Under a gold standard the quantity of money available to the nation is determined by its store of gold, which limits economic growth. Under a fiat system the available money varies with the growth of the economy, and depends on bank loans and federal spending. In the absence of adequate bank loans to make investments in our main-street economy, Congressional budget decisions are responsible for reviving a depressed economy.

The Congressional budget exercise should not be about achieving a balanced federal budget. The budget should be developed to assure that all available resources of the nation are put to good use. There is plenty of work to be done, and we can avoid high unemployment. The federal government can employ all the resources not employed by private industry. If unemployment is high, as it is now, federal deficits are too small.

Many will denounce deficits as causing inflation or adding to a gigantic national debt. They forget to mention that inflation is the result of demand greater than our productive capacity. But, government purchases of either goods or services from labor, which are readily available because of high unemployment, increase total production along with demand, and that benefits businesses. Such purchases are not inflationary.

They also fail to mention that the huge national debt is in reality a huge private asset. The national debt is nothing more than government bonds that individuals, banks, and pension funds hold in their accounts as secure savings instruments.

Mr. Panetta is correct that the nation is weakened when it fails to deal with the budget. But, forcing the federal budget to be balanced either by reducing spending or increasing taxes only hurts our main-street economy by preventing it from growing. Such austerity measures are appropriate only on the rare occasion when the economy is overheated and threatening inflation. A depressed economy, which is what we have today, requires higher spending and lower taxes.

The threat to our future generations is not from a gigantic national debt, which is in reality a gigantic collection of safe and secure savings instruments that will be held by our future generations. The real threat results from the U.S. Congress’ failure to responsibly spend money into circulation to fix our failing bridges, highways, waterways, sanitation systems, public schools, state universities and other public services that we citizens rely on in our daily lives.

Duane Catlett lives in Clancy. He is a retired career Ph.D chemist and materials technology manager. He is a student of Modern Money Theory and the role of government in our economy.

Dan Metzger  lives in Santa Fe, N.M. He is a retired Ph.D physicist and engineering manager. He is a serious student of Modern Money Theory.


Ugh

The state of the economy: street level

Eight years ago my wife and I were doing a little paper route. It was for one of those local community weekly's. We did it for some exercise, certainly not for the money. We were fortunate enough to have the route in our own neighborhood. To set the stage this is a very very middle class neighborhood in the outskirts of a central city in a large metropolitan area. The average home was (at the time) probably worth about $160,000 and I'm guessing the average household income of $50,000.

This was a walking route with door to door delivery so we got up close to each house as we moved along. I remember remarking to my wife how nice almost all of the houses were, well kept up, fresh paint and little to no junk laying around. As we walked along we'd get ideas for landscaping and home improvements. There was nothing extravagant, it is lower end housing stock compared to the glittering suburbs just a few miles away, but it was nice.

Fast forward eight years. We now take our walks or ride our bikes through the same neighborhood for our exercise and fresh air. My how things have changed - and not for the better. Before when there was maybe one house per block that looked a little run down - or empty - now there are three or four at least. It's as if all home improvements/upkeep just stopped eight years ago. This spring there was a garage that literally collapsed under the weight of snow. It was probably a 50 year old garage, no different than mine in age, but mine is not anywhere near collapse. In addition to peeling paint and collapsing fences there are numerous piles of junk in some of  the yards.

There are numerous houses that sit empty, apparently abandoned. No doubt victims of foreclosure and job loss. Obviously these lawns are not mowed, snow never shoveled and sit in a general unkempt state. There are also many more immigrant families in the neighborhood and due to cultural differences or poverty these houses are often strewn with junk and abused. Where there has always been a problem with junk houses that mess was always inside the walls, these eyesores are outside for all to see.

Even worse is the city has stopped bothering to maintain the streets. In our neighborhood alone there were four water main breaks this past winter. Most of them are still pits in the ground, barely patched enough to prevent major frontend damage if your car should fall into one. Approaching mid-may now and we still have not had any potholes repaired.

As a measure of how the economy is doing it's like night a day. This is the kind of neighborhood that could permanently turn over and never come back to the state it was in eight years ago. This is how whole cities are lost - Detroit, Gary Indiana, East St Louis for example. There are already several neighborhoods in this 160 year old city that are beyond hope of ever returning to the condition my previously nice neighborhood was in less than a decade ago. If too many - pardon the expression - lowlifes invade or immigrants without American cultural sensitivity take over this neighborhood is toast. Young intact families will not move into the neighborhood to revitalize it. I for one will not be happy if that happens. The whole city will suffer.

The bottom line is if this moribund economy continues for even a few more years this is a scenario that will repeat in other currently vital big cities too. This particular city has escaped much of the urban decay that has ravaged the east and south over that last 40 years, but that's likely to end.




Ugh

Money Money Money

It seems the very last thing you want to hear about the economy is steady as she goes, that the economy is finally stable. As soon as top economists or a respected government official makes this type of declaration hold on to your hat, a downturn is just around the corner. Just ask Ben Bernanke. In 2004 he did just that and a few short years later the worst recession in history was upon us. There was Irving Fisher a prominent economist in the late 20's who declared the stock market had reached a permanent plateau, it would never go down again. We all know what happened in October '29.

In the Obama economy I doubt we'll hear any such talk - but that doesn't mean a financial disaster isn't just around the corner. Not much has changed in the structure of the economy since the 2008 meltdown. We are seeing a re-inflation of the real estate bubble which is exactly what we don't need. The Fed pump priming to re-inflate of the stock market has done little to nothing for the prospects of Main Street America. Besides higher taxes and the specter of the Obamacare boom being lowered on the fragile recovery not much has changed in the base economy. The American economy is still almost totally reliant on real estate - home ownership. There's nothing inherently wrong with home ownership, but you need good paying jobs to make it work. There just aren't enough of them.

The hiring that has happened in the past few years has been mostly low paying service jobs, not the type that can sustain suburbia or even the gentrified neighborhoods in the city. As well, there are  millions of kids sitting on billions in government student loans and low prospects of getting those good paying jobs they were counting on. As a result there will be a large delay in the next generation of home owners. According to the well known reactionary blogger Dennis Mangan this is indeed the next bubble to burst. A student loan bailout is on the way.

Is there a better way? Perhaps not, but there is a monetary theory called MMT that claims there is. MMT has fascinated me for years. They say Modern Monetary Theory was born when President Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard. Since the 70's we have been using a fiat currency, currency that a government has simply declared to be legal tender, but is not backed by any physical commodity. Because fiat money is not linked to physical reserves there is always risk that it could become worthless due to hyperinflation or loss of confidence. In theory if we should lose faith in paper currency our dollars will no longer hold any value. For the government to insure that the fiat currency has some intrinsic value it demands tax payments in dollars. If this seems sketchy - it kinda is. But wait...

MMT theory states because our money is created by fiat, by printing press or a spreadsheet at the Federal Reserve the U.S. government can never truly run out. MMT says if properly managed our money should always retain value through all the inevitable economic ups and downs and inflation and unemployment would always be held in check.

 What do they mean by properly managed? It could be as simple as significantly raising government spending and significantly lowering taxes during economic downturns. Looking back over the decades we see how this has worked - or not.

In the early 80's the economy was terrible. Inflation was high. interest rates were high, government spending was low and taxes were very high. President Reagan oversaw a significant raise in government spending and a significant lowering of taxes. The economy recovered and sustained good employment and low inflation all the way through the 90's. There was the inevitable recession in the late 80's, but it was shallow and short. The Clinton administration enjoyed strong growth and low inflation as they embarked on a significant reduction in government/military spending. They also raised taxes. Still the economy was poised to cycle down in the late 90's and another small, short recession hit, merely proving downturns are normal. Bush II raised government spending and significantly lowered taxes and the economy recovered nicely just as the theory claimed. However, when the economy was humming in the Bush years government spending never moderated and taxes stayed low. When the credit market collapsed the country was in an inverse position according to the MMT theory and the great recession hit.

What has happened since? The great recession was deep and significant which according to MMT theory called for increase government spending. Obama obliged, government spending sky rocketed. On the other side Obama did not lower taxes - he increased them as well as significantly increased regulation which is a type of a tax. Much of the spending was unproductive and frankly wasteful (fraudulent) and only bred government dependence on food stamps and unemployment payments. This while regulation and often hostile anti-business overtures led to slow job growth and even slower economic growth. In short we have the mess we all see before us.

MMT also advocates the government directly hire the jobless during significant downturns so that unemployment stays very, very low. Simply giving out food stamps and unemployment checks is counter productive. Eventually those government created jobs (we'd presume infrastructure projects would be the focus of these jobs programs) would decrease as the private sector began hiring again. Inversely government spending would decrease. We would see higher progressive taxes as the economy boomed to keep inflation in check.

There is also a share of MMTers who advocate doing away with the payroll tax altogether. The lie that FICA is funding retirees now is only putting a huge drag on incomes and the ability for private business to hire. This is an idea whose time has come. What about the "deficit"? The government will never default on its payments to retirees due to lack of money, there is simply no such thing with an entity that issues the currency.

The downside of MMT is the over the top arrogance of it's advocates. These people are positing a theory - perhaps a very valid one - but you'd think that everyone else is crazy (mainstream economists and the Fed) and/or evil (Republicans and capitalists). They align with socialists and against capitalists at every turn. The hostility toward anyone with a different view is breathtaking. Deficit hawks are in for a special kind of wrath. They seem to hate Wall Street and CEO's, blaming the system the government has allowed to operate instead of the government officials who made it so. As if socialist government officials haven't contributed to the whole unstable mess. In short , MMTers do a very, very poor job of selling their theories.

There's a lot to consider, a lot to actually like about MMT. But I can't help but wonder why it is such a secret? Is it being taught in college? Is it holding conventions, writing books, marketing itself like the Austrian, Keynesian and Chicago School of economic theories?

If you can get past the arrogance MMT is fascinating.


Ugh