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

The Problem with China

I must admit having been fascinated with China for some time. Similarly as a young man I was fascinated with the Soviet Union, you know they had all those nuclear missiles pointed at us and all. The USSR was a construct nation, not unlike America in that it was built on an idea not necessarily on a culture. Russia aside the Soviets only lasted 70 years. America is just a few hundred years old. China on the other hand is an ancient culture, thousands of years old. China's known history extends back further than any in the west, rivaling the Middle East's pre-biblical times. China's history is as rich and intriguing as any in the West. So one might be compelled to ask - what happened? It seems that China failed to progress on pace with the West. Is it as simple as China was looking inward while the West and Great Britain was looking outward? Whatever the case may be it's safe to say China is not merely looking inward any more.

Since the great cultural and economic awakening of the past 40 years China has made incredible strides, now rivaling the United States as a dominant economic power. Take a look at these comparison charts for a moment.

However remarkable China's ascent has been the problems facing the emerging giant are huge. The causes span the range from as simple as the growing pains of a rural society transforming into and urban society to rampant corruption from the top of the Communist party down to the local building inspector. Look at these headlines randomly pulled from the Internet...

China’s Massive Water Problem

There's no denying it: China's got a debt problem.

China's Massive Pollution is Indicative of Broader Problems

There's just one problem with China's economic recovery 

The Ten Grave Problems Facing China

The Real Problem with China’s Ghost Towns

Why Americans Should Worry About China’s Food Safety Problems

 True, several of these could easily have America replacing the word China and no one would bat an eye. However, when you add them up and understand the depths of the issues you start to see not everything is coming up roses in China these days.

It's hard to say which of these challenges China will rise up to face, but the pollution problem and the debt problem float to the top. The pollution in China is worse than industrial America at it's peak. Rivers are choked with industrial run off and the air in the major cities is literally toxic. These things seem odd to Westerners who began to tackle these issues decades ago. Air pollution was a huge concern when the Olympics were held in Beijing in 2008. The problem does not end at the Chinese borders, toxic clouds easily traverse the Pacific Ocean and have bee detected in Canada and the U.S. China is an ecological disaster by any standards. Recently the central government announced pollution was a top concern, it remains to be seen if industry and locals make it one.

The debt problem is trickier, just as it is in the U.S. and the West. Debt is obviously vital to economic growth and it's been badly mismanaged in the West and there's no doubt it's being mismanaged in China too. In China the concern is that the Shadow Banking system rising up at the local level will have nothing to back it up when the credit market collapses in the face of slower growth - which is inevitable as the economy matures. The issue with debt fueling economic growth for the sake of economic growth - to keep workers working - is a question of demand and therefore repayment. You need one to achieve the other. Yet building continues even when demand is light or non-existent as is the case of the famous Ghost Cities. It would be like building Detroit (or re-building as the case may be) with no one being able to afford to live there. There is zero demand for the new buildings, shopping centers and housing in these Ghost Cities. Overbuilding is one thing, but to do it over and over is bizarre.

Despite all the problems one cannot fail to be awed by the rise of China in such a short time. As American's struggle to find anything on the shelves of our big box stores not made in China we wonder what will become of our workers, our economy. Clearly China can manufacture quality stuff, particularly consumer electronics under the guidance of American and Japanese companies. They also produce a lot of cheap junk. Junk so cheap we don't get too upset when it falls apart or breaks, we just buy another.

Therein lies the problem.

American's can look high and low for American made products but they aren't likely to find them. The very nature of the cheap junk paradigm means that American manufacturers have pulled up stakes and left for China too. Only the suits live back in the States. Their former workers have the luxury then to go to Walmart and buy - very cheaply - what they used to make and pay for it with their government assistance check. Is it me or is there something very wrong with this picture?

American companies are between a rock and a hard place. To stay in the picture they have to abide by the laws of jungle which means capital will follow the cheapest labor when all else is equal. For low cost consumer goods there's not much that can be done. Cheap labor is cheap labor. American companies can choose then to go with quality and high end luxury goods where the margins are higher. The problem with that is the Europeans and the Japanese have already staked that territory out and they do a pretty good job of it.

Well then, American companies can rely on innovation, right? We've always been the innovators, right? Not so fast. An increasing number of research facilities have moved to China too. It only makes sense to innovate in the same place you manufacture.

What's left? If it wasn't for the defense industry, aerospace and industrial machines there wouldn't be much left for high end, high quality manufacturing in the United States. It's true that there's a lot of manufacturing still taking place in the U.S. but the trajectory is heading in the wrong direction and the current national government is of no help at all. The gutting of the defense sector will have a domino effect on good paying jobs across the country. The animus between the current regime in Washington and our last great aerospace company Boeing makes you wonder to what depths will they sink to destroy what's left of our high end manufacturing industries.

There is hope that cheaper and more reliable energy will be the difference maker for the U.S. but again the current government despite all their claims to have presided over an incredible energy boon has done nothing but stand in the way. The Keystone Pipeline being one huge case in point, of course. Additionally they are on the record with a desire to kill the coal industry. They continue to deny any access to government lands for advanced oil and gas extraction. They are not so quietly turning "fracking" into a dirty word. They spread enough disinformation about potential environmental catastrophes to get the public to put the brakes on further domestic energy development. Will America snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Yes, if the current leadership gets it's way.

All this will result in China's continued ascent and continued job losses in middle America. China's ghost towns are shiny and spectacular, America's ghost towns are sad remnants of a once great nation sold down the river for reasons a once great people don't really understand.

Will the world be better off with China holding the leadership mantle?



Ugh

I see smart people

Modern Man knows everything except himself...

The shame of our schools not teaching history through the eyes of the brilliant thinkers of antiquity is that students come to think John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are smartest people that ever lived. This is not to say Colbert and Stewart aren't wickedly smart people, but they are not thinkers. They are mockers. They make fun of the reasoned notions and the time worn conclusions of everything and everyone that came before them. Whatever value they may add to the culture is meager and fleeting. So be it, they're entertainers.

To single out Stewart and Colbert is unfair, there are multitudes of sharp minds in the modern culture. A sharp mind like Howard Stern's in my eyes has been completely wasted on self aggrandizement and pornography. You can say he's an entertainer and he's just doing his job, besides people like pornography. That doesn't mean it isn't a waste. So too with Chelsea Handler. Clearly this woman is sharp, but like Stern she wallows in put downs and lowest common denominator observations. She appeals to basest parts of our psyche, and because she is a woman it's interesting, but no less a waste. Again these two are just entertainers doing their part to lower discourse and encourage thoughtlessness. Besides, they are cool, and cool is all that matters. Being a Mr. Smartypants is so uncool.

This is as much an indictment of the greater culture, particularly parenting and the educational system as it is anything else. It's entertainers not parents and teachers who inform and literally shape the minds of the young with their flippant and cynical representations of everything good and decent. Eternal truth and beauty are replaced with degeneracy and mental pornography.

It wasn't always like this. There was a time when striving for knowledge, truth and beauty were cool. Before the advent of electronic mass media people like Edison, Tesla and Einstein were stars. The value to the world these people made is incalculable. Contrast and compare to the Kardashian's or JayZ and Beyonce of today. Even just narrowing on entertainment, consider that Charles Dickens, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson to name a few were as revered for their contribution to the intellect of the young mind as much as for the entertainment value of their work. One would hope they are still teaching about these great minds in schools.

People today want to think that we are so intellectually superior to the generations that came before that it's pointless to even consider the value of  past genius. We are not superior, not by a long stretch. Our technology is but our thinkers are not.

In this age of enlightenment that began in the last half of the 18th century it was the separation of science from natural theology that has lead inexorably to this cultural phenomenon. How many know that the field of "science" was only professionalized within the last 150 years? Natural sciences had been the realm of theologians in the Western world since long before the dark ages. Theology was the most professionalized field in existence for centuries. Every scientific truth uncovered in antiquity that we still recognize today was brought forth by theists and theologians. These facts are no less valuable today. It was theists like Galileo, Copernicus and Issac Newton who set the foundations for astronomy that we still rely on today to send men into space.

There were countless great minds of the past like Blaise Pascal and John Locke and others, theologians and believers whose contribution to modern philosophy is immense. If they are taught in schools at all their Christianity is suppressed. Great thinkers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are shunned completely in public schools. Even the modern saint Rev. Martin Luther King (named after the great Christian reformer Martin Luther) has his pastor title stripped in all public discourse. More modern thinkers and Christians like CS Lewis, Walker Percy and Peter Kreeft are merely lost in the cosmos - so to speak - as far as younger generations are concerned.

The old phrase throwing the baby out with the bath water comes to mind. In the all out effort to secularize the culture all the societal and moral value of the Christian era is being systematically wiped out. As if no redeeming societal significance comes from Christianity itself or the great minds of it's believers, past or present. As if washing the hands of the crimes committed by the overarching Christendom that proceeded the historical figure of Jesus Christ is justified, it is the height of insanity to erase the greatest single influence of the Western world. The Jesus of the Gospels never condoned many of things done in his name.  

As such it's one thing to downplay or suppress "God" or "Jesus" in every aspect of modern life, it's quite another to be openly hostile to the point of making laws against it - which is where we are heading. There are school districts that are planning to ban Jesus Christ - the historical figure - from the curriculum. The Jesus of the Gospels is probably the greatest cultural teacher that ever lived. Whether one believes in the deity of Christ or not to pretend he or his legacy never existed is a crime perpetrated on children.

The question is why is this happening? Well... Do we really not know?

Anyway, as the natural sciences separated and emerged as a distinct profession outside of theology the false narrative emerged that Christianity was somehow always at odds with reason and rationalism. It is now a given that there is a warfare between "religion and science". It's not true now and it has never been true. Even the battle over Darwinism is a false narrative spoon fed by intransigent atheists on one side and equally intransigent Christians on the other. Most of Christianity sees no real conflict between evolutionary concepts and the providence of God - yes, and especially the Catholic Church.

Modern man thinks he knows so much, but he doesn't or won't know himself; an unexamined soul sees no sin and therefore rejects it. He lives in a culture based on moral relativism, where nothing is more true than anything else, it only matters where you are seeing it from, and more importantly how you feel about it. Therefore nothing can really be known, especially about the self. With his mind steeped in relativism he rejects sin and the existence of evil. He can't draw the line between what is good and righteous and what is vile and disgusting.

For all the smart people alive today do any of them bother to question why the culture is adrift in a sea of turmoil with nothing to guide it to safe shores? I thought not.


Ugh

Global Warming charade just another Intelligent Design

The big red flag in the history of the Global Warming thesis should have been the declaration that the science is settled. The science is never settled. It's an egregious claim even for politicians to make let alone scientists who should know better. By issuing this heavy handed statement they gave themselves permission to begin the process of shaming governments, business and the populace into compliance with their agenda for good or for ill.

In advanced societies people and business will only go so far, eventually the proscribed remedies cost real money. As well, people are smart enough to understand the concept of throwing money down a rat hole. It's when the limit has been reached as to what people will do voluntarily to mitigate their so-called "carbon footprint" that the anthropogenic global warming pushers resort to dangerous and destructive activities. 

The pushers have every right to their opinion. They have every right to express their opinion and try to convince others that theirs is the right and moral position. They don't, however, have the right to declare the truth and then get laws passed or create regulations based on that truth that will severely degrade the economic destinies of the multitudes while enriching the few. Yet, this is exactly what has happened - even as evidence pours in that the science is not settled and that the pushers routinely lie about and obscure their own "facts".

The fact is that climate and its variables are not that well understood. The effect of solar variability and cosmic influences are not well understood. The very nature of the self correcting biosphere is not well understood. Then with all this uncertainty to claim that  the effects of mankind's activity and particularly an increase in the trace gas C02 makes it conclusive that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is upon us is the height of scientific arrogance. (please refer to  http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/ )

I'm reminded of another thesis that has no place in the law or the school house. After the Christian fundamentalist failure to elevate Creationism to level of Darwinian Theory in the schools (primarily because it was clearly theistic and not science) a new idea emerged called Intelligent Design. ID was presented as an answer to Darwinism by auguring for irreducible complexity among other things and against natural selection. The issue for ID arises when you wind up in a spiral of infinite regression trying to identify the designer as being anything but God. There is no empirical evidence of a first cause or prime mover if you will, and there never will be. Therefore it isn't science. While there are gaps and holes in Darwinian Theory there is empirical evidence that aspects of the theory are true and demonstrable.

I happen to believe in a "first cause" or God, but I do so on faith because all any of us can ever observe or hope to measure are second causes. The wonders and mysteries of this beautiful world and awesome creation may forever be hidden from us, because until we are unleashed from our mortal coils we are on the inside looking out. We will never be in a position to report on the ultimate "truth". Like a drop of water flowing downstream we can't see the river to even understand that we are in the river.

ID proponents unable to prove it is even a workable theory try to use public opinion and the courts to get into school curriculum along side evolution. Science isn't done in a courtroom or with sound bites.

So too with the proponents of AGW, unable to sufficiently tip public opinion or persuade the corporate world to go all in due to their own untrustworthy science they have used the tremendous power of governments and a willing mainstream media to shove wasteful and damaging policies down our throats toward their end goals. The thing to ask is are they even being honest about those goals? Is it really about green energy and saving the Earth?

So-called “Green” energy is dubious because it doesn't come close to living up to its hype and it harms taxpayers: inefficient technologies like solar and wind energy survive only through taxpayer-funded subsidies. The federal government investing billions in numerous “green” energy projects that have gone bankrupt has literally stuck taxpayers with the tab. Green energy is also destructive because it has been used to enrich government cronies and the war-chests of politicians, while established industries are unreasonably regulated with the specter of punitive expense to companies and rate payers. People will gladly pay for value, and a clean environment has value, but a scam is a scam.

A scam always has an ultimate goal underlying the mechanisms of the play. Obviously this is usually money, of course. It may well be the case with the Climate Change industry, and probably is, but I think it's more sinister than just money. I think there are two things that drive this scam at its core. One being the destruction of Western Civilization and the other a massive reduction in the human population. The two go hand in hand. Western Civ represents growing economies and wealth and thus a support base for more and more consumption. World poverty is going down faster than at anytime in history - this is bad for the saviors of the planet.

The saviors themselves will never suffer nor will their families, but everyone else will.



Ugh