F Dominicus Blog

A politically incorrect blog about matters of money, government, bureaucracy, freedom and sometimes something else.

May 2011 - Posts

What are the signs
that we nearing us an end of a bubble/burst cycle?

I wished I knew. So I just can speculate. At first it seems the debts were piled up higher than ever before in "peaceful" history. Peaceful in the sense that there is no war in Europe. But maybe I'm just too optimistic about the war stuff, maybe one has to admit it's war between the deledefs and us. But well we currently do not shoot one another (but don't ask me how long that will last).

There a a few other signes that maybe this time the end of this cycle is nearing. Gold still raises, slow but steady. And the worst fiat-currencies (EUR and US) are declining as well. I know there is not "real" alternative country on this earth, basing their economy on values, but well there are worse and a little better than worse fiat-money currencies. However we also see raising prices of commodities. The raises are not that striking in the "non-core" inflation area. But non-core inflation is kind of "a little bit pregnant". It's something that simply "does" not exist. We see devaluation races while the central bank go wild printing money. And so yes I think the prices show this devaluation.

Interesting also that the politicians are just cycling around each other and try hard to avoid any acknowledge of their population. You can see this in the last G8 meeting, which one just can describe with one word: spooky. They just were placed behind fences and the executive was closing down everything else. There you could see that they are not hampered by any sort of reality. It really was one of the days, one could see how they are not "working" for the public. At least not what I understand under public.

We've seen remarkable actions of men in north africa. They did not have learned much from our faults, but they managed to drive away their current deledefs which is a good thing. But I'm afraid they will follow the next duper, to some stupid thing. I hope I will be 100% wrong on this, but I do not see that politicians currently "leading" have done that much good. But may be "this time is different?" I can't tell.

The actions of the federal banks seem to be desperation in disguise. They tell us "Everythign is under control" but I would not believe that for a second. So currently they try to prolong the suffering, but in the end we know "we are all dead" and Fiat money will die if not these days or months than someday in the future. You can not have "money" as debt. It's one of the biggest chams ever in history. We are trying to sneak our way to wealth. That does not work. And devaluation of currencies is the surest way into doom. There is not exception to this rule. The "ruling" people, start issuing less valuable money and use their guns to "convince" us to take the more bad money on face to "better" alternatives. And I'm afraid there is never a "this time is different" in this area. The currently leading people do want to "lead" in the future too and so they do everything they possibly can to keep "their" system running. And so we never ever will see that they try not to fight what they probably will call "the market". They will always attack those pointing out their lies....

And I ask you frankly. How can one believe that devils would to anything not to tantalize their "underlings"?

Let's have a look at laws

I'm currently reading Bastiat the whole collection. I ordered it from Mises and it was again some eye-opener I got from them. To be honest I did not not of the austrian schoole since maybe 3 or so years ago. Despite the fact that I studied at least some of the political economics. However Mises and von Hayek were not even mentioned. We we're fed with some kind of Models and I remember as if it has been yesterday liquidity traps. So I guess we were taught "voodo" economics.

Strange enough I always felt even to that time that something was deeply wrong. And the more I read from liberals and libertarians the more of my let's call it "feelings" get underpinned with well let's name it facts. Another thing I remember was my education for getting a farmer. In Germany this is a profession you have to learn (it took around 2-3 years). That has been in the 80ies of the last century. Yes indeed I'm currently in the, I think one can name it "middle" ages". My father was and ever have been and ever will be farmer by heart. It was his life. And I guess if there's a heaven my father will be farmer there too ;-). In my second and last year of this education, I worked on a farm for pig breeding.

I think this farm was near "under-water" but that's another thing. I did my high school degree and well it was "perfoliated". But I think I was and am quite capable of calculating with interest and run of three, yes and I think the basic arithmetics are also known. I remember to that times I had a few discussions with my father. I'd come to the conclusion that the subsedies paid to farmers is simple wrong. And to that time I also cam to the conclusion that farming had a bad earning state. You need a lot of money for a farm and if you then just get that in return what I calculated roughly it was not a terrible good idea. But back to the subsedies. My father though that at least the subsedies for farming were adequate, because one "has " to eat.

In that regard he is fully right and nobody can deny it but we lived in times were trading was not that much hampered and so I though well yes maybe farming is to expensive in Gemany (it deifinitly is, but I just learned later that it's that expensive because of the "laws", with which the governments make it that "expensive". So I was thinking if the farmers cannot get around withourt subsedies. we probably should import it from other countries. A though it would be a win-win situation. The countries with better results in farming trade with us in Germany which probably are the among the best in engine building. And to that time I just started thinking, free trade is the "base" of all wealth.

Till a few years later father and I could not agree upon it. But then after 10 to 15 years one day we sat together and he just said: "I guess you were right". Why did he was able to admit it: Well farming has but one trait, you are in the hands of nature. You can bee the best farmer in the world, if there is a year of drought or flooding you loose a years hard work. Nowhere else this is that that noticeable. But here one "natural law" comes into play. The law is: "Don't take anything for granted, prepare yourself for years of misery". So successful farming means saving enough that you can "survive" one or more bad years. I now it does not work forever, but base you farming on credit and you are bound to fail. I don't know fi the prior mentioned farmer still is in business, if he won't, I'd not be surprised, I'd be more surprised if the first dairy farm would not exist any longer. This was a cautious farmer, which "knew", that one has to live withing one bounds.

So we have laws of nature, and nothing can prevent them for taking place. So the first rule (you can name it law) is, no the "facts". And here's the big fall of any government, even if they "knew" the facts they would and do try to fight them. This never can work. One "fact" is that one can not get rich by piling up debt, it's absolutely impossible. You just can get rich by "saving". That means using less than you have. Governments ignore this simply fact since ages. And now it seems "the law" strikes back.

How did they manage to exploits their populations for that long?. Well part of it is that the population bears the laws and "obeys" them because they think they are good, or if not good unavoidable. Another possibility is that government has bought this "agreement" there are a lot of ways of doing that. One of the most popular are subsidies for any kind of felt or adopted injustice. You know this kind of things. "We can not work that effective because this or that get unfair advantages from xxxxx " fill in whatever you like.

And their are the unjust laws, which allow plundering. And as Bastiat has correctly written at least some, especially those one can name defrauders, do not like to work with their own hands. They like to exploit other people and take away something from them. This unfair people start working for governments. And suddenly they are not bound for unsolicited exchange. They just have to follow the rules, decided by the biggest plunderers. Oh yes they write nice things about freedom etc. but there will be one special law the laws for raising taxes and here we got.. Taxes means taking from someone at the point of a gun and not have to "give" anything back. However it's the law. And this law is not "natural" it's a law devised. To make this unjustice not felt that directly, one starts talking about schools not build, streets not build or whatver and that one "must" have this or that or whatever.

However Bastiat write the only thing he could though laws have to be. "Laws are justice". Now it's unjust that taxes take away but with some empty promise that those taking away surely will just use it for the best of "all". But this is not the law Bastiat accepts. These "laws" just can be named phrases for debts and thieves.

So we can conclude many of the laws are not for saving ons property but to legalize theft. This theft however just can take place because the majority of people do not feel and see this as unjust. This laws feed one of the most primitive and ugliest things in men: Envy. It seems most of the people fell it is "just" to take away from the rich and the government workers are the "Robin Hoods" of the "man-on-the-street". They are anything but right. Anyway many of the laws fill the "desire" of some kind of revenge. Bureaucrats are very innovative if it comes to plundering but not to be hold responsible for this plunder. Just see what happens with Tepco, BP etc. The state has limited the liabilites of this large corporations.... Shouldn't that be something to be considered?

So the "laws" are perverted. They are not for saving one's properties for unjust claims. But for founding claims on how to take it away from us. I just can see any avoidance of e.g. taxes as self defense. The problem is the delebets tighten their grip around your property, decade by decade, year by year, month by month, week by week, day by day...... We just can try to find the "natural" law and the natural low is that of unsolicited trade, and we all should work for it and one of the most important starting point is that we take away the monopoly of deciding what money is from the governments. If we abolish Fiat-money systems we'd have a big strike against the Deledefs. Sure they will fight us whenever they can. But you see it's obvious that their ponzi-scheme comes to an end. They have not obeyed the first rule of economics. "Live within your bounds". And this fault is getting more apparent day by day, failout package after failout package, new last vendors....

They will get broke by "the law" itself.

Let's have another look at debts
There are quite a few sites which do care about the careless money printing of the FED and the lending of government.

Just a few actual links: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2011/05/23/visualizing-the-debt-ceiling/ and even more frightening (at least to me): http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I mentioned Obamas Obamacare which will drive piling new debts onto another level. IMHO the US are beyond the point of no return. They have lived on debt for too long and the longer it persists the harder the hangover.

However I simply have difficulties to believe the numbers from this link: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2011/05/21/california-ballot-propositions-regarding-public-employee-spending/ Robbery is a too weak word for that. Does anyone can support this figures?

However if you read Bastiat you'll find an interesting chapter head-titled with "The Law". And as I understand it we are talking not longer about laws to safe one's property but the plunder version of it. And according to Bastiat it means every one is free to fight that. You can see how "nice" laws were crafted for those plundering. So you can not simply pay no taxes anymore. If you go to the supermarket you pay taxes at the point of the cashier. At least the VAT must be paid. If you do not pay your taxes you will get prosecuted, jailed and disowned. You see the inbalance. The state has all the weapons and enough plunderes helping him. The legislatives holds an executive and the executive must obey the laws of the legislative. And fair enough the executive is paid by the legislative and so in fact all policemen, or anyone else working for the government piles up another level of injustice. They never would see it that way because they are "obeying" the laws, and I'm in do doubt they do. But obeying laws of plunderers means, being a plunderes itself.

And unjust law is just that. And on of the most infamous plunderer laws is that government has the monopoly of issuing worthless paper money. And put force on every one to accept this as "money". The debt is just another word for slavery. The own population has to work to buy the interest and principal and not one cent from it is beared by bureaucrats or the legistlative. Sure they pay the VAT they pay income tax. But this income tax does not come from serving any customer it just comes from "serving" the law.

And then you can see things like this: http://blog.independent.org/2011/01/28/9234/#comment-154729

I'm sorry but everyone working for the government is not honorable, quite the opposite they all work on suppressing every men in a country.

Thanks but no to Mrs Lagarde

I'm against Mrs Lagard for the IMF. The IMF is just a from Politician controlled instrument, with no-failure-built-in. It's not a market instrument, because otherwise hardly any political pressure could be come from it. So short, it's dictatorship pure.

Mrs Lagard has an open dispute about corruption and all in all France is the county for centralism.

The only "right" thing would be to abolish the IMF. This will not happen so we should at least get some democratic control about it.

If we have this IMF we should have president of a country which never has gone bankrupt. France was known to default every 50-100 years in the 17-19 th century. I also am against any Chinese at the top (China is the last "big" dictatorship around with not acknowledgement for any human rights). The IMF president should come from a country with the lowes corruption rate, That is the only thing which "may" help anyone.

Here on Mises the guys have an idea on the problems with central banks http://blog.mises.org/17035/mad-men-2/ So the only "right" way is abolish the central banks, and introducing sound money. And then the debts avalanches will not be a problem. It's just the constuction of Fiat money with last lenders all over the place. Responsibility is an emtpry phrase if it comes to deledefs and bureaucrats

Could need helping hints
As you have seen in my previous entry, I can not see that a debt ratio of states can be related to GDP.. So I'm looking for a rough idea on how high the prroperty value of the diverse states may be. I know that not all of it is disponible but it's still is something "owned" by the states. The GDP is not owned by anyone. It's just a number of all the work done in a year.

We then see how high the debts are and what will happen if government will have to pay "normal" interest not this artificial low interest set by the Fed

So any hints are welcome. One I got was: debtclocl of the US....

The madnesss of GDP related debts.

I'm suprised that a debts rate of is calculated with the GDP.

I know "every" does it. But if are at the edge of a canyon, and everyone is marching on, makes this march not less stupid

Let's translate it into our "world" (the non government world) So I'M living in Heidelsheim around 5000 inhabitants. Now what the produce can be seen as "my" GDP. So let's assume I have 100 000 EUR debts. But all i all the 5000 people would produce an GDP of 1 000 000. So my debt/GDP ratio is just 10%. According to this I guess my finances would be sound.

But know we get back into reality. I do not have access on the money of my neighbours. I've my income. So let's calculate with an income of 25000. So I'd need at least 4 years to pay back all my debts. Would you think my financial situation is sound? Well you would ask what else does he have to "secure" the liability. So let's be generous and give me 200 000 EUR . So in reality I'd just have 100 000 EUR (assuming I could make my property to money at an immediate notice) Still the question are my finances sound? We still don't know.

Now let's switch back to the state analogy. As we know states do not have a balanced balance sheet. Each year they need extra credit. Now let's assume I'm one of the better one's and just need 10% extra debts on my income. That means each year I'd add another 2500 EUR debts. So let's calculate with an interest of 5%. So my payments currently are around 5000 EUR. Next year I've to pay 1375 EUR interest. No let's calculate if I do that for 50 years. I than have a debt of 600 000 EUR (if I could bear at lest all the interest) and my interest payment would be around: 30000. Which is absolutly impossible. So now you can say, my situation is all but sound.

But now back to the case of the government. Let us assume a GDP groswoth of the Heidelsheimer inhabitants of around 2.5%. So in 50 years we'd have a GDP (without inflation!!!!) of 3 437 109. EUR and my debt/GDP ratio just would be: 0,174565311 that are 17,5%. Still for states this is sound?

So I do not think that Debt/GDP is a wortwhile measure. We should just allow governments do calculate their debts with their income. Just imagine what 160% debt of the GDP means ... So I can not see how e.g Greece could "bear" that and in fact it's getting more and more obvious... they can't....

What signals does the EU safety chute emit?

I'm currently reading about the report of the IMF about Greece. You can find it under:http://www.imf.org/external/country/index.htm

I'm very skeptical over any of these just be states controlled supranational institutions. I feel we think there money for doubtful outcomes. And in a way I think this are parrallel universes cycling around themselves. So the biggest problems with this organizations is that they "can not fail" whatever they do. It does not matter how much money they thing while contributing to keeping corrupt regimes running. You know there is not "market" for their offers. Theres is but one IMF. So whatever they decide to do or not is conclusive.

This is near inerrable. Yes there may be critique voices. And still one has to concede there are also clever (and surely well paid) specialists there. So we probably can learn from their findings. Unfortunately we do not have any influence on how to react on those findings. So overall I see the IMF as part of the problem not the solution.

For normal banks the "lenders of the last resort" are in that order. The own central bank, the own government, (in the EU) the EU commission, and then comes the IMF) . So quite a lot of those "taking" away the responsibility on standing on one's own feet. And still the IMF is plagued with one terrible problem. The just decide bureaucratically. They ask for papers over papers (which someone has to gather), then the follow procedures (which no the sure way a market tells whether you did right or wrong) . But if the procedures are followed, nothing can happen. They still will get their payments, and gain influence over time just because if somethings going wrong they will be the "saviors".

But back to the report. I suggest really reading it there you can find a lot of information (unfortunately in diplomatic speech) which really makes it a plagued reading. However you can see that at least something happens.

As I can see this actions still have no calming impacts. If they actions would be honored or would have a good influence on the debt situation, it should be no problem to get new credits. But still the required interests are beyond anything one really can bear. If I do have to trust supranational organizations or markets I know what side to take. But the deledefs just see their side. They never really bother thinking about markets. It's always the markets are evil (and we have to fight the markets) and they loose every time. But they do not learn anything from it.

Au contraire, they do the same mistakes over and over and over and over again. Just see "This time is different" and you can see, their fallings. Instead of not "having" some extra last lender of last resort" a new last lender is invented, every time. Now imagine a world in which this things were not their and money sound. Nobody could get that large to threaten the system and even then, there would be no one "saving" them. Would you expect the same hazardous behavior?

The realy problem we all have is that money is a monopoly of states, and they enforce it with any means. And that's where we call get caught. So let's work for freeing our money for any government influence and we'll be much finer.

So what signals can you see in the EU "safety" chute. It's the signal that wrong-doers are saved from their responsibility. And that's what sticks. Everything in EUR land just tells. Don't bother to live within your bounds. You can have party and after that you may have some hang-over but don't be afraid, you can have the next party the day after tomorrow.

This signal is understood by the markets but not by governments. The interest rate of up to 15% and higher tell exactly what one can expect a default within the next three years....

Stimulus at work
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/05/029042.php Just one word: devastating.
How does QE come into "life"

I'm wondering. I could not find the first mention of this "anti-word"

Can anyone give me a hint? Wikipedia suggests:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing So it was "born" in Japan. And well AFAIKT it does not have worked that well, or am I mistaken?

For me QE is just printing money under different words.

Another question in this regards. Does anyone know of a country which does not have Fiat-money? It seems that at least in the US the pendulum swings back to "better " money. Currently the defenders of the worthless fiat-money are supressing other solutions. But know: "First they laugh at you, then they they fight you, then you win" or the like. I do not know when this card-house of bad money willl crumble, but it's not a question if any more it's just how long will we have to suffer.....

Intermediate status

Of Inflation up to 3.1 % in the US and 2.4% in EURo land

Does not need much more to get over 4%. If that is reached you money will half it's value in just 18 years. And still the Fed is printing money as mad. So maybe 5% is not that far away.

And again "this time isn't different". The deledefs are making debts as much as they can. And the only question is not IF debt must be just. How much do I have to pay for the debts. And the stealing goes on. They get the money first and profit from non risen prices and then people realize that they got poorer day-by-day. They'll try to get higher wages and the spiral steepens.

I've my opinion of what to do against this gangsters. I suggest you check raw materials, precious metals and land. Maybe the prices are coming down and you can make a deal. But be aware. If you will have something after this ponzi scheme tumbles down. You will have to pay for the new start. So you do not just pay one buy twice, thrice....

Was this the beginning of the end?

I'm puzzling, was the buying of Skype the beginning of the end of Microsoft? What does have driven MS to spend as much money as 8 500 000 000 for that.

I don't know where I've read it but there it was discussed that leaving one's main area hardly is successfull very long. So what could MS have reached with their Cash cows for 8.5 billions? The MS-OSes are the "market" leader and office means nearly alway the MS Office suite. It is the tool for literally billons of people. This alone is "breath" taking. And it runs on "your" machine.

For what will MS use Skype if not for "leaving" ones machine? So isn't it the case that Skype is against the MS business model?

I really do not know if it was clever to take this step. I'm under the impression that MS just is "afraid". Or maybe overconfident to "solve" the problems of the future. But if they leave their business behind what else do they offer? MS is IMHO bound to "personal computers" and now they want to leave the "personal" behind....

What have we won
or didn't we have won?

Now that the "top" terrorist is dead, will we be safer?

According to this http://thebonnieblueblog.blogspot.com/ at least not on the railroad. So Al Kaida wanted to attacke the railway infrastructure.

So at least they are weakened a bit. They were able to use plans for the prior attacks. Now they "just can go by train"? But still we need to "react" on threats of them? So what did we have won then?

It seems whatever there is there can just be one answer. More control, more buereacracy and more unproduktivity. Just imagine how much money did Al Kaida spend to bring down the twin tower? We can assume a few millions.

How much did it cost to hunt down Osama? Well the US and Nato are now more or less at war for at least tens years. If the US . The "official" costs for the military is somewhat around 600 Billion (I just do not believe this figure for a second) and so 10 * 600 billions are 6000 billions or 6 trillions. Let's be generous and say half of the money was spend because of Osama. Then we are talking about 3 trillions.

So let's come to efficiency. Osama let's say 100 million, USA 3 trillions Faktor is 100 000 000/3 000 000 000 000 = 0,0000333 as effective. Well we can say we just need 5-10 Osamas and the USA is finished. They would have spend all there money on "fighting" the terrorists. all the GDP would be burned. So in fact one just needs a Billion to bring the US down. Now tell me anything about the best equipped military complex of the world.... In fact Ghadaffi should have enough to handle that. ... he#s a bit unfortunate nevertheless, because he has probably not so "fine fanatics" among his followers. So it seems Ghadaffi would be well advised to finance Al Kaida. They have enough fanatics, and he has the money. .... Would be deadly for this kind of US....

Reading suggestion

Well if I'm have one special weakness, then it's reading. And because of this weakness I stumbled upon quite few books which one just can name "eye-opener"

It has happened with the following books: Human Action, the road to serfdom. Geldsozializmus, End the Fed, and stuff from Friedman. Now it has "happened" again. This time I strongly propose reading "This Time is different". In a few words. "The state of affairs is devastating". I never could imagine men so stupid over and over again but here we go.

I know this books will not be read by those responsible for the mess. For them another books is the guide line. "Expert Political Judgement" and here especially the hedgehoogs. And those are mostly getting it wrong but it does not matter, the main reason for them is "They are heard". And so you can easily identify them in the form of Bernanke, Krugman and all those. They "know" what the future will bring and they "no for sure" the cure. Unfortunately most of the time they do not get it right. And you have one suggestion free on whom they harm.....

Very well put
http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=10405

Again there is nothing substantial to be add.

Poverty the deledefs way
Just see the following there is a construct called relative poverty. And it's "definition" is that those are poor which earn less than half of the average income.

So let's see an example. Our world is simple we have 1/3 earning 1000 GE, 1/3 earning 2000 and GE 1/3 earning 3000 GE. So our average is 2000 GE and we do not have one "poor" soul.

Now the middle earners get 10 GE more so our average is now: 2003,33. And now we suddenly have 1/3 poor people. Nothing has really changed for the "less much earning parts" but still now they are considered poor. So if the average climbs for whatever reason especially if those above average earn just a cent or whatever more the poor parts raise.

Even more absurd. Imagine just one person with an earning of 6000 GE enters the scene. Suddenly there are "more" poor souls. In Germany we have absurd laws for people considered especially true. If they live divorced and the partner does not live in Germany they even get the right for a flight tickt to the other country. If you are a little above this poors and you can not afford to buy this ticket you have to stay home. The idea that this is this way does not feel "right" for most of the Germany but a few say it's unfair to those regarded poor that they are not "unwilling" to work but just unlucky or whatever.

However the deledefs of course ride on thiis definition and take that as a permission to steal more from the not "poors". If you can read german just type in "Armut in Deutschland" and then read the entries.

Having to think about an absolute limit on where poverty strikes, is of course a difficult undertaking. And So why bother? Just use the relative definiton and thinks turn out "brutally". If the average income raises much more poors have to be "fed". ..... That's deledefs logic....

The reason vor poverty are mentioned on: http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/182080/umfrage/meinung-zu-gesellschaftlichen-gruenden-fuer-armut/ The main reason found for 54% of the asked people is that the wages are too low.

Now this suggests an immediate answer from the deledefs the minimum wage. This means we open a new chapter in the never ending story of "How deledefs raise the poorness. Minimum wages suggest a demand for work that can not be fullfilled by the markets. And so people do start learning a certain job, just to recognise there is not "work" to be done any more. The jobs simply vanish and instead of raising wealth. We have more people unemployed, so either the tax or debt have to be increased and it all lend to a death spriral of even more unemployment. I do not know where the level is of a rate of unemployment which can be sustainable. But I doubt it's m uch above 25%. And surely it must be well below 50%.

The problems of raising unemployment will yield an extension of bueraucrats jobs and this have to be paid by less and less productive corporation. We slide down the spiral faster and faster.... At the same time the industry is searching for skilled workers. I wonder why it is not possible for the somewhat 3 Millions jobless people here to get skilled. With minimum wages in every area the incentive to do so will just vanish like snow in the sun......

If we see that their are less and less children nearly everywhere in developed countries we'll find another problem that of higher unemployment and more payments to the elder generation. This gap just can be filled by immigration and that's another very hot area, in which deledefs never ever got it right. I'm not very optimistic about the outcome. I expect that "real" poverty will raise it's ugly had. This usually has meant war and starving in the past.....

I never will understand how people are able to think that more "regulation" will be the cure. The more the markets are hampered the worse the end effect for all will be. But they are trying this route over and over and over and over again.... I can not find another expression as "stupidity" for that....

More Posts Next page »