Thursday, November 29, 2012

The 5 Nations Of America

As I have said in my blog post, and in numerous other posts in other blogger's blogs, I would expect the partition of the United States to be a disaster for a variety of reasons; none the least being that the real divide in America currently is rural versus urban, but I am digressing.

Here interesting article by Joel Koetkin were he writes about the '5 nations' of America.  Now these nations aren't based on any racial cultural demographics, and really aren't multiple nations like there are say in the United Kingdom, and we should probably add a few more nations for the increasingly Latino southwest and mix raced Hawaii if we added a demographic view to it, rather they are based on geographic, economic, and political guidelines.

The nations, while mostly ignoring racial, religious, and urban versus rural make ups, are generally split into who they voted for in 2008 and their economic prospects.  Joel Koetkins essentially makes these points:

  1. Given that both parties can reliably count on the two nations, each one is generally seeing larger and larger control of their respective regions, the rust belt becomes the fulcrum point on how national elections, and from there policy, will turn.
  2. The conservative nations are seeing far stronger economic and population growth relative to the liberal nations. Kotkin has said that despite short term set backs for republicans the long term state population growth demographics favor republicans; someone like Vox would disagree.
  3. Depending on what the president does on fracking, which heavily affects the rust belt states, it could evaporate democrats gains in this region of the country.
Now it is very apparent that Joel doesn't ascribe to the racial demographic outlook wherea someone like Vox does. I myself am on the fence, like I have said before, I have never been what you call a race realist, but I am a cultural one. Certain cultures are superior to others and human societal evoluition is proof of this, and no amount of verbosity by those who find those ideas distasteful will change my mind. And as much as I hate to admit it, at times, Vox, and others like him, make some salient points. I don't think having a multiracial America is a negative, it isn't inherently positive either.  Whether immigration is a fountainhead of our power or a deluge that will drown America is up to America as a society.  However that is also another discussion, back to the issue at hand.

The larger than normal growth for the red states may simply be conservative and libertarian leaning individuals leaving the states that they tolerated only because of economic incentives.  Liberals are also leaving for the red nations, but I am willing to wager that they generally have been moving to states that have always leaned somewhat less right than others.  If the growth of the red states is predominately a shifting of individuals with differing political opinions, then this could possibly change the divide from an urban and rural one to an actual geopgraphic one; which would make Vox's prediction more likely.

On the other hand, if it is simply a migration of individuals, regardless of political creed, to better performing areas, then the divide that currently exists doesn't change. Moreover, what happens to blue states as their population drops? Will they remain blue, or will they undergo a metamorphosis? I think it would be a mistake to assume, as so many do, that once a state goes blue, it remains blue.  Once again, I will stress that this discounts certain demographic trends due to immigration and individuals varying beliefs on immigration, but the other point that needs to be taken into account, and which Joel Kotkin has pointed out before, is that conservatives are out breeding liberals.

It is entirely possible, however improbable it may appear, that even if red states start to blue we could see a general reddening of the country. Demographics is destiny, it is why China is in deep trouble, Why the Russia 100 years from now may not look like Russia today, why Japans civilization itself is threatened, and why the American progressive agenda might not survive the 21st century in America.

Now whether that means that America by virtue of demographics returns to a more constitutionally oriented society, assuming that either republican assumptions about the social conservativeness of Latinos are correct, or that if they are wrong and Latino immigration rates fall, or increased civil strife, like Vox predicts, remains to be seen. But one thing stands clear in my mind, the future of the United States, as a nation, as a society, and a civilization, depends on who is right about the effects immigration and immigrants; and what we as a nation do depending on who is right.

What Happens When You Destroy A Culture

You want to see what happens to  a society when its cultural roots are torn asunder and replaced with the morass that tries to pass itself off as culture today?  Just look at Japan, a society that was once the epitome of manly virtue reduced to this pathetic state. Where a women who married a man, probably a former otaku, forced him to 'murder' his virtual girlfriend.  This just symbolizes what is wrong in that nation today, and in many ways this anchorless society we live in today.
  1. That a man would be so committed to a virtual person, scratch that just a collection of programmed responses for a game, to invite it to a wedding. Shows the result when you completely emasculate male culture.
  2. That a women would be so insecure to force her new husband to destroy his video game.
  3. That the man reportedly shed tears when he committed the act. Need I remind you that this is not a sentient being but just a collection of pre-programmed responses.
  4. That they photographed, probably at the brides insistence, the event for posterity. Yes lets keep records of your husbands pathetic attachment to a video game character for posterity. I can just imagine this being used as fodder to emasculates him further.
Japan at least has the excuse of undergoing a two terrible nuclear bombings that fundamentally shook their culture to the core and an occupying nation that simply sought to replace the Bushido culture with an amalgamation of pseudo-democracy and capitalism. Frankly, I don't blame America, you start wars and you run the risks of having something like this happening. America put a system in place to benefit her against her fight against the Soviets, and frankly they handled the occupation far better than any of Japans neighbors would have. But that is another discussion.

Japan managed to muddle along, focusing its energies into becoming an economic super power. The salaryman work ethic replaced the Bushido code in Japanese society. What Japan had was a culture, neither anchored in the fundamental values of the west, nor the value of the east; rather, I would say it is the closet approximation of the cultural point that certain powers are trying to push America towards today. And when the sole remaining reason for being and anchor of this culture dissipated, their drive to become an economic power equal to that of the US, their culture went into a rapid nose dive.  Sad, sad, state of affairs it is to go from warrior society to nihilistic pantywaist.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Mises: Answering Old Arguments About Sound Money

Let the knowledge floweth!

British Millionaires 'Disappearing'

As the Captain always says, this is a feature, not a bug, of socialism


Tyranny. It's a powerful word the conjures up powerful images of Hebraic slaves being forced to labor under the pharaohs of pagan Egypt. The national megalomaniac administration of a Teutonic government concerned with racial purity. Or the Orwellian Ingsoc society of Oceania.  Some in the states allude to the splinter cell like operations of our own government and the seemingly ever present secrete agencies spying on their own people in the effort to combat terrorism.  However, while any one of those examples, Pharonic Egypt, National Socialist Germany, the allusions to the Soviet Union, and socialism, by Orson Wells are all examples of tyranny, those acts alone don't really articulate the meat and potatoes of what tyranny is. And a nation or culture need not be corrupted to exercise acts of tyranny.

Look at our American fore fathers. 18th century Great Britain was arguably the most liberal, just, and enlightened country of not only their age, but even when measured against the mores of the 21st century which is something I usually do not like doing, their society was more liberal than most nations today. It isn't so much a sad state of affairs for the world today more as an acknowledgement that truly enlightened and just societies, of which Rome could be considered, are rare. The rule of law, as we too often see with nations like China, is still a concept that is very rarely applied impartially. It would take some major Olympic calibre mental gymnastics to argue otherwise about Great Britain back in the days of yonder.

Even so, our fore fathers fought a revolution against a government that they considered tyrannical. They said as much publicly and in their letters to their love ones.  So, how can this be that the most enlightened nation of its age, whose citizens enjoyed far more rights than their own continental cousins in mainland France or Spain, was considered a tyrannical by its own countrymen? The answer is as simple as its definition.

Tyranny, a noun, it means arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power.  There are other additional definitions of the word, but none that capture the essence of what tyranny is. Enlightened nations can be tyrannical when authority and power is used arbitrary or when the authority vested by its citizens is abused.  For our fore fathers this meant increasingly arbitrary acts of parliament that levied taxes, stationed troops, and even confiscated their weapons without the representation of the colonies in parliament were they could at least try to address their grievances. Ultimately the tyranny of Great Britain over the colonies was that they never extend the rights of their English to their own cousins. America as we know it probably would never have existed if a few Americans had been granted seats in British parliament. Today the ever increasing regulatory and law making power of agencies, whose executives are not voted in, that are often never reviewed by congress are a new kind of tyranny.

Today we live in a society where an individual could be breaking a dozen laws and not have any knowledge, yet we are told ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how is it reasonable to expect the common man to know the byzantine codes, rules, regulations, and laws that exist today? A man today, who could have unknowingly broken the law many times throughout his life along with thousands of his compatriots, could find himself brought before a tribunal simply because he had the misfortune to make a powerful enemy or a prosecutor who was capricious enough to use him to further his own political career, is this not a form of tyranny?

When our government, and our political leadership, demagogue the productive of society and swear that they will punish them via taxation. Saying that the wealth and prosperity that was earned from the hard work of the industrious was ill-gotten, and forcing them to subsidize the life styles of the lazy, stupid, and politically connected; is that not a form of tyranny?

And while something most certainly could be said about christian responsibility to our fellow man, where those who are fortunate render voluntary assistance to those who are less fortunate. Is it not tyrannical when the few are forced to subsidize the many, regardless whether or not the programs being funded by the taxpayer violate their moral code?

Is it not tyranny when an individual is forced by law to join a trade association regardless of whether or not they want to join for certain professions?

Is it not tyranny when our government uses its power to rob from our future in order to fund our present?

And certainly when constant government meddling, interfering, and nanny stating have fundamentally changed American society. Where it once was a society where everyone assumed that an action or activity was legal unless declared otherwise; and it know assume actions have to be declared permissible. That is tyranny.

Democracy doesn't necessarily mean that a government cannot be a tyrannical one; in fact for from it as democracy can be one of the most tyrannical forms of governance.  And while, fortunately for us, our tyranny is not one of blood and terror, it is one of regulation and bureaucracy. And perhaps most disheartening is that our forefathers suffered far less before they rose against their yoke, yet today we tolerate far more injustices and injuries with nary a peep. I cannot imagine our fore fathers meekly accepting the abuses of the TSA, calling the sophistry of so many in academia truth, and the rank indifference by our congressional leaders on the constitution, or the abrogation of their responsibilities to nameless federal agencies.

Yet that is exactly were we stand today, living under the tyranny of incompetents and without principal. For the only thing preventing our congressional leaders from passing even more byzantine and punatitive laws, regardless on whether or not they even have the constitution mandate to do so, is principal and ability. It has become increasingly clear, with the constant lies about the fiscal cliff and inability to even acknowledge the real danger this nation face, that principal governs far too few of our congressional leaders. They are all too willing to sacrifice the prosperiety of our progeny, namy young generation x, y, and beyound, for a few measily votes so they can retain their trappings of power. The only thing then that prevents them is ability, or rather, the ability to enforce laws without massive public retribution.

For example the only reason gun consfication has not happened on a large scale here in America, like it has in so many other developed and supposedly liberal nations, is that it is a rank impossibility to do so. Fortunately for us, there are so many fire arms in this nation that there is no feasible way that it could peacefully consficate them if even a fraction of the American population took violent exception to such actions; but that could change. And this is only one example of circumstance, and not principal that protects our freedoms. The recent liberalization of marujanna laws are another.

The sad fact is that our government will become ever more tyrannical until we can change the fundemental outlook of this nation and its leaders. Until we can get the people of America to collectively say, should the goverment really do this, rather than, why doesn't the government do something, we will continue to suffer under the an increasingly corpulant government. Trading the chains of the aristocracy for the tape of bueacracy isn't freedom, but our elected leaders and intelligesta have convinced many Americans that this is the case.

I still hold some small measure of hope, though I feel my hope is very much like a flickering fame in a gale storm, that we can change the tide of tyranny in America. The last decade saw a few leaders, notably Mr Paul, stand up and ask real pertinent questions on the roll of government, and advance the cause of freedom. Sadly Mr. Paul has retired, though there are others who will take up his mantel, and it is time we move to the next phase.

It is increasingly clear that we, the lover of liberty, are still too small and uninfluencial to fight tyranny on a national level. But perhaps trying to change congress is the wrong avenue of approach to our problems. Appealing to the far off buearacrats in D.C was the strategy of our opponents. It is very hard to win a game where they have created the rules, and more importantly, doesn't address the real problem. Our federal governmen'ts tyranny is only the browning leaves of a tree with rot that goes to deep into our roots. Our tyranny isn't like a snake, where you can cut off the head, but like a weed; you need to kill the roots to kill the weed. Local governments are the roots of the American, and that is were the prunning must begin. It is time we pay far more attention to our local politicans and hold them accountable to the principals of our fore bearers. Not only does it offer the path to remove the yoke off our backs, and not only is it a path where the actions of a small, but committed, group of individuals have a far greater likelihood of success, it is really our only option.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Obese Woman Denied Flight Dies

Here is an article that caught my eye today. Apparently a women turned away by numerous airlines in Europe because she was obese died while trying to get back to America.  Now I don't want to fully exonerate the airline companies because they do bear some culpability.  they apparently didn't have a problem bringing her from the US to Europe, but surprisingly did have one when she was trying to return. Moreover, according she had made the flight from the US to her native Hungary every year. Either the airlines just didn't want to deal with her this time around, or they were being grossly irresponsible in flights past.  But there are some other items that need to be focused on.

She had no business flying. Not because she was obese, millions of very rotund individuals fly every day in America, but because medically it was irresponsible to do so.

(The Woman was) an amputee who suffered from kidney disease and diabetes – with a severely distended belly.
A person who has kidney disease should not be traveling. Kidney disease can turn into kidney failure far more rapidly than people expect, and I think that is ultimately what killed her. Her death was entirely preventable if either herself, or her husband, had executed any personal responsibility. I know I am coming off as unsympathetic, and I am not unsympathetic to them, but it doesn't take a stretch of someones imagination to realize that her condition made traveling perilous for many reasons. Furthermore, outside of some very rare condition, an individual doesn't end up becoming a double amputee, with diabetes, and kidney failure unless they absolutely did not take care of themselves.  They should have seen this coming from miles away, and unfortunately, due partly to human nature, and partly due to America's current cultural climate, they failed to do so.

And for all the obesity apologetics out there. Obesity is not a disease, it is a condition, one that is usually the result of actions by an individual. I am sure the women was a nice and decent individual, and I am willing to concede that kidney disease might have come first and started her descent into morbid obesity. But being nice and decent doesn't mean individuals should or will to cater to you and your condition, and disease doesn't remove the responsibility of taking care of yourself to the best of your ability.  Whether or not you believe the husband is justified in suing the airlines or not, I am currently undecided, you should take note of what happened in these unfortunate events and then examine your own life.

Stratfor: Norway's Geographic Challenge

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Legislators Starting To See How Dire Crisis Is

Yes he is a small time legislator from an arguably from an unimportant, electorally, state. But individuals should take note when members of the leadership not only recognize the crisis; but act on it.

The EU was D.O.A

Reading this article on Britain contemplating leaving the E.U., which they will most assuredly do, has made me realize one thing. That the E.U. was dead on arrival.  The reason why? The E.U., even though many feared that it was turning into the E.U.S.S.R; it lacked one thing that its erstwhile predecessor did have, teeth. The fact is that if a nation can pick and choose which laws, ostensibly worded as treaties, it will or will not enforce without fear of reprisal then that means that the E.U.'s sovereignty over Britain was only ever so much as Britain would allow.  This contrasts greatly with the U.S.S.R where member republics had to follow the dictates of Russia lest they see tanks and troops marching their their streets and squares.

The most ultimate power a state has isn't force, but the perceived legitimacy to use force against it's member constituents.  Now some would debate this, and rightly so, but if a state tried to secede from the US the fact is that the US government would have the legitimacy to put it down with military force (Like I said this is debate amongst the sphere of blogs I read but the simple truth is that currently most Americans would side with the Federal government). The perceived legitimacy to use force to make members obey its edicts and laws is the greatest power the state can possess. Just ask any dictator. It isn't force that gives them their legitimacy, it is the perceived ability to use that force without retribution.

The fact that the E.U. constitutionally cannot force Britain to accept its laws already shows that the E.U. has no power to compel Britain to stay.  This means that the E.U. was D.O.A from the get go.

Monday, November 19, 2012

China's Recovery Is As Strong As The Mist

Meaning that it is very ephemeral. As Gordon Chang writes, China has indeed experienced recovery, however, China has loosened the money spigot even more than the United States. China's M2 is double their GDP while in America it is around 75% of ours.  In absolute terms America has unleashed a fantastic amount of money, yet in relative terms China's might be more dangerous. Gordon Chang says, from one of his sources, that the good news should last through November, and then there will be no more good news.

Friday, November 16, 2012

Twinkies Is Out of Business

Twinkies might survive, but the company known as Hostess has requested permission ad begin the process of selling off is assets. This is the fruits of rampant unionism my friends. And while the union leader refuses to acknowledge his role in the whole affair, and let us not completely discount his claim of mismanagement, it is hard to not see it when he had fought Hostess at every turn to lower costs; despite already having been in bankruptcy twice!

Now who knows, I could see the courts forcing Hostess to stay open and infuse it with a bunch of bailout money. After all only the government can manage the economy, right?

Thursday, November 15, 2012

The Fruits of Rampant Unionism

My uncle used to be a union man, before, in his words, he grew up and joined the military, and once participated in a planned strike. Well that strike ended up causing the company to shutter its doors for good.  My uncle realized that spending his time demanding something from some one else caused him to lose what he already had.  In the long term it turned out be a good thing, he was forced to join the military where he learned to speak German and Czech and had his college tuition paid for. Granted, it was a very small manufacturing company in a rural park of the country, but the fundamental lesson shouldn't be forgotten. When unions get too power, because government often will get in bed with them, it can have dire long term ramifications.

Hostess, the makers of that beloved nonfood food Twinkies, is now the latest victim of this beast; where it is now asking permission to liquidate it's business (if we really had a free market then who would have to ask permission to close?) if workers don't end their strike by Thursday, which is today. The unions are striking because the company offered a new contract that had a cut in wages, unfortunate for the workers I admit, but possibly necessary given the economy and financial situation Hostess is in. The biggest reason why it is in this situation? Because the government wouldn't let the company make concession on on its pension and heal benefits for its union employees.  Now, instead of merely having smaller wages and fewer benefits, they will have no job.

It Isn't Just Right Wingers That Have Talked About Secession

You will get plenty of left groups as well.  In my own area there is a group that I have seen post flyer's every once and a while, CascadiaNow!, a group that wants secession of the 'Cascadian Bioregion' from the United States and Canada.  If you have ever been to a Seattle Sounders game you see their signature flag at the soccer games. I can tell its a leftists group for one reason, they list environmental concerns as a major concern, and reason, for why the region should go its own way.

I have to admit I like the colors, don't much like the tree though.
Still I prefer the stars and stripes thank you very much.
Now this group isn't a large group or have a major following whatsoever, it has something like two thousand followers on facebook, far less than the 80,000 the Texas petition had acquired* yesterday, and even accounting for the fact that Texas is far larger than Washington and Oregon, the combined population is just under 11 million versus the 25.5 million of Texas. The fact is that 2,000 likers on facebook is not even a fraction of a percent.

As for myself, I have no desire to have my region secede and make their own country. I have made my stance on secession pretty clear. If you believe Vox's prognosis of a fracturing nation due to demographics, then it is inevitable. If you think George Friedman is right, and that the US is fundamentally sound, then it isn't. I'm torn between the two. At this point both options seem plausible in the long term, though in the short term secession has no chance.  But assuming that it is inevitable, I do not view it as a positive thing, for reason I have detailed before. Moreover, I would be even more hesitant to live in a region based on the ideals of CascadiaNows vision of a nation. 

Yes they list civil liberties, something I care deeply about, but I have often seen those same individuals, who are deeply concerned about the environment, put civil liberties to the wayside for the sake of their environmental alter. This isn't always the case, as the podcaster modern survival from The Survival Podcast is very much a libertarian, but individuals like that are currently minority of those who really list the environment as a major issue. Is this a harsh assessment? No more harsh than saying that many conservatives aren't as deeply concerned about liberty when they want to put forward their causes, patriot act anyone (And to be completely fair, I should bear some of that mark because I originally supported the patriot act and many of the actions of our government. I have since recanted. You could call me a repentant neo-conservative who has seen the light of libertarianism.)

Either way, let no one tell you that it is just right wing radicals who have talked about seceding from the United States, leftists groups have their own individuals who want to cut their ties from the rest of America. And also expect to see all this furor to die down, things aren't nearly bad enough, with enough people talking about it, and enough regional sentiment, that secession is anything more than headliner. Things could change though.

*At this point the only region or state that could make any sort of case would be Texas. Texans, unlike many other states, actually have a Texan identity. They have their own electrical system, a sound economy, and one of the more robust state militias. I know others could argue for the South or Alaska, but both regions are entirely too dependent on federal resources at this point and time to put forward a serious effort.  But even then, like I have said before, our split is urban versus rule, not regional. And until we have a real regional split, there won't be a real secessionist movement.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Japanese Prime Minister Dissolves Parliament

More bad news for a nation that has gone through 6 prime ministers since 2006. Japan has, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, plagued by a deadlocked, adrift, weak leadership.

STRATFOR: Analysis Of The Changing Geopolitical Enviroment

Strafor has a well done article (free at the moment) George Freedom talks about the shifting geopolitical landscape. The only major quible I would make is that I think they underestimate the problems facing the United States:

The United States has a modestly growing economy and, rhetoric aside, does not face existential political problems. Where the European Union's survival is in serious question and the ability of China to resume its rate of growth is in doubt, the United States does not face a political crisis on the same order as the other two. The fiscal cliff is certainly there, but given American political culture, all crises signify the apocalypse. It is much easier to imagine a solution to the United States' immediate political problems than it is to imagine how Europe or China would solve their challenges.
I do think the US faces anexistential political problem, and in fact George Friedman has written in the past that he is concerned about the future of the republic.  The geopolitical entity that is America will survive, unless individuals like Vox are right about demographic infighting tearing apart the nation which is something I still haven't made my mind up on, but the republic is in grave danger. Even so, outside of concerns about demographics and possible balkanization, the prognosis doesn't change from what George Friedman has predicted in my opinion.

We have written extensively on why we think the European and Chinese crises are insoluble, and I won't repeat that here. What I am saying is not that Europe or China will disappear into a black hole but that each will change its behavior substantially. Europe will not become a united entity but will return to the pursuit of the interests of individual nations, though still in a wealthy continent. China will continue to be a major economic power, but its term as the leading growth engine in the world will end, causing institutional crises. Again, these powers will not fall off the map, but they will radically change their behaviors and expectations.

Since power is relative, this leaves the United States with no significant challenger for international primacy, not because the United States is particularly successful but because others are even less so. The United States has a decision to make right now. As the leading power, should it attempt to preserve the political order that has existed for the past 20 years or allow it to pass into history? Perhaps a better question to ask is whether the United States has the power to preserve a united Europe and a high-growth China, and if so, is the current configuration of the world worth preserving from the U.S. point of view?
The US will continue to be the worlds dominant power, but not because of excellence, but because of global weakness.  All in all it is a great article and I suggest that you read it before it is no longer available without charge.  Geopolitics matters and individuals should take care to educate themselves on what makes a nation, and why nations do what they do. Otherwise predictions on what will happen geopolitically on ideological world views, Arab Spring, Libya, Soviet Union, etc, and look how often those are wrong.

Culture of Corruption

With the news of generals, and former generals, being investigated or forced to resign, this new bit of news could make one suspect that there is a giant cleaning house going on.  However, considering the reason for demotion and forced retirement, abuse of government accounts, I suspect that this is as exactly as it appears.  Now this doesn't mean that the government isn't making an example of someone, governments with corruption problems often do, but it is hard to feel sympathy for an individual who used government resources to shuttle his wife around for a shopping trip.

I, and I suspect many Americans, are no longer surprised or even shocked by this kind of thing, we've had a senator who, may have, participated in a scheme with a now imprisoned Governor so he could achieve a Senate seat he would never win in an election, a congressmen who was found to have tens of thousands of dollars in bribe money in his freezer, An New York Attorney General who visited prostitutes, all the while vigorously prosecuting men who visited prostitutes, A South Carolina Governor who disappeared to his Mistress in Brazil, Of course Illinois has had 4 governors go to prison for corruption; forgive me for being cruel but the state is getting exactly what it deserves in terms of economic malaise, a senator convicted for corruption, a congressman who is suspected of abusing campaign finances, and the list goes on and on regardless of party affiliation.

But what should be really troubling is that it was a career military officer, and not a civilian politician, and the type of punishment he received.  Firstly, for the punishment, it was far too light.  Yes it is light because, if the government was trying to make an example of someone, it might not want to have been too harsh for fear of exposing more corruption. The fact that a senior military official was abusing government resources, period not just in a time of crisis, is unacceptable. This isn't a mistake due to human error, it is abuse of power. If these allegations are true, then he should have been forced out of the military with a dishonorable discharge. Instead he will get a pension for over $200,000 a year.

Secondly, this is a senior military official! Corruption is bad enough in civilian government, it is deadly in a nations military. Remember, it was a corrupt military officers, in Rome they were also politicians, Marius, Sulla, and Caesar who each dealt blows to the republic until it could stand no more. When Octavius became Caesar Augustus the regime he ushered in still bore the trappings of a republic, but he was a strongman, an enlightened strongman but a strongman nonetheless, since the military was constitutionally put undo his control. The republic was replaced with a military regimes, and all totalitarian, many pre-enlightened era monarchies, and most empires, are military regimes. The Caesars first priority became the military, military, and the military. 

This may not seem like anything too alarming, but it really is, and it leaves a sinking feeling in my stomach. The military is one of the few institutions that Americans have any respect for, civil government, the school system, and law enforcement having lost much of their credibility long ago. The military is also the only institution that could radically change how this country works. If enough officers decided, tomorrow, that they wanted to overthrow the civilian government, well there is nothing we could do to stop them; and I have a feeling many Americans would cheer the move on. But an institution that is becoming corrupt, while still maintaining respect with the populace, and holds a lot of power? Well that is a very volatile mix.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Venezuela's Geographic Challenge

Another video by Strafor.  This one on Venezuela. One thing that I took away from these videos is that it drastically alters my perception on what the nation actually looks like.  Most of Venezuela's population hugs the coast, the purple colored areas, and what infrastructure exists in the interior is mostly there to service the Orinoco Basin oil fields.  This means that of the southern portion of the country is a buffer zone, much like the United States. However, unlike the United States, which now has a substantial population living in its buffer regions, few Venezuelans live there. However, considering how sparsely populated the Amazon Basin is there is little risk for Venezuela's highlands for being taken or unduly influenced. Anyways, enjoy the video.

Better Use of 25 Grand then College

This kid is smart, and frankly, probably doesn't need to go to college given that he came up with a cheap and easy way to signify if a football athelete has possibly sustained a concussison.  Twenty five thousand should be enough to file a patent and even get started on created a commercial application for these things.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Over the Fiscal Cliff

As Mr. Paul Rightly says, we are already over the fiscal cliff. We know get to sit and unwatch what unfolds and I suspect it will be much like watching the Hindenburg.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Secession: Either America Stands Free and United. or Freedom is Doomed to Fail.

A post by the Capain's Blog, and on Save Capitalism, has prompted me to do a post on secession.  The talk of secession from, or partition of, the United States has been thrown around on the internet, and now that it has come up again I feel compelled to give my opinion on the matter.

One thing that I cannot make all too clear is that either secession from, or partitioning of, America would be a catastrophic event with few, in my opinion no, upsides. The United States is a continental entity, much like the Roman Empire was two thousands years ago, and the dissolution of the union would have catastrophic consequences for the continent.  If the United States fragmented into numerous polities it would have the effect of Europanizing then continent.

Here is the Roman Empire at its height between the 2nd and 3rd centuries. No fewer than two dozen nations were either entirely, or partially, encompassed in the most powerful, and prosperous, polity the western world had ever seen.  Now, the Western Roman Empire's demise is hard to actually pinpoint, we pick 476 AD for the sake of convenience, but documents can be found as late as the 6th century referring to the Western Roman Empire, and you could make a case that the empire had effectively ceased once the two were split between east and west.  But to avoid making things too difficult let us go with the date of 476 AD as the date that Rome ceased to be.  Here is a map of Europe not even 200 years after the fall.

As you can see, Europe is now a series of feuding petty kingdoms, each fighting for the scrapes of what remains of the riches of a once great empire.  One thing that you will learn if you ever become a student of realpolitik is that nations are either, formed from a group of homogeneous individual or, by geographic boundaries.

Stable nations will have a large homogeneous population and borders anchored to geographic regions that help protect their integrity.  If one of those conditions is not met then instability can, though as the US and Canada have shown not always, ensue.  Nations will act to counter that instability either by changing their demographics or expanding their borders.

If you look at this link and move through the centuries. You will notice that many 'nations' didn't achieve borders similar to their modern ones for almost 500 to 800 years after the 'fall' of Rome, for England, Portugal, Spain, Scotland, and France. And that the to and fro of adjusting borders didn't cease until the modern age.  Hundreds, if not thousands, of wars were fought, countless millions of lives lost, and to this day the geographic fallout of the fall of Rome haven't fully ceased, just look at the conflicts in the Balkans.

If the US collapses, how would the American continent end up being any different from Europe? The simple, and correct, answer is that there is no indication that this wouldn't happen.  I invite you to look back at the map of the Roman Empire at its height, were the provincial boundaries are shown in dark red lines, and you will notice, that outside of Italy, that there isn't a provincial boundary that confirms to the boarders of a modern state.

The reason for this is that administrative boundaries are created for entirely different reason than national ones. An administrator may want to draw boundaries that will create a province, state, or dominion that will have a variety of resources, e.g the American states, or that will help prevent a base of people from successfully rebelling, e.g Rome. Or if you want a modern day example just look at the European partitioning of Africa. How stable are those nations now that the European powers are no longer there? Not very. If the United States collapses, or even if states secede, there is no guarantee that the boundaries you see now while the states are administrative entities within a nation are the same ones you would see after secession or collapse. Assuming that we had a partition along political lines, red versus blue, if you look at the election results by county you will see just how different the political environment is within states.

But even ignoring that just look a the geographic map of the United States with an overlay of the states boundaries.

There are many states, particularly west of Mississippi that have boundaries that are either all, or in part, that are not anchored by any major geographic feature.  This is a great source of instability, and if you don't believe me then read about the Northern European plain, which is one of the reasons why Germany wanted to annex parts of Poland.  National polities will try to anchor themselves with boarders that help protect their integrity.

We now have to consider the role demographics plays in all this.  Here is a map showing the largest demographic in each given county:

Green is obviously caucasian, orange hispanic, blue african, and purple tribal.  The way the coloring works is that the largest racial group, it could be a plurality, is colored and the darker the color the higher percentage of the county is made up of that race.

Non Hispanic Caucasian

Hispanic Caucasian



Now I am not a race realist, however, I won't dismiss things out of hand just because I don't agree with it. I am a culture realist, and I do believe that some cultures are better than other and that this idea of a multicultural nation, where all cultures are considered equal, is fundamentally unstable.  The US has historically done a tremendous job integrating culturally different individual into the dominant culture of the United States.  But the last few decades the intellectual, political, and even cultural leaders of our country have turned against the melting pot concept and forwarded a salad bowl idea.

This idea is inherently destabilizing. Once again I must stress this is not a racial idea, but a cultural one, remember that Hispanics are racially Caucasian   And eventually the democrats will find that their minority party will fracture as different groups will have different ideas. Catholics used to overwhelmingly vote for the democrats, and now vote for the republicans. Blacks used to vote for republicans, and now they vote for democrats.

I don't think you'll find many individuals. if they are honest, that won't admit that the US will probably experience some cultural, ethnic, and racial tension. The US has had at least a dozen major racial riots since 1980.

Video 1

Video 2

The fact that a vast majority of people in this country don't want to harm anyone, regardless of their race, doesn't matter. There are a few individuals that do hate others based off of skin color, or ethnicity, and would commit grievous bodily harm, or worse, if the opportunity arose. And that is all it take to set off a spiraling cycle of violence because I promise you the Caucasian/Asian/Hispanic/African person that is pulled from their care and beaten by a Caucasian/Asian/Hispanic/African mob will forever distrust, and probably hate, Caucasian/Asian/Hispanic/Africa people because of what happened to them.  That is how system infighting and violence start. It wasn't as if the Irish Catholics and Protestants, or the Sunni and Shia decided one day that they would enjoy killing each other. If racial tensions got bad enough that difference racial groups tried to cleanse their homes of different races, and history is full of these types of instances, then what will happen in an area like San Francisco?

There are those who argue that partitioning of the US or secession could be done peacefully,via democratic means, much like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand leaving the Dominion of Great Britain.  But examples of these are few and far between.

Brazil: Two states seceded from Brazil in 1835 which resulted in the War of the Farrapos the ended in Brazil putting down the rebellion.

Federal Republic of  Central America: A union of the modern day Latin republics of Guatemala, El Salvador  Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Los Altos (which is now the Mexican state of Chiapas ). The Federated Republic was created after the secession of the southern portions of the first Mexican Empire but quickly dissolved into a bloody civil war themselves.

Congo: The state of Katanga declared independence from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The independence movement was put down with military force, though what makes it real interesting was that it was the United Nations that put it down with Operation Grand Slam.

Gran Colombia: What is now the Republics of Panama, Columbia, Venezuela, and Ecuador. The Republic was founded by Simon Bolivar in 1819 and during the entire period of its existence there were frequent insurrections and infighting. The Gran Columbia Republic was no more by 1840.

Mexico: Has had three secession movements in its history, not including the first Mexican Empire. First there was Texas, that succeeded because of U.S involvement. Then there was the Republic of the Rio Grande in 1840, which didn't even make it through the end of the year.  Lastly there was the Republic of Yucatan, also established in 1840. And unlike the Rio Grande republic, it managed to last for eight years despite embargo and invasions by the Mexican government, and some of the officials may have even briefly considered being annexed by the United States. However in the end the Republic of Yucatan crumbled and was absorbed back into Mexico.

Nigeria: a portion of Nigeria seceded and established the Republic of Biafra. The nation of Nigeria descended into civil war and the Nigerian government, with help from the United States and her allies, put an end to the Republic a scant three years after it had been established.

There are many more examples I could bring forward, but I want to focus on one last one.  And that was the partitioning of India.  The partitioning of India, into Muslim Pakistan and Hindi India, was overseen by the British Empire.  Read the history and accounts of why it was done, and what happened before, during, and after the event, and you will realize the terrible danger that inherently lies with partitioning.

The partition was democratically achieved and with the oversight of a, admittedly ailing, Imperial power that had vast experience of running an empire and the organizational ability to conduct such a massive undertaking of redrawing boundaries and moving millions of people according to those boundaries.  Yet despite Great Britain acting as a third party moderator, the partition ended up becoming a very bloody affair with an estimated number death toll of between 500,000 to over a 1,000,000 individuals. Some of these deaths were the result in the two nations inability to handle mass migrations, however, there were many instances of large scale slaughter of both sides. Moreover the partition left the boarder situation between Pakistan and India unresolved, which has resulted in numerous wars between the to nations and an eventual nuclear arms build up between the two.  60 years later that Indian subcontinent is still dealing with the after affects of the partition, thousands if not millions have lost their lives because of partitioning.

If we were going to try to partition off the nation, based on our ideological leanings, it would be far harder to do so than the Indian Partition was. Here is a map America based on the 2012 election results by state.

Many can already see how partitioning based off of this geopolitical set up wouldn't work.  The progressive leaning states would never allow it. They would effectively be torn asunder and as I have mentioned before, the red states would control the most important river, essentially the fountainhead of what drives American global power, on the continent. There is absolutely no way the current government would allow this to happen, and it is a pipe dream to think otherwise.  War would result, and it would be very bloody, the northern states refused to allow the southern states to cede, because of the importance of the Mississippi, back in 1861 and I very much doubt that they would allow it to happen in the 21st century.  But this map alone is misleading. This map is more accurate.

As we can see there are liberal and conservative leanings throughout the country, and if we were to partition the states off what could we assume would happen?  The answer is massive migration. Even if a single percent of the American population decided that they would travel to the new nation that better fit their ideological life view, it would mean millions of Americans migrating all over the country.  This is the most important thing people forget when they talk about secession. In 1860 the divide was very much geographical, north versus south, in 2012 it is not so the geography of the states were the divide lies, our electoral map distorts the reality of the situation, it is an urban versus rural divide.

What does this mean? It means that simply lopping off states to make new nations will not work, as it does not reflect the reality of the situation on the ground.  It isn't Midwestern states versus the coastal states, it is the rural folk against the urban folk, with the suburbanites in between. The facts presented should make one thing very clear, peaceful partitioning is almost an impossibly. Even if local governments don't fight because of racial demographics, geographic borders and location, or because of resources, which the red states have most of that is easily accessible (see gas production below), there will be the violence that comes with massive migrations of people from one place to another.

 And what if there was a successful secession movement, or partitioning, of what is now the United States? After fighting off the US, or some other state military assuming absolute dissolution of the Union, what happens afterwards?  History has an abundance of examples of the aftermath of rebellions and secession movements, and the result isn't pretty. More often than not the government that replaces the one overthrown is usually worse. One also only need look at Russia and see that it is not always the popular ideology that wins out in the political arena. The Marxists didn't take over Russia because they were he most popular, or inherently true, ideology with the revolutionaries, no, they won because they were the most organized and ruthless. When you seek change at the end of a rifle, it should come as no surprised that those who are most predisposed of using violence to achieve their ends are the ones most likely to rule.

Lastly, let us assume that, not only do we have a successful partitioning or secession, and we are able to establish a new government that followed constitutional ideals, what happens next? Is that the end of the political problems in America? Progressive states would continue their Utopian economic slide while conservative states, with their new adherence to the constitution, thrive? Doubtful. What assumes that the new conservative leaning nation wouldn't be inundated with a flood of progressive leaving their economically declining nations, which is exactly what they are doing now, to economically prosperous ones?  Moreover what is to assume that our descendants will not travel upon the same path we have? It is a mistake to assume that just because a nation is smaller that the second time around would be any different.

And that is the thing most people need to be cognizant of, that things wouldn't be any different. The same conditions that caused America's gradual acceptance of statist principals would still be there.  Just because you segregate the liberal Americans, who have come to accept the ideology of statism, from conservative Americans, who are only slightly less likely to want the state run their lives, doesn't mean you have solved the problem, much like the Roman empire partitioning itself into two empires, you have only bought some time.

If America as it is now cannot survive, united and free, then it is an absolute fantasy to assume that a new attempt will work. Empirical evidence will have been presented that shows a free society can only exist for a short time before it self destructs. If the American experiment fails, and if the nation falls apart or succumbs to statism, then we should just give up on the idea of ever achieving liberty, because it won't exist for more than a few generations. Partitioning off parts of the country would only delay the inevitable. Either America stands, or freedom falls, take your pick.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Predictions For Who Will Run in 2016 for the Republicans

Comes down to two individuals in my mind, though a lot can change in 4 years.  Paul Ryan and Rand Paul.  Paul Ryan's star is clearly rising and many conservatives consider him a budgetary hawk.  He is also a congressman from the battleground state of Wisconsin and the republicans desperately need to garner votes.  As Vox has said, the republicans may have hit a demographic tipping point, and unless the drop in the number of childless and single Americans, voters who overwhelmingly support progressive policies, is great enough then the GOP as we know it is caput.

As for Rand Paul, his fiscal credentials are much heftier than Paul Ryan just compare their budget plans. Rand Paul offered to cut federal spending by $ 500 billion, or a third of the deficit at the time, while Paul Ryan budgeted for increases, along with an increase in government tax receipts. He has a lot more credibility with the libertarian minded Americans, though he admittedly tarnished his image by endorsing Romney, and of the two I think he would be a better president. But that is neither here or there. A lot of things will happen that could change my prognosis on the two front runners in four years time. But I know this one thing is undeniably true, things are only going to get worse, and 2016 is probably our last chance to reverse the tide; if it isn't already too late.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Entilements are sinking the ship

Englishman with a great post that summarizes everything in a point by point format that I, and countless other bloggers, have said about why our entitlement system is currently unsustainable.  Even though I didn't care one iota who won the presidency I knew that I was going to be depressed today. If Romney had won the fundamental issues besetting this nation would barely be addressed, if at all, and once the perfect storm came and passed the proponents of liberty would have a tough fight ahead against the progressives.  But then with a Romney election at least the illusion that a majority of Americans still believed in fiscal prudence would still exist.

With Obama we see that America is undergoing a rapid change.  Despite all the gains we have made, with the second amendment, drug prohibition, and trying to hold the FED accountable, the fact is that there is a leviathan still remaining that has to be slain.  Unfortunately for us we are now seeing a slight majority of Americans, those who vote anyways, openly declare they care more about short term security and willingly shackle themselves with fiscal chains than stand up as a free men with all the benefits and dangers that are entailed.

The worst part is that we really have few options left. I could go poolside and enjoy the decline, but at this point of my life it isn't possible. Perhaps I have been brainwashed but I have read too much of human history to simply sit by and enjoy the decline or fiddle while Rome burns. The other is that there really is no where left to go, ok maybe besides Alaska, everywhere else either is in much worse shape than America, and less free, and the few places that aren't, well it is nearly impossible to get in.  There really is no where else to go. Maybe I will join everyone poolside...

Here is an article from George Friedman on the election, American power as it stands, and the transition it will undergo. A good article when talking about foreign policy implications, though I would ignore the domestic part. As good as Stratfor is at predicting and analyzing events overseas I think their conclusions for domestic items are way off.

Obama Didn't Win. He Just Didn't Lose. Or A Silver Lining In Heavy Storm Clouds

A lot of republicans are going to do some soul searching today wondering why the lost an election, that by all rights, they should have won. Though many will despair that Obama's reelection is a signal that the tradition American values of limited government and personal responsibility are dead.  The truth is, they have been, if not dead, then on life support for some time.

What individuals need to keep in mind is that the sheen on Obama has lost a lot of his luster. In 2008 he won 53% of the popular vote, not a spectacularly abnormal amount considering past American presidential elections. But a healthy margin of victory over his rival by about 6 percentage points. This year his margin of victory dropped down to merely 2% points.  We can dive into the demographic, gender, and racial lines if you want to try to read tea leaves. But I won't.  The fact is that the republicans could have won the election if they really wanted too; they simply choose the wrong candidate.

Romney was the wrong candidate because he didn't offer much in terms of vision or a plan on how to fundamentally address the real problems of America, the entitlement system, debt, and the federal reserve, but then neither did Obama. The election was really a foregone conclusion after Romney was nominated, it was only through tremendous political blundering by Obama that Romney was as close as he was. 

The small silver lining, in a growing congregation of glowering heavy storm clouds, is that Obama fully owns this egg now.  There is absolutely no way the system as it currently stands can continue past 2016. When it finally comes down Obama, who will try to blame republicans but fail, will be in the captains chair and the captain takes the blame.  As I had said earlier I was worried that a Romney win, which would have done nothing to change the general course America is on, would have put us at a severe disadvantage when arguing for freedom and free markets after this event.  It will be the progressives, were blame rightly belongs, and we can move to unravel the system that has bankrupted and ruined so many an American.  You can take some small measure of comfort in that.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Break from Election Coverage

How about you take a break from the election coverage and watch a video by Modern Survival and the imminent decline we face.

The Inescapable Principals of Capitalism

I was walking through a certain part of my city very early this morning while I was on my way to work when I noticed a post on a light poll. On it was a large great white shark leaping out of the foamy water, presumably snaring itself a seal, bird, or some other unfortunate animal that the shark had deigned to consume that day, and a few words. The words were black, blocked, and bolded. They said "Learn why Great White Capitalism is the only form of capitalism."

I shook my head and chuckled, knowing full well who put up that poster (local communist party), why (they hate capitalism), and how they would describe capitalism (completely without understanding or comprehension). As I walked to my office I thought about how flawed and, frankly, ignorant many in the communist party, and arguably leftists in general, were of capitalism.  They viewed capitalism as a system, a means of poli-economical governance and exchange, and on the surface they appeared to be right. But fundamentally they were wrong.

The Captain often talks about SAEG, super awesome economic genius I think it is called, and while I cannot say whether or not I possess any form of SAEG whatsoever, I can honestly attest to being an individual who spends allot of time thinking and figuring things out. What I came to realize one day is that capitalism is not a system, theory, or an idea like say communism, but a law in and of itself, like gravity.  No matter where you are in the world, what time frame you lived in, or what you believe, you are subject to the laws of capitalism. Now I know this seems strange at first, but let me make my case because I think you will agree.

Firstly, I need to differentiate the political/economic form that we call capitalism, which is simply the implementation of this law.  You see when we talk about capitalism on this blog, or at the Captain's, Saves, and a whole host of other blogs, what we are really talking about and arguing for is free economics, with sound money of course, and we use the word capitalism when we mean 'free market economics'. And all free market economic is the realization that you cannot drive the actions of individuals like they are pawns. Human beings will make their own choice and to try and make them do otherwise is a futile endeavor. Free markert economics is simply the belief that we should let the markets be free of misguided interference. 

Now, as I said, Adam Smith and others philosopher economists of his day understood that capitalism is a law.  The fact is that all capitalism really is this, it is an exchange of capital of some sort via human interaction. Or to put it in simpler terms, when you want something from someone you have to exchange something of an equal, or perceived equal, value. That's all, that is it, the pure essence of human economic interaction distilled down to its smallest element. Whether you live in a communist hell hole, a feudal society, a commune, or a farmers village that uses barter instead of money, every single facet of human interaction is governed by the principal of capitalism. This transcends political systems, religious beliefs, and whatever fancy or wish a person has. This is inescapable, like gravity, newtons first law, the need for air and water to live. It just is, always was, and always shall be.

It stands to reason then that of the forms of human economic interaction we establish that the ones closer to this principal truth will be the ones most likely to prosper, exhibeo free market economics; picture an aerodynamically well designed jet. And the ones that are the furthest from this truth, or actively try to distort it, exhibeo communism, will suffer; picture a rock trying to fly. This is ultimately why communism is doomed to fail, because it can never escape the principal of capitalism, and since it actively tries to go against it, but cannot, like a spring compressed too far, or any organic body, or a rock thrown flung from a catapult, homeostasis must be returned. This is why the Soviet Union collapsed suddenly and spectacularly. The more distorted the system, the more violent the return to equilibrium.

Now, I can see some burned out hippy or youthful idealist who would point to communes, communities of individuals who live in a communist sort of environment, and use that as evidence to the contrary.  They would say 'See cogitans! We have no need for your money or your capitalism! We produce what we need and share freely. You see how we have no need for your capitalism.' But they would be missing the point that human beings never want to give something for nothing. If we do give it is never freely, it is with the understanding that we ourselves will be taken care of by our community if we ever need it. In someways our charity is nothing more than deposits into a community savings account, from which we ourselves will draw on during our times of need.

But let us delve into that commune a little further. The fact is, that those who produce more, offer more value, will either be given the first choice of bounty when it is shared, and I posit that this is a form of payment, or they will be given a greater measure of respect and deference relative to others in their community, I also posit this is a form of payment. Those who produce less, or who simply leach, will be given less when it comes time to share, or smaller voice in the community, and eventually be told that they must produce more, pay off their debts if you will, or be cast out from the community, foreclosure. In that example we are seeing the works of capitalism.

And this is what makes it confusion for some. Many people are pushed towards thinking that if money is not exchanged then that transaction doesn't confirm to the principals of capitalism. But it does, everything does. And the items exchanged do not have to be tangible, ideas, abilities, beauty, any number of intangible things can be viewed as commodities and capital to exchange for other commodities and capital. A comedian's humor is his capital with which he exchanges for items that he needs. A woman's beauty another. An athlete's ability another. And a writers mind, also another.

So for all you self styled revolutionaries or communists living on your daddy's wallet, know this. Not only is your economic ideology still within the frameworks of capitalism; it can never leave it. You, as an individual, cannot fly simply because you wish to wish away gravity. Nor can you breath underwater because you desperately desire it to be. So you also can not have your communist utopia because you cannot destroy or defeat capitalism, merely pervert it for a short period of time, like a rock flung from a catapult. It is not so much an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object so much as a child slapping the waves in effort to turn the tide. So you can take comfort, or perhaps gnash your teeth, that every interaction that you do, of every day, of every moment of your life, when you exchange some sort of good, intangible or otherwise, you are conforming to the principals of capitalism.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Why I Am Not Concerned About The Election

It is rather simple. Regardless of the results of the election the overall course of America won't be shifted.  Rather than fundamental issues about America, free markets, and the roll of government we simply have two different sides of the very same coin. Romney, backed by the major banking interest back east, who despite heavily donating to Obama back in 2008 have turned against him to support one of their own. And Obama, backed by educational, media, and technological elite, who will continue to back the sitting president, as his green and progressive policies have heavily benefited them. I especially think Jon Kotkins comparison to this trifecta of progressive elites as the clerisy, the description of which is very apt.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Risky Business

At one point I was putting in a significant amount of money in my 401k. But after watching an old video by the captain I began to rethink that policy.  Not only was I forgoing the ability to manage my investments, but I also ran the risk of losing a significant amount of money if the Captain turned out to be correct. I still put some funds in my 401k, up to my employers matching, but I no longer consider this a safe investment.

I know there is a chance this money could disappear so I approach my 401k like any other investment. But on the chance that our 401k isn't nationalized or that the stock market doesn't decrease significantly with the exit of the market by the boomers.  However, even more traditional media outlets are becoming dour on the financial market. Fortunately for me I the only money I have in my 401k is money that I am willing to risk.

Bad News For Obama

About Me

My photo
Seattle resident whose real name is Kevin Daniels. This blog covers the following topics, libertarian philosophy, realpolitik, western culture, history and the pursuit of truth from the perspective of a libertarian traditionalist.