Red Flag Words: Empower

Currently I am working on my post about the conflict between Marius and Sulla and how it brought about the civil war years that marked the end of the republic. I expect I shall have it posted sometime tomorrow after the long flight from Iceland.  But I see that it has been four days since my last post and decided so I will put out another rather small one.  This one, like holistic, is a red flag word which are words that should tell you when you are either dealing with a leftist, or someone who doesn't know what they are talking about or both.  This posts red flag word is empower:

Empower, a verb, it means to invest with power or legal authority or to equip, supply, or enable. This word is the favorite of crusaders  What I hate about this word is that when it is used it is always used in conjunction with an oppressed group, real or perceived.  It's not the word is necessarily being misused, though I believe the word is really intended for action of giving elected officials the power to enforce the laws of a nation, but how it is very different from gaining power and what that means.

Empower isn't the same as gaining power, the two are very different actions. When you gain power you acquire it for yourself  from your own effort. Empower however, means something is given. When you are empowered you haven't acquired that power for yourself, it has been granted to you. When the president assumes office, he doesn't gain power, he has been empowered. This is evident in the fact that once Obama leave his office, like all his predecessors, he loses whatever authority he has while president.  And this betrays the decidedly anti-egalitarian notions of crusaders.

Whenever you hear about helping the downtrodden economically, or politically, it isn't enough to remove the barriers the would prevent, which is something any libertarian would be for, no, power has to be given to them. Much like a feudal baron someone has to bestow whatever riches are to be gained. And who gives them the power? The very crusader we have mentioned, and in their mind, power is a zero sum game.

Naturally, given the narcissistic nature of crusaderism, they are the ones who get to be the arbiter of who gets power and how much. Naturally they are the only ones who can decide who to empower and how much. Ultimately this is what disgusts me so much, is that what they are doing is hardly any better than the injustice they are fighting, which is ostensibly class/white/jingoistic/patriarchal/hetero-normal/or what have you privileged. Ultimately, their goal to empower others isn't so much about helping the downtrodden as much as it is a chance to be the big fish coupled with the juvenile pleasure they derive from 'sticking it' to whom ever is guilty of excessive power, whether or not that power is legitimately gained matters not, at that current place and time.

Midwest State Cities Stomping on Blue Coast Cities

Joel Kotkin, once again, documents how red state cities are out performing the blue state cities traditionally championed by academics and certain organizations. For at least a decade, and perhaps longer, I have heard about how the New Urban city was the future of the United States. That urban sprawl, with their nasty petroleum powered cars, would disappear the urban cores of cities such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco  so on and so forth, would become the model for the country. A 2,000 square foot house in the suburbs with a yard and fence, with a dog, was out and a small 400 square foot Japanese-style micro studio was in.  Being interested in Real Estate, and working in in the field in one shape or form for almost a decade, I have been hearing this for quiet some time. But the data belies the reality.

This was something I noticed back when I was in college, and I actually stated as much in my urban sustainability class.  Needless to say my comment,which criticized the feasibility of the New Urbanist movement, wasn't well regarded.  Now they weren't entirely wrong, we are seeing more and more Americans move away from rural centers, but it isn't to the downtown cores of the major cities, rather, it is the satellite cities of major urban centers, and the urban centers that do not abide by the New Urbanist philosophy  that are growing at the highest rates. It isn't hard to see why, the first driver, when factoring where people move is economic opportunity. Cities with plenty of jobs, Austin or Houston, are going to grow faster than cities that do not, Detroit. The second consideration is that only a small few, of Americans anyways, actually enjoy living in a city. Sure, we want to be relatively close to a major urban center, but we want space, and perhaps more importantly, we like to live in areas that are clean and free of crime.

This explains why suburbs are rapidly urbanizing, though the nature of their urbanization is very different from traditional downtown. The largest suburb of Seattle, Bellevue, has undergone rapid urbanization since I was a kid, and the downtown is now dotted with a bevy of gleaming metal skyscrapers. The one major difference between Seattle and Bellevue, other than the cascadia hipsters absolute loathing for it's 'fakeness', is that there is no graffiti, no litter and very little crime.  It's the best things about a city, the restaurants, the jobs, the ease of getting around on transit, without all the things everyone hates. Sure, hipsters pretend to love the filth, though Seattle is still better than 95% of the major cities I have visited, the crime and the degeneracy; ever see two homeless people bang on a pile of garbage? I have...  But the moment they have kids they vacate downtown for the more 'suburban parts of the city for districts like Green lake, Queen Anne, Fremont, or Madison, or they realize that it's even better out of Seattle and move to one of the 'burb cities.

Unsurprisingly individuals blinded by new Urbanist ideology will ignore this data. But the fact is that people don't want to live in cities if they can help it. I should know, most every major developer, I have ever meet lives in the 'burbs for a reason. It's just nicer.

Going To Be Quiet For A Bit

Going off to Iceland today so I won't be posting as much as I usually do. I plan on getting one or two posts on my Roman Republic section, as these have been neglected.

Rise Of The Flyover States

The flyover states, the Midwest, mountain rocky west, and the gulf coast, have long been an after thought for many Americans when it came to places to find work or establish ones self.  Sure places like Colorado were attractive if you were drawn to the sky bum lifestyle and Texas has always had a relatively large population and economy, they weren't the primary places individuals would choose to go.

Most Americans though about living in the west or east coasts, the retiring population made the southwest another popular destination, but that is beginning to change.  While States like Washington are economically performing pretty well, the real stars have been the very states most Americans wouldn't have looked. This is the result of Americas growing energy economy, America has the largest shale oil receives in the world, coupled with lower taxes, fewer regulations, and more family friendly environments, more Americans have elected to move to Austin or Oklahoma city rather than Boston or San Francisco.

Eventually this change, which I think may be a very real fundamental shift from the coasts to the interior states, will result in many changes to the political landscape.  This could signal a resurgence of American Midwest conservative values, or the eventual bluing of these currently productive states. In the short term, this is going to put major pressure on traditionally blue states as they need a large tax base to keep their system of governance going. Those ramifications will come later, but for now, individuals can enjoy the fact that they are stomping on the blue states right now economically.

The Rewards of Progressivism: Kudokushi

Joel Kotkin writes about the growing trend amongst SWPL urbanites to forgo having children all together.  America has been atypical compared to much of the west insofar as demographic population growth.  While birthrates had dropped in America like everywhere else in the west the replacement rate has remained positive.  But as it stands now, outside of population migration into the cities, urban Americans are not having families, and they don't seem to mind.

Many of us how absolutely foolish the urban cohorts flippant attitude towards having families are. Demographic decline is not a pretty sight and many of these individuals who are eschewing children now will regret it in old age.  Japan, which in many ways has been the canary in the coal mine, is a perfect example of the most personal impacts of demographic decline.  And that is the every growing instance of individuals dying alone and their bodies being found days if not months later.  The Japanese call it Kudokushi, the lonely death, and it has been a growing issue in Japan.

So in the end, not only is progressivism demographically unsustainable, but their most ardent cohorts will find themselves personally betrayed by it in the end. You don't destroy the familial bond and not suffer unfortunate consequences, and for many those consequences mean Kudokushi.

Economic Collapse: Germany

Moving away from the developing nations. It is also time to point out that not only a developed nation, but one of the most economically powerful nations in Europe, Germany suffered an economic collapse in the 1990s that lasted nearly 6 years.  Their GDP contracted by 25% during this period and also illustrates that economic collapses aren't always the short and extreme contractions that we see with nations like Japan or Argentina, sometimes they are a gradual decline in GDP.

What is most interesting is that an economic collapse doesn't always entail massive societal decay and unrest like we see in Argentina, though I am willing to go out on a limb and theorize that there was an increase in crime and some unrest, and it has a lot to do with the nature of the collapse. Is it simply a severe economic contraction? Is there hyperinflation? What other factors would contribute to making a bad situation even worse?

Actual China Economic Growth

According to Gordon Chang at Forbes China's real economic growth isn't near the official 7.8% stated by the Chinese government, he thinks it is around 3.8% based off of other statistics.  Now the US would kill for 3.8% economic growth and it is nothing to sneeze at, even for a developing economy.  The United States averaged 3.7% growth over the course of its history, but an analysis of the rolling 10 year historic average of the United States should illustrate what is wrong with many developing economies today.

Even when America was developing average growth rates rarely exceeded 5% and hovered between 3% to 4% though there were years were growth was particularly high. Compare this to recent Chinese economic growth has averaged, at least officially, around 10%.  And this is what strikes me, though a case could be made about higher growth rates for newly developing countries due to technological advances, I still have a hard time believing that developing countries today could develop, sustainably, at a rate higher than 19th century America.

19th century America had everything going when it comes to being able to sustain high levels of economic growth. The nation was expanding it's borders rapidly, had material wealth in great excess of it's needs, a rapidly growing population, little foreign involvement, technologies, such as railroads, telegraphs, telephones, electricity, and industrial advancements, that were increasing national productivity at mind boggling rates. And even then American economic growth rates were never consistently 10% per year.

Contrast this with many developing nations today. While there are amazing technological developments that would contribute to a higher nominal economic growth rate today the conditions for China today are no where near as favorable as it was for 19th century America.  China has to import materials and goods that it doesn't have, something 19th century Americas did not have to do. It has an extremely large impoverished population, something 19th century America never had.  It has a population whose workforce size has already reached peak, once again this was not the case in 19th America.

And somehow this nation of over a billion people have been able to have consistent economic growth without a single decrease in national GDP since 1987? That is over 20 years of consistent economic growth with out a single recession.  Even 19th century America saw periodic economic contractions during it's developing period. Keynesians will of course state that the contractions in 19th century America were the result of a lack of oversight to smooth out the economy and that the reason why China has been able to grow continuously is precisely because of that oversight.  Never mind that all Keynesian economic policy does is kick successive necessary business corrections down the road until there are too many cans to kick and a massive economic correction occurs.

Or another way to illustrate this issue. China has grown from a 1.19 trillion dollar economy at the turn of the millennium to an economy of over 7.3 trillion dollars 11 years later which means they have increased their economy by 7 fold.  Even Warren Buffet, arguably the greatest investor living to date, would only have increased your wealth by 6 fold assuming a 20% yearly return rate. I am somehow supposed to expect that an entire economy is able to perform as well as Berkshire Hathaway, a company that only fills it's portfolio with the most profit? 

I could be very wrong, but I just don't see how a nation, even a developing one with potential can somehow economically out grow the 19th century United States and have it not be an indicator of how flawed the metrics we are recieving out from China.

Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria

Reports of a chemical weapons attack that has, at the latest tally, killed 16 Syrian soldiers and dozen or so civilians. Both the regime and the rebels are denying that they were responsible and claiming it was the other.  The US State department says there is little evidence that the rebels did the attack, while the Russians say they did. Frankly, I have no idea who is responsible as I could see both the regime and the more zealous rebel factions using chemical weapons. 

This puts the US in a tough bind as the government claimed that chemical weapons represented a red line in which we would presumably intervene afterwards, however, this was just rhetoric from the president. Whether or not the US actually intervenes is another story, while the US would certainly like to see Syria be moved away from Iran, the fact is that the current situation is perfectly acceptable to America in the geopolitical sense.  What we will probably see is more open, rather than covert, support. But I still doubt we will see US military involvement, though I have little hard evidence to support such a statement, it is just a gut feeling.

As for who is actually responsible? Well, it either could be a false flag operation by the rebels or Assad is gambling that the US, specifically Obama, was just rattling its saber. The war has been going on for two years now, and without western intervention, will probably continue for another two the way things are going.  My vote is that the US does nothing, as much as I don't like Assad's regime I also don't trust the rebels. They are not a cohesive entity and we don't need another Libya in the Mediterranean

The Marshal Plan And The Beginnings of European Socialism

The Marshall Plan was one of many aid and loan programs that the United States implemented to help Europe recover from the destruction wrought by nearly seven years of fighting.  Though the US, and her neighbor to the north Canada, implemented many programs, the Marshall Plan is the most well known.  All told, Western Europe received over 12.7 billion dollars in aid from the Marshall Program.  Today it would be the equivalent of a 120 billion dollars, and at the time was almost 4% of US GDP during that period.  In other words, it was mid-century version of the stimulus bill, which was around 5% of GDP, that was sent to foreign nations. Factoring Canada's aid and the other unmentioned loans and programs to help Europe, the nations of Europe received hundreds of billions of inflation adjusted dollars.

This is interesting, because contrary to what many of us in the west think, it appears that the plague of European socialism was not first implemented by communists or socialists within Europe but by the United States herself; though one could make an argument that the Marshall Plan was a covert operation by communist agents/sympathizers within the US but it must also be noted that Stalin was very hostile to the plan.  The Marshall Plan was a great success, in a geopolitical sense, for America because it helped quell the growing communist movements within the western nations and western European nations loved the program because it allowed them to ease off from austerity because the US artificially boosted spending, a perfect Keynesian policy.  Though some argue that the Marshall Plan only accelerated, but did not cause, the twenty year long economic boom; it isn't hard to see how this program, coupled with the ever present US defense umbrella, sowed the seeds for democratic socialism a few decades later.

Stupid Comments - Minimum Wage

I very rarely visit the forums or comment boards of most major news sites and this little gem here reminds me why:

As a general rule of thumb, you should be able to work part-time, and live above the poverty line. It's common sense.

Newwinner101 you are truly winning in the style of Charlie Sheen. Your economic illiteracy is a perfect example of what is wrong with America today.  Where exactly has it ever been dictated that a part time job should allow you to live above the poverty line? Never mind that our poverty line is higher than most countries GDP per capita. Why exactly should, outside of it being terribly convenient for you, a person be able to live above the poverty line on a part time job?  We aren't post-scarcity yet, so that entails that people work.

Your assertion of common sense is the classic double speak of someone who hasn't bothered to research the subject on which they are making their opinion. Because if you had, you would have realized that common sense would dictate the exact opposite! Raising wages raises the cost of goods for everyone else and, more importantly, to forcefully pay someone beyond the economic utility of their job would essentially raise the costs for everyone else.

No one has done as great a job as discrediting the democratic process as individuals like you, these people, these economic illiterates, get to have the same say who understands the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion. If I didn't buy into the fallacy of the technocracy I would advocate a mandarin style government. But that doesn't work either, so the best we can do is either hope the more Americans get their collective heads out of their asses or wait for reality to give them the mother of all spankings.

Stratfor: Explaining Realism And Geopolitics

A good video explaining the methodology of geopolitical realism. I ascribe to the realism theory of geopolitics. 

Japan Plans on Joining Trans-Pacific Partnership

Japan is planning on joining the trans-pacific partner ship.  It is a large trade agreement between twelve nations, including the United States.  Japan sees that it cannot continue the trade policies it has of the last half century, with significant tariffs on foreign imports in order to protect domestic industries. This policy was largely tolerated by the U.S because Japan was one of the few stable allies in Asia, and also one of the few allies that could supply the goods and materials it desired. This has changed.

With the growth of, not only China, but of Korea and other south east Asian nations, Japan is no longer in the position it once was.  Japan must join free trade agreements lest they find themselves out maneuvered economically. There is a geopolitical aspect of this as well.  No other nation is more nervous about the rising belligerency of China, and also of North Korea, than Japan.  As the Stratfor video below will illustrate, Japan has quietly put together one of the most robust militaries in the East. In fact, outside of the United States, they may very well be the strongest military power in the region. 

There are potential ramifications far down the road that may affect the relationship between the U.S and Japan negatively, however, in the short term, say the next decade or so, this is exactly what the U.S wants. Japan's robust navy, which has always been closely aligned to the U.S since the end of WII, further complements American naval power and constrains China's in the northern pacific.

Now none of this is unexpected. The U.S has been putting pressure for greater Japanese military involvement for at least a decade now, if not longer, and there was little doubt that Japan would side with the U.S as China grew in militarily. The good news for the United States is that Japan also has interests in the South China sea, and with the relative weakness of the nations, such as the Philippines, it further compliments American military capabilities. Stratfor video below.

Economic Collapse: Brazil

Brazil is the next country that has suffered an economic collapse since the turn of the millenium. Their economy contracted by nearly half from 1997 to 2002.  Brazil has recovered nicely since then and their economy has quadrupled from 2002, and they are now the 6th largest economy in the world just behind France.

Economic Collapse: Korea

Korea suffered an economic collapse back in 1996 where it saw it's GDP decline, due to the Asian financial crisis, by 38% to 1998.  But Korea is suffered a major decline of it's GDP during the financial crisis. From 2007 to 2009 Korea saw it's GDP contract by around 19%.  The latest contraction is large enough, in my opinion to warrant as an economic collapse, but Korea has recovered very quickly, unlike Japan, and it's GDP now surpasses it's high back in 2007.  However, Korea is a very dependent on exports, and hence the global economy. It's TAPG is over 80%, so expect Korea to be hit hard by the next wave of the crisis.

Economic Collapse: Japan

We've talked about the lost decade of Japan, but few realize that they suffered an economic collapse, yet I don't see how you can describe a sudden drop of 27% of your high water GDP, a series of oscillation ups and downs between growth and contraction, and not reaching economic parity to your high until 15years later anything other than a collapse. But that is exactly what happened, their economy collapsed in on itself.

This serves as a very useful reminder that an economic collapse doesn't necessarily entail a complete collapse of society. How the economic collapse plays out depends on a variety of factors, and the fact that Japan's culture is one of conformance, coupled with the fact that they were a close US ally, helped ameliorate the situation.  But this is something that we in the US need to think about, as far too often we think of economic collapses as something like we see with Argentina or Wiemar Germany.  That's not to say that an economic collapse of America would play out more like it did for Japan, far from it in my opinion, but it is something to consider.

Generation Theft

Captain Capitalism's blog has focused on a variety of subject over the years, but recently his YouTube videos have focused on Baby Boomers and the whole sale screwing over of the younger generations.  Many, who are not fans of him or disagree with his politics, would simply dismiss his comments as those of a bitter ex-analyst that is mad because he couldn't hack it. Well, once again the Captain has the last laugh as even the New York Times is now acknowledging what the Captain has been pointing out for years now. The Times simply focuses on the stagnant wealth of the younger generations but the chart shows you the truth; that Millennial and Xers are being bent over the collective barrel.

Since 1983 the wealth of every demographic group has increased save for those in the 20-40 range.  Now an astute individual will point out that there were many boomers who were in this range back in the early 1980s, my old man was my age back in 1983, and they will point out that the young boomers had lower incomes than the generations above them.  This is true, but the gap, both relative and absolute, between the two has only grown greater over the years during the same time that the boomers began to occupy those demographic groups.

Ultimately the issue isn't that their wealth increased by as much as it did. Acquiring wealth is no vice and increasing wealth is a good thing. But this graph clearly shows that the younger generations have received no benefit whatsoever from the Reagan Boom, New Economy or the Real Estate Bubble.  All the benefits of whatever economic growth we've had over the past thirty some odd years have gone to the generations that have manned the helm. By all rights, in a society that is economically stable the relative wealth gaps should remain fairly flat and in an economically booming society the average net worth of all groups should rise; rising tide and all that. But after thirty years of economic growth Millennial have seen almost no change in their wealth, and younger Xers actually have seen a decline! Yet Boomers twice as much absolute wealth relative to the generations that occupied the 56 to 64 year old demographic thirty years ago.

Now the Boomers alone didn't do this. The Silent Generation also has taken part of this action. But this really underlies what is wrong with America right now. I am no fan of OWS, but I am more sympathetic to their cries against the 1% when, statistically, older generations benefiting from economic revolutions and the younger generations aren't.

 

 

The Economic Decline of a Nation: Argentina

 

 

 

The economic collapse of Argentina since the beginning of the new millennium gives us a glimpse of what could happen to the west in the future, thanks to warnings and illustrations by those who have lived through the crisis and its aftermath.  But Argentina also serves a useful example of how a country can stagnant economically, and slowly fall from it's perch. 

 

At the turn of the 20th century Argentina was one of the most dynamic and rich countries in the western hemisphere. In 1905 Argentinian wages were 80% per capita of the United States at the time, similar to nations like Germany, France and Canada.  Argentina was among the most economically affluent nations in the world, and some predicted that it would become the equivalent to the United States in South America.  This was all in spite of a major banking crisis prior to the turn of the century, which had seen Argentina default on its debt. By 1913 Argentina had over 3% of the worlds gold and produced 1% of the worlds economic output with an income per head equal to France and Germany. World War I brought the economic growth to a major halt.

 

A lot of this had to do with the curtailing of the global market. The major economies of Europe, which had bought Argentina's imports and invested heavily into Argentina. Britain had been a major investor around the globe, but the end of the war brought this investment to a halt. They were far too indebted to the United States.  And this was perhaps the greatest blow to Argentina.  While the US suffered no major economic set back, though they did suffer a recession, the nation showed no interest in investing or trading significantly with Argentina. It viewed the nation as a potential rival and the US did not want an economic rival in it's part of the world, so they ignored Argentina economically.  Lastly, perhaps the biggest set back of all, was the opening of the Panama canal, which decreased the economic importance of the Southern Cone.

 

Argentina saw a major decline in economic growth. Despite all the wealth that they had a acquired the nation had a major weakness. It wasn't as industrially developed as America or the European nations. With the decline of global purchasing of Argentinian exports, and not a large enough industrial base to support domestic production and consumption, their economy suffered.  As you can see in the chart the average income was lower from 1920 to 1930 than it had been from 1900 to 1920.

 

The outbreak Great Depression, which inflicted the developed economies of America and Europe, didn't hit the Argentinians that hard.  Economic expansion was halted, however, but the effects were relatively mild for the most part. But while the economy nominally looked like it was performing well the state of the average Argentinian had deteriorate d rapidly that lead to major internal political infighitng which lead to the rise of Peron. Peron, and Peronism, would dominate Argentina for the next thirty years.

 

Peronism was a form of economic socialism, also known as corporatism, that saw the state's roll on the economy and implementing certain policies such as halting foreign imports. In the long term Perons policies would be disastrous, but then socialist policies of any stripe always are, but with the increased demand in food, lack of war debt, and undamaged infrastructure at the end of World War II, Argentina saw a tremendous change of economic fortunes.  By 1950 Argentina saw its GPD per capita around 55% of the United States.

 

While the 1950s and 1960s were a golden era for America and Europe, Argentina once again saw a decline in economic growth now that the western European nations had fully recovered from the damage inflicted by war.The Argentinian, in an effort to spur growth, intervened many times during this period; all of these interventions were unsuccessful and only compounded the problems facing the nation.

 

As you can see, the period from the 1970s to the 1990s saw a major decline in the GDP per capita of the Argentinians relative to America.  A lot of items factor into this decline, the rise of other non-developing countries into developing countries, the inefficiencies of state supported industries finally becoming apparent, and a growing authoritarian government.  The 1980s saw the end of the military dictatorship that had run Argentina, but rather than fix their problems of government largess, the populists simply changed where the money was being funneled. Finally, in the 1990s the economic minister of Argentina implemented free market reforms, inflation was halted, unemployment decreased, and for the first time in decades the share of GDP per capita rose, however, this economic swell was short lived.

 

While free market policies had been tried to some degree, and to some success, the problems of extreme government largess and corruption were never adequately addressed. Also, privatisiation was being reversed during the later part of the 1990s. Coupled with a devaluation of the Brazilian Real and the American dollar were the final catalysts for Argentina. They could not pay their debt and so they defaulted which lead to the economic crisis that lasted from 1999 to 2002. and sent Argentinian GDP per capita as a percentage of US GDP per capita to the lowest point ever in a century.

 

While the Argentinian Economy has grown since their economic collapse, in per capita constant 2000 dollars it was around $ 6,400 whereas it is now around $ 12,000, the above chart shows how far Argentina has actuall fallen.  A hundred years ago Argetina, while not fully developed, would have been a country that was on the verge of becoming a developed nation.  The affects of their wealthy period can be seen today, since their decline has been rather drawn out, and they remain the second most developed nation in South America, having been surpassed by Chile and are considered a highly developed nation. Yet other metrics show that relatively Argentina is worse. 

 

Argentina's GDP per capita at the turn of the last century was a little over half that of America's but today their income per person is around a quater of America's. Moreover the economic collapse fostered in an administration that is arguably more corrupt than the one that was in power during the crisis. The dual Kirchner presidencies have not been good for the people of Argentina, and it looks like they are heading for another financial crisis.

 

What is most terrible about the economic history of Argentina is that there were numerous chances for this nation to break the cycle that has kept it from joining the ranks of the developed nations. But corruption and cronyism has prevented Argentina from doing so every single time. Argentina serves as a stark reminder of what can happen to the United States or any other developed crisis, not only because of their recent economic collapse, but because of their long and gradual economic decline.



Sovereign Analysis Metric: TAPG

After a video posted by the Captain a while back about what options were available if you wanted to bug out of the good ol' U S of A in the event of a catastrophic collapse.  The Captain mentioned sovereign analysis as one measure of determining whether or not a country would be a wise place to go to.  I have my own opinions on the viability of 'bugging out' but they general feelings based off of observation rather than firm opinions based on evidence.  That being the case it gave me an idea for another project.  Yes I know I still haven't finished my posts about the Fall of the Roman Republic and it's relations to the United States today, I have a lot of these projects that are halfway through. But that is the nature of the beast, you have to have a lot of pots on the fire lest you run the risk of running out of ideas or things to do. I plan on doing my own Sovereign analysis on a few of the worlds nations. I plan on looking at the United States, the BRIC nations, a few other major developed and developing economies, and examine the resources, their economy and how connected they are to the global system. I don't anticipate this project finishing anytime soon, so you might ask why I am posting on a project not yet even begun, it's because I came up with something that I think might be useful.

While this metric may not be unique, and I don't assume to be the first person to have come up with this idea, I do think this metric will be useful.  The metric I speak of is something I call TAPG, which stands for Trade Activity as a Percent of Gross Domestic Product.  Trade activity is nothing more than the sum of imports and exports of a nation's economy and by dividing it by a nation's GDP I believe it will give us an idea on how dependent, or intertwined we could say, that a country is on the global economy and world trade.

For example, the US has imports and export activity totaling 3.79 trillion dollars with a GDP of 15 trillion. This would make TAPG at 25%.  For China, which has total export and import activity of 3.7 trillion, and a GDP of 7.3 trillion. This would give them a TAPG of 50%, which means that China is more dependent on the global economy and world trade than the United States.  Now this metric isn't intended to be all end all when it comes to analyzing a nation, just one aspect of it.  Just because the US has a TAPG lower than China doesn't necessarily mean that China is in worse shape than America, but it does indicate that one country is more reliant on the globe than another.  And in this makes sense, the US is less reliant on the globe than China. Now before some one takes off my head and tells me that how could I ignore the massive amounts of debt that the US has and it's reliance on the sucker ofs the world purchasing said debt; I am not. This metric isn't meant for that, it simply is a metric in regards to trade. And the fact is, that the US is less dependent on trade than China, it has a more developed economy, more resources and a larger consumer base.

But that being said, I wanted to test my metric out and see if it had validity, or if it was widely off.  Here are some back of the page calculations I did for various nations and their TAPG to test my idea. It is shown from low to high:

• Brazil 23%
• USA 25%
• Japan 27%
• Australia 37%
• Russia 46%
• India 47%
• Mexico 48%
• China 50%
• Canada 50%
• South Korea 85%
• Switzerland 103%
• Singapore 220%

All and all I can say that the ratio is looking like it does a pretty good job.  Now you might say, wait a second, some things look wrong here. For example Singapore has a TAPG of 220% and how can a country have a TAPG higher than it's economy? Or your may even wonder how a developing nation like Brazil could have such a low TAPG? Or you might look at Canada and wonder how it can have a TAPG the same as China?   All of these items are easily explainable.

Signapore generates more in exports than it's entire GDP, it's very impressive actually, however, they also import almost as much as their GDP. Immediately it should become very apparent that a nation that has export and import levels above or very close to it's GDP is very, very dependent on world trade' hence, it has a extremely high TAPG.

Brazil's economy has long focused on self-reliance and it is very inwardly focused. There are a lot of reasons for this, even geopolitical ones, but this inward focused has resulted in an economy that is not very dependent on the globe. Does this mean that they won't be hit hard by the next wave of crisis? Not necessarily, but a low TAPG does lead me to believe that they might fare better than others. But a deeper analysis would be required.

Lastly, there is Canada, which is a developed nation with an abundance of natural resources. Why would they have a TAPG as high as China's?  It has a lot to do with who they are neighbors with. Canada is a very small economy and a lot of trading goes on between Americans and Canadians. 73% of all of  Canada's exports go to America, they are our largest oil exporter, and 49% of all their imports come from America.  Needless to say Canada is very intertwined with America, which means if America goes it is bringing Canda with it.

The last example I gave shows a deeper level analysis that is required when using TAPG. While the ratio may explain which nation is dependent on world trade, it will take a closer examination to see where exactly a country is the most vulnerable in this interconnected economy that we live in. As we can see with Canada, the state of Russia has less of an impact on their economy than the state of America. 

This is just one of the many metrics I plan on using when analyzing my selected nations. And I may come up with new ones in the future. If you have any that you think might be useful, for example the Captain says that the GDP/GNP are important, then please let me know.


ADDENDUM

This isn't based on any statistical or regression analysis, but based off of my readings of world economies here is how I would rate TAPG ratios using my gut.

Anything less than 30% would be considered Green. A nation with 30% or less of economic activity related to imports and exports has a large enough domestic economy to help it through any major interruptions to the global economy. Now this might seem odd, considering that Japan is extremely dependent on the rest of the world for oil and liquid natural gas, but Japan does have the economic base to develop alternative energy sources. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be expensive, or disruptive, it would. But it has the industrial ability to do so.

Anything less than 50% would be yellow. These are economies that do have risk, however, this risk may be regaled to only a few nations. For example Canada's economy and America's. Or their economy may not be fully developed enough to develop alternative markets or energy sources as quickly as a more developed nation, such as China. 

Anything over 51% but less than 100% is Orange.  These nations are exposed to the ebbs and flows of the global economy. They may have an economy that is very export oriented, a lack of natural resources and underdeveloped domestic forms of alternative energy, or their country may be very poor.

Anything over 100% is Red. These are countries that are extremely exposed to the ups and downs of the global economy. Most likely these nations are very small or are city states and have no choice but to rely on the global market for economic production and energy acquisition. If they are not, then they have an economy that is severely lacking in either certain industrial or energy producing sectors


Additional Countries I looked at

Turkey: 30%
Argentina: 31%
Costa Rica: 40%
Philippines: 42%
Indonesia: 42%
New Zealand: 45%
Panama: 52%
Chile: 61%
Germany: 68%
Malaysia: 130%

Geopolitics: Opening of the North Pole And the Bearing Strait

With the globe getting warming some geographers estimate that shipping could pass through the North Pole by mid-century.  Now I do not want to waste time debating on whether or not the globe is getting warmer or note, for the sake of this post just assume that it is. This is great news for the Scandinavian nations, the US, Canada and Russia, especially for Scandinavia, this opens a new route which should be much faster than traversing the Atlantic and/or the Pacific to ferry goods across the glove.

This is also good news for the exporting nations of Asia, but less so. The Bearing strait is a natural choke point and while a future blockade wouldn't be catastrophic, it would be terribly inconvenient. The nation that would least benefit from this is China. Will China will undoubtedly use such a passage way to ferry their goods to Europe, baring an major economic change for the Europeans or the Chinese that would drastically change the economic dynamic between the two, they also know that this passage way is even less secure than the straights of Malacca. Whereas, the US has to project power across the Pacific if it wanted to close off the Malacca straight, and be dependent on allies while it did so, it does not have that problem if it wanted to close off the Bearing straight.

Long story short, assuming the current geopolitical make up of the world remains, the opening of the north pole doesn't affect the United States all that much.  Some individuals would point out that the US might be able to act with less impunity due to the fact that Russia also shares access to the straight and a like of allies that have a vested interest in aiding the US dominance in the region, I have to disagree. While a lot can change in forty or so years, the Russian fleet is but a shadow of it's former self.  Russian military leaders are warning of a continued drop in operational ability if ship building rates do not change. Admittedly, this could be hyperbole by military officers trying to secure a greater share of the Russian Federation's budget, but the last twenty years indicate that their warnings are not baseless. The Russians have seen a decrease in their operational ability.

The Russian Pacific fleet has no carriers, 6 surface ships, and 19 submarines and unfortunately for the Russians, the Pacific is far from their population and industrial centers. Contrast this to the United States, where the Pacific ocean is easily accessible for the United States. The U.S has the third and seventh fleets dedicated to the Pacific.  The third fleet has around 5 carrier task groups, with an accompaniments of around 2 to 6 supporting warships, and the seventh fleet has one carrier strike group and around nine tasks forces that comprise of destroyers, cruisers and support vessels.  The United States also has 8 submarine squadrons, comprising between 2 to 6 submarines each.  Needless the say, the US can bring a lot of force to bear in the Pacific.

This shouldn't, and probably doesn't, worry the Russians too much.  Russia is far more concerned with securing it's borders as it faces a demographic crisis in the future, and won't try to contend with the United States, or China, for hegemonic influence in the region.  The Russians also know that the US has little interest in stirring trouble with the Russians in that part of the world.  America is focused on China, and as long as the Russians do not make any trouble in the Pacific, then they know they have little to worry about; for now at least. Geopolitics is an ever changing and fluid environment, and 40 years is a long time to look out, but it doesn't hurt to do so.

Bill Introduced In Texas That Will Give Tax Breaks To Companies That Violate Obamacare

The headline says it all. I am not going to make much of this, considering that dozens, if not hundreds, of bills are introduced in state legislators that never see the light of day outside of their first proposal. However, if this bill does gain traction, then it would be another interesting development in the growing rift between the states, and the federal government.

Stratfor: Japan's Geographic Challenge

Another video from Stratfor. This one on Japan.

Arbitrary And Capricious

Says a judge to Mayor Bloomberg concerning his soda pop ban.

Corrupt Mayor Guilty

Ex-Detriot mayor Kilpatrick guilty of obstruction of justice. Not only is Detriot a disastereous failure which has caused the Governor of Michigan to appointment an emergency financial manager but it's leadership was totally corrupt. but it's neighbor, Illinois, has numerous governors behind bars. Progressives should take note, and yes that includes the religious progressives that make up the 'conservative' portion of the GOP party, this is the result of a progressively state. It leads to fiscal ruination and base corruption of your leadership.

Four Reasons Why I Don't Think China Is On The Rise

Outside of Ancient Rome, and American Culture, I write about Geopolitics, specifically China, since the worlds, and most importantly America's focus is shifting away from the Atlantic and to the Pacific. A lot of individuals think China is going to surpass the United States as the worlds premier super power. I disagree, and I have explained why in the past. I have noticed that the blogger sphere that I follow has gradually become more aware that China's rise isn't in stone and that they don't have America by the balls. But some individuals still think that's the case, and it isn't surprising, even with the Internet it takes a while for information to disseminate across the web. I'm putting this post together as compendium of my posts on China. As always, I could be wrong, but here are my arguments.

First and foremost, demographics. Demographics is destiny, it always has, and it always will. China has a population replacement rate far below the replacement, while the United States hovers around replacement levels, and also, unlike the US, China has people migrating from their country. There is of course debate on the cultural affects of migration, however, I am looking at longer term trends. And considering that the world's fetility rate is decreasing, which means that in the future there will be a competition for human capital, China is not positioned for long term economic growth or power projection. For the last 400 years our economic system has been geared around continued population growth and while technology could break that need in the future that point hasn't happened yet.

China is still an incredibly poor country, with a GDP per capita around $ 8,000, the US has a GDP per capita a little over 6 times that amount. Or to put it in other terms, China ranks around 94th in terms of GDP per capita, and the US could see it's GDP per captia halved and still rank no lower than 40th. This also plays into China's demographic situation, considering that they have elected to continue their demographically suicidal one child policy, as there will be fewer workers to support their elderly. Already it looks like China's workforce has peaked. China is going to get poor before it gets old.

This also brings to light a very serious issue for the Chinese. The Chinese have been acquiring vast reserves in order to sequester enough funds to help them deal with the gradual social instability that an age top heavy society will have. The problem for the Chinese, most of them are in dollars. This is where the concept that China is buying America is exposed for an empty fear.

Even discounting the fact that America has a military that far outstrips China in terms of military ability, the US possess 10 career fleets in active service and two in reserve, the largest nuclear powered submarine contingent, and a web of military bases around the world and the pacific. On the other hand China has only one modern aircraft carrier, only 10 nuclear submarines, and 138 combat vessels compared to the US 260 or so and this doesn't count the 244 Coast Guard cutters responsible for near shore defense.

Why do I mention all this? Because it points that China can't force the US to pay it's debts, or not pay them with depreciated dollars. There is no way China can bring it's army over to our shores and then take what is owed them.

Lastly, while a lot of individuals point out the flaws of a Keynesian influenced, or state directed economy, in the West, they fail to see these same flaws in China. There isn't something magical about the Chinese technocrat that makes their central planning any less likely to end in disaster than when we, the French, or the Russians do it. And like all technocrats they are make short term decisions which will have disastrous long term effects. This has lead to an economy that is severely over reliant on exports, government spending, and real estate. Not only is there some evidence that China has already faltered due to decreased global demand, resulting in them turning away materials imports in some cases. There are reams and reams of documentation and research indicating that China is not as strong as people think, here is a blog called Crisis Maven which hasn't been up to date in a while but lists out a lot of China's underlying economic problems.

So while I could very well be wrong about China not being ascendant but having already peaked, the research I have conducted has convinced me that I am right in my assessment. Ultimately time will tell.

Employment Charts

Well it looks like the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in four years! Cheers all around, America is back, the decline is halted, the stimulus has worked! Oh who am I kidding, we all know we aren't, it hasn't, and it didn't.  While I guess we can be happy that the U-3 unemployment dropping below the 7.8 to 7.9 to 7.7 we cannot forget that even with the drop in the U-6 unemployment is intolerably high. But rather than go on about something most everyone knows is flawed, I decided to post a few charts I found on CSgraphs.

 

Monthly Hiring has picked up. Adding over 200,000 jobs a month would certainly be an indicator of an improving economic situation, but some caution is in order. The chart shows that most employment additions have only trended above this line for very short periods of time.

 

 

This graph paints a fare better picture that the unemployment rate alone. I think this graph illustrates two major items. One, it shows us that we have dropped down to late 1970s level of individuals who are employed compared to the population. Two, we may either be seeing the early retirement of the baby boomers due to our economic situation. Three, we may also be seeing the reversal of the employment boom that the rapid addition to the workforce due to women putting off families, or having families but not opting for the primary care giver role.

 

 

 

Job oepnings, the yellow line, are approaching the levels they were in during the last economic boom. But then we know that our last economc boom wasn't so much a boom as a bubble. What is really telling is the left handed end of this graph. It looks like pre-2001 there were vastly more job openings than there were now. Was it due to the inernet bubble of the 1990s? Or was the American economy really that much more robust?

 

 

Another sphincter tightening graph for kenyesians. Prior to the 1990s we see that employment downturns were relatively short, prior to the end of te 1970s it looks like a return to our previously employment peak took no more than a year or a year and a half. We see this start to change with the recession of '83, and it becomes painfully obvious with ech recession onward.  It has been six years since the crisis and we haven't even managed to get employment, as a percentage of peak, to the levels they werer during the  worst points of any other recession on this chart.

 

 



What I find telling is that even during the last two recessions small business hiring plans have not trended negative at all, it is only during our last recession that they have dipped below the zero line.

Now whether we still want to celebrate our drop in the U-3; or whether these charts compell you to seek the comfort of the water of life, whisky for those of you who aren't familiar with Irish coloqiualisms, that is up to you. But one thing is abudently clear, we are not nearly out of the woods yet.

Black Salve Owners?

Interesting. Not something I have ever heard, but then I shouldn't be surprised. Slavery is often glossed over for the sake of political scoring political points in our school system, for example little is talking about the Africans who sold other Africans to the Europeans. Slavery was, and is, a tragedy, but it is a tragedy that the whole of humanity is guilty of.

Vamparism

Aurini has a video that ties into a few posts about evil and vampires that I think are pertinent. The twisting of the Christian maxim 'hate the sin and not the sinner' into something not even remotely close to what it was intended; as even Christianity admits that there are people who are unsaveable but that they are unsaveable due to their own choices. I have written about our culture of vamparism and I think our public media portrayal of them perfectly illustrates what is wrong with society. I've already written about what vampires represent in the Western Judeo-Christian mindset.  Let me point out specific instances in popular culture.

In the beginning of the 19th century a poem called the Vampyre, which introduces us to the modern conception of the vampire that had existed for millenia in one shape or form. The poem is written shortly after the turbulence of the French revolution and Napoleonic wars. The vampire in this era symbolized the abuse of the commoners by the effete and slothful aristocracy, who in violation of noblise oblige, abused their non-noble brethren.  This was an issue throughout Western Europe, though less so in Great Britain, and it was the abuses of the French nobility that led to the terrible wars on the continent as it paved the way for Napoleons rise.

Later, during the turbulent era of the 1840s, the Varney the Vampire serials are first produced. The 1840s were the first period when the affects of the industrial revolution were first felt, both the good effects, and the ill. The topic of the poems change, sometimes focusing on the greed and avarice of Varney, and other times his terrible acts done to others due to his self loathing.  This is the vampire as the narcissist, concerned only with his own gain, his own feelings, and oblivious, or simply uncaring, about his actions and their affects on others.

Then we have the penultimate novel, Dracula, written in the twilight years of the Victorian era. A lot of themes are present in this book, syphilis, the roles of women, selfless manliness, the growing schism between science and faith, and some claim that there are opinions on post colonialism. I have also heard that Dracula was a allusion to Britain's growing fears of the rise of Germany. What ever the cause, the novel best captures the horror of vampirism and one of items that most stand out to me is Dr. Van Helsing's speaking in reference to Lucy, who is slowing turning into the undead: I am paraphrasing

Where that she would simply pass unto death I would be content to let her die a peaceful death and enter into the peaceful arms of the almighty. But no, there are some things more terrible than death and if she dies now she risks damnation.

As I said, Bram Stocker captures the fears of vampires, and what they represent, perfectly. I would even argue that Dracula is the distillation of everything vampires have represented since we first conceptualized them. It is why his image of vampires has dominated our collective minds for over a century. But now we have vampires turned into the narcissistic sex fantasy completely devoid of any deeper meaning. Where once vampires articulate the very worst fears of the West, they have been turned into an article to swoon over, lust even. Vampires steal the life force of their victims much in the same way a rapist steals the dignity of a woman, yet popular media never draws that comparison.

 In twilight, or another god awful show called the vampire diaries, the main character is a girl who loves a vampire but never ever seriously thinks about how terrible her love interest is.  Countless of individuals have had their blood taken, their life force raped if you will, but the vampire is not considered an evil individual, he is an object of pity.  No time is spent on the victims, or their final moments of terror, instead we focus on the 'forbidden' love between the two. And let us not forget the absurdity in the idea that a creature who has murdered countless numbers of people is able to 'contain' his evil nature because of his love. This is articulation of narcissism right there, that you are so such special snowflake that a vampire, who had no compunction about killing numerous other individuals (most often women I have seen) but frets and agonizing over the risk that he might go 'too far' with you.

This is absurd as vampires don't do this, they are incapable of doing this. They have crossed the event horizon and have made a choice. We see these vampires as regretful for their past actions, but how can I buy that this regret is real? At least with Angel you saw a vampire who tried to atone for his crimes, but with the latest iteration of vampires you don't even see that. If someone is truly regretful for their actions they would seek atonement. And in the case of a vampire there is only one kind of atonement, DEATH. That only way to free your victims, who still live anyways, from their fate and the only way to truly show that you are remorseful for your crimes. Feeling bad about it doesn't cut it.

And that is the ultimate rub about vampires, what makes them so scary, because a vampire is incapable of feeling bad about their actions.  They are not simply sociopaths, they are slaves to their worst and most base instincts. They live to consume the life force of others, veritable parasites. This is something that should be revolting to every human being, we have an inherent drive to be useful to our friends, family and our society.  But all the while, we have this knowledge that sociopath rests in all our hearts. We are flawed creatures who can commit evil and it is only our faculties, or grace if you believe in God, that keeps us from the worst side of ourselves.

Vampires used to either represent the complete failure of our facilities, or the complete absence of grace. To be a vampire was a fate worse than death. So much so that the act of killing someone turned into a vampire was an act of kindness, and the people who did so, heroes. But that isn't recognized today. Vamparism isn't a fate worse than death, and there is a reason why most fiction portrays the victims of vampires as women, it is something that is desired, lusted after even.  While someone might claim that the protagonist of these awful shows simply want what every human being wants, to live forever with their loved one, how narcissistic, evil even, does a person have to be to desire immortality that can only be purchased through the blood of others?

 

Why Latin America Isn't Progressing

I think Daniel Hannan has a pretty good article on Latin America and why it continues to fall up short.

Can We Just Admit

The the Mayor of New York is just a extremely wealthy curmudgeon that has no real interest in people outside of telling them how to live. He's going after head phones now; you brought this on yourself New York.

Paradox of Libertarianism: The Majority of People Don't Care About Liberty And They Never Did

I recognize that America, the west, and perhaps the globe, is entering a period of decline. What is at the end of this decline is murky, will we see a collapse of the United States as a political entity? Increased global conflict? Mutant wombats roaming the earth? There are a lot of differing ideas on where America is going. Some individuals, like Vox, assert that America is heading towards a break up of the Union. I have heard others, the most optimistic anyways, that it is simply a generational decline in the standards of living. Whereas I maintain that the United States as a geopolitical entity will retain it's position, but display more blatant avarice overseas, but the end of our republic. Regardless, America's levels of freedom and prosperity are declining.

The Captian makes a great case for it in his book, which I have not read yet but do plan to order, about how to live our lives. One thing he has mentioned frequently is that there is no reasoning stressing about things that you have no control over whatsoever.  The fact is that nothing I do, short of being a modern day Moses, will change what is going to happen. So don't waste your time worrying. And for the most part I do a good job. But there are days when I get reminded about the one uncomfortable truth that explains why we are in this decline.

Most Americans, most people on this globe, most people in history, do not understand what liberty is. And they don't care. In fact, the majority of people are hostile to liberty.
 

The last assertion is a very serious claim to make, but unfortunately, I have concluded that it is undeniably true; or it appears that way to me on my morose days. Sure people care about having freedom for themselves, and maybe their close associates, but they couldn't care less about the freedom of the other person two towns over, much less a thousand miles a way. How else can you explain anti-smoking laws, the FDA using paramilitary to storm raw milk vendors, or the call for individuals to have greater government involvement in our lives?

I have literally meet individuals that have stated they don't care that government restricts x, the right to bear arms, as long as they grant y, for example free health care. Never mind the demonstrably atrocious job the government has done with education or even managing their own check books. These individuals cannot, or will not, discern that social services are not rights. Free health care, education and a guaranteed standard of living is nice, of course ignoring the dire economic ramifications of robbing Peter to pay Paul, but they aren't innate rights. To speak our mind, to move with out hindrance, to stake our claim, those are rights. You are born with them, given by God if you will.

Yet the fact remains that individuals will gladly give up their rights if they think it will make them more comfortable. American leftists, Cuba and free health care is a great example. Never mind that Castro treated his own people like second class citizens, creating segregated beaches and hotels for wealthy tourists only, his country has free health care (with the best care going to the most equal citizens of course)! American conservatism, as it exists now, is little better, as evident by the treatment of it's libertarian wing of its party. (I am looking at you Mr. Medved. It is hard to reconcile how someone so smart, can be so stupid when it comes to libertarians, save for the fact that you were once a leftist and even now are a conservative progressive.)

And this isn't just a phenomena limited to mordern day America, sadly no. Read enough history and you will see that this is true even of America in yesteryear. There were always calls for government action, for handouts, for favorable treatment (how else do you think those railroads got made?) but we lived in a unique period were it was far more limited and the national government far more concerned with the expansion of our nation that the legislation of our lives. And this leaves me with a depressing paradox. The paradox of libertarianism we can call it.

Given my assessment of human nature a true libertarian society, on a large national scale, can only exist if:

 a) Human beings are able to divorce their concept of freedom from the narrow and the selfish to the the wide and selfless
 or
 b) That if human beings can never get past their selfish notion of freedom then we must have enlightened leaders that can ensure that the anti-liberty agendas of various individuals never be codified into law.

You can see my problem here. Point a) assumes something that is impossible at this current place and time of human development, and I think may never be possible. My metamorphisis to libertarianism wasn't an easy process, and it only began once I came to terms with the fact that I did not truly understand, love, or really want freedom. It took years of feeling uneasy intellectually and a solid year of hard self reflection until I emerged a libertarian. Libertarianism, much like steel, isn't something you see very often naturally, it comes through passing the mental cruciable, much like forging steel, and only at the end of that mental cruciable do you get a true libertarian.

As for point b) well if point b) were possible, well, then we wouldn't be in the crisis we are in today now would we? This raises serious questions, in my mind at least, about the ability for us to ever achieve a society that truly value freedom.  Though this could change, and new information be brought to my attention to change my opinion, the depressing truth as I have seen it. Is that people don't care about liberty provided they get what they want.

Red Flag Words: Holisitc

ho·lis·tic(h-lstk)

1. Of or relating to holism.

2.

a. Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts.

b. Concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts:

 

Of all red flag words, or as I would call them, bull shit words, this is probably one of the ones that best correlates to their actual meaning when used today. You most often find this word when someone cannot spell out the actual benefits to what they are doing.  For example, holistic medicine, while there are things wrong with the pill popping symptom only treating medicine practices by Americans today. Holistic advocates mistakenly, or ignorantly, argue that it is a failure of western medicine, rather than the misapplication of western medicine by an ignorant populace and lazy medical field. 95% of holistic medicine is utter bullshit. I had to hear one holistic advocate talk about how prior to modern diets and medicine that tribal man didn't suffer from diarrhea that is so common in todays modern and sick world. Right.....

Even more dangerous is when someone is selling a product or service, say for example physical training, and they use the world holistic. While holisticness, in it's actual meaning, is very desirable for physical training, most often I have seen the word used by trainers that do not know two shits about what they are doing and have little real world experience. You can tell the trainers that not only know what they are doing, but have actually done it, and frankly, there are far too many trainers who don't know what they are doing. Certifications don't mean squat in regards to their competence.

I have a friend of mine, a swim coach, who has no certifications in lifting, or coaching for that matter, but is easily one of the best swim coaches in the state, if not the country; and is one of the most effictive weight trainers out there. I should know, we lifted together for a year, and the one year he was a trainer for our swim team (he was ineligible that year due to NCAA age restrictions) I saw the biggest increases of strength for the whole team than any other year with any other trainer. The guy has no certifications in kinesology, exercise science, or anything like that, but he easily knows enough about how the body works in the gym and in the water, that his knoweldge base is masters level.

So the next time you hear the word holistic look for any sort of concrete descriptions or illustrations on what exactly do they mean by holistic? Is there a detailed methodology supporting their statement or is it just an adjactive that is thrown around without any real thought as to how they achieve holisticness?

DOW Posts All Time High

The Dow posts an all time high which further proves that either the stock market has nothing to do with real economic production, considering that unemployment and private sector GDP still haven't reached pre-recession levels, or all the dollars the FED is pumping out is simply inflating the dollars, or both.

The bull market is perplexing, outside of FED pumping of dollars, given that everyone, other than die hard Keynesians and Obama supporters, will admit that the economy is not perform well.  Even wall street admits that the economy is doing poorly, in a round about sort of way, because they justify governments increasing spending as necessary to keep the economy afloat.

The irrationality of wall street, and the economic and fiscal illiteracy of our government, is well known. So the question is, have we entered the count down? Is this the high water mark, or perhaps more accurately the low water mark, before the next tsunami of dollar induced malinvestment hits our shores?

Generation X and Y You Think You Are Screwed

But your kids, or kids to be, are even more screwed.

Things I Wish Someone Had Told Me When I Was 18

I used to belong to one of those head hunting organizations that specifically focused on finding jobs for recent college graduates and I still occasionally receive emails. I recently saw a request for an accounts payable specialist, offering the prospective employees a whopping $13.50 an hour, for a temporary job that could potentially turn into a permanent hire.  The requirements for said job were a 4 year degree in either finance or accounting. It's unbelievable isn't it? Those 4 years of education is required for a job that pays only $ 28,000 a year.

I'm not faulting the head hunting agency, they do have connections so college grades can at least get jobs, nor the company, they are offering the current market price, but it serves as a reminder. In this glut of college attendance simply going to college and getting a worthwhile degree, Accounting, Nursing, or STEM, is no guarantee of a decent job out of college simply due to the number of degreed individuals. We live in an age were even receptionists, who simply take calls and organize files, are required to have a degree in some instances!

The competition is very fierce, and after I left college it took years for anyone to find any sort of job that was relevant to their degree; and I am talking about individuals who took accounting, finance or a STEM degree. Here are some things I wish individuals told me when I was 18 years old.

1) If you aren't a 100% sure of what you want to do when your 18 then don't go to college! Take a year or two to figure things out, and I don't mean dick around to find yourself, I find some work and live your life like an adult. Chances are you will either find what you want to do via work, or figure out what you want to do. You will also have the benefit of having lived in the real world and will have much more drive because of it.

2) For the love of God do not get a liberal arts degree. I tell this to every young millennial I meet: "I am one of you, a millennial, just a little older, so I know exactly you will experience. And as someone who has gotten both a finance and a humanities degree, I can tell you, no one, who is in a position to employee you, outside of the humanities cares at all about your humanities degree. Outside of your freshman and sophomore year levels it is nothing but a propaganda indoctrination program. If you want to learn how to critically think then save your money and elect to take some sub-200 level philosophy classes in college, or better yet, go on the Internet or the library and read the classics.

3) Unless your private institution is real good and finding paid internships that will get you real world work experience, or a great track record with post graduation job placement*, or is one of the top 3 schools in the country for whatever degree you are getting, that isn't a liberal arts degree, then don't go to a private university. A big name state school will serve you better in the state and region, and will most likely save you money if you are not an out of state student.

4) Minimize your students loans. Try to pay your way through college. You will appreciate what you are learning a lot more.

5) Network. This is something I learned the hard way. The fact is that most people who get decent jobs right out of college either, picked a degree in a field that is in high demand, or were superstars in their program, or had familial connections of some sort or networked profusely.  The college counselors got one thing right, employers want a well rounded individual. And by well rounded I don't mean you spent a lot of time volunteering for puppies. I mean that someone who is smart, outgoing, and driven. A superstar in short. The days of someone quietly working away and achieving perfect grades landing the killer job are over, for 99% of you, the field is intense.

6) Think long and hard about college athletics. This is something I did in college, and admittedly enjoyed it, but in this ever more cutthroat environment you are potentially shooting yourself in the foot doing college level athletics. It's not that I dislike them, I love them, but the fact is that all those hours spent training could also have been spent developing skills that will help you later in life.  I'm not saying you shouldn't do college athletics, but you should think about it first.

7) College is full of morons. Your high school teachers will sell youths wonderful nirvana that college is, full of bright, young, intelligent, and knowledge hungry individuals. Where thoughtful debates flourish and ideas are examined.  Couldn't be further from the truth. Fully 60% of the people I encountered had no business being there, either they just weren't ready, or they were just stupid. As cool as you may think it when one of those morons wastes your class time getting the teacher off track, or asking a million questions because they didn't bother to do their reading, you need to realize that every minute wasted is dollars down the drain. College is full of pseudo-intellectuals who like to feign intelligence, but if they weren't spoon feed opinions, then they would absolutely have nothing to say. Their opinions, deep thoughts, and ideas begin and end with what they heard from some professor or some pop-culture intellectual.

8) Take everything your grandparents and parents say about how college opens doors with a grain of salt. Or in other parlance, don't listen to most anyone over 40. There are exceptions, but by and large, most of the advice I have heard given to young guys like me, and even younger guys and gals like you all, is terrible. It isn't out of maliciousness that you are misled, it is simply out of ignorance. The world was a very different place when they were young, and it truly didn't matter what degree you received back in the when your parents went to college. But what was true then is not true now and you need to remember that.

There is a lot more I could tell you, but instead, I will also direct any young millennial to go to Amazon and buy Cappys book. It might save you a lot of heart ache.

Ethnic Conflict in South East Asia Bad For US Interest

The strange event where some Filipino nationals, followers of a defunct Malaysian Sultanate, and Malaysia is an interesting one. It is a relatively minor affair considering that the Philippines has stated that they will not guarantee the protection of the Filipinos in the beleaguered town that the Malaysian security forces.  This isn't surprising, as this conflict is occurring in Malaysian territory and the Filipinos are the aggressors, they are also acting without consent, tacit or otherwise, of the Filipino government.  However, though this is minor, this could be the rumblings of greater discord between the Philippines and Malaysia.  If this is, then this would be a golden opportunity for China. 

The United States has been fostering greater military cooperation between the Philippines and Malaysia in it's efforts to contain China in the South Pacific. Malaysia is especially a key player considering that the Malaysia borders the straight of Malacca, where 90% of all East Asian oil shipments pass through. If the US can keep Malaysia on the US side of the alliance ledger than it will have a much easier time containing China. If not, then containment becomes much more difficult, if not impossible.  As for the Philippines, it is also part of a key series of relationships the US has been developing to ensure that it's naval security ring remains unbroken. Along with Taiwan and the Japanese island, it forms the bulwark of the Pacific military ring that the US will use to leverage it's military power against a militarily ascendant China.

China currently starts out this geopolitical game in a disadvantageous position. The US has strong military relationships with Japan, Korea, and the Philippines, a much larger, more sophisticated, better trained, and spread out Navy supplemented by both South Korea and Japan, which have their own robust Navies.  Whereas China's navy is relatively bottled up due to geographic, and hence more vulnerable to attack, the US navy enjoys freedom of movement.  This is one of the reasons why China is developing anti-carrier weaponry. They know they are at a disadvantaged position and are seeking whatever means to level the playing field.

If this small ethnic spat grows, then this could be the opportunity China needs. Right now the south east pacific nations are wary of China due to competing claims on the island in the South China sea. China has recently been very belligerent in this regard and, given some of the rules of geopolitics, the island nations have cozied up to the United States recently. After all, if you have to be under an umbrella of a powerful nation, better that it be a powerful nation that is far away. If the US has to make a difficult choice on who it will support, then China could use this opportunity to wrest an ally away from US influence. But that is assuming that this ethnic conflict grows into something larger, and that remains to be seen.

Swiss Reject 2022 Olympic Bid

The Swiss voters appear to have more sense than their elected leaders.  While leaders talk about the benefits of hosting one of the most expensive pageants of manking, increased tourism, revenue, and better infrastructure, the instances of cities benefiting from the olympics are murkey. Sometimes those grand projects, such as Chinas much lauded stadium, end up empty or under utilized.