Sunday, September 27, 2015

ENGLAND, THE RUGBY WORLD CUP 2015 AND THE MUSLIM TOTALITARIAN INVASION OF EUROPE.

During the Rugby World Cup being played right in England, the birthplace of the worldwide sport, it seems odd that Englishmen would want Muslims as Christian-haters and secularist-haters living among them and more so to pay for these Christian-haters and secularist-haters to live among them. Yet, it is unlikely that any of the supposed refugee Muslims who have sneaked into the UK have any desire whatsoever to become Englishmen and Christians.




De-christianization of Europeans continues unabated. One day, each man and woman in what we know as the various sovereign countries of Europe will awaken to another day in a state of the EU. It will be life as they have known always.

They will have known only they have lived in the country of the EU. They will never have known what life was like for their forebears who lived in the UK, France, Germany and so forth.

All of these "refugees" today will be voters, grateful to those political leaders who gave them asylum, refuge, welfare and a new life. In a few years, they will vote for the agenda sought by the EU superstate.

By letting in all of these Muslim refugees, Europeans are not committing suicide as many say. Rather, European elites are killing off Frenchmen, Germans, Englishman and so forth and using pliable immigrants to do so.

The leaders of the EU countries have said in so many words to the people of their respective countries:

Each of you is insignificant. We don't care about you and whether or not you see yourself as part of a people who share a history and a identity formed from the non-law aspects of culture — accepted behavior and practices such as food, sport, religion and so forth.
We have an agenda. We rule you. Laws exist for us to do what we want. Laws do not exist to keep harmony among like-minded people with as little interference as needed by us.
We are trying to rid you of the belief that you live in countries with boundaries. We want you to believe you live in states that answer to a higher authority.
We have done much to rid you of your Christianity though we have much work still to do there. We have done much to make you believe that each should have about the same and no man or woman should have more, except for those whom you have been taught to believe are superior to you by great significance.
Though Islamism is a totalitarian political doctrine masquerading behind religion — as it does nothing to enlighten the individual — , you will accept these Muslims among you and you will pay for them. They will help us in ridding you of the last remnants of your Christianity. 
We are confident that we can Westernize these Muslims and turn them into moderates. 
As it is always the case with illegal immigrants under various guises such as refugee status, we know that illegals when showered with welfare become loyal to us, their leaders. And once we turn them into voters, we know we can rely upon them to push our agenda even faster and further than we could with two or three of your generations to come.
Our friends in America know how to do it all too well.  

These flags and what these flags represent mean nothing to the Muslim refugees and likely these flags never will.




Read more ...

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

IF THE UK JOINED THE USA, OR WHY THE UK ISN'T POORER THAN EVERY US STATE OTHER THAN MISSISSIPPI

Back on August 22, 2014, The Spectator  published a work by Fraser Nelson whereby Nelson claims Britain is poorer than every state of the USA except Mississippi. Many have doubted Nelson's claims.

While working on the World Economy League, I decided to check out Nelson's claims using 2014 GDP data annualized and dispersed to regions or states in the same proportion as held for 2013 GDP.

Nelson almost has it right. However, he is quite off in his reckoning.

Unlike Nelson, the data presented here consists of the latest available GDP, latest population estimates, and the latest cash exchange rate.

For your convenience, I present to you a few tables, each with slight difference so you can better understand how the countries of the UK would rank against the states of the USA as well as how the countries would stack up against regions of the USA along with how the country of England broken out by region would stack up against the USA.

Taken as a whole, if the UK were a state, it would rank 43 ahead of eight states.

Table 1. UK vs the states of the USA


Here you can see, the UK as a whole ranks 43. And here is how the UK stacks up when split into its constituent countries.

Table 2. Countries of the UK vs the states of the USA


The English rank 41st, ahead of such fixed-income, retirement states as Arizona, Florida and South Carolina as well as much of forever-poor Appalachia. The Scottish rank 49th. The Northern Irish and Welsh come in next to last (53rd) and dead last (54th).

And here is how the regions of England stack up along with the remaining countries of the UK against the states.


Table 3. England Regions, Remaining Countries of the UK vs the states of the USA


 With England broken out into regions, we see Greater London comes in an impressive 4th. At last, Brits have something to cheer about, at least Londoners do.

And here are the countries of the UK against regions of the USA.

Table 4. Countries of the UK vs the regions of the USA


Neither the U.S. Congress nor its agencies recognize these regions as official. However, these regions best reflect allied trade activity.

To give you perspective, Americans living in Greater New York have more than twice the income of Brits living in Northern Ireland or in Wales, on average. Overall, Americans about 1.3 times the income of Brits, on average.

Americans living in Greater New York have about 1.6 times the income of Americans living in Appalachia. However, Americans living in Appalachia have 95% of the income of Brits living in England. Said another way, Brits living in England have a scant 5% more income than Americans in Appalachia, the poorest region of the USA.

On average, a Welshman Brit has half the income of an American living in New England and about three-fourths the income of an American living in Appalachia.

Back on October 25, 2014, I published WAKE UP BRITS. MEMBERSHIP IN THE EU MAKES YOU POORER BUT DOESN'T MAKE YOU ANYMORE EUROPEAN AS ANYONE ELSE, in which, tacitly, I stated that Brits ought to exit the EU and enter into an Anglo-American commonwealth. Without doubt, it doesn't seem that EU membership has made the wage-earning working-stiff Brit richer.

After seeing the foregoing numbers, it puzzles why Brits want to keep riding the wrong horse.

I'm sure glad that my nine-times great-grandfather left Kent, England, behind in 1630 and came to America.

BONUS FOR AMERICANS


Table 5. Income per Head Adjusted by Projected RPP for 2014



I'm not a fan of regional price parities for the same reason I am not for purchasing power parity (see below). That said, I've included the calculated numbers for Regional Price Parities (RPP), using a trend line estimate for the 2014 RPP percentages.

However, for a smartly constructed basket of goods — gasoline, milk, hair cut — for alike-sized markets by population with the same demographic profile, it might be possible to see the effects on prices caused by government bureaucracy stepping in and skimming from the top.

What About PPP?

Some might, "What about PPP?" Purchasing Power Parity is a flawed concept.

PPP reflects the flawed beliefs of academic economists and their pseudo-science of economics rather than reflecting the reality of commerce.

Purchasing power parity involves a wishful hypothetical versus the actual — what the exchange rate ought to be between the cash of two banking systems giving anyone the same buying power anywhere versus what cash exchange rates are.

In the reality of commerce, all prices adhere to the one, true, infrangible law that governs all of trade — the Law of Prices. The Law of Prices of holds the winning bids of purchase and sale for what is on offer set the price. Prices reflect buying power and willingness to bid.

Producers get constrained by the great Axiom of Profit. The Axiom of Profit holds the sum of sales must at least equal the cost of production otherwise producers go to ruin.

The whole trick of business is producing so that one can adhere to the Axiom of Profit on given prices set by winning bidders. The prices set by winning bidders determine the sum of sales for producers. At whatever price winning bidders set, those producers whose costs are higher than their sales get forced out of production.

For PPP to hold true, output, working-age demographics, return on capital, cash-to-deposits, and the various kinds of credit (commercial, realty, personal) credit would need to be proportionally the same in every comparing country. In short, countries would need to be fractal images of each other exhibiting self-similarity, varying only in size by the power law.

PPP cannot account for the commercial reality of return on capital, which gets driven by working-age demographics. Differences in capital structure shall govern differences in efficiency and hence output. Differences in output shall drive differences in prices.

Those who believe in PPP and calculate PPP focus upon a hypothetical, non-existent, so-called market basket of goods. Even in the same country, no two have the same market basket of goods purchased in any period.

Every market for every good has its own make. Legal boundaries, territorial demographics and trade activity affect supply and thus prices winning bidders must pay.

Far worse, almost always, PPP figures fail to account for taxes, often the largest expenditure of any individual. Sales taxes range from none to almost 9% levied on every purchase.

You can't buy Italian marble in Alabama. You must import it. You can't buy a beach-front rental on the Pacific in Nebraska. You can't buy black diamond lift tickets in Orlando, Florida.

As well, everyone's cost of living differs from everyone else. Some eat a dozen eggs a week, others, a dozen a month.

Cost means outlay. Cost does not mean price. Cost is the sum paid. Price is the rate paid.

When anyone conflates cost with price, you can be sure that one doesn't understand commerce and reality.



Methodology

The GDP for the UK consists of the latest available quarterly current price gross domestic product for the United Kingdom, seasonally adjusted in billions of British pounds, as published by the OECD and re-published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, and then annualized. 

For each region, the total, annualized GDP has been apportioned by the same ratio as the reported 2013 GVA by country of the UK and by region of England. 

The GDP for the US consists of the latest available quarterly current price gross domestic product for the USA, seasonally adjusted in billions of U.S. dollars (Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product) as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of the Commerce.

For each state, the total, annualized GDP has been apportioned by the same ratio as the reported 2013 GDP by state by the BEA. 

The population for the USA comes from the Census Bureau's Population Clock. The population for the UK comes from Country Meters. As with GDP, population has been apportioned by the 2013 ratios of the respective countries, states and regions.

The Cash Exchange Rate for U.S. Dollars to one British Pound comes from latest available public quote. 

The RPP adjusted data comes from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.


New England: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
New York: Connecticut, New Jersey, New York
Mid-Atlantic: Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia
Appalachia: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee
Southeast: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina
Great Lakes: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin
Plains: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota
Greater Texas: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas
Mining: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming
Southwest: Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah
Pacific Northwest: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Washington 


Read more ...