IT'S GETTING LISTERIOUS. BLUE BELL CREAMERIES CEO SPEWS STUPID RHETORIC AFTER THREE DIE FROM EATING HIS ICE CREAM

“We’re committed to doing the 100 percent right thing, and the best way to do that is to take all of our products off the market until we can be confident that they are all safe ...  We are heartbroken about this situation and apologize to all of our loyal Blue Bell fans and customers. Our entire history has been about making the very best and highest quality ice cream and we intend to fix this problem.

“At every step, we have made decisions in the best interest of our customers based on the evidence we had available at the time...At this point, we cannot say with certainty how Listeria was introduced to our facilities and so we have taken this unprecedented step. We continue to work with our team of experts to eliminate this problem.” ~ Paul Kruse, CEO, Blue Bell Creameries

If  the execs at Blue Bell Creameries were "committed to doing the 100 percent right thing" and the entire history of Blue Bell Creameries "has been about making the very best and highest quality ice cream,"  never would they have produced listeria-laden ice cream that now has been implicated in the murder of three living in Kansas.

Not to be stymied by his public display of stupidity, Kruse needed to double-down with the equally idiotic claim that "at every step, we have made decisions in the best interest of our customers."

The right move by the owners of Blue Bell Creameries is to shutter the business and sell off the plant and equipment, destroying any production equipment.

According to the CDC, Blue Bell Creameries have continued to sell ice cream even though the firm had a listeria problem dating to 2010, at least according to reporting to CNN. Some are suggesting that Blue Bell execs have engaged in a almost five year cover-up that has led to three murders.

Perhaps it's time for guys like Kruse to face criminal manslaughter charges if he knew about listeria contamination while OKing the sale of products which had the potential to murder someone.

In the meantime guys like Kruse will continue to bet that Americans are so stupid they will buy any rhetoric and continue to buy products.

Read more ...

AMERICANS LIVING IN FOREIGN LANDS SHOULD TELL CONGRESS TO FACTA-OFF.

So today, Dylan Griffiths of Bloomberg reported  the number of Americans renouncing U.S. citizenship stayed near an all-time high in the first half of 2014 before FACTA rules came into force. Between January and June, 1,577 once U.S. citizens renounced their citizenship to U.S. embassy officials.



Since July 1, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act has been in full effect. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act decrees that U.S. citizens who live outside the USA to report their financial accounts held outside the USA to the IRS on behalf of Congress. Bizarrely, the law also requires foreign financial institutions to report to the IRS about their customers who are U.S. citizens.

NO ONE who earns income outside the borders of the fifty states which comprise the USA should pay taxes to the U.S. Congress. No one.

Disgustingly, Congress believes they are owed an unearned share of profits of U.S. citizens living elsewhere in other countries like Canada and Australia. It's neither moral nor legally justifiable for Congress to demand taxes from anyone earning income outside the USA. Greedy Congress "men" yearn for this undeserved tax revenue so they can increase the balance owed on their giant-sized Congressional debt credit card, wrongly parroted by most as the "national debt" or "federal debt".

When the authors of the second constitution wrote rules giving Congress the capacity, authority and thus power to lay and collect taxes, those authors wrote their taxation design in Article 1, sections 2, 8 and 9. Enough of the delegates from the various states ratified the constitution enshrining that power into law.

In Article I, Section 2, the authors wrote,

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Specifically, Article 1, Section 8 states,

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

In Article I, Section 9, the authors wrote,

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

and

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

So the authors' made explicit their design:

1. Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states.
2. The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes.
3. Direct taxes shall be apportioned by the results of the census.
4. No export taxes of any kind.

By apportionment, the ratifiers agreed that Congress would be restricted to collecting direct taxes, such as an income tax, based on the percentage of each states' population to the total for the USA. So, if New Yorkers had 10% of the population of the USA, and if Congress levied an income tax, New Yorkers had to pay 10% of all income taxes laid by Congress.

In effect, apportionment acted as a block against Congresses from levying income taxes.  Later, after the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court declared a  federal income tax unconstitutional because it violated this rule of apportionment in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust, another Congress decided that apportionment acted as shackles against them, so they passed the 16th Amendment, in which they wrote,

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Interestingly, before the 16th amendment, the Constitution had no mention of income.

Samuel Johnson, the devout Anglican lexicographer first published his A Dictionary of the English Language in 1755. Looking at the third edition, published in 1768 before the writing of the second constitution as well as the tenth edition published in 1792 soon after the writing of the second constitution, we can come to see how the founders thought of income.

Both th 1768 edition and the 1792 edition have revenue and income as synonyms, having an head entries for each word, revenue and income. Both words meant annual profits received from lands or other funds as well as the produce of anything.

Both th 1768 edition and the 1792 edition have revenue as a synonym for the head entry rent, specifcally defining the word rent as annual payment; the money paid for anything held of another.

Both th 1768 edition and the 1792 edition have definition for produce. Produce meant  product; that which yields or brings. The secondary definition for produce is amount; profit; gain; emergent sum or quantity.

Both the 1768 edition and the 1792 edition have definition for yield. Yield meant to produce; to give in return for cultivation or labor.

So those who drafted and ratified the second constitution had in mind earnings from land whether crop sales or rent, as well as interest from loans as the source of taxes. Never did the so-called founders or framers envision taxing anyone's labor income.

After 1895, Congress demonstrated by action they needed to define income as more than rent and interest, hence, this is why the 16th amendment includes the phrase "from whatever source." Further Congress demonstrated the need to rid itself of the pesky apportionment rule, hence the phrase, "without apportionment among the several States."

Yet, it is quite clear that in the second constitution, the ratifiers authorized taxation only with respect to the states and the Congress which drafted the 16th failed to expand taxation beyond states.

Thus, IRS rules regarding taxation of Americans as U.S. citizens living outside the USA and FACTA are quite unconstitutional. In short, Congress lacks authority to levy taxes upon anyone outside the territory of the USA and specifically the states.

If Congress had that authority, the Constitution would contain something along the lines of what would be construed as absurdity by everyone, e.g.,

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, without regard to any census or enumeration, without regard to citizenship or domicile, upon anyone living the earth over.

Congress needs a geography lesson. No one living in the 193 U.N. member countries, nor living in the 206 sovereign countries, nor those living in the U.S. possessions of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as the free association countries of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau owes Congress a penny, much less a dime.

There is no constitutional basis for Congress to claim the right of taxation neither on U.S. citizens living outside the USA nor upon foreigners wherever they live the earth over, except within the boundaries of the actual fifty states that constitute the USA.

That successive Congresses are so brazen to seek taxes from U.S. citizens earning income abroad and that many idiotic Americans support them in their Ahab quest shows the world how far Americans have fallen. Americans have wandered far from the path of the right way.

Read more ...

OBAMA JUMPS THE SHARK

Within the last few days, Obama had the audacity to boast this idiotic claim: "Let's look at the facts. Since I have come into office, there's almost no economic metric by which you couldn't say that the U.S. economy is better and that corporate bottom lines are better. None. In fact, our policies have produced a record stock market, record corporate profits, 52 months of consecutive job growth, 10 million new jobs, the deficit being cut by more than half, an energy sector that's booming, a clean-energy sector that's booming, a reduction of carbon pollution greater than the Europeans or any other country."

Obama seems to lack a suitable intellect to understand a rather easy concept. If you take one apple and cut it into 10 pieces, suddenly you don't have 10 apples. Before you is but one apple cut 10 ways.

With crazed quantitative easing, all Bernanke did was slice up the same apple. In nominal terms, there are more dollars, which is the same as more slices of the same apple. Since everything gets tallied in dollars, everything appears higher. However, nothing has risen.

In fact, the economy has contracted under Obama, significantly so. After removing the effects of more dollars and bank credits in circulation owing to Bernanke's crazed QE, True GDP has fallen every quarter of every year Obama has been office. You can see that reality in WHY ISN'T THE ECONOMY DRIVING ANYWHERE? THE CAPITAL ENGINE LACKS FUEL!

As well, the S&P 500 is far from its all-time high, which was hit way back in 2000. Stocks aren't even close to their 2007 peak. Stocks trade at 1996 levels. In S&P 500 AND THE DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE HIT ALL-TIME LIES! I have shown you this really. And for the same reason that nominal stock prices don't reflect reality, neither do corporate profits.

How is employment rate of prime age workers, 25-54 working out for Americans? In ALMOST 17 MILLION AMERICANS STILL NOT WORKING FOR A LIVING!, I show you the employment rate stands near 1993 levels. There are two full New York Cities not working today.

In EVERYBODY'S WORKING FOR THE WEEKEND, FOR LESS, I show true wages have fallen for years, especially under shark-jumping Obama.

If the economy is better as Obama idiotically claims, then why are there more than 46 million Americans collected food stamps (SNAP), a likely record? In TRUE STATE OF THE UNION: NIXON TO OBAMA. THE BIG PICTURE, I show you how the Undertow of Political Dependency, which reveals the sum of income of those getting paid by politicians whether by government employment or by welfare, hit an all-time high under Obama.

Back in June, in IT'S A RECESSION IN A DEPRESSION! RECESSION COMES TO AMERICANS LIVING DURING THE GREATEST DEPRESSION EVER, I showed you that in True Prices, commodity ETFs were way down. When key material commodities are low, that means production is way off.

In May, in EXISTING HOME SALES PROPAGANDA SPREADS AT A BIZARRO THEATER OUTLET NEAR YOU, I showed you the horrible state of residential realty and in June, in THE FANTASY PERFORMANCE OF BETTER CARS AND TRUCKS SALES HYPED THIS WEEK ON YOUR LOCAL BIZARRO THEATER STAGE, I showed you the sorry state of car sales.

By every economic metric the economy has not come close to recovery. Oh and Obama agreed with Congress to blow another $6.666 trillion during his painful five plus years. In U.S. CONGRESS HAS CROSSED THE RUBICON, DEBT 100% OF GDP, FOR REAL. Obama is the most fiscally irresponsible president presiding over the more fiscally irresponsible Congress perhaps ever.

If Obama believes what he says, then truly Obama wants to make himself appear to the world as an idiot. If Obama knowingly lies merely to help candidates of his political party in their upcoming November election, then Obama is pure evil.

Either way, Obama has jumped the shark.

Be sure to check out the Bizarro Theater series: True State of the Union. You should find it fascinating and shocking! Now enjoy Fonzie jumping the shark.

And everyone knows what a colossal train wreck Obamacare has been. Bizarro Theater has more than enough on Obamacare.

Oh and that carbon reduction has come from fracking and the switch to natural gas merely because nat gas is cheaper than goal to burn to generate electricity. It has nothing to do with Obama.

Read more ...

YOU ARE GOING TO WIND UP WORKING IN A GAS STATION. CAPITALISM IS DYING, AMERICANS.

As I show in Prices Have Been Falling For Years! Inflation? Major Deflation Has Been Underway Since 2007. So Why Does Life Seem Harder? The Answers Are Coming Neo, a wage is a price. As all true prices have been falling under the worst deflation in American history after the biggest inflation in American history, the Greenspan-Bernanke Credit Bubble, true wages shall fall along with everything else.

This table shows average true wage for all jobs within an occupation category since 2000 after removing the effects of bankers' inflation. 



The jokers are the Bureau of Labor Stats couldn't be bothered to collect all the data needed for all occupations in the years 2012 and 2013. So that is why you shall see gaps.

Thus the net change for those years stops at 2011. For the rest, the net change runs from 2000 to 2013.

The chart shows true wage over the true minimum wage, again expressed in True Dollars™.



Notice how relatively steady the  multiples are.

Likely, this is the most important chart ever you shall see published regarding economy.



The chart says that true wages, or "real" wages if said by economists have been falling for years in lockstep because capital spending per prime age worker, those between 25 and 54, has been falling.

Contrary to what many believe, wages rise when capital rises. Wages are a consequence of producing wealth under efficiency. The more wealth produced and gained by each worker, the higher wages would rise. 

Yet, court jesters like Thomas Piketty claim that wealth leading to capital is bad. Court jester Piketty is little more than Revivalist Preacher Of Born-Again Socialism.

Read more ...

U.S. CONGRESS HAS CROSSED THE RUBICON, DEBT 100% OF GDP, FOR REAL.

The country's debt, the national debt, America's debt — these are some of the trickster phrases politicians and their apologists say to disguise the true name, the United States Congress' debt.

Even the writers of the Constitution of the United States of America were quite clear as to who is responsible for taking on debt and paying off debt.

Interestingly, those who agreed to the Constitution never agreed that Congress has the power to borrow bank credits. Rather, they were quite explicit that Congresses only could borrow money, which is coined metal by weight and fineness.

Even clause 5 of Article 1, Section 8, fully clarifies what the writers of the Constitution believed. They believed money to be coined metal, which needed to be weighed and the metal content measured.

• The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts ... [Article 1. Section 8. Clause 1.]
• To borrow Money on the credit of the United States. [Article 1. Section 8. Clause 2.]
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; [Article 1. Section 8. Clause 5.]

So all of that debt the various Congresses have accumulated by selling bonds for bank credits well, all of that debt has been accumulated in violation of the Constitution various Congresses swore oaths to uphold.

In INFLATION REVEALED! "REAL GDP" AND FEDERAL RESERVE BANK UNITS, I explain the concept of Federal Reserve Banking Units (FRBUs). FRBUs give the best tool to measure inflation. Inflation arises from banking and nothing else. 

As can be seen, true spending of Congress in terms of buying power as measured by FRBUs is slightly above what the Congress of 1993 spent. Tax collection today is slightly above that 1993 Congress.

From 1992 through 2000, the Congresses during the Clinton years did a bang up job of pushing to cut deficits while increasing spending and tax collection.




Congress began their march to cross over the point of no return back in 2008 and at last crossing over by October 2012.







So which president signed into law congressional budgets from the most fiscally responsible congresses comparatively speaking?

Read more ...

THE BUBBLE ALAN GREENSPAN COULDN'T SEE WITH ROUTINE DATA COLLECTED BY HIS ONE-TIME EMPLOYER, THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Since peak credit of fourth quarter 2007 of $1.134 trillion (deflated in FRBUs), loans and leases in bank credit of all commercial banks has fallen a whopping -46.31%!

Here is the bubble that Alan Greenspan claims he could not see during his reign as Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States. Not only did the bubble run from 1994 to 2006, but also the bubble continued into his successor's Ben Bernanke's reign.

Loans and Leases in Bank Credit, All Commercial Banks in gold window dollars.



Anyone who knows how to calculate the slope of a curve could see the rate of change in credit as time went onward.

After a steady level of credit between 1980 and 1990 and following credit decline to bottom in April 1994, credit took off in two massive stages, the first between April 1994 and January 2001 and the second, between January 2004 to April 2008. 

Anyone who dabbles in stock charts knows this pattern all-too well. 

If only Greenspan knew about Federal Reserve Bank Units, he could have calculated true credit using the FRBU deflator.

Federal Reserve Bank Units (FRBUs), or if you like better, Federal Reserve Buying Units are what circulate goods and services in the U.S.A. and elsewhere on earth.

As I show in WHY FUTURES MARKETS SHOULD SET THE FEDS FUNDS RATE RATHER THAN THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF GOVERNORS that through the brilliance of a futures market, Americans could safeguard their livelihoods for all time returning to freedom, returning to living among a people who get rich from earnest effort rather than political connection.

Read more ...

ELECTRICITY PRICES. SHOCKING, ISN'T IT? THANKS, NIXON.

On August 15, 1971, Tricky Dick Nixon took to American airwaves, ranted about evil speculators and then decreed the gold window closed.

"Accordingly, I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to take the action necessary to defend the dollar against the speculators."

Along with closing the gold window, through Executive Order 11615, now known as the Nixon shock, Nixon also decreed a crazed 10% tax on imports, hurting American consumers.

The real shock from Richard "I'm not a crook" Nixon can be seen in price of electricity Americans pay since Nixon removed gold as the means of trade settlement between countries. 

The picture comes from CNS News.

As I explained in FALLACY FRAUGHT FORBES TRIES TO STOKE FEARS OF HYPERINFLATION and elsewhere on Bizarro Theater, today, no one has money. 

Money doesn't exist and hasn't for many decades.

Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. The Romans said so. It's their word.

Rather, Americans have cash. Cash is centralized bank notes circulating in perpetuity.

Specifically, Americans have legal tender cash. So too do Canadians have legal tender cash, the Brits, all those of the Eurozone, the Japanese, and so on. Seemingly, legal tender cash does the work of money, but never is cash actual money.

How can anyone be sure of this truth? Always, money can exist without banking and government. Cash only can exist with banking and banks. Never can cash exist without banking and banks. Not only does legal tender cash need banking, but also legal tender cash needs government.

That bank credit exists in the form of cash and deposits along with Americans no longer having money is why Americans shall suffer never-ending inflation. Inflation is the growth of credit that outstrips the growth of output owing to credit being priced too cheap. 

As I explained in WHY FUTURES MARKETS SHOULD SET THE FEDS FUNDS RATE RATHER THAN THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, as long as Fed Res bankers can tinker with rates, the natural correction on inflation won't happen.

So what was the natural correction for inflation? Bank runs! 

During bank runs, Americans would enforce their property in right of action against bankers as evidenced by deposits to trade deposits for gold on sight. Bankers would keep reserves for when customers would take gold coins rather than cash bank notes. 

Yet, during bank runs, reserves would prove insufficient to cover everyone seeking money (gold coins). In a scramble, those bankers who could not borrow from other bankers enough gold, would go to ruin and along with them, their bank notes in circulation would become worthless.


Here is the full speech the Trickster gave:

Good evening:

 I have addressed the Nation a number of times over the past 2 years on the problems of ending a war. Because of the progress we have made toward achieving that goal, this Sunday evening is an appropriate time for us to turn our attention to the challenges of peace. America today has the best opportunity in this century to achieve two of its greatest ideals: to bring about a full generation of peace, and to create a new prosperity without war. This not only requires bold leadership ready to take bold action – it calls forth the greatness in a great people. Prosperity without war requires action on three fronts: We must create more and better jobs; we must stop the rise in the cost of living; we must protect the dollar from the attacks of international money speculators. We are going to take that action – not timidly, not half-heartedly, and not in piecemeal fashion. We are going to move forward to the new prosperity without war as befits a great people – all together, and along a broad front. The time has come for a new economic policy for the United States. Its targets are unemployment, inflation, and international speculation. And this is how we are going to attack those targets. First, on the subject of jobs. We all know why we have an unemployment problem. Two million workers have been released from the Armed Forces and defense plants because of our success in winding down the war in Vietnam. Putting those people back to work is one of the challenges of peace, and we have begun to make progress. Our unemployment rate today is below the average of the 4 peacetime years of the 1960’s. But we can and we must do better than that. The time has come for American industry, which has produced more jobs at higher real wages than any other industrial system in history, to embark on a bold program of new investment in production for peace. To give that system a powerful new stimulus, I shall ask the Congress, when it reconvenes after its summer recess, to consider as its first priority the enactment of the Job Development Act of 1971. I will propose to provide the strongest short-term incentive in our history to invest in new machinery and equipment that will create new jobs for Americans: a 10 percent Job Development Credit for 1 year, effective as of today, with a 5 percent credit after August 15, 1972. This tax credit for investment in new equipment will not only generate new jobs; it will raise productivity; it will make our goods more competitive in the years ahead. Second, I will propose to repeal the 7 percent excise tax on automobiles, effective today. This will mean a reduction in price of about $200 per car. I shall insist that the American auto industry pass this tax reduction on to the nearly 8 million customers who are buying automobiles this year. Lower prices will mean that more people will be able to afford new cars, and every additional 100,000 cars sold means 25,000 new jobs. Third, I propose to speed up the personal income tax exemptions scheduled for January 1, 1973, to January 1, 1972 – so that taxpayers can deduct an extra $50 for each exemption 1 year earlier than planned. This increase in consumer spending power will provide a strong boost to the economy in general and to employment in particular. The tax reductions I am recommending, together with this broad upturn of the economy which has taken place in the first half of this year, will move us strongly forward toward a goal this Nation has not reached since 1956, 15 years ago: prosperity with full employment in peacetime. Looking to the future, I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to recommend to the Congress in January new tax proposals for stimulating research and development of new industries and new techniques to help provide the 20 million new jobs that America needs for the young people who will be coming into the job market in the next decade. To offset the loss of revenue from these tax cuts which directly stimulate new jobs, I have ordered today a $4.7 billion cut in Federal spending. Tax cuts to stimulate employment must be matched by spending cuts to restrain inflation. To check the rise in the cost of Government, I have ordered a postponement of pay raises and a 5 percent cut in Government personnel. I have ordered a 10 percent cut in foreign economic aid. In addition, since the Congress has already delayed action on two of the great initiatives of this Administration, I will ask Congress to amend my proposals to postpone the implementation of revenue sharing for 3 months and welfare reform for 1 year. In this way, I am reordering our budget priorities so as to concentrate more on achieving our goal of full employment. The second indispensable element of the new prosperity is to stop the rise in the cost of living. One of the cruelest legacies of the artificial prosperity produced by war is inflation. Inflation robs every American, every one of you. The 20 million who are retired and living on fixed incomes – they are particularly hard hit. Homemakers find it harder than ever to balance the family budget. And 80 million American wage earners have been on a treadmill. For example, in the 4 war years between 1965 and 1969, your wage increases were completely eaten up by price increases. Your paychecks were higher, but you were no better off. We have made progress against the rise in the cost of living. From the high point of 6 percent a year in 1969, the rise in consumer prices has been cut to 4 percent in the first half of 1971. But just as is the case in our fight against unemployment, we can and must do better than that. The time has come for decisive action – action that will break the vicious circle of spiraling prices and costs. I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States for a period of 90 days. In addition, I call upon corporations to extend the wage-price freeze to all dividends. I have today appointed a Cost of Living Council within the Government. I have directed this Council to work with leaders of labor and business to set up the proper mechanism for achieving continued price and wage stability after the 90-day freeze is over.  Let me emphasize two characteristics of this action: First, it is temporary. To put the strong, vigorous American economy into a permanent straitjacket would lock in unfairness; it would stifle the expansion of our free enterprise system. And second, while the wage-price freeze will be backed by Government sanctions, if necessary, it will not be accompanied by the establishment of a huge price control bureaucracy. I am relying on the voluntary cooperation of all Americans – each one of you: workers, employers, consumers – to make this freeze work. Working together, we will break the back of inflation, and we will do it without the mandatory wage and price controls that crush economic and personal freedom. The third indispensable element in building the new prosperity is closely related to creating new jobs and halting inflation. We must protect the position of the American dollar as a pillar of monetary stability around the world. In the past 7 years, there has been an average of one international monetary crisis every year. Now who gains from these crises? Not the workingman; not the investor; not the real producers of wealth. The gainers are the international money speculators. Because they thrive on crises, they help to create them. In recent weeks, the speculators have been waging an all-out war on the American dollar. The strength of a nation’s currency is based on the strength of that nation’s economy – and the American economy is by far the strongest in the world. Accordingly, I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to take the action necessary to defend the dollar against the speculators. I have directed Secretary Connally to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the American dollar except in amounts and conditions determined to be in the interest of monetary stability and in the best interests of the United States. Now, what is this action – which is very technical – what does it mean for you? Let me lay to rest the bugaboo of what is called devaluation. If you want to buy a foreign car or take a trip abroad, market conditions may cause your dollar to buy slightly less. But if you are among the overwhelming majority of Americans who buy American-made products in America, your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today. The effect of this action, in other words, will be to stabilize the dollar. Now, this action will not win us any friends among the international money traders. But our primary concern is with the American workers, and with fair competition around the world. To our friends abroad, including the many responsible members of the international banking community who are dedicated to stability and the flow of trade, I give this assurance: The United States has always been, and will continue to be, a forward-looking and trustworthy trading partner. In full cooperation with the International Monetary Fund and those who trade with us, we will press for the necessary reforms to set up an urgently needed new international monetary system. Stability and equal treatment is in everybody’s best interest. I am determined that the American dollar must never again be a hostage in the hands of international speculators. I am taking one further step to protect the dollar, to improve our balance of payments, and to increase jobs for Americans. As a temporary measure, I am today imposing an additional tax of 10 percent on goods imported into the United States. This is a better solution for international trade than direct controls on the amount of imports. This import tax is a temporary action. It isn’t directed against any other country. It is an action to make certain that American products will not be at a disadvantage because of unfair exchange rates. When the unfair treatment is ended, the import tax will end as well. As a result of these actions, the product of American labor will be more competitive, and the unfair edge that some of our foreign competition has will be removed. This is a major reason why our trade balance has eroded over the past 15 years. At the end of World War II the economies of the major industrial nations of Europe and Asia were shattered. To help them get on their feet and to protect their freedom, the United States has provided over the past 25 years $143 billion in foreign aid. That was the right thing for us to do. Today, largely with our help, they have regained their vitality. They have become our strong competitors, and we welcome their success. But now that other nations are economically strong, the time has come for them to bear their fair share of the burden of defending freedom around the world. The time has come for exchange rates to be set straight and for the major nations to compete as equals. There is no longer any need for the United States to compete with one hand tied beyond her back. The range of actions I have taken and proposed tonight – on the job front, on the inflation front, on the monetary front – is the most comprehensive new economic policy to be undertaken in this Nation in four decades. We are fortunate to live in a nation with an economic system capable of producing for its people the highest standard of living in the world; a system flexible enough to change its ways dramatically when circumstances call for change; and, most important, a system resourceful enough to produce prosperity with freedom and opportunity unmatched in the history of nations. The purposes of the Government actions I have announced tonight are to lay the basis for renewed confidence, to make it possible for us to compete fairly with the rest of the world, to open the door to new prosperity. But government, with all of its powers, does not hold the key to the success of a people. That key, my fellow Americans, is in your hands. A nation, like a person, has to have a certain inner drive in order to succeed. In economic affairs, that inner drive is called the competitive spirit. Every action I have taken tonight is designed to nurture and stimulate that competitive spirit, to help us snap out of the self-doubt, the self-disparagement that saps our energy and erodes our confidence in ourselves. Whether this Nation stays number one in the world’s economy or resigns itself to second, third, or fourth place; whether we as a people have faith in ourselves, or lose that faith; whether we hold fast to the strength that makes peace and freedom possible in this world, or lose our grip – all that depends on you, on your competitive spirit, your sense of personal destiny, your pride in your country and in yourself. We can be certain of this: As the threat of war recedes, the challenge of peaceful competition in the world will greatly increase. We welcome competition, because America is at her greatest when she is called on to compete. As there always have been in our history, there will be voices urging us to shrink from that challenge of competition, to build a protective wall around ourselves, to crawl into a shell as the rest of the world moves ahead. Two hundred years ago a man wrote in his diary these words: “Many thinking people believe America has seen its best days.” That was written in 1775, just before the American Revolution – the dawn of the most exciting era in the history of man. And today we hear the echoes of those voices, preaching a gospel of gloom and defeat, saying the same thing: “We have seen our best days.” I say, let Americans reply: “Our best days lie ahead.” As we move into a generation of peace, as we blaze the trail toward the new prosperity, I say to every American: Let us raise our spirits. Let us raise our sights. Let all of us contribute all we can to this great and good country that has contributed so much to the progress of mankind. Let us invest in our Nation’s future, and let us revitalize that faith in ourselves that built a great nation in the past and that will shape the world of the future. Thank you and good evening.

Read more ...

BUT ARE YOU A MALE OR A FEMALE? FACEBOOK EXECS GET INTO GENDER-BENDING

In a likely desperate attempt to stem defection of young users, execs at Facebook have decided to pander to the hipster generation by letting Facebook users select one of 50 labels to describe their sexual preferences, which mistakenly Facebook implementers call gender.

Many have boosted a false belief to support a political agenda, a false belief about a "spectrum of genders." There isn't a spectrum. That is mere rhetoric to justify politician action by those who form groups claiming that others owe them duties and thus they have rights, which those not in their group do not.

For humans, there are two states — [1] sexual being either male (YX) or female (XX) and [2] asexual mutation deformity, e.g., hermaphrodite, Klinefelter Syndrome,  Turner Syndrome, XYY syndrome

Those suffering from asexual mutation deformity such as Hermaphrodites cannot make life. To make human life, there must be one male (YX) and one female (XX), both of whom are the sexes, which are capable of reproduction through providing one half of a diploid chromosome pair.

That is the natural normal reality.  The foregoing is inescapable biological fact.

There isn't a spectrum of sexes. Hermaphrodites have suffered a horrible genetic mutation and thus are born deformed. Hermaphrodites are asexual. 

No amount of wishful thinking of two asexuals or two homosexuals can make life, not matter how much frotting they do. Such behavior is as successful in bringing forth life as a dog humping a human's leg.

Many seem to confuse sexual preferences as expressed in mind-disorder driven deviance (and there are many of those) with sex, male or female.

Humans have sex. Languages have gender, e.g. le, la, el, la, der, die.

The word gender enters into English about 1300 from the Old French gendre meaning kind, sort, class. By the late 1300s, English speakers said the word with its grammatical meaning.

By 1963, feminists of the 20th century seized on the word to push their agenda through feminist writing. By 1980, entertainment media writers began spreading the phrase gender-bender in reference to sexually ambiguous rock stars.

It looks like the geniuses of Facebook shall boost butchering of English as well.

Users also now have the ability to choose the pronoun they'd like to be referred to publicly: he/his, she/her, or the neuter they/their.

They is the third person, plural subject pronoun and their is the third person, plural possessive pronoun. They and their are Old Norse þeir and þierra from the Danelaw days.

Far too many are far too willing to become indoctrinated into false beliefs, indoctrinated by the rhetoric and opinions of academicians and media workers. And the march toward Idiocracy moves onward.

Read more ...

THIRD WORLD SKEPTICAL KID TALKS OBAMACARE

Read more ...

BUT IT IS FOR INEQUALITY! AT WHAT POINT DO PEOPLE STOP EXPONENTIALLY DOUBLING DOWN ON STUPIDITY?

CLUELESS KENNY

Instead of taxing the rich to help the poor put there by the rich, we should do something different. Raise minimum wages to match inflation, ban tax rebates while employees are on welfare, the list goes on. We must have equal power to negotiate or we will lose every time.

Here is an argument for raising minimum wage that does not involve bleeding heart rhetoric.

People on minimum wage spend everything they earn to survive. They cannot thrive because the opportunities to improve their lot take capital they don't possess and never will at their wage level.

We want the economy to improve. Raising wages will accomplish this goal on a macro economic level. After all, if the majority of your employees don't earn enough to buy your own products you have limited your consumer base. If this wage level is industry standard, then most other companies pay their employees insufficiently to buy your products as well. Pay them enough and they will have the choice to buy your products, go to school for an education, earn even more and buy yet more products. Do it for the economy.

ME

A tad more than 5% of all hourly-paid workers get paid an hourly wage at or below the minimum wage. That is a scant 1% of the total U.S. population!

You would have us believe that raising the wages of 1% of all Americans who have the lowest incomes is going to do anything?

Do you not see the absurdity of your beliefs, how silly-minded your beliefs are?

The Federal Minimum Wage is $7.25. One percent of the U.S. population is 3.139 million (2012).  Full-time work amounts to 2,080 hours a year. The 2012 U.S. GDP was $15,680 billion ($15.68 trillion). So if all 1% of Americans who minimum wage earners worked full-time, they would have earned a scant 0.30% of GDP, that is ZERO POINT THREE PERCENT. Said another way, that is three-tenths of one percent.

If Congress doubled the minimum wage to $14.50 an hour and all minimum wage earners worked full-time for a whole year, they would only have earned six-tenths of one percent of GDP! If Congress tripled the minimum wage to a whopping $21.75 an hour, the do-you-want-fries-with-that workers would only have earned about 1% of GDP (0.996%)!

So rather than calling for minimum wages to rise, people who barely buy anything, why don't you call for the pay of CEOs to be increased one-hundred fold? After all, rich people buy the most stuff.

Why are you calling for wages to rise for people who have limited wants rather than calling for wages to rise for those with insatiable wants, those accustomed to spending much and often?

By your thinking, giving people more to spend causes more trade and thus creates growth in what most call the economy. So why anoint those least capable of knowing how to spend to do the task?

Either way, merely injecting more cash and consumer credit does little more but to raise prices. Scholarly men have known this since the late 1690s at least (John Locke, Sir Dudley North). Why don't you know this?

Giving people more cash does not increase production. With a few extra dollars each week, the poor suddenly are not going to call for new Cadillacs and Lincolns to get manufactured.

The poor won't eat more pasta nor more bread nor will the poor drink more milk merely because they have a few extra dollars each week to spend. Giving the poor a few more dollars will do nothing but raise prices. More cash chasing the same output results in RAISING PRICES ONLY.

All prices conform to the one, true , infrangible law of trade — the Law of Prices, which holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer sets the price.

If minimum wage were the answer, why hasn't it ever been the answer? In the United States, statutory minimum wages were first introduced nationally in 1938.

In a whopping 76-year trial run, minimum wage never has alleviated poverty. SEVENTY SIX YEARS OF MINIMUM WAGE LAWS have done nothing.

Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), later renamed AFDC and later still TANF has been around since 1935! In a 79-year trial run, welfare never has alleviated poverty.

So, why should 77 and 80 years suddenly be the turning point years for those failed programs, the expression of failed thoughts and false beliefs?

CLUELESS KENNY

But, but, but ... What about the children?!

ME

If you want to see a righteous rise in wages, you should call for an end to minimum wage as well as an end to specific welfare. The combination of minimum wage and welfare amounts to a subsidy to employers whose capital structure gets predicated on using minimum wage workers on the whole.

No one would work at a loss (wages - living expenses). It is only because of subsidy of welfare that many choose to be workers at minimum wage.

The right move is the end minimum wage laws and all political interference in trade. That idea frightens more businessmen to a greater degree than it does the people as too many businessmen fear authentic, manly competition.

Another right move would be to restrict immigration for the next 10 years and perhaps longer as all net population increase in the USA since 1980 or so has come from immigrants and their descendants. In conjunction, if the Congress could evict the 20 million or so illegal aliens residing in the USA, a significant chuck  of the pool of low wage bidders would be erased. That would go far to pressure wages upward for no-skill workers.

Read more ...

THE TRUTH BEHIND OBAMA'S INCOME INEQUALITY TIRADE.

Income = sales over time. Sales = price x quantity. 

People with higher incomes sell more of what it wanted at higher prices over time.

Why?

Wages are prices. All prices adhere to the one, true infrangible law that governs all of trade, the Law of Prices. The Law of Prices holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer set the price.

Work is skills expressed through time put into property form, which another can acquire. 

Working is the capital of the one who works. Work expressed is the wealth created by the one who works.

Those who earn more do so because what they do is wanted by more who have more buying power to secure the property on offer as work.

Should all 6'8" forwards in the NBA have their legs cut permanently to the average height of 5'9" so average height guys can have a shot at an NBA career?

Should all persons with 130 IQs and above be given partial lobotomies until their IQ hits the American average of 99?

Read more ...

OBAMACARE. IT'S A CRISIS OF THEIR OWN MAKING

Obamacare is a crisis of their own making. 

All should be reminded of that every time the word Obamacare gets mentioned.

There were no problems in the private markets for medical bills paying insurance before Obamacare. The U.S. Congress then led by Pelosi and Reid along with Obama himself have created this crisis. 

It should be clear to all that Sebelius is in way too deep, way over her head, beyond her intellectual capacity to lead and to know how to get results. Easily, Sebelius is one of the most incompetent cabinet secretaries in the history of the United States, and perhaps the most incompetent.

The problem of healthcare expense (what Congress pays for Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans) remain. The outlays for these programs shall continue to grow because:

1) growth of immigration, legal or otherwise consists of people mostly lacking skills that would enable them to earn wages above qualifying for Medicaid

2) demographics of baby boomers that sees 10,000 additional Americans a day turn 65 and instantly qualify for Medicare

3) perpetual military adventurism resulting in ever more maimed soldiers

Read more ...

IS OBAMA THE STUPIDEST MAN EVER TO HOLD THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY?

In the vid above, watch Obama touting healthcare.gov as easy as shopping for "a plane ticket on Kayak"  or a "TV on Amazon".



In the vid above, watch Obama say, "I don't think I am stupid enough to go around saying this is gonna [SIC] be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity."

OBAMACARE AND ECONOMIC RETARDATION

The creators and supporters of Obamacare suffer from economic retardation. Obamacare is economic retrograde reflecting intellectual dysgenics.

While it is true that unionized government workers, unionized hospital workers, licensed doctors, medical bills paying insurers, med equipment makers, and university med school operators, have skewed the various markets for medicine, medical prices are set at what the U.S. Congress pays and not insurers, nor patients.

The U.S. Congress dominates the winning bids for medicine — $6.50 of every $10 spent on medicine in the USA — it is the U.S. Congress alone who set the prices. The other participants are price takers. 
Costs are outlays. Costs are not prices. Prices are rates of exchange.


Obamacare does not reduce the cost of healthcare, which is what pols claim it would do.

1. Healthcare means Medicare and Medicaid. It does not mean medicine. The word healthcarewas coined by a government worker in 1940. Duh.

2. Cost of healthcare means the outlay Congress renders every year to pay for Medicaid and Medicare.

3. Since the U.S. Congress is the number one winning bidder for medicine, spending $6.50 for every $10 spent on medicine, the U.S. Congress sets the price in the marketplace for all medicine seekers, even those whose bills get paid by private insurance .

Obamacare doesn't control costs. The outlays for Medicare and Medicaid continue to grow at an increasing rate. Medicare and Medicaid are what politicians mean when they say"healthcare".

Healthcare doesn't mean medicine. It means government outlays for medicine bought and given as welfare on behalf of Americans who qualify either by lack of means (Medicaid) or age (Medicare) as well as permanent disability (Medicare).

Obamacare will not reduce Congressional outlays for healthcare. The demographics are against anyone who believes otherwise. 10,000 Americans turn 65 every day. According to the CBO, "CBO anticipates that Medicare spending will rise rapidly over the next decade, spurred by the retirement of the baby boomers."

The prices for all kinds of medicine shall rise as the U.S. Congress continues to outbid others for medicine and  thus set the prices for which all must pay to gain the same medicine.

Many fail to understand what healthcare means, how markets work, how market interference works, how private insurance works and so forth. Worst of all, Obama doesn't know how all of this works.

UNIVERSAL COVERAGE

I

If so-called universal coverage was the goal of Obama, the fix was painless:

[1] merge Medicaid and Medicare, making the whole thing means tested, based solely on income from any source

[2] levy another FICA-style tax to pay for monthly premiums for workers, only

[3] each year or whenever someone starts a new job, assign at random, any worker to a medical bills insurer operating within that worker's state.


There was no need to have a 4,500 page law, hire 100,000 IRS agents, spend $600 million for a failed web site, and so on.

The smart move would have been to end both Medicaid and Medicare. Prices would have collapsed. People could pay out-of-pocket for almost everything.

Charity would pick up the tab for the poor in need of major illness care.

Americans did quite well in the days of charity hospitals and lack of political involvement in medicine. After all, medicine is a category of products, like blue jeans, beer, oral sex from prostitutes, cars, baseball tickets, and so so.

THE REAL DEBATE AVOIDED

The real debate that Americans ought to have is a moral debate.

Why should someone who wants to extend his or her life through medicine do so by sticking someone else with paying for it?

Medicare is a pernicious evil for those who pledge their fealty to power-seeking politicians in exchange for their bills to get paid. Politicians need that power to do the handiwork of other scumbags. Without power, politicians are useless humans.

End age-tested Medicare and you go far to ending the corrupted and corrupting distortion of medical economics.

If people want to live long and if they don't want to eat right, exercise, as well as eliminate known risks — getting drunk and driving, doing drugs, or merely driving any vehicle in general and the like, then they should either buy insurance or invest beginning at a young age and if investing, hope their investments pay off.

All those who support programs like Medicare and Medicaid are the same as Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or any despot tyrant and differ only in magnitude but not kind. The repugnant idea of joining with others to use force against some, absconding their property so as to enhance their living standard or their lives is not the hallmark of an enlightened people. It is action of the feudal mind.

CONGRESS BLOCKS THE FUTURE

Who knows what kind of awesome Jetson-age medical products Americans would have today under a regime of price and efficiency if only we didn't have U.S. Congresses setting the price for medicine through Medicaid and Medicare, if only we didn't have U.S. Congresses piddling away billions on unproductive research grants and institutes like the NIH, if only we didn't have regulatory capture facilitated by the FDA, and if only we didn't have states legislatures micromanaging the production of medicine.

Why, I'd bet without the foregoing, you could walk into a booth, insert your limbs here and there, and a full diagnostic could be run on you in seconds, including a blood scan, with results yielding treatment protocol for the pharmacist to fulfill on the spot.

THE REALITY ABOUT OBAMA

Obama suffers from hubris to a degree perhaps never before seen by Americans. Yet, the worst bit about Obama are those who work with him. Easily, these clueless wonders are among the stupidest people ever to be appointed to high offices.

Obama is a stupid man, quite stupid. Obama doesn't get economy and economics at all. Yet, who should be surprised? Neither Obama or nor his parents ever held real jobs nor did they own any businesses in their lives.

What Obama has learned is how to work as a politician. That is all he knows.

Read more ...