Jon Stewart Hypocrisy And Fox News

Jon Stewart has been "feuding" with Fox News. Jon Stewart accused Fox News of having a Republican bias. Fox News accused Jon Stewart of having a Democratic bias. (Such "feuds" are usually cheap publicity stunts.)

A more accurate statement is that both have a Statist bias.

Here are two examples of Jon Stewart propaganda, both from this week.

President Obama said, regarding gay marriage, "It isn't any of the Federal government's business. This issue should be left to individual states. Issues of morality should be left to the states." That's close to the correct answer. The correct answer is "Making and enforcing marriage contracts should be none of the government's business." However, Jon Stewart criticized Obama for this. The laugh track even said "Awww!!!" when Obama said this.

On the Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert criticized the Supreme Court, for knocking down the class action lawsuit of women employees vs. WalMart. Both Colbert and the Supreme Court missed the real point. If women are paid less than men on average, that is not proof of unfair discrimination. Are woman paid less because of unfair practices? Are women paid less because they're less productive workers?

In a really free market, if women are underpaid, then some women will get together and start a new business. The current State is a non-free market. Are women paid less because they're less productive workers? Are women paid less because of abusive monopolistic business owners? It's impossible to be sure which is true. In a really free market, a worker's wages would converge towards his fair value.

Such an analysis leads to quotas. "Group X must be paid as much on average as group Y." leads to quotas and "reverse discrimination". Members of protected group X are hired at inflated salaries or inflated job titles, to meet the anti-discrimination quota. (For example, one of the managers at my employer is Hispanic. Is he a manager because he really deserves it? Is he a manager because he helps meet a racial quota?)

Also, quotas are superficially easily enforceable. You look at average salary by group. A quota doesn't address the underlying problem of a non-free market. "It's OK that large corporations and insiders control the economy, as long as the correct number of people from each group get their fair share of the loot!"

Also, in a class action lawsuit, the only people who get rich are the lawyers.

The problem is not a Republican bias or Democratic bias. The real problem is Statist bias. "Democrat" and "Republican" are two slightly different flavors of Statism. They are barely indistinguishable. "Republican vs. Democrat" is a substitute for the real issue, which is "Freedom vs. Statism". On some issues, like gun control, Republicans tend to be pro-freedom. On some issues, like abortion, Democrats tend to be pro-freedom. By splitting the pro-freedom policies among both parties, the slaves are kept distracted and confused.

Political Debate Summarized

I don't normally debate pro-State trolls. I gave it a try and, as usual, it was a waste of time.

Political discussion can get very offensive. Why is that? All political discussion can be summarized as:

I am advocating for the use of violence, to impose my viewpoint on you.

All political debate is really a discussion about violence.

A hardcore Statist sees the libertarian/minarchist/voluntaryist/agorist viewpoint as advocating for violence.

"Government should be smaller!" leads to "WTF? Large corporations would loot and pillage without restraint!"

The Non-Aggression Principle can be seen as a threat of violence. "If you steal my property or freedom under 'color of law', I might use violence to defend my property and my freedom." Statists don't make a distinction between initiating violence and defending yourself, because a Statist considers police aggression to be legitimate.

All political discussion is ultimately about violence. If you say "Taxation is a type of slavery!", then the Statist will think you're a fruitcake advocating for senseless violence.

What can be done? It's important to educate as many other people as possible. When there are more people who know the truth, other types of activity is possible. It is risky, because the Statist majority thinks it's acceptable to aggress against those who seek freedom.

Ultimately, when dealing with a hardcore Statists, the only response is "All the people who agree with me will seek freedom, using whatever tricks we can imagine. All the people who agree with you can try to stop us, using whatever dirty tricks you can. Let's see who wins."

Via the Internet, the philosophy of freedom is spreading. Due to rampant corruption, collapse is inevitable. The collapse can't be prevented, even if State thugs could successfully kidnap/murder/silence those who know the current system is a scam. Fortunately, younger people and more intelligent people seem to be learning. They're the ones that count the most.

Dodgers Declare Bankruptcy

This story was interesting. Suffering cashflow problems, the Dodgers filed for bankruptcy.

There's a clause in the MLB franchise agreement, saying that the league can take over a franchise that files for bankruptcy. However, bankruptcy court rules take precedence over that. If MLB insists, they probably could force a sale of the team to MLB-approved new owners, or the league could buy the team until suitable new owners are found.

The ownership of the Dodgers was split due to Frank McCourt's divorce. His now-ex-wife owns 50%, but Frank McCourt maintains control. His ex-wife may prefer a sale, so she can cash out her half of the team's value.

Frank McCourt had signed a long-term TV contract with Fox. This contract included a huge signing bonus, to help the Dodgers with their cashflow problems. MLB commissioner Bud Selig rejected that TV contract.

Consider an extreme example. Suppose the Dodgers signed a 20 year TV contract, with a signing bonus of $300M and an annual fee of $1. That would give a short-term cashflow boost, but cripple the team financially in the long-term. The MLB commissioner would have a valid reason to veto such a contract, because it would decrease the value of the Dodgers and the value of the league overall.

Frank McCourt had a similarly front-loaded contract with Fox. It would have provided a cashflow boost, but had a long-term negative effect. Bud Selig was right to veto that contract.

There were other irregularities. Frank McCourt had recently divorced. His wife had 50% equity in the team, but he still controlled it. This led to perverse incentives. If Frank McCourt were 100% owner, he'd be wasting his own money. As half-owner, he's wasting half his money and half his ex-wife's money.

For example, suppose Frank McCourt hired his friends for $2M. That was only costing him $1M but costing his ex-wife $1M. That shows the fallacy of being a minority shareholder. With only 50% ownership but no vote on management, his ex-wife was cheated as minority shareholder.

This also led to problems with the IRS. If you hire someone at a way-above-market salary, that can cause problems with the IRS.

When the Texas Rangers declared bankruptcy, A-Rod and others were owed deferred compensation. They lost out in bankruptcy. Similarly, many players are owed deferred compensation by the Dodgers. That shows the risk of a deferred compensation agreement. There could be bankruptcy and a default.

The Dodgers bankruptcy had some interesting points. If you're owed deferred compensation, you may be cheated in bankruptcy. If you're a minority shareholder, you may be cheated by the majority shareholder. When Frank McCourt had cashflow problems, he signed a front-loaded long-term TV contract with Fox. Bud Selig correctly vetoed that contract, because it sacrificed long-term value for a short-term cashflow bonus.

Psychoapth Marker Summary

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another Psychopath Example":

Can you make a post about all the psychopath markers?

I'd been thinking of doing this.

One indication is the "uhh..." speech pattern. David Axelrod is one example. If you watch CNBC or listen to Bloomberg radio, you can hear this one.

One indication is facial wrinkle pattern. Nearly vertical laugh lines is a bad sign. It's like your face is frozen in a permanent sneer. Someone with the "abused productive" personality type will have laugh lines at a 45 degree angle.

Hair baldness pattern is another indication. There's the Madoff.



The Madoff is bald in the front half of the head but has hair on the back half. (Also notice that Madoff has near-vertical laugh lines.)

Joe Stack is another example of the Madoff.



Rand Paul also has the Madoff.



Another parasitic hair pattern is like Tom Baker in Dr. Who (excessively curly). Notice that Rand Paul has somewhat curly hair.

Another indication of a psychopath is when all his superiors say "We're lucky to have someone awesome like X working for us!" For example, one of my current coworkers has everyone else thinking he's a super-genius. In fact, I'm suspicious that he's teaming up with other people to forge computer records and cover up bad transactions. He has lots of hushed whispered phone conversations in a language other than English. (I haven't said anything to anyone.)

Another indication is the relative attractiveness of the partner. If it's an ugly guy with an attractive wife, he's a parasite or psychopath. If it's an attractive guy with an ugly wife, he probably has the "abused productive" personality type. For example, Tiger Woods' ex-wife didn't seem that attractive.

Another psychopath trick is that, when you ask a hard question, they give an evasive answer. Then, they use emotional bullying to change the subject or intimidate you into accepting their answer. Politicians *ALMOST ALWAYS* use this trick.

For example, when debating a parasitic statist, I'll say "I'm a partial slave!" He retorts "You've got it better than most people in other countries!", and uses emotional bullying to force me to accept it as an answer. That bullying doesn't work on me anymore, but I won't convince the statist, and it leads to frustration.

Another indication is that people blink when they lie. You can see this on CNBC sometimes. However, only a low-skill liar will have that problem.

I'm also able to tell immediately, just from body language. For example, an "abused productive" person always looks a little scared. A parasite or pyschopath is generally super-confident.

It also works in reverse. A parasite or psychoapth can always instantly identify me as someone who's resistant to their manipulations.

There is no single absolute indication.

Summarizing, the parasite/psychopath indications I've noticed are:

1. facial wrinkle pattern
2. hair loss pattern (the Madoff or the Tom Baker)
3. speech pattern (uh... stuttering)
4. all his supervisors think he's a super-genius
5. ugly guy with attractive wife/girlfriend
6. give an evasive answer, and rely on emotional bullying to intimidate the other person into accepting it
7. blinking when he lies
8. psychopaths tend to be super-confident; "abused productive" people tend to look scared
   

These are all the ones I've noticed so far. There are other indications, but these are the ones I can explain. I'm able to tell almost instantly now, if someone's a psychopath.

Also, someone can be a parasite without being a full psychopath. Given the nature of The Matrix, an "abused productive" personality type normally has to partner with a parasite to get anything done. Given that everyone is a little crazy, parasites are needed somewhat. If you have the "abused productive" personality type, you need to partner with a not-too-abusive parasite to protect you from the psychopaths.

There are several problems with making a list of indications:

1. Celebrities and politicians get plastic surgery, limiting the usefulness of physical appearance as an indication.
2. You can't tell if someone's a psychopath on TV.

One stupid thing is "give a list of multiple choice questions, to tell if someone is a psychopath". That won't work. The psychopath will figure out what answers he's supposed to give.

Another important point is that government is the mechanism by which psychopaths have formalized their control. The law doesn't explicitly say "You have to get permission from psychopaths whenever you work." Via the income tax and regulations, the net effect is the same. When you pay taxes, the profits go primarily to psychopaths. When you hire a lawyer or accountant, you're paying tribute to psychopaths, even though some lawyers and accountants have the "abused productive" personality type.

The State isn't just the government. It's all the psychopaths who earn a living directly or indirectly from the State. Because there's lots of State overhead for starting a business, there's no market competition for psychopath-controlled businesses. Even if I started a business and refused to hire psychopaths, I'd be subsidizing my psychopath-controlled competitors via taxes. Even though psychopaths lead to much inefficiency, it doesn't matter, because of a non-free market and the State.

If it was possible to wave a magic wand and banish all psychopaths from high-ranking government positions, then things would get better. Real reform would be possible without psychopaths. Unfortunately, that is no longer possible. Collapse is the only way to get control back from the psychopaths.

There's no list that covers everything. I mentioned the stuff I've noticed so far, that I can explain. It's better to be fully unplugged from the Matrix. I can tell almost instantly, if someone's a parasite or psychopath.

Another Psychopath Example

This story is interesting. A woman accountant stole $16M from the business where she worked as a bookkeeper. She put the money in a bank account controlled by her son.

The scam was not discovered until after she retired. The new accountant discovered the scam.

Notice the woman's appearance:



Notice the near-vertical laugh lines on the woman's face. That facial wrinkle pattern is an indication of a parasite or psychopath.

Also notice the expression on the son's face. It says "I can't believe my mother bullied me into going along with this."

It's pretty obvious what happened. She had strong emotional manipulation skills. The business owner probably thought "I'm lucky to have such an awesome accountant!" He never considered the possibility that she would be robbing him.

Of course, the business owner was partially to blame. He should have doublechecked the bank statements himself.

This is a pretty common pattern. A parasite/psychopath manipulates his boss into thinking he's a brilliant worker, when he's really dishonest. Sometimes, the parasite merely does a lousy job while convincing his boss that he's brilliant. In cases like this, there's outright theft.

Unemployed Or Agorist?

The official unemployment rate is disturbingly high. I heard a promising anecdote. A lot of people are forced to work off-the-books!

Some people are collecting unemployment, while working off-the-books on the side. Is that immoral? It does seem immoral, to claim a welfare benefit while working off-the-books. However, I don't get a tax rebate if such people refuse State handouts. State property is unowned property. I'd rather some ambitious off-the-books worker get it than some corrupt politician.

As the system collapses, fewer people will see such tricks as immoral. If everyone else is scamming the system, why not also do it?

That's an interesting perspective. Is high unemployment due to a still-lousy economy? Are more people deciding to work off-the-books just to survive? It would be encouraging, if lots of people started working off-the-books.

Expensive Software

My employer has a policy of "No free software!" Some overpaid consultant probably told them that.

My coworkers were using freetds. They got caught and freetds was banned.

They decided to buy a proprietary ODBC library. I'm evaluating it. My conclusions are "It sucks!".

The installer was a POS. After confusing error messages and analyzing the install script, I figured out I was installing the wrong version.

I don't have root on the Linux server. That makes it very hard to install and configure things. I installed it as a user in a common directory.

The ODBC library was distributed in binary form, and not source. The ODBC library linked to an older version of the standard library, as a static link. This led to a link conflict when I ran gcc. I tried "-nostandardlib" or "-nodefaultlib", but I couldn't get it to link properly.

Their "sample code" has database names and tables hardcoded. I can't use their test code without recompiling.

I didn't try calling customer support for the driver. They probably would refuse to help, because I'm installing it without root. Based on my experience, customer support is usually useless.

I couldn't get it to work. That was amusing. Due to corporate policy, my coworkers aren't allowed to use freetds, because it's open source. The proprietary ODBC driver was a horrible POS. The only reason anyone would use that driver, is if a corporate policy forbade the use of freetds.

The proprietary software was *MUCH* more expensive than the free software. You have to include the cost of installing and setup. Freetds was much easier to setup and use. If that ODBC driver doesn't work at all, it's infinite-percent more expensive.

Groupon Is A Scam

This series of techcrunch articles was interesting. It's a detailed analysis of Groupon. They explain why it's one big scam.

With Groupon, small businesses advertise special deals. The deal only occurs if enough people buy it. Products are discounted 50% or more. As a fee, Groupon keeps approximately 50% of the payment. Do you see the problem?

SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE

The small business is discounting product by 50% *AND* they're paying a fee of 50% to Groupon. That's a discount of 75% or more. Most small businesses have profit margins of no more than 10%-20%.

That article gives an example. Suppose you approached a small business owner and asked him to spend $50k+ on advertising, for customers who would come to his story once and probably never come back. The owner would refuse. However, if you add up the costs of the Groupon discount, it's equivalent. Instead of paying the fee all at once, you gradually hemorrhage money as customers redeem their Groupons.

Here's a typical example. Suppose your product normally sells for $20. The Groupon price would be $10. Of that $10, $5 is paid as a fee to Groupon. With a 75% discount, that's throwing away money.

Google now has a program called "Google Offers", which is similar to Groupon. They advise businesses to tell their regular customers about the offer. If your regular customers take the Google Offer or Groupon, you're throwing away 75%+ of revenue! You would be an idiot, if your regular customers take the Groupon or Google Offer.

It might be worth it, if the Groupon helped you get new returning customers. However, conversion rates are very low. Most customers show up once and never come back. It's probably inferior to traditional forms of advertising.

The Groupon is only worth it if your product is overpriced junk. A restaurant can't afford the 75% discount. You would have to offer a "Groupon burger" that's 1/4 the size of normal, or other similar trick.

Many Groupon businesses have low computer skills. They lack the ability to prevent people from double-redeeming Groupons. That leads to further problems.

This article was interesting. Groupon's TOS is ridiculously one-sided biased in favor of Groupon. That is further evidence that only idiots sign up for Groupon.

Groupon's TOS gives you no control over when the offer runs. For example, suppose you own a restaurant near Yankee stadium, and decide to run a Groupon in December. Groupon can sit on the offer until April and run it during baseball season.

Groupon's TOS has a exclusivity clause. It's one-sided. You're barred from other online ads until your Groupon runs. However, Groupon can run offers from your competitors. If Groupon's lawyers enforced the contract as written, you're barred from *ALL* online advertising until the Groupon runs. For example, if you mention a $1 discount on your website, you're violating Groupon's TOS. If Groupon were malicious, they could sign people up but never run their ad. Then, the business would be forever barred from online advertising.

Why does Groupon get customers? They are appealing to businesses emotionally rather than logically. A logical analysis of Groupon fails. "I'm offering a 75% discount? There's no way I can make money off that! If a lot of people take the offer, I might be bankrupted!"

However, an *EMOTIONAL* analysis of Groupon works. "Groupon is cool! By participating in Groupon, I'm an awesome Internet-savvy business owner!" Groupon gets customers, because idiot small business owners do an emotional analysis rather than a logical analysis.

Allegedly, Groupon's salesmen use emotional high-pressure tactics. That's further evidence that Groupon is selling based on emotions, rather than based on logic.

There's another interesting aspect to Groupon. It's a loansharking service. You get a cash payment from Groupon upfront, but you don't incur the expense until customers redeem their Groupons. However, most customers redeem their Groupons quickly.

If your business is almost bankrupt, then Groupon is a good deal! In fact, the article says that Groupon only makes sense for a nearly-bankrupt business. You can take the Groupon upfront payment, then default and declare bankruptcy!

Groupon's goal is to create hype, rather than a truly valuable business. By having lots of hype, Groupon can trick gullible small business owners into signing up.

There's a Ponzi aspect to hype-based Internet businesses. By creating hype, Groupon's insiders can keep raising capital at ever-higher valuations.

This article was interesting. Groupon raised $946M in January 2011. However, only $136M of that went to Groupon. The remaining $810M was insiders selling their shares. That should be a huge red flag, when most of a financing round is cashing out insiders. It seems the insiders know that Groupon is a scam, and are cashing out as soon as possible.

Sarbanes-Oxley was a bad law. That bad law is a huge regressive tax on public corporation. Corporations are deciding to stay private longer, rather than have an IPO. However, just because a corporation isn't public, doesn't mean you can't buy their shares. There are OTC invite-only markets, only open to "accredited" (wealthy) investors, where pre-IPO shares are traded.

People are creating "special hedge funds", where these pre-IPO shares are traded. Goldman Sachs did that with FaceBook. That's a loophole to get around the "500 investors max" rule. In fact, there is talk of loosening the regulations, for how pre-IPO shares can be traded. That is amusing. Sarbanes-Oxley made it harder for corporations to go public, by imposing a huge regressive tax on public corporations. Now, "hot startups" are staying private and having their shares traded in shady OTC markets. In turn, this leads to more regulation! It's the usual "Problem! Reaction! Solution!" Politicians are trying to regulate this pre-IPO trading, without realizing that the Sarbanes-Oxley law made it harder for corporations to go public!

Groupon is based on hype, rather than logic. Groupon's salesmen use emotional bullying, to trick small business owners into signing lousy deals. Groupon's insiders are cashing out their shares at ever-increasing valuations. They are exploiting the Ponzi opportunity created by Groupon's hype.

Groupon is one big scam. They need a steady stream of gullible small business owners, or businesses peddling overpriced junk. They rely on Ponzi hype to keep raising capital at ever-increasing prices. A logical analysis of Groupon shows it's a scam. However, by using psychopath skills and appealing to emotions, Groupon tricks investors and small business owners.

Flagrant War Profiteering

This story is offensive. After invading Iraq, the US government shipped planefuls of cash to Iraq. Over $6 billion "disappeared".

This isn't an accident. It's a feature. What do you expect to happen when you ship planes full of cash?

If they desired true accountability, they could have used checking accounts and debit cards. They intentionally shipped cash, so they could steal as much as they could without a trace.

This also illustrates the "benefit" of paper money instead of gold. Could you imagine shipping planes full of gold to Iraq and losing it? That would be obviously wasteful. By printing paper money and then losing it, there's no cost to State thugs.

Also, that money belonged to Iraq. It was oil profits that were frozen, when Saddam Hussein's foreign bank accounts were frozen. That money was stolen from the Iraqi people.

The US government shipped planes full of cash to Iraq. Then, they act shocked that it disappeared. They did it on purpose. This is a flagrant example of war profiteering.

Annoying NBA Finals

I only watched small bits of the NBA Finals.

The Tuesday and Thursday games started after 9pm, ending after 11:30pm. There's no point watching the games. I go to bed before the game is over. Why watch a basketball game, knowing I won't be able to see the end?

I have the same complaint about MLB. The World Series games end at 11:30 or later.

It's very short-sighted thinking. By having games start after 9pm, they're maximizing primetime ad revenue, especially on the West coast. However, in the Eastern time zones, you can't watch the whole game. They're missing out on casual fans.

It is annoying, that the NBA Finals and World Series don't end until 11:30 or later. Knowing I can't see the end of the game, I don't bother watching. This is foolish thinking. They are maximizing short-term ad revenue, but alienating potential new fans.

Thomas James Ball And The Second Set Of Books

This story is interesting. A man set fire to himself in front of a New Hampshire courthouse. He was protesting a child support "contempt of court" hearing. People on freekeene.com did some research, and the suicide victim was Thomas James Ball.

He sent a suicide note to the local newspaper, and they published it.

Thomas James Ball was angry. He was about to be jailed for "contempt of court" for failing to pay child support. There is no official "debtors prison" in the USA, *BUT* you can be jailed indefinitely for failing to pay child support. The legal loophole is that it's "contempt of court" and not that you were jailed for failing to pay. Unfortunately, "I'm broke and can't afford to pay." is not an acceptable excuse. Even more ironically, the debt continues to accrue while you're in jail. How are you supposed to earn money to pay child support while in prison?

Thomas James Ball mentioned a principle I hadn't heard before. It's "The Second Set Of Books". The First Set Of Books is the Constitution and official written laws. The Second Set Of Books is the rules and procedures that State thugs obey.

Thomas James Ball was complaining about the law regarding domestic violence. The police procedures say "In a domestic violence 911 call, always arrest someone." That's an example of the Second Set Of Books. That violates the First Set Of Books, which says "protection from unreasonable search and seizure".

Another example of the Second Set Of Books is the procedure that says "Don't drop the charges. Always proceed to trial." This extracts maximum suffering from the victim. The victim can usually be coerced into a plea bargain, rather than suffer the expense and stress of a trial.

As another example, there is no law that explicitly says "You can't mention 'jury nullification'." However, the Second Set Of Books says you can't. Every judge and lawyer knows this unofficial law.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a policeman may break down your door without a warrant, if he smells marijuana. Now, the Second Set Of Books was updated. A policeman will now say "I smell marijuana!" before breaking down your door.

Here are examples of The Second Set Of Books:

1. an IRS enforcement manual
2. police rules and procedures
3. prosecutor rules and procedures
4. lawyer training
5. State licensing for various jobs
6. a seminar in a luxury resort, telling judges the "right" way to interpret patent law and copyright law
7. an FBI agent instruction manual
   

The Second Set Of Books frequently contradicts The First Set Of Books. The First Set Of Books sometimes says that individuals have rights. The Second Set Of Books can be summarized as "We can do whatever we want."

Thomas James Ball makes a point that I mentioned before. State law is biased against men. In his position, I probably would have surrendered and leeched off taxpayers living in prison. I also probably would work off-the-books, once I get out of prison.

Thomas James Ball probably could have fled to another state or fled the country or assumed a new identity. It may not have been worth the effort, for police to hunt him down and kidnap him, over small debts.

If you do get married, *MAKE SURE YOUR WIFE NEVER CALLS 911 FOR A STUPID REASON*. After the "domestic violence" 911 call, the wife can't recant. If the man is in jail for a few days and loses his job, the wife is a fool.

Thomas James Ball was increasing frustrated and hostile, due to State injustice. In turn, this made judges and police more hostile towards him, and more inclined to rule against him.

This is an interesting example. Someone was frustrated and committed suicide in a high-profile manner. This is very similar to Joe Stack. As the system collapses and people get frustrated, more people will violently lash out.

I'm disappointed that Thomas James Ball couldn't find more useful resistance, rather than suicide. If every person who knows that the State is a scam commits suicide, then that helps the bad guys. It would have been better for him to start working as an agorist and fight the bad guys, rather than committing suicide.

Another Whipped Coworker

I had an amusing conversation with a coworker. He arrived 3 hours late.

FSK: Where were you?
Coworker: I was taking my dog to the vet.
FSK: Are you married?
C: Yes.
FSK: Does your wife work?
C: No.
FSK: Why didn't your wife take your dog to the vet?
C: ... (cheap excuses)
FSK: You have a job and your wife doesn't. She should take the dog to the vet. It cost your salary times 3 hours, for you to take the dog to the vet. (Actually, he stayed late to make up the hours. However, he has a side-business that he couldn't work on.)
C: You have an unrealistic assumption about how marriage works. I have to do whatever my wife orders me to do.
FSK: You're an idiot.
C: You're an idiot.

Several people have said this. "If you want to get married and stay married, then you have to do whatever your wife orders you to do." That is ridiculous. This is a clearcut beta attitude.

If you're a true leader, there's little benefit to getting married. State divorce law is very biased against men. Therefore, only betas get married. If you're a strong parasite/psychopath, then you can seduce women without offering marriage.

If you aren't married, and your girlfriend starts nagging you or refusing to do stuff, then you can dump her. Once you're married, there's a huge divorce cost.

If you're married, and your wife refuses to do her part, then you are SOL.

I'm pretty sure my attitude was reasonable, "Your stay-at-home wife should take the dog to the vet." I was pretty surprised that I couldn't make my coworker understand. Given taxes and other costs, it doesn't make economic sense for both partners to work. However, your wife still has to do her fair share.

I'm surprised that many people have said "If you want to get married, you have to accept that your wife will abuse you." Even if you find an intelligent, honest, and hardworking wife, she might be corrupted by marriage, because divorce law is ridiculously biased in her favor.

Weiner Resigned

Congressman Weiner finally resigned.

E-mailing/twittering half-naked pictures of yourself is pretty stupid. However, he probably could have survived if he didn't lie about it. Most people will prefer a new figurehead, rather than the guy who's a proven compulsive liar.

If Weiner is going to lie about wiener pictures, then you can be sure he'll lie about important things. His crime was lying about it, which is much more stupid and flagrantly evil than sending out the pictures.

Who did Weiner think he was going to fool? Didn't he realize that every woman he ever sent a picture would come forward, for her 15 minutes of fame?

I'm not sure if Weiner is a strong parasite or full psychopath. I can't be sure, because I haven't met him. I'm guessing psychopath.

Weiner probably figured that his emotional manipulation skills would get him out of trouble. However, the flagrant evil was too obvious even for a psychopath reality distortion field.

There will be a special election, to fill Weiner's seat. There's a quirk in NY election law, for replacement elections. There is no primary. Instead, the Democratic and Republican party leaders pick the candidates. You can also qualify for the ballot as a 3rd party by collecting signatures, which disqualifies anyone but a well-financed candidate.

In a heavily Democratic district, whoever the Democrats nominate should win. By resigning, Weiner insures that Democratic party insiders pick his replacement. In 2012, that insider-picked candidate will be the incumbent, and should win easily. In a contested primary, the winner might not be the preferred choice of insiders.

Weiner's buddies will take care of him. He'll get a cushy job as a lobbyist or political analyst. Once you're on the State insider gravy train, you're usually set for life. I'm sure some promises were made to Weiner, in exchange for resigning.

Weiner's replacement will almost definitely be another parasite or psychopath. That is the beauty of modern State design. Even if a figurehead leader is disgraced, there's always another scumbag ready to replace him.

Even if you get rid of one evil politician, the replacement will be just as bad or worse. "Working within the system" is hopeless. Psychopaths designed the system to guarantee that psychopaths will always be in control.

Fantasy Republican Presidential Debate

I didn't bother watching the Republican Presidential debate. Here is a transcript.

I looked at the questions, and imagined what an honest answer would be like. I came up with two sets of responses, one sarcastic and one serious. Imagine if I were invited to the debate, and answered sarcastically or honestly.

(Notice how the person asking the question always has to give a mini-speech first.)

QUESTION: Yes. Mr. Gingrich said that 14 million people are unemployed. My question is this. The Democrats say that the Republicans don't have any plans to create jobs, and jobs -- and jobs in the private sector, not in the government jobs. I'd like to know, what are those plans?

FSK (sarcastic): I'm creating jobs! ... for my bankster buddies and corporate owners!

Let's ship jobs to third world countries and give bailouts to the corporations that do it!

It hard work being a useless parasite. Do you realize how much energy we spend keeping the masses brainwashed and deluded and complacent?

FSK (serious): A pro-State troll says "$1 of government deficit spending creates $2 of wealth. Winning!" The reality is that $1 of government deficit spending creates less than $1 of wealth, and may even have overall negative value. That is, $1 of government deficit spending actually destroys $0.50 or more wealth.

This is pro-State troll economics "The economy is struggling because of too much corruption! I know what will fix it! Let's steal more!"

If government spends $1B on a road worth $2B, that is useful. Usually, it's $1B spent on something worth $0.5B or less, an overall negative. Sometimes, like the War on Raw Milk, it's money spent on harmful activities. No matter how many Amish farmers you kidnap, the economy won't get better.

Saying "Government is supposed to make jobs." makes as much sense as saying "A baseball umpires' job is to make sure players hit lots of home runs."

QUESTION: Yes. As a journalist who's written frequently about health care and medicine for both newspapers and for corporate publications, I'm very concerned about the overreach of the massive health care legislation that was passed last year. My question is, what would each candidate do? What three steps would they take to de- fund Obamacare and repeal it as soon as possible? Thank you.

FSK (sarcastic): Lobbyists paid good money for that law! I'm not repealing it!

FSK (serious): At one time, the Republicans swore they would repeal Medicare and Medicaid. Now, Medicare and Medicaid are politically untouchable.

It's almost impossible to repeal a bad law. The people who profit from that bad law will always lobby against repeal.

Even with a majority in Congress and a Republican President, Republicans may not be able to achieve repeal. First, they would need to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Second, there will be too many lobbyists trying to preserve their pork.

A serious discussion of healthcare reform involves the State licensing cartel for doctors. The supply of doctors is artificially restricted via government licensing requirements. This restricts supply and drives up prices and reduces quality.

The correct answer is "There should be no government licensing requirements for doctors." Other partial reforms are possible. The supply of doctor licenses could be increased. Insurance corporations could license and train their own doctors.

Another example (cited by Ron Paul) is the law that forces hospitals to treat everyone, insured or not. This meant that that people who could afford care were subsidizing broke deadbeats. Rather than repealing that mandatory treatment law, instead the new law requires everyone to buy health insurance. One bad law is patched with an even worse law. That's a clear example of how state evil advances. In case, you didn't understand:

1. Require hospitals to treat everyone, even those who can't pay.
2. Surprise! Broke people are getting free medical care! Crisis!
3. Require everyone to purchase health insurance.

This is classic "Problem! Reaction! Solution!"

QUESTION: Yes, sir. As a member of the Baby Boomer generation, I've been contributing to Medicare through payroll taxes for over 30 years. How do you propose to keep Medicare financially solvent for the next 50 years and beyond?

FSK (sarcastic #1): HAHAHAHA!!! Sucker! You were robbed!

FSK (sarcastic #2): There's nothing wrong with Social Security and Medicare. Any politician who suggests otherwise is someone who doesn't want to get elected.

Move along! There's nothing to see here.

I might make vague statements about a problem. I'm not allowed to mention specific benefit cuts or tax hikes. Let's face it. If Congress thought they could raise taxes, they would have done it already.

FSK (serious): Social Security and Medicare are massive Ponzi scams. All Ponzi scams end in disaster. (Some pro-State trolls say "It's not a Ponzi scam. It's pay-as-you-go." "Pay-as-you-go" is a fancy word for "Ponzi scam".)

With Social Security, politicians can inflate their way out of it. If you give people a 1% COLA while inflation is 20%-30%+, then you can inflate away the value of the Social Security liability.

With Medicare, politicians can't inflate their way out of it. People expect tangible goods and services.

This is a problem. People are saying "I paid Social Security and Medicare taxes my whole life! Where's my benefit?!" Unfortunately, you were robbed. The money you paid is spent and gone. It was spent on other people's benefits and other government spending.

This is a common misconception. Social Security and Medicare taxes are taxes. They do not create a contract between slave and State. They were presented to the public as insurance programs. That is false. It's a tax. It's a wealth transfer from current workers to retirees. This Ponzi scam is no longer sustainable.

A default is inevitable. There's nothing you can do. You were robbed. Shame on you for trusting politicians.

I calculated "Social Security and Medicare taxes I paid" and concluded that's more than my parents' benefit. If I could opt out and directly pay for my parents, I'd be better off. Unfortunately, taxes are extortion. I am forced at gunpoint to pay.

It is unfair that you were robbed all your life, paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. Unfortunately, the scam can only be preserved with crushing tax hikes or severe benefit cuts. You should have known better, paying into an obviously-corrupt system.

QUESTION: As a naturalized American citizen who came here legally, I would like to know how you, as America -- as president, plan to prevent illegal immigrants from using our health care, educational, or welfare systems?

FSK (sarcastic): Illegal immigrants are good enough to pick our tomatoes for slave wages, but they better not get any benefit from the Welfare State!

It's wonderful that people are focused on "illegal immigration", rather than the ass-raping me and my buddies are pulling off. You're angry about "illegal immigration" and not trillions of dollars in bailouts! I'm proud that our propaganda works so well.

FSK (serious): There are two simple answers:

1. There should not be a Welfare State.
2. There's no such thing as "illegal immigration".

All taxation is theft. The Welfare State is supported via taxes.

Without the State, jobs would be more plentiful. It would be easier for a poor person to get a decent job, without the State. The Welfare State is an attempt to patch a corrupt system.

"Illegal immigration" is a fake issue, used to divide and conquer the slaves.

An "illegal immigrant" is actually an agorist hero. He's conducting arbitrage on the discrepancy in living conditions among various countries.

All political boundaries are arbitrary and enforced with violence. It is silly that a person gets a better or worse standard of living, based on where they were born.

Besides, "illegal immigrants" aren't lazy. They're actually the most ambitious and hardworking people, taking risks to get a better life for themselves and their children.

QUESTION: I'd like to know your opinion on your involvement with Libya.

FSK (sarcastic): Wow! To distract people from failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've got people talking about Libya.

FSK (serious): President Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act. Congress is a bunch of sniveling cowards. They should impeach him for flagrantly violating the law.

Libya is not an "emergency".

Why should the USA be interfering with every other country?

War is the health of the State. A lot of money is wasted on pork projects. War is an excuse for higher taxes and less freedom. Politicians are eager to start wars, because war is very profitable.

Via taxation/extortion, the slaves are forced to pay for war, whether it's a good idea or a massive waste.

What happened to "no standing armies"?

I don't have to worry about getting invited to the debate, or getting a mainstream media job. It's amusing to imagine what journalists and politicians would say, if they weren't complete tools.

Pandora Is A Stupid Investment

Pandora had a much-hyped IPO. It is a stupid investment, doomed to failure.

Pandora streams music online and makes automated recommendations. Superficially, it seems like a neat idea.

The problem is copyright law. Pandora pays crippling high fees as royalties. As I mentioned in my post on BMI/ASCAP/SESAC, these fees are legal extortion. Pandora pays extortion tribute to SoundExchange, a music licensing organization explicitly established by the State.

Pandora as many crippling restrictions, as a concession to the State copyright cartel. For example, Pandora limits the number of times you may "dislike" a song per month. You can't play a specific requested song. In a really free market, *MUCH* more innovative businesses than Pandora would be possible.

"Music on the Internet" is a potentially neat invention. Copyright law makes it very difficult. Royalty rates are not negotiated by the free market, but via the State.

Media corporations lobbied for high statutory royalty rates and other restrictions, crippling Internet radio. "Music on the Internet" was a potentially neat innovation, but media corporations crippled it via lobbying and the State.

Suppose Pandora is very successful. Two years from now, media corporations could jack up their royalty rate demand. Pandora would have no choice but to pay or shut down.

There is one solution. Someone should develop a database of free music. There could be free performances of old public domain music. Some relatively-unknown artists could make new music and place it in the public domain.

If you have a contract with a big record label, you're barred from publishing music for free until the contract expires. If a big media corporation is actively promoting you, then you benefit from copyright. (Is Lady Gaga popular because she's a good singer? Is she popular because the mainstream media incessantly hypes her? Hype is more important than ability.)

If you're an unknown artist, then you might as well release music into the public domain. Your risk is that nobody knows who you are, and not that people will share your music without paying.

Given State law, Pandora is a stupid investment. Pandora is totally subject to the whims of media corporation royalty demands and State copyright law. I'd like to see a Pandora-like business focused on promoting royalty-free music.

To frustrate the State copyright cartel, unknown artists should release public domain material. In some other countries, it's illegal to directly release music into the public domain! Media corporation executives want a similar law in the USA. Current USA still law allows you to directly publish something into the public domain.

"Internet radio" was a potentially neat invention. It was crippled by insiders via copyright law. Pandora is subordinate to the State copyright extortion scam, making it a very risky investment. The biggest risk for Pandora is political risk, that the law might be changed or statutory royalty rates might be increased. In a really free market, businesses *MUCH* more innovative than Pandora would be possible.

Fake Debate

There was a "Republican Presidential Debate". It's a fake debate. It actually is "Ask the candidates questions they're expecting, and they deliver canned responses."

In a real debate, people would ask each other questions directly. In a real debate, you would interrupt the other person when he says something really stupid.

The rules of the "Presidential Debates" makes it a scripted press conference, rather than a true debate. Candidates are reading from a teleprompter or prepared remarks, rather than really interacting with each other.

Another important point is "You can't tell on TV if someone is a psychopath." The structure of the debate enables a really evil person to appear as if they were someone decent.

The debate rules were chosen by psychopaths. The debate format enables the favored candidates to appear decent and intelligent. It's a scripted press conference, masquerading as intelligent political discussion.

Professional Panhandlers

On the subway, there are occasional panhandlers. Most of them are "professional panhanlders". A good panhandler can make $5+/hr, tax free.

I can tell by body language, the difference between a professional panhandler and a real homeless person. Most homeless people don't have the competence to go from car-to-car systematically.

The professional panhandlers have a good system. They do 1 subway car per stop. They switch trains at places with an island platform (like City Hall, Court St, or 59/Lexington). They have a refined pitch.

I can tell the difference between a professional panhandler and a homeless person. However, I don't call them out, because that would be risky.

If you give money to a panhandler, YOU'RE ENCOURAGING MORE PEOPLE TO DO IT. Via the market, you are saying "I want more people to beg on the subway!", whenever you give money to a panhandler.

If nobody gave money to panhandlers, nobody would beg. If you give money to a panhandler, you're encouraging more people to do it. I suspect most subway beggars are professional panhandlers.

Real GDP Is Crashing, 2000-2010

GDP statistics for 2010 are out. It's time for an updated version of my Real GDP Is Shrinking post. This is a regular annual feature.

Contrary to official government statistics, the US economy is shrinking at an alarming rate.

In the following graph, I measure GDP in ounces of gold. Instead of using the CPI as my deflator, I used the price of gold. The results are pretty surprising!

Here is US GDP, measured in ounces of gold.



As if the above chart wasn't depressing enough, here's the same information on a log-scale Y-axis. That makes the accelerating decline even more obvious! (When viewing financial information, you care about % gain and not absolute gain. Therefore, a log-scale Y-axis is more appropriate.)



According to the above chart, the US economy is crashing at an alarming rate. That was per capita GDP measured in ounces of gold. By that measure, the US economy has shrunk by more than 73% since 2000! That's an annualized shrinkage rate of more than 10%!

In the rest of this article, I give the details of the above calculation.

The official inflation-adjusted GDP numbers are calculated using the CPI. The CPI is biased and understates the true inflation rate. If you adjust GDP using an unbiased inflation measure, the US economy is shrinking rapidly.

State communists/economists/comedians use the CPI as their deflator rather than true inflation. This causes inflation to be misreported as economic growth.

A common myth is "The US economy is dependent on continuous growth to survive!" This is false. Due to the Compound Interest Paradox, the US economy is dependent on continuous money supply growth. Due to biased inflation measures, money supply growth is misreported as economic growth.

Source Data

Here is the raw data that I use as a source for my calculations.

Raw GDP

I use this page as my source for GDP data.

This isn't the "official" final number, but it's good enough. If there are revisions, it won't substantially affect my conclusions.

I use per capita GDP not adjusted for inflation. Later, I'm going to adjust for inflation correctly, instead of using the CPI.

This is a very important point. By using biased inflation measures, inflation is misreported as economic growth. The CPI severely understates true inflation.

The GDP value is in billions of dollars. The population is in thousands. "Per cap GDP" is GDP divided by Population.

Year	GDP ($B)	Pop (k)	Per Cap GDP
1990	5800.50	250181	23185.21
1991	5992.10	253530	23634.68
1992	6342.30	256922	24685.70
1993	6667.40	260282	25616.06
1994	7085.20	263455	26893.40
1995	7414.70	266588	27813.33
1996	7838.50	269714	29062.27
1997	8332.40	272958	30526.31
1998	8793.50	276154	31842.74
1999	9353.50	279328	33485.72
2000	9951.50	282418	35236.78
2001	10286.20	285335	36049.56
2002	10642.30	288133	36935.37
2003	11142.10	290845	38309.41
2004	11867.80	293502	40435.16
2005	12638.40	296229	42664.29
2006	13398.90	299052	44804.58
2007	14061.80	302025	46558.40
2008	14369.10	304831	47137.92
2009	14119.00	307483	45917.99
2010	14660.40	310109	47274.99

M2 and M3

In previous versions of this post, I also used M2 as my inflation index. I decided to stop doing that when I noticed that the Federal Reserve retroactively changed M2 data.

According to the Federal Reserve, M2 growth in 2010 was only 4.2%. That seems wrong.

The Federal Reserve ceased publishing M3 in 2006, so I can't use M3. Superficially, the Federal Reserve says it stopped publishing M3 because the data was too hard to collect. That reason is invalid. Instead of publishing M3 weekly, the Federal Reserve could have published M3 quarterly or annually.

The Federal Reserve stopped publishing M3 because they wanted to cover up how bad inflation really is.

When the Federal Reserve stopped publishing M3, it was growing at a rate of 15%/year. Some people have reconstructed M3 from other available statistics.

Even though M3 is no longer available, there's another unbiased measure of inflation.

Gold

The increase in the price of gold should track true inflation pretty closely.

If you believe "Gold is money!", then the FRN-denominated price of gold is a fair and unbiased measure of inflation. There are short-term fluctuations, but the over a 5-10+ year period, gold should track true inflation pretty closely. Over the past 5-10 years, the price of gold has risen substantially faster than M2.

Unlike Federal Reserve Points, gold is real money. The purchasing power of an ounce of gold has remained mostly constant for 100+ years. Some people say the purchasing power of gold has been constant for thousands of years. I don't know any reliable source for the price of a loaf of bread 1000 years ago. I saw one article where salaries in the Roman Empire were converted to gold, and compared to present-day salaries. The salaries, in ounces of gold, were pretty close.

For example, the price of a Model T car, quoted in gold, is approximately the same as the price of a car in the present. A modern car has more features than a Model T, but the total price is the same. When comparing goods available now to goods available 100 years ago, the price quoted in gold is usually similar. Of course, no amount of gold would have bought you a computer or cellular phone 100 years ago.

Over a period of several years, the gold price is the least biased measure of inflation.

I used these two sources for the price of gold.

The price is the price on January 1 of that year.

January Yr	Price ($)	% chg
1990	386.2
1991	353.15	-8.56%
1992	333	-5.71%
1993	391.75	17.64%
1994	383.25	-2.17%
1995	387	0.98%
1996	369	-4.65%
1997	287.05	-22.21%
1998	288.7	0.57%
1999	290.25	0.54%
2000	279.11	-3.84%
2001	271.04	-2.89%
2002	309.73	14.27%
2003	363.38	17.32%
2004	409.72	12.75%
2005	444.74	8.55%
2006	530	19.17%
2007	639.75	20.71%
2008	846.75	32.36%
2009	874.5	3.28%
2010	1121.5	28.24%
2011	1388.5	23.81%

Gold's price has risen substantially so far in 2011. Gold is currently over $1500/ounce.

There's still plenty of room for the FRN-denominated price of gold to increase. There continues to be massive inflation to bail out the financial industry and other insiders. Eventually, this will show up as an increase in the price of gold.

There has been extensive manipulation of the gold price. Central banks have nearly exhausted their gold reserves. They are losing their ability to suppress the gold price.

State thugs really want gold to be discredited as an investment. Physical gold probably is a better investment than stocks! Even though corporations receive massive government subsidies, there also is a massive amount of fraud and waste. Corporate management is more concerned with lining their pockets than creating value for shareholders. It is possible that gold are silver are the only investments that yield a 0% inflation-adjusted return (minus transaction costs)!

Some people are saying "gold is experiencing an asset bubble". The price of gold/$ is skyrocketing. Compared to other commodities, the price of gold is relatively constant. The price of gold/silver or gold/oil or gold/corn is mostly unchanged. It is inaccurate to say "the price of gold is skyrocketing". It is more accurate to say "the value of the dollar is crashing".

Pro-State trolls say "Gold ran up in 1980 and then crashed. Gold is going to crash again." I don't see a bubble forming in gold. There was a run-up and then crash in silver. Still, if you bought silver more than a year ago and held to the present, you have a very nice return.

If you believe "gold is money", then the price of gold is the least biased measure of inflation. For me, this is a definition.

Calculations

Here, I share the result of my calculations.

Inflation Adjusted GDP

I calculate inflation adjusted GDP. I adjust for inflation correctly, instead of using the CPI. I use gold as my inflation index.

Per capita GDP and gold are copied from my previous tables. "GDP/gold" is GDP measured in ounces of gold. That's my index for how much the US economy is growing or shrinking. "% gain" is the % gain relative to the previous year. "Cum % gain" is the cumulative percentage gain from that year to 2011. For example, in the row for the year 2000, the "Cum % gain" is -71.62%. This means that the US economy shrunk by 71.62% from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2011. "Ann %" is the "Cum % gain" converted to an annualized percentage. The US economy has been shrinking at an annualized rate of 10.82% from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2011.

Year	Per Cap GDP	Gold	GDP/Gold	% Gain	Cum % Gain	Ann % Gain
2011		1388.50
2010	47274.99041	1121.50	34.0475	-17.65%	-17.65%	-17.65%
2009	46370.69	874.50	41.3470	-23.75%	-37.21%	-20.76%
2008	47421.93	846.75	54.2275	-1.58%	-38.21%	-14.82%
2007	46655.20	639.75	55.0991	-21.39%	-51.42%	-16.51%
2006	44839.37	530.00	70.0889	-13.00%	-57.74%	-15.82%
2005	42697.30	444.74	80.5609	-11.44%	-62.57%	-15.11%
2004	40456.39	409.72	90.9664	-2.75%	-63.60%	-13.44%
2003	38324.69	363.38	93.5387	-8.00%	-66.51%	-12.78%
2002	36945.38	309.73	101.6715	-12.66%	-70.75%	-12.77%
2001	36054.74	271.04	116.4070	-10.46%	-73.81%	-12.54%
2000	35237.40	279.11	130.0081	8.36%	-71.62%	-10.82%
1999	33485.72	290.25	119.9732	9.36%	-68.97%	-9.29%
1998	31842.74	288.70	109.7080	3.76%	-67.80%	-8.35%
1997	30526.31	287.05	105.7371	4.44%	-66.37%	-7.49%
1996	29062.27	369.00	101.2446	34.32%	-54.83%	-5.16%
1995	27813.33	387.00	75.3749	8.47%	-51.01%	-4.36%
1994	26893.40	383.25	69.4920	3.97%	-49.06%	-3.89%
1993	25616.06	391.75	66.8390	6.07%	-45.97%	-3.36%
1992	24685.70	333.00	63.0139	-11.22%	-52.03%	-3.79%
1991	23634.68	353.15	70.9750	8.11%	-48.14%	-3.23%
1990	23185.21	386.20	65.6526

The data in this table is really disturbing. From 2000-2010, the US economy was shrinking at an annualized rate of 10.82%. Notice how the rate of shrinkage is accelerating!

If you use gold as the index of inflation, the US economy has been in a severe recession/depression every year since 2000.

A depression is defined as "20% shrinkage in the economy". However, this is calculated relative to the CPI rather than true inflation. This allows State comedians to claim "There's no depression!", when things are really bad. Inflationary bailouts provide the illusion of economic growth, because inflation is severely underestimated by the CPI.

Gold has risen substantially so far in 2011, and that trend should continue all year. In 2011 so far, we're on pace for another 10%+ shrinkage in GDP, when measured in ounces of gold.

If you go back to the 1990s, the results aren't as bad. In the 1990s, the world's central banks were selling off their gold supplies to manipulate the price of gold downward. Recently, they have nearly exhausted their gold reserves. They are no longer able to manipulate the gold price as much. Even with that manipulation, the gold-denominated GDP has been decreasing by more than 3% per year since 1990.

There are price variations in any given year. My analysis covers several years. Over that time, any short-term fluctuations should be smoothed out.

Summary

Contrary to official government reports, the US economy is in really bad shape. All my data comes from official sources. With a little independent thinking, you can manipulate government data to tell the true story.

Government policymakers/terrorists use the CPI as their measure of inflation. The CPI is biased and severely understates inflation. Relying on this corrupt statistic, they see an unfairly optimistic picture of the US economy. If you use the CPI as your index of inflation, then money supply inflation is misreported as economic growth.

State comedians use the CPI instead of true inflation measures. This allows them to claim "The economy is getting better!" By objective standards, the economy is still crashing.

I only performed this calculation for the US economy. Many of my readers are located outside the USA. I suspect a similar calculation in other countries would show a similar result. The economy in Canada, the UK, the EU, and Australia is probably just as bad.

If you use the price of gold as your index of inflation, then the US economy is in a severe prolonged depression. If you use gold as the index of inflation, then the US economy has shrunk by more than 71% since 2000!

Criticism of Using GDP

One valid criticism of this post is "GDP is a meaningless statistic." However, GDP is the best broad measure of the US economy that's widely discussed. There's also GNP, which is highly correlated with GDP.

Parasitic economic activity is included as part of the GDP. The salaries of lawyers, bankers, accountants, etc., is 100% directly backed by State violence, yet their work has no economic value. It is inaccurate to include this as part of GDP. Psychiatrists perform negative work, murdering millions of people, but their labor counts towards GDP. State violence causes doctors to earn above-market salaries. It is wrong to include all of their salary in GDP. If the "rate of parasitism" is constant over time, then using GDP would still be reasonable. The "rate of parasitism" appears to be increasing rather than decreasing.

There's no easy way to measure "GDP minus parasitic activity", so I just use GDP.

GDP doesn't accurately measure true economic activity that occurs in the USA. Suppose a lead-painted toy is imported from China for sale in the USA. If the toy has a value of $3 when it comes off the boat, and a retail value of $20, then this counts as $17 towards US GDP. All the US corporation did was import, market, transport, and sell the product. The US corporation didn't really add any tangible value, but most of the value of the sale counts towards GDP. Such a practice is only sustainable because China and other countries are willing to export tangible goods in exchange for a piece of paper.

Counter-economic activity does not count towards GDP. The economy is really bad. Some people may be working off-the-books, just so they can survive.

The size of real GDP pretty tightly correlates with the evil power of the State. The "grey market" and "black market" economy is not included in official GDP. That is fine with me, because that wealth isn't being used against me!

As the State economy collapses, State parasites will lose their ability to enforce illegitimate laws. It's a type of positive feedback.

My information comes 100% from mainstream sources. By doing a correct analysis with the numbers, I get a true picture of economic growth in the USA. The CPI is a biased measure of inflation. This causes money supply inflation to be misreported as economic growth.

I use gold as the index of inflation rather than the CPI. By this standard, the US economy is in *REALLY* bad shape.

Car Mileage Tax

This story is offensive. There's a proposal for a "car mileage tax".

Currently, roads are funded with gasoline taxes and other taxes. However, with electric cars and fuel efficient cars, some people are avoiding road taxes.

The gasoline tax makes electric cars more desirable. Electricity has a lower tax rate than gasoline. Even though an electric-fueled car is less efficient than a gasoline-fueled car, the high gasoline tax makes electricity more attractive.

People are partially avoiding the gasoline tax, with electric cars and fuel-efficient cars. There is now a proposal for a "car mileage tax".

How will the "car mileage tax" be collected? The State will put a GPS tracking device on every car. It'll be illegal to drive a car without a GPS tracking device.

What are the obvious advantages?

1. It'll be a huge pork project windfall for the corporation that makes the tracking devices.
2. It'll be another tax, to nickel and dime the slaves.
3. The State will get a database of who's driving where.
   

Cell phones are a huge victory for State spying. If you carry a cell phone and it's on, then the phone corporation can keep track of exactly where you are. Literally, the State arranged for every slave to keep a tracking device and keep it charged for them!

The "car mileage tax" is offensive. It's a huge pork project for whoever makes the GPS devices. It's another tax hike. It'll give State police the ability to keep track of every car and where it's been.

Who Cares About Bilderberg?

This story is amusing. The Bilderberg 2011 conference is underway.

Only puppet figureheads go to those Bilderberg meetings. The real secret rulers work in secret and avoid public scrutiny.

Allegedly, one of the topics of concern is that "People are using the Internet to organize and oppose us and realize it's all one big scam!"

In addition to worrying about Congress waking up to the Libyan scam, the global elite is also concerned about a diverse liberty movement that has grown exponentially with the help of an open and free internet.

Suppose you're one of the top political insiders. Are you really going to go to a meeting where there's a lot of public scrutiny?

You would quietly meet in a nice hotel, or talk by phone or E-Mail. You wouldn't go someplace where you're an obvious target.

I'm amusing that people go to these meetings to protest. I'm referring to all Bilderberg, WTO, G-8, G-20, etc. If you go to a meeting to protest, you're implicitly acknowledging the legitimacy and importance of the proceedings.

Only figurehead puppets go to these Bilderberg meetings. The real rulers meet in secret, and you don't know who they are.

Student Loan SWAT Team Raid

This story was commonly cited. A SWAT team conducted a no-knock raid over an unpaid student loan.

It was amusing to hear the excuses and rationalizations.

It wasn't a local SWAT team. It was Federal police. That doesn't excuse a no-knock raid.

It wasn't an unpaid student loan. The person was accused of student loan fraud. That doesn't excuse a no-knock raid.

Here is a simple explanation. IN A FREE SOCIETY, THERE SHOULD NEVER BE A NO-KNOCK RAID FOR NON-LIFE-THREATENING SITUATIONS. Current State police resort to a no-knock raid for every offense, no matter how trivial.

A no-knock raid is a dangerous situation *CREATED BY THE POLICE*. In the confusion of the raid, the police may think someone is armed and kill them. In the confusion of the raid, the victim's dog may be killed. The victim may confuse the police for criminals, and shoot them or grab a gun.

Many non-crimes are falsely classified as crimes. Therefore, police conduct no-knock raids, lest the victim "destroy evidence".

If a policeman kills you in a no-knock raid, he's absolutely immune from liability. Via this pretext, State thugs can assassinate anyone without trial. They can conduct a no-knock raid, "accidentally" kill you, and then plant a gun on your corpse.

There is no excuse for no-knock raids in a free society. They should only be used when someone's life is already in danger. State comedians say "We have to consider 'officer safety' in no-knock raids." It's a dangerous situation *CREATED BY THE POLICE*. Many innocent behaviors are falsely classified as crimes. Corrupt State judges bend over backwards for the policeman, if he murders someone in a no-knock raid.

THERE SHOULD NEVER BE A NO-KNOCK RAID FOR NONVIOLENT CRIMES IN A FREE SOCIETY.

Chicago's Victim Disarmament Zone

This story was interesting. Chicago has a "flash mob" crime wave.

Criminals are using the Internet to organize (FaceBook, Twitter). They organize a "flash mob". Many criminals attack the same store at the same time. They steal whatever they can, from the store or from customers. They run away before the police arrive.

This is an excellent example of the State police monopoly failing. They don't have the resources to patrol everywhere. Investigating afterwards is useless. The criminals get away. Small theft isn't that serious of a crime.

The store owners can't tell the Chicago police "You're fired. We're buying police protection somewhere else." With crippling high taxes, store owners don't have the resources to hire extra security.

This crime wave is so bad that it's risky to shop in certain areas.

There's an obvious solution. Store owners and employees and customers should be armed.

Right now, there's zero risk for the "flash mob" criminals. If some store owners fight back and kill some criminals, then the crime wave would stop.

The best justice is delivered immediately, from the victim's gun. State thugs are very hostile to real justice. If people can defend themselves, then they aren't dependent on the State.

You are justified using lethal force to defend yourself and your property. Unfortunately, the State "justice" system disagrees.

Current State law is very hostile to "defend yourself from crime". First, it's very hard to get a gun permit in Chicago. Second, even if you had a gun permit, you probably would be charged with murder if you defended yourself and your property.

There's an obvious solution to Chicago's "flash mob" crime wave. Store owners and employees should arm themselves. If a few criminals get killed, then they'll stop doing it.

Unfortunately, State thug are very hostile when people defend themselves from crime. That threatens the State's core monopoly, the police/violence monopoly. In Chicago, the State has created a victim disarmament zone. This makes "flash mob" crime raids profitable for criminals.

Right now, "flash mob" criminals face practically zero risk. This is an excellent example of the State police monopoly failing. The State forbids the correct solution. Store owners and employees should get guns and defend their property.

When Will Mt. Gox's Owner Be Indicted?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Silk Road Was A Partial AgoristBay Implementation":

Bitcoins are actually worth $18.75/bitcoin right now on
MtGox:

https://mtgox.com/trade/history

It's possible that all those Bitcoin purchases were made by undercover police, preparing for a crackdown!

Psychopath Senator Chuck Schumer has said that "Bitcoin is money laundering!" Bitcoin potentially threatens the State banking cartel. State thugs are already mobilizing violence against Bitcoin and Silk Road.

Mt. Gox is one of the leading exchanges, for trading Bitcoins for State paper money.

PayPal has already shut down the account of people who operated a business trading USD for Bitcoins.

I hope that Mt Gox's owner lives in a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the USA!

Based on recent precedent, State thugs may seize a website domain name without trial. There is a risk that the mtgox.com domain will be seized without trial. Some people say that it's a risk for Internet freedom, that the DNS servers are controlled by the US government.

Anybody who operates a business trading Bitcoins for State money is at risk. You might be accused of "money laundering" or "operating an unlicensed money transmitting business".

Such laws were used against E-Gold. The exact same law could be used against Bitcoin exchange operators.

Here's how the scam works:

1. An undercover policeman buys Bitcoins from you.
2. The undercover policeman uses those Bitcoins to buy drugs or child pornography.
3. Now, you're guilty of "money laundering" or "facilitating child pornography" or "operating an unlicensed money transmitting business".

Economic activity X is forbidden. Anyone who develops a system for facilitating private economic activity is therefore a criminal.

State thugs probably won't go after individual users. However, they may pursue anyone who operates a Bitcoin-based business.

I don't like Bitcoin. Every client gets a copy of every transaction. That's a flaw and not a feature.

I was really offended by articles like this one. I saw this commonly cited.

By using an untraceable currency called Bitcoins and downloading and installing an encrypted browser, the illicit network has remained anonymous since its launch in February, officials said.

Bitcoin *IS NOT UNTRACEABLE*. EVERY CLIENT GETS A LIST OF EVERY TRANSACTION. Even if you use a different Bitcoin wallet ID for every transaction, State thugs can analyze the flow of Bitcoins.

Suppose a Bitcoin travels from A to B to C to D. State thugs capture B. Then, A, C, and D are at risk.

Bitcoin is very vulnerable. State thugs won't go after everyone. They will go after anyone who operates a Bitcoin-based business. State thugs will probably wait, and indict/arrest all heavy Bitcoin users simultaneously.

State justice is slow. However, once State thugs aim their "justice" system against you, then you probably are SOL.

Heavy Bitcoin users can be indicted based on laws that already exist. Even if your business is Internet-based, you still have to physically reside somewhere.

Beta Male On NYC Subway

I saw something disgusting and hilarious on the subway. I saw a decent guy with an ugly evil girlfriend.

I view the "1-10" rating system as percentile, rather than a normal distribution. The guy was 7-8. The woman was a clearcut 1.

BTW, by FSK standards, "above average weight" doesn't imply ugly. Personality type is a factor. Above average weight and intelligent is attractive. Above average weight and evil/parasite as ugly. This woman was overweight and evil.

The man had the "abused productive" personality type. He wasn't able to attract an "abused productive" woman, due to The Matrix. He had enough self-respect to avoid someone really evil. Therefore, his only choice was a low-skill evil woman.

The woman had him totally psychologically dominated. That aspect was hilarious. He had a look of despair on his face. He was wondering "Is this all life has to offer me, dating a woman who's a '1'? Why can't I do better?" He probably subconsciously noticed me laughing at him.

The woman wasn't wearing a wedding ring. Maybe there was still some hope for the guy.

I thought about saying to him "Dude, learn some Game." I'm no Game expert, but I understand some of the principles. Should I have said something? I chickened out and didn't. I considered it.

There's a philosophy of meeting women known as "Game" or "Fast Seduction" or "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" (NLP). I'll use "Game" for all of these.

"Game" is a combination of great advice and lousy advice. I'm able to notice the useful advice and ignore the wrong advice.

In Game jargon, betas have the "abused productive" personality type. Omega are "extreme abused productive", like me before I started seeing The Matrix. Alphas are parasites. Super-alphas are psychopaths.

I no longer fit on that scale.

I'm able to understand emotions almost as well as a psychopath. I'm not interested in exploiting that knowledge to do evil things.

The philosophy of Game says "The Matrix exists. I can be an exploited beta, or I can be an exploiter/alpha/psychopath. I'd rather be an exploiter than a victim." The correct answer is to be neither an exploiter nor a victim.

Therefore, Game focuses on emulating psychopath behaviors, rather than being a true leader. That's why Game is perceived as evil. If you try to act like a psychopath without actually being a psychopath, it's obviously sleazy and Blagojevich-like. (That was Blagojevich's crime. He tried to play the psychopath favor-trading game without being a full psychopath. He got explicit in his quid pro quo demands. A psychopath would have done his part in exchange for a vague unspecified future favor, knowing he could count on his fellow psychopaths to obey the psychopath code of ethics.)

Game says "I want to be the parasite/psychopath, rather than be the victim." A true leader would say "I want to make sure my partner also understands how The Matrix works."

Game is a mixture of good advice and bad advice. That makes it useful and dangerous. By mixing good advice with bad advice, the good advice tricks people into believing that the bad advice is also good.

Here's the aspects of Game I consider to be good advice.

1. You should pursue multiple women.

2. If a woman rejects you, move on to the next one.

The State media brainwashing campaign explicitly encourages "oneitis". Consider a the plot of a typical "romantic comedy".

Guy meets girl. Girl rejects him. Guy is persistent. Girl rejects him. Guy is persistent. Girl eventually accepts him.

This promotes "oneitis".

Compare this with what a sane person does.

Guy meets girl #1. Girl #1 rejects him. Guy meets girl #2. Girl #2 rejects him. ... Guy meets girl #n. Girl #n accepts him.

That would be a lousy movie plot. That's how a sane guy meets women. By promoting plot #1 instead of plot #2, the State media cartel promotes oneitis.

3. Don't accept abuse.

4. Be sure of what you want.

I noticed that I'm able to almost instantly evaluate people now. That's a big advantage. "Don't trust your gut reaction!" is a type of pro-State brainwashing. Most people are able to intrinsically sense evil people, but they suppress this skill due to the Matrix. In fact, psychopaths use their "detect evil" skill to recognize fellow psychopaths!

5. Monogamy isn't natural. (I'm not sure about this one. It's an interesting viewpoint.)

6. Divorce law is biased against men.

Suppose I enter a contract with you. You break the contract, but I still have to pay you. That's stupid. Only an idiot would make such a contract. That's the way "no-fault" divorce laws work.

You wife can have an affair, divorce you, and you have to give her your stuff and pay alimony. Your wife can have a child with another man, and you have to pay to support it. What a ripoff!

One of my now-ex coworkers got screwed by this. His wife divorced him, he's paying child support, and his daughter is living with him while his ex-wife dates other men. He was on the phone with his ex-wife every day. What a loser! No wonder she divorced him.

I asked him if he was sure that his daughter was really his. He insisted "Yes." I advised him to get a paternity test and he refused.

You can avoid unfair divorce law by choosing your wife carefully. However, unfair laws would make even an honest woman tempted to cheat!

7. If you've been dating someone for awhile, don't slip into "beta mode" (abused productive mode).

8. "Game" tactics are useful, even if you want to get married and be monogamous. If you aren't the leader in your marriage, you will probably be cheated by State divorce law.

Suppose you are beta and your wife is the leader. Your wife may eventually decide "I'm tired of being the leader. I'm dumping this loser and dating someone stronger." Or, she might have an affair and leave you to raise someone else's child.

9. There's a lot of pro-State brainwashing against men and traditional male values. State insiders promoted "feminism" and "women in the workplace" to further enslave people and to start taxing women's labor.

"Men vs. women" is the usual "divide and conquer the slaves" trick.

10. There is a disconnect between emotional mental state and logical mental state. ("the rationalization hamster") This is a symptom of the Matrix.

Here's an example of negative features of Game:

1. Give a woman randomized negative feedback ("negs"). Strong random feedback is preferred to wimpy feedback. The correct answer is "Negative feedback only when she does something bad."

2. If a woman wants to get married, it's OK to string her along.

3. If a woman is ambivalent about sex, you should be super-aggressive. I don't like this. This could lead to "date rape" accusations.

This comes from the fact that a woman may emotionally be attracted to you, but be brainwashed into resisting.

4. Some people confuse "Act like a leader." with "Act like a scumbag." However, those people probably misunderstand Game.

5. There's a list of tricks you can use that works.

It's better to fully unplug from The Matrix. There's no finite list that works. If you're working from a script, it'll be obviously fake.

It was both amusing and frustrating to see that loser guy on the subway. I avoided that fate. I wasn't able to attract another "abused productive" woman. I was too self-aware to be with someone evil. Thus, I was left out. Now, I'm learning how to relate to "abused productive" women without acting like a psychopath. I'm making progress, but not fully there.

That's why "decent guy with ugly girlfriend" or "hot girl with ugly boyfriend" is a common pattern. If you have the "abused productive" (attractive) personality type, then your natural pairing is a parasite/psychopath (ugly).

I was simultaneously amused and offended by that decent guy on the subway, dating a "1". I thought about saying something, but didn't. Hopefully, I'll avoid that fate.

Silk Road Was A Partial AgoristBay Implementation

This story was interesting. Silk Road is a website where people can buy and sell any drug. In the example cited in the story, someone bought LSD on Silk Road.

According to that article, Silk Road's operator explicitly calls himself an agorist.

Here's how Silk Road operated. You can only access the website via Tor. The only form of money accepted is Bitcoin. There was a seller feedback rating system. You would receive your drugs via mail.

After the article and mainstream media publicity, Silk Road shut itself down to new users. I wonder how many DEA agents are Silk Road users?

Here are the flaws in Silk Road's design:

1. Tor probably is not secure.
2. Bitcoin probably is not secure.
3. You can only trade Anonymously.
4. It is vulnerable to State infiltration.
5. There should be both a seller feedback system and a buyer feedback system.
6. Not every buyer and seller should be visible to each other. You should only see other trustworthy users.
7. Silk Road itself should be P2P organized, rather than having one central website.
   

Here's a more detailed explanation.

1. Tor probably is not secure.

I suspect that a large number of Tor exit nodes are run by the NSA/State.

Stories like this one are interesting. Someone runs a Tor exit node. Police raid that person's home, saying he was "downloading child pornography". The person shuts down his Tor exit exit node.

This implies that State thugs are running all the Tor exit nodes. Here's the scam:

1. See if anyone non-approved is operating a Tor exit node.
2. Download child pornography via their Tor exit node.
3. Accuse that person of a crime.
   

Notice how "child pornography" laws make it illegal for someone to operate a Tor exit node.

With Tor, the "exit nodes" are a vulnerability. If all exit nodes are run by the State, that makes it very easy for State thugs to monitor Tor.

State thugs have the resources to control most Tor nodes. The NSA may have put a backdoor encryption flaw in Tor. Tor is probably untrustworthy. I'm very suspicious. State thugs crack down on anyone running a Tor exit node from their PC.

Another downside of Tor is that Tor is *SLOW*!

I did briefly experiment with Tor. I concluded that it was slow and probably NSA-controlled.

2. Bitcoin is probably not secure.

I already mentioned that I don't like Bitcoin. I'll review the main flaws in Bitcoin.

1. Every client has a copy of the full monetary base.
2. Every client gets a copy of every transaction.
3. Very few people have a Bitcoin client on their PC. State thugs can see who's running Bitcoin, and add them to their "subversive persons" list.
   

Every client gets a copy of everything! That's like handing your records to the State! All State thugs have to do is run a Bitcoin client, and they get to see what every other Bitcoin user is doing!

Bitcoin seems like an intentionally-flawed design.

I don't like Bitcoin. I would accept bitcoins as payment, only if I could immediately trade them for FRNs or gold or silver.

It was amusing that people accused me of pro-State trolling, for criticizing Bitcoin. Instead of addressing my concerns, they dismissed and ridiculed me. Is Bitcoin secretly run by the State? That is a pretty standard pro-State troll debating tactic, to ridicule someone without addressing their criticism.

I own zero bitcoins. I have no incentive to promote Bitcoin. Suppose you own 1000 bitcoins. Then, you have an incentive to promote Bitcoin. If more people use Bitcoin, then your bitcoins become worth more.

BTW, a simple arbitrage argument says "value of a bitcoin" should be close to "cost of mining". Bitcoins can never be worth more than the cost of mining, because then more people would mine.

If bitcoins were worth less than the cost of mining, then people would stop mining. If I were unethical, I could configure the servers at work to mine bitcoins at no cost to me. In that case, I'd be mining bitcoins at no cost to myself.

However, it is possible for bitcoins to be worth less than the mining cost. As an extreme example, if everyone stopped using bitcoin, then the value would go to zero, even though it would still cost electricity to mine more.

Bitcoins can never be worth more than the cost of mining. They could be worth much less.

3. You can only trade Anonymously.

Silk Road is only useful for Anonymous transactions, especially selling drugs. Silk Road does not facilitate in-person transactions.

You can't do the following on Silk Road:

1. find a good unlicensed plumber/electrician/doctor
2. find a good unlicensed restaurant
3. buy raw milk
   
4. trade State paper money for gold (but you probably could use bitcoins)
5. find an off-the-books job
   

Silk Road is focused on destructive transactions, mainly drugs, rather than constructive transactions.

I disagree with "Certain drugs should be illegal." However, most drugs are harmful rather than beneficial.

4. Silk Road is vulnerable to State infiltration.

There almost definitely are some DEA agents and undercover police on Silk Road. It'd be pretty easy to buy some LSD and then trace the package back to the source. Also, DEA agents may pose as sellers. Due to State law, if you're in possession of a certain quantity of a drug, you're treated as equivalent a seller.

Once the DEA identifies a high-reputation user, they can say "give us your account as part of a plea bargain". Once a high-trust account is compromised, Silk Road will completely unravel.

5. There should be both a buyer and seller rating system. The buyer needs to trust the seller, to not cheat him. The seller needs to know that the buyer isn't an undercover policeman.

Silk Road has insufficient protection against infiltration by the State.

For example, a better system is "You only get to join Silk Road if an existing user refers you." Even better, the person who refers you pledges to make a payment, if you turn out to be an undercover cop or otherwise break the trading network rules.

6. Not every buyer and seller should be visible to each other. You should only see trustworthy people.

It's much safer if you only see "trusted partners" rather than everyone. There should be a user referral system, where one person says "I promise this person isn't an undercover cop."

Of course, a "user referral system" only works once you have a certain number of users. If you're starting from zero customers, you need to advertise just to get started!

7. Silk Road still is centralized. It's only one server hidden behind Tor. That's a vulnerability.

Another precaution is to decentralize it in P2P fashion, rather than keep everything on one server. You don't get to see all transactions and sale offers, only those of people who trust you.

Also, if Silk Road were decentralized P2P, then they could use their own encryption system rather than Tor. They could use their own internal accounting system rather than Bitcoin. They would allow pay-in and pay-out via any system. For example, you could send someone some bitcoins or mail someone an ounce of gold.

Silk Road seems like a partial implementation of AgoristBay. It's a nice try. It still has some flaws.

Silk Road has been outed by the mainstream media. Undercover State police have probably infiltrated it. If the site operator is smart, the most trustworthy users should move somewhere else and start over. I'd avoid Tor and Bitcoin. I don't trust them.

"AgoristBay" should use its own encryption and accounting system, and not rely on Tor or Bitcoin.

Silk Road was an interesting partial implementation of "AgoristBay". It was outed by the mainstream media, which makes it very risky now. Silk Road has definitely drawn the attention of the State. The most trustworthy Silk Road users should develop a better system and start over.