This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Monday, February 28, 2011

When Will The Federal Reserve Raise Interest Rates?

I saw some other blogs debating when the Federal Reserve is going to start raising interest rates.

You can read that from the yield curve. According to Yahoo Finance, the current yield curve is:

3 Month0.11
6 Month0.14
2 Year0.72
3 Year1.2
5 Year2.16
10 Year3.41
30 Year4.5

The current Fed Funds Rate is 0%-0.25%. Looking at that chart, you can see that there isn't going to be a rate increase for 6 months.

Looking at that chart, the 1 year Treasury bond yield two years from now will be approximately 2.16%. (1/3)*2.16 + (2/3)*0.72 = 1.2.

A similar argument shows that the yield on a 1.5 year bond will be 0.91% in 6 months.

That isn't exactly right, because the yield curve is upward-sloping. The yield projected by the yield curve is slightly greater than what yields actually will be in the future.

Looking at the current yield curve, the Fed Funds Rate should stay at 0%-0.25%. It should be around 0.5% in a year and 2.0% in two years. That isn't an exact match, because the yield curve is upward sloping. Banks profit borrowing at the Fed Funds Rate and by buying longer bonds.

Interest rates are low even though inflation is high. Through their monopoly money-printing power, the Federal Reserve insiders can set interest rates at whatever level they want.

The Federal Reserve directly sets the Fed Funds Rate. Longer term rates are based on future Federal Reserve policy expectations. Looking at the yield curve, the Fed Funds Rate should increase to around 2% in two years.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Bernard von Nothaus vs. His Lawyer

Bernard von Nothaus organized the Liberty Dollar. The Liberty Dollar is an alternate silver-based monetary system intended to compete with the Federal Reserve.

Naturally, Nothaus was charged with a crime for questioning the State. His trial has not occurred yet. "Right to a speedy trial" is a farce.

I have three criticisms of the Liberty Dollar. First, why would anyone pay $20 for what was (at the time) $10 of silver. It would be better to use generic silver rounds and value them based on the spot price.

Second, he printed "$20" on his money. It is loss-oriented thinking, if your alternate monetary system is based on Federal Reserve Notes. "One ounce of .999 silver" is a better monetary unit.

Third, he made the Liberty Dollar design look sort of like State-issued money. He printed "Trust in God" instead of "In God We Trust". A stupid person could think that a Liberty Dollar is State-issued money. Some stupid people tried depositing them in their State bank account. This stupid coin design choice is a key plank of the State terrorism campaign against him.

This article was interesting. Bernard von Nothaus or his lawyer discovered a technical error in the indictment. (Nothaus claims it was his lawyers' discovery.) They had no obligation to tell the prosecutor. They could have waited until the trial started, then mention it, and gotten acquittal on a technicality.

Nothaus' lawyer *TOLD THE OTHER LAWYERS* working on the case, over Nothaus' objection. Immediately afterward, the prosecutor came out with a "superseding indictment" *THAT CORRECTED THE TECHNICAL ERROR*. Nothaus' lawyer *SOLD HIM OUT TO THE PROSECUTOR*.

Nothaus also pointed out that the lawyers who work as "public defenders" *ALMOST ALWAYS LOSE AT TRIAL*. If you want to keep your cushy job as a public defender, you have to lose the cases you're supposed to lose. Nothaus is a political prisoner. Conviction is a high priority.

I found that story very offensive. If you hire a lawyer (or have a court-appointed lawyer), he may sell you out to the prosecutor. Your lawyer might tell the judge and prosecutor everything they need to know, in order to convict you.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Sesame Chicken Inflation

Near work, the Chinese restaurant increased the price of the Sesame Chicken lunch combination from $10.95 to $12. That's before sales tax, and the rate is the same.

That's an inflation rate of 9.6%. They increased the price by approximately $1 about a year ago, but I wasn't keeping track. I'll use 9.6% as the annualized Sesame Chicken inflation rate.

I really should start tracking the "FSK price index". It would be based on stuff I actually buy.

Federal Reserve Dual Mandate

I was reading about the Federal Reserve's "dual mandate". I translated from State comedian/economist to English.

"The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate to maximize bankster profits and lie to cover it up."

Friday, February 25, 2011

Nir Rosen And State Censorship

This story was interesting. A female journalist was assaulted in 3rd world country. Nir Rosen made some "inappropriate" sarcastic comments on Twitter. He was a professor at NYC and was forced to resign. His career is ruined now.

Was it a sexist statement that got him in trouble? No. Here were the Twitter messages.

lara logan had to outdo anderson [Cooper]. where was her buddy mccrystal?

it sort of depends who it happens to. sometimes we have to find the humor in small things.

jesus christ. at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should remember her role as a major war monger.
That doesn't seem sexist. He said "Journalists promote war. They shouldn't be surprised when they're the victims of violence." That is a forbidden statement.

That's a dirty secret of the mainstream media. Journalists promote war and the State. Nir Rosen violated the taboo. An example must be made of him.

This is a very common pattern. It is very offensive. It's wrong to ruin someone's career, just because they did something stupid.

If you're a journalist or celebrity or professor, you have a high-paying low-skill job. You are easily replaceable. There are 10x-100x+ people just as qualified, eager to replace you.

Another predictable pattern is that the now-disgraced journalist apologizes. An apology has zero economic value. Why bother apologizing? His career is over anyway. The apology reinforces the legitimacy of the State and the censorship.

Every "journalist" is continually on-edge. They all know that, if they say the wrong thing, then they're fired and their career is over.

This leads to a very strong culture of self-censorship. There is frequent actual censorship. Someone who deviates is fired and their career is ruined.

Nir Rosen isn't taken to a death camp. By ruining his career, the net effect is almost the same. Nir Rosen's only skill was a "journalist", i.e. shill for the State.

The censorship occurs in the "free market". The handful of people who own the mainstream media corporations wield enormous power. There isn't a real free market in the mainstream media. The Internet is changing the equation somewhat. I can't start my own mainstream TV channel, but I can get a YouTube channel.

Who is Nir Rosen? I never would have heard of him, if not for this scandal. Nobody would have known about his stupid comment, if the State media didn't incessantly hype it. It's a clear precedent. "Say the wrong thing, and we'll ruin your career."

I find this incredibly offensive. It's a clear pattern. A journalist or celebrity says the wrong thing. Their career is ruined.

If you work at a university in "liberal arts", your job is not to be a true independent thinker. You're independent within the constraint of State-approved thinking. Your job is to come up with lies that support the State.

If you're an independent thinker, you get weeded out by the censorship and self-censorship process. That's one big reason no mainstream journalist asks "Is the Federal Reserve immoral? Is the IRS immoral?" Anybody who starts thinking in that direction gets excommunicated.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Dmitry Orlov

Someone E-Mailed me this video by Dmitry Orlov.

He's saying "In the Soviet Union, people knew that government was useless. There already was a black market. This helped people survive the collapse.

In the USA, there's no black market. This means people will be really screwed as the government collapses.

People have nobody they can rely on, except for direct immediate family (parents, children, siblings)."

It seems that he's advocating for agorism!

The "militia anti-government movement" is doing the right thing to prepare. They're making connections outside the official State economy.

He also said "In the USA, the leaders are completely out of touch with reality. They're hopeless pro-State trolls. Talking to them is a waste of time."

He said at 16:30 "recession slash depression". Does he read my blog? I write "recession/depression", but I haven't seen that much elsewhere.

Here's a conversation with one of my coworkers that summarizes the problem pretty well:

FSK: The financial industry is one big scam!
Coworker: I know! Isn't that wonderful! I'm going exploit the flaws and make a lot of money!
FSK: The collapse is coming. You should learn something useful, instead of financial tricks.
Coworker: Who cares? I'm going to make my fortune and then cash out. Why should I care if it collapses later?
Suppose all the leaders and middle managers are thinking "I'm going to steal as much as I can. Who cares if it collapses later?" Doesn't that guarantee collapse?

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

The Egyptian Protesters Accomplished Nothing

Originally, State comedians said "We support Mubarak. He's a good guy." Now they're saying "We support democracy in Egypt."

If you're a state insider, there's no penalty for lying or changing your story. Most slaves are too brainwashed to remember.

Mubarak resigned. So what? One puppet figurehead is replaced with another puppet figurehead.

As long as the slaves pay taxes, it makes no difference to whom you pay. You have a different figurehead master, but you're still a slave. All the State bureaucrats in Egypt kept their jobs.

Even more ironically, Egypt's military is ruling until the next election. "Mubarak was corrupt but the military are decent guys." That's a clever lie! The military/police and the figurehead ruler are on the same team!

Allegedly, the reason Mubarak delayed resigning was to launder his savings. Some of his accounts were frozen. Others were cleverly hidden. Other dictators are eager to accept Mubarak, in case the favor needs to be returned someday! It's a type of loyalty among criminals. A deposed dictator can usually find a refuge, provided he cooperates with his masters.

In another ironic twist, Mubarak allegedly shipped some gold out of the country. In Tunisia, the deposed dictator did the same thing. State insiders don't want the slaves to use gold as money. State insiders resort to gold when they need to untraceably move wealth in a hurry!

I don't know of any Egyptian protesters who were saying "All taxation is theft!" It wasn't a real market anarchist revolt. State comedians say "Be glad you have the State. Otherwise, it would be a mess like the riots in Egypt!"

A riot is pointless. It doesn't threaten the State's core monopoly, the violence/taxation/economic monopoly. Token concessions are given to the rioters (Mubarak resigns). The scam of the State continues.

Democracy is fake freedom. The "democracy" in Egypt will probably be a fake choice between insider-screened candidates. With a year until the election, that gives time to promote "approved" candidates as potential leaders.

A riot or protest is like slaves begging their master to be less cruel. An anti-State protest is pointless if you also pay taxes/tribute to the State extortion racket.

The protest in Egypt accomplished nothing. One figurehead leader is replaced with another figurehead leader. The scam of the State continues.

The people in Egypt don't understand "All taxation is theft! Government is one huge extortion racket! A government violence monopoly is evil and unnecessary!" Until those lessons are learned, no revolt can accomplish anything good.

I know the truth. However, almost everyone else is insane. This is a serious problem. If I try to make more serious moves towards freedom, State terrorists will kidnap and torture me.

If I'm an unknown nobody blogger, there's not much personal risk. Suppose I start working at promoting and practicing freedom. Suppose I'm reasonably successful. Then, State thugs will make it a priority to silence me.

I noticed a disturbing pattern. Most State/IRS critics don't get kidnapped until they go on the mainstream media to promote their views. Then, State insiders must make an example of those who promote the truth.

The protest in Egypt accomplished nothing. One figurehead leader is replaced with another figurehead leader. The scam of the State continues. Any specific insider is expendable. He will be sacrificed to preserve the scam.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Pro-State Protests

This story was interesting. In Wisconsin, the governor and legislature threatened to eliminate the "collective bargaining right" for Wisconsin State employees. In protest, the Democrats walked out of the legislature, preventing a quorum. The Republicans have the votes to pass the law, but they need some Democrats physically present to get a quorum.

Unionized Wisconsin state employees are protesting. They are currently paid more than private sector workers. They object to the pay cuts that will probably come with the new law.

Some people are saying "Look out! Egypt style protests are coming to the USA!" That's not exactly true. Think about it. In Egypt, people were protesting "We want a new figurehead leader." In Wisconsin, the protest is "Unionized government employees should keep their high salaries."

That isn't an anti-government protest. It's a pro-government protest. The unionized government employees are literally saying "Taxes should be higher! Gimme!"

If you're a unionized government employee, you have a strong incentive to protest. The other taxpayers have less incentive to protest. They're too busy working to pay taxes to support the government employees!

In cases like this, the union usually hires "professional picketers", in addition to any angry workers. "Paid professional picketers" are extremely offensive. It's an example of astroturf and fake grassroots.

In the private sector, the reason for unions is to protect workers from a greedy employer. The real problem is that the State makes it hard for the workers to start competing businesses. If a worker is getting an unfair deal, he can't easily start a new business that competes with his large corporate employer.

Private sector unions are shrinking. Jobs are getting exported. Non-unionized employers are beating unionized employers in the market.

In government work, there is no "abusive greedy employer". By definition, everything the government does is legal (according to State logic). Who are the government workers unionizing against? They're protecting themselves from the taxpayers!

Government workers get pensions and retiree health care, which no almost private employers give. If I switch jobs, there's no pension benefit for me to lose. If a government worker switches jobs or is fired, he loses a huge chunk of his pension.

(A typical pension formula is "base salary" times "2%-3% per year of service". If you get fired or quit after 10-15 years, you lose a *HUGE* chunk of your pension. You miss the % increase *AND* the salary increase, raise and promotions. The incentive is to never quit, and never do anything could lead to getting fired. This places the State employee in a position where he can't quit.

In NYC, there's even more State employee pension abuse. The pension formula is not "base salary", it's "base salary plus overtime in your last year". The incentive is to rack up as much overtime as possible in your last year, bribing your supervisor if necessary.)

Many state governments are very bankrupt. Some are almost bankrupt on a current cashflow basis. They are very bankrupt if you include pension liability. Unlike the Federal government, states can't inflate their way out of bankruptcy. However, defaultlation is like as the Federal government, Federal Reserve, and banksters inflate.

As part of the recent "stimulus" package, the Federal government gave some money to states, so they could pay off their unionized workers. It's literally vote buying. Unionized workers typically vote for Democrats.

Suppose that more than 50% of the people work for the government. Then, it's impossible to reduce the size of government by voting. People who work for the government will always vote to keep a big government. People who work for the government shouldn't get to vote. Of course, no amount of voting legitimizes taxation/theft.

The protests in Wisconsin are not anti-government protests. They are pro-government protests. Unionized government employees are protesting to keep their high salaries. They are protesting for *HIGHER* taxes and *MORE* State power. They are literally protesting against the people who pay their salaries via the State taxation extortion racket.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Healthcare "Reform" Waivers And Subsidies

There are two interesting aspects of the healthcare "reform" law. Large employers can get waivers. Businesses that offer retiree health insurance get subsidies. These are bailouts for "qualifying" businesses.

Businesses can apply for waivers. Naturally, large corporations can afford the legal compliance overhead. Small businesses can't afford it. Only large corporations can get waivers.

The "reform" is paid via a tax on health insurance. However, large "self-insured" plans are exempt from some of the taxes and provisions.

For a small plan, you pay based on a group claim rate. For large plans, you can "self-insure". The premium equals actual expenses plus a management fee. Only large corporations can afford a "self-insured" plan. By exempting these plans, large corporations are subsidized while small businesses are taxed.

Here is another evil aspect of the "reform" law. If a corporation offers retiree health insurance, they are eligible for certain subsidies. Here is a list of recipients for NY. Notice that governments and unions are the primary beneficiaries.

What businesses offer retiree health insurance? Only government workers and large unions get retiree health insurance. The "retiree health insurance" subsidy benefits government workers and unionized workers.

The healthcare "reform" law contains exceptions and subsidies. These clauses benefit large corporations, government employees, and unionized employees. This subsidies come at the expense of higher taxes for small businesses.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Tax Patents

This story was pretty funny. Congress is pursuing one area of patent reform. They're banning "tax patents"!

A "tax patent" occurs when someone patents a tax evasion trick. If someone else attempts the same patented tax evasion trick, they can be sued for patent infringement!

You might wonder "WTF? You can patent tax evasion tricks?" As the law is currently written, "tax patents" are allowed.

Patents are a huge drain on the productive sector of the economy. Most technology is patented, making it illegal to start a business that competes with a patent holder.

With software patents, really vague and general and obvious patents have been allowed. I suspect that other areas are just as bad.

A patent represents that someone is gaming the legal system. A patent doesn't usually indicate something truly original. You get a patent by spending $25k+ in legal fees and you jumped through the bureaucratic hoops. Someone else is banned from doing something similar, just because you got a piece of paper from the State.

In many patent lawsuits, the victim doesn't even know about the patent until he's sued. Patent lawsuits are a huge tax on the productive sector of the economy.

All a patent gives you is the right to sue someone, if they "infringe" your patent. Ideas are not property. Patents and "intellectual property" are not property. There is a massive State brainwashing campaign, to convince people that patents should be treated like real property.

One example of patent evil is "patent trolls". A patent troll buys patents, and then goes around suing people. The patent troll has no business of his own, other than suing people. It's legal extortion.

The patent lawsuit is filed through a shell corporation with no assets except for the patent. Even if you countersue and win legal expenses, there's nothing to win, because you're just countersuing an empty shell corporation.

Suppose I start a business. You own a patent, but I never heard about it. If I succeed, you can sue me for patent infringement. If I fail, you don't bother suing me, because I'm broke. The patent system is a tax on successful businesses, because they risk being sued for patent infringement.

Even if the patent is trivial and obvious, it still may be enforceable. Judges and juries know nothing about technology. They may make the wrong conclusion. In fact, according to "voir dire" rules, any juror who knows anything about the technical area of the patent is automatically disqualified. For example, I'd be automatically disqualified from a software patent lawsuit, even though I'm probably more qualified to judge than almost anyone.

Most patent lawsuits are filed in Texas. The judges in Texas have a strong history of favoring patent holders at the expense of the victims.

Another defect in patent law is the way statutory damages are calculated. It's "% of revenue". It makes no difference how significant the patent is. For Microsoft's XML patent loss, damages were a % of *ALL* Office sales. It should have been sales times the value of that feature. The XML feature was only a tiny part of Office, but statutory damages are based on *ALL* Office sales. The statutory damages formula for patents further encourages frivolous lawsuits.

"Intellectual property" is not property. There's a massive State brainwashing campaign, to convince people that patents, copyrights, and trademarks should be treated like property. "Intellectual property" is an excellent evil fnord phrase. That phrase sets the debate in the wrong frame. It should be call "intellectual un-property".

Congress is reforming an area of patent law. It doesn't have to do with the productive sector of the economy. "Tax patents" involve patented tax evasion tricks.

This is a horrible tragedy! Lawyers and accountants might not be able to use a tax evasion trick, due to tax patents. Insiders are the primary beneficiary of fancy tax evasion tricks, because it costs $50k-$100k+ just to set it up. (This refers to State-approved legal tax evasion tricks. The usual "tax protester" tax evasion tricks won't work in State court. If you're an insider, your tax evasion tricks usually do work, but you have to spend a lot on lawyers and accountants.)

Congress isn't reforming patents in the productive sector of the economy. Instead, they're eliminating "tax patents". There should be no obstacles, when insiders want to use their favorite tax evasion trick.

This is very offensive. Congress is eliminating patents in the parasite sector of the economy. In the productive sector of the economy, patents are a serious obstacle. Any company with a profitable business, will very likely be the victim of a patent lawsuits.

Patents are not property. All patent lawsuits are legal extortion. It is offensive that Congress views "tax patents" as a serious problem, but not patents in the productive sector of the economy.

"Tax patents" prevent lawyers from selling tax evasion tricks to insiders. This is a serious problem that must be fixed!

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Why Does Confidence Matter?

State comedians love to brag about "consumer confidence" or "confidence that inflation is low". It's a "confidence based economy"?

If the economy is *REALLY* sound, it makes no difference what people think. If the economy is one big scam, then it's *VERY IMPORTANT* to keep people misinformed.

If you go around saying "FSK is bankrupt!", that won't adversely affect me. If you go around saying "The State is a scam!", then the slaves might wake up.

If your business if *REALLY* sound, then it doesn't matter what people think. If you're running a scam, you need to keep your victims fooled. State comedians care *A LOT* about confidence, because it's all one big scam.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Justin Bieber And Misandry

The State media engine has been hyping Justin Bieber. He's promoting a new movie.

One rule of State media is "If you repeatedly hype someone, then that creates a celebrity, no matter what their actual talent."

I am somewhat disturbed by Justin Bieber. He looks like a woman!

Many bloggers have been lamenting this problem. The State is very hostile to "traditional male" values. "Hard work and individualism" are heavily denigrated.

For example, divorce law is heavily biased against men. "Date rape" laws allow a woman to consent, change her mind, and then file criminal rape charges.

I noticed that many male celebrities have this problem. They look more like women than men. The "girly-man" is promoted as the ideal. Similarly, Lady Gaga frequently looks like a man.

This is a disturbing aspect of the State propaganda agenda. "Men who look like women" and "women who look like men" are hyped as celebrities.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Is The Quatloos Website Run By The State?

Imagine if there was a website that celebrated every time a policeman was murdered. The police would find that website very offensive.

I'm very offended by the quatloos website. That website celebrates whenever a "tax protester" is convicted. It's pretty severe pro-State trolling.

I find the quatloos website offensive exactly the same way that the police would be offended by a website that celebrated police deaths. The quatloos website is celebrating economic terrorism. A person's life is ruined by something that isn't a crime according to natural law.

(I noticed that I'm getting good post topics reading the forum. He recently had a debate with the quatloos website, regarding his "owning an IRS lawyer" tape. Just because an IRS agent couldn't get his lies straight, doesn't mean you'll win in an unfair court.)

The users on the quatloos website are hardcore Statists. I suspect that most of them are policemen, bureaucrats, tax collectors, tax lawyers, or tax accountants. It's very easy to be ignorant, when your livelihood depends on doing evil things.

The quatloos website does not seriously address the main issue, which is "All taxation is theft!" They focus on Supreme Court and appeals court decisions, that knock down the usual "tax protester" arguments. That's missing the point. Such arguments assume the Supreme Court's authority is legitimate.

It's offensive to read court decisions regarding "tax protesters". The pro-State trolling is obvious. It's "cargo cult justice" and not real justice. They go through the motions of justice, while arriving at the predetermined conclusions.

When a "tax protester" loses in court, that doesn't prove his arguments are wrong. It just proves how corrupt the State "justice" system is. Judges are pretty consistent in ruling against people who want freedom. Taxation is a key component of the State extortion racket.

If you use one of the standard "tax protester" arguments in court, you probably will lose. In fact, I wonder if undercover State police intentionally promote them, so it's easy to identify stupid slaves who start rebelling. If you're serious about freedom, you should work as an agorist. Unfortunately, that isn't completely risk-free. It's the best strategy I've seen, both for achieving freedom and for maximizing profit.

Most "tax protesters" realize "The IRS is a dangerous terrorist organization. The income tax is immoral." However, they make the mistake "Something that evil ought to be illegal." The law is a mess. There are loopholes and contradictions. The law doesn't explicitly directly say "All your labor is belong to us!", because that would be too obviously evil. It's implied by the way the law is enforced, combined with corrupt court decisions and precedents.

Unfortunately, any dispute regarding government taxes is going to be decided by a government judge. The judge and tax collector are on the same team. They're members of the same criminal gang. A slave isn't going to get a fair trial regarding taxes in a State court.

Suppose you found a clever and correct income tax loophole. All the judge has to say is "Your argument is wrong. I'll jail you for 'contempt of court' if you make that argument to a jury." Now, you're SOL. Even if you're right, it's irrelevant. The judge has the final decision. He has a monopoly.

Suppose you present your clever anti-IRS argument. What do you expect the judge to say? "You're right. The government has been operating illegitimately for 100 years." Of course the judge isn't going to say that. He's going to rule against you.

A slave is never going to get a fair trial regarding taxes in a corrupt State court. Your best option is to work completely off-the-books. Agorism is the best strategy, both for personal profit and for fighting evil. Even if you work off-the-books, State thugs may kidnap and torture you if they find out about it.

The standard "tax protester" arguments are a type of intellectual trap. If you make such an argument to an IRS thug, it's like saying "I'm a dangerous fruitcake. Please imprison me." Even the "all rights reserved UCC" signature trick is just a red flag for IRS agents. According to natural law, your signature on a tax return isn't a valid contract, because it's coerced. Unfortunately, State thugs disagree. Writing "all rights reserved UCC" over your tax return signature is just giving the finger to a bully.

If you're an agorist, write a normal-looking tax return that includes everything the IRS already knows about. If you have a cash business, consider declaring some of the income, so it doesn't look too suspicious.

This court decision was really surprising.

Rather than spending his money and time reading the misrepresentations, half-truths and full-fledged falsehoods perpetrated by Tom Clayton, MD, and his ilk, plaintiff would be better served if he were to read a legal text on taxation, its history, constitutionality and application such as Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts, by Boris I. Bittker and Lawrence Lokken. If he does not want to make the effort such a text requires, he might find much of interest at or At the latter website, he would find the legal reasons why his arguments are groundless, at the former, he would find excellent advice. Among other things, he would be reminded that no one has ever won a civil case arguing the kinds of theories that he is arguing in this case and that hundreds of people who have relied on the arguments have not only lost their cases but have been required to pay penalties to the IRS and have been sanctioned for advocating a frivolous theory to the court.
The judge said "You should know that your tax protester arguments are wrong. The quatloos website said so." That's as legally sound (according to State logic) as "All taxation is theft. Fskrealityguide said so."

I found that decision suspicious. Is the quatloos website organized by the State? That certain would explain their rabid hostility to people who question the IRS.

Why is a judge citing the quatloos website in his decision? The quatloos website has no official legal standing.

There's another interesting aspect of IRS criminal and civil trials. If you make a "forbidden argument", you're fined for making a "frivolous argument". In most other areas of law, you aren't automatically fined for making a rejected argument. Judges are threatened by "forbidden arguments" because they hint at a deeper hidden truth. They are rejected because they might convince a jury to vote "not guilty".

It seems that "frivolous anti-tax argument" is "anything that might convince a juror to vote 'not guilty'".

It's still interesting to read the quatloos website, in a "know your enemy" sense. It's offensive and disgusting. For every legal anti-IRS argument you could make, there's a court decision that rules against it. It's a bizarre type of partially consistent anti-logic.

Now that I've cracked my pro-State brainwashing, it's obviously wrong and offensive. Citing Supreme Court decisions is missing the point. That assumes the Supreme Court's authority is legitimate. If the Supreme Court or appeals court makes a mistake, then it's a precedent and cannot be questioned. All the precedents say "HAHAHA!!! You're a slave! For every anti-IRS argument you can make, we can make a plausible-sounding counter-argument! We're going to rule against you and there's nothing you can do about it!"

There was an interesting bit I found. It had a standardized IRS response to a "show me the law" letter. It was interesting.

The letter said "We don't give tax advice or legal advice. If we go to court, we'll win. Nyah! Nyah! We've got all the judges in our pockets."

"We don't give tax advice" places the slave in a no-win situation. He has an obligation to figure out and pay taxes. Every slave is forced to work for the State as a tax collector and tax accountant. However, if you make a mistake, you're legally responsible.

You may not receive any official notification that your tax returns are wrong, until you're prosecuted for criminal tax evasion.

Some small fry get away with the "sovereign citizen" or "tax protester" arguments. State thugs don't have the resources to imprison everyone. If it's decent money at stake *OR* if you're popular, then it's a priority to kidnap and torture you.

You aren't going to get a fair trial regarding taxes in a corrupt State court. By the time you're in court, you've already lost. The prosecutors have virtually unlimited resources when prosecuting a political prisoner. Jailing political prisoners is a "cost of doing business" for the State extortion racket. Most people pay their tribute without questioning it. This makes it very easy to violently silence the occasional dissenter. The reasoning is "Get the leaders, and all the other slaves will fall in line."

Even if acquitted, you aren't reimbursed for the time and expense and stress of a trial. Even if acquitted in a criminal trial, tax collectors can pursue a separate civil trial, to collect the taxes they claim you owe. If you're convicted in a criminal trial, the sentence includes a fine for any taxes owed plus penalties, avoiding a separate civil trial to collect the tax.

Via "asset forfeiture" laws, police can seize your property without trial. You might be acquitted, but the police get to keep your property. If you have a State bank account, the IRS can easily seize it. If you have physical gold and silver, the IRS can seize it claiming "Only a criminal would have gold and silver."

There are many ways a judge can rig a trial. Via biased jury selection, the jury will be packed with pro-State trolls. Some undercover police might be in the jury pool and get picked. The judge will forbid you from making arguments that might persuade a juror. Both a lawyer and a pro se defendant have this problem. Pro se defendants get more leniency, but all the judge has to do is say the magic words "contempt of court" and he can jail you indefinitely without trial. However, "contempt of court" is worth risking, because you'll be jailed anyway when the jury convicts you. If the judge keeps interrupting you as a pro se defendant, that might convince some jurors that the judge is biased.

Eventually, I plan to work more aggressively at promoting agorism and practicing agorism. Right now, I'm just blogging and promoting freedom with low-risk low-effort things. It is risky if I get more active. Suppose I'm an active agorist *AND* I'm good at promoting agorism. Then, State terrorists will make it a priority to kidnap and torture me. Right now, I'm just some random nobody blogger.

As more people learn the truth on the Internet, it'll be less risky. I sense that the truth is spreading exponentially, but it's hard to be sure. Most slaves are very resistant, when they encounter something that contradicts their pro-State brainwashing. However, if it's repeated many times by different people, then an intelligent slave might start thinking "Why do all these people keep saying 'Taxation is theft!'? Is there some merit to that viewpoint?"

What is the greater tragedy? Is it to see something evil and choose to not fight? Is it to fight, pick a reasonable strategy, lose anyway, and spend most of your life in jail? Both choices are horrible. It's the State that forced such a lousy choice on me. I always wanted to understand the truth and how things really worked. Paradoxically, it might have been better to be stupid and ignorant. However, then I would be totally SOL as the system collapses. If I'm a good agorist, I might be more prepared to survive. Now that I'm mostly unplugged, don't I have an obligation to do something about it? But, if I act, and am reasonably successful, then State terrorists will probably kidnap and torture me. Most high-profile critics of the IRS and Federal Reserve wind up in jail. Once you know how evil the State is, don't you have an obligation to refuse to cooperate?

The quatloos website is incredibly offensive. They celebrate whenever a "tax protester" is imprisoned. They celebrate jailing a political prisoner. They celebrate jailing nonviolent offenders. They celebrate economic terrorism. They celebrate when State thugs ruin someone's life.

A pro-State troll says "The 'tax protester' ruined his own life, when he questioned the State." That's bizarre backwards blame-the-victim thinking. The State thugs are to blame, and not the victim who saw part of the truth but chose a foolish way to resist.

The people on the quatloos website are very hardcore Statists. It's disgusting and offensive. I suspect most of them work for the State. It's easy to be stupid and ignorant, when your career is enforcing evil laws.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Stefan Molyneux On The Daily Show?

Apparently, my blog ranks high for "Stefan Molyneux Daily Show". I got a lot of search traffic for that search phrase suddenly.

On the Daily Show website forum, there's a thread "Stefan Molyneux should be a guest on the Daily Show". As I write this, it has 19k+ views and 130+ replies. That makes it one of the most popular threads on the forum.

I'd vote for "Yes, he should be a guest." I'm not bothering to create a Daily Show forum account and comment.

This campaign is missing an important point. Jon Stewart is a shill for the State.

There's *NO WAY* someone who intelligently presents the anti-State viewpoint will be allowed on the mainstream media.

I can imagine the following phone call. "This is the White House calling the Daily Show. Why are you having that jerkwad Stefan Molyneux on as a guest? Why are you allowing him to spread his lies on TV?" That's all it would take, to quash Stefan Molyneux as a guest.

My main criticism of Stefan Molyneux is "He spends 2 hours to describe an idea that only should take 5-10 minutes." He's mostly correct. However, he's way too verbose. I have the same criticism of Kevin Carson. His analysis is mostly correct, but he's hard to read.

Another criticism of Stefan Molyneux is "If DROs are so wonderful, then why don't you start a DRO?" I plan to try such a thing eventually, when I get into actual agorism.

Another criticism is "defoo-ing". That's refusing to see abusive relatives. I never would have voluntarily moved back in with my parents, if I didn't get sick. I've discovered a shocking thing, due to lack of choice. I can retrain my parents to be less abusive! I can't make them understand "Taxation is theft!", but they are showing more anti-State viewpoints. They also are less emotionally abusive.

"Retrain relatives to be less abusive!" is a higher level of awareness than "Refuse to see abusive relatives!"

I'll partially recant my criticism of the mental health industry and Stefan Molyneux. He's still too flagrantly supportive of the mental health industry. However, my current drug Seroquel does seem to be working. If I blindly followed the advice of my previous psychiatrists, I never would have tried this drug.

Stefan Molyneux frequently advises "See a State-licensed therapist or psychiatrist." Based on my experience, they're mostly shills for the State. For example, my therapist tries to re-brainwash me to be a good slave, rather than teaching me to be truly independent.

If you're a real anarchist, "licensed by the State" means nothing. That's especially true in the area of mental health, where reinforcing State brainwashing takes priority. "People who can partially see the truth" are incorrectly labeled as defective by the "mental health" industry.

Many TV shows now have an Internet forum where people can vote on guests. Andrew Napolitano also does this. Stefan Molyneux has a better shot of getting on "Freedom Watch" than on the Daily Show.

I plan to someday try "Promote agorism via standup comedy!" Living in NYC, it'd be easy location-wise to be a guest on the show. There still would be State resistance. State parasites would tell me "You have to tone down your act, if you ever want to get on TV." In the mainstream media, there's a very strong culture of censorship and self-censorship.

However, some people have told me "You should get your own TV show! You would be more popular than Glenn Beck!" Ironically, some of the people who said that were people I suspected of being undercover police.

"Promote agorism via standup comedy!" is a nice idea. I won't hold my breath waiting, to be invited as a guest on the mainstream media. There are more talk shows than interesting guests, so statistically I'd have a chance. There still would be resistance to someone who intelligently explains the truth. It'll probably be another 2-3 years before I get more active. I'm waiting to see if I relapse. I need to get my own apartment before I can be more active at promoting and practicing agorism.

It certainly would be cool to see Stefan Molyneux as a guest on the Daily Show or any mainstream media program. I doubt it will happen. The "debate ceiling" isn't ready for that. Too many State insiders would be deeply offended, if someone intelligently explained the anti-State viewpoint on TV.

State censorship will *NOT* allow Stefan Molyneux to be a guest on the Daily Show. Hopefully, I'm wrong, but I doubt it. Jon Stewart is a shill for the State. He's a slave-monkey who dances for his corporate masters.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

President Obama Announces Plan To Shut Down Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac

This story was interesting. President Obama announced a plan to shut down Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE). Here is the proposal on the Treasury website.

Some people have speculated "Does President Obama or one of his advisors read my blog?" I've repeatedly wrote that FNM and FRE are evil. Did someone get the "shut down FNM/FRE proposal" from my blog?

FNM/FRE only exist due to State subsidies. They're an excellent example of corruption capitalism. They're an excellent example of "Privatized profits and socialized losses." During the boom, FNM/FRE executives paid themselves huge bonuses. During the bust, they got a bailout. FNM/FRE executives don't have to pay back the huge bonuses they earned during the boom.

I'll review the State subsidy that FNM/FRE get. No other bank gets this perk. When speculating on mortgage bonds, FNM/FRE's debt is backed by the Federal government. When other banks speculate on mortgages, they may borrow at the Fed Funds Rate (currently 0%-0.25%). FNM/FRE get to borrow at the Treasury term rate. This allows them to balance the cashflow of their debt with the cashflow of the mortgages.

If a bank borrows at the Fed Funds Rate to buy mortgages, they are taking a risk that the Fed Funds Rate will rise more than expected. FNM/FRE is not taking this risk, because they're borrowing at the term rate and not the overnight rate. This gives FNM/FRE an advantage when financing mortgages. They can always bid more than any other bank, when bidding on the same mortgage. This is due to cheaper financing costs.

FNM and FRE have their debt backed by the Federal government. This enables them to borrow at the Treasury term rate. This debt guarantee was always implicit. During the recent housing crash, this implicit guarantee was made explicit. The Federal government spent a *LOT* of money bailing out FNM/FRE.

When other banks issue term bonds, they have to pay the Treasury rate plus a default risk premium. That gives FNM/FRE an unfair advantage. Other banks may borrow at the overnight Fed Funds Rate, but not the Treasury term rate.

Executives at FNM/FRE spend money lobbying. This is pure corruption capitalism. They receive a massive State subsidy. They spend part of this money lobbying. By spending State subsidies lobbying, I thought they would always successfully block reform.

I thought that FNM/FRE were politically untouchable. I am shocked that President Obama proposed eliminating them.

It is very easy to shut down FNM/FRE. The Federal government pays off the bondholders, honoring the guarantee. The mortgage bond portfolio of FNM/FRE is held to maturity or sold off. If there's any money leftover, FNM/FRE preferred stockholders and common stockholders get paid. I doubt that the common stock would be worth anything.

There is only one downside to eliminating FNM/FRE. Housing prices would drop further. Due to cheap credit, FNM/FRE push up housing prices. However, the Federal Reserve is currently massively inflating. That should push up housing prices. The effect of inflation should be greater than any housing price decrease caused by eliminating FNM/FRE.

A pro-State troll says "FNM and FRE are beneficial. People get to buy a house more cheaply." You pay a lower interest rate, but the price of a home is greater. It's a net loss.

The profits of FNM/FRE aren't free. These profits are paid as inflation by everyone else.

Obama's "eliminate FNM/FRE" proposal involves shutting them down like I described. The Federal government would also provide "super-cat" mortgage reinsurance. If the housing market sharply dropped again, the Federal government would start buying mortgage bonds.

Unfortunately, that reemphasizes "too big to fail". If you know that the Federal government will intervene during a severe recession/depression, then the incentive is to take big risks during the boom. You know you'll get bailed out during the bust, so why not profit as much as possible during the boom?

There's another "benefit" to eliminating FNM/FRE. With FNM/FRE out of the picture, other big banks like Goldman Sachs, BAC, etc. can make bigger profits. With no State-subsidized competition via FNM/FRE, big banks can make more money speculating on mortgages.

However, this is progress! I thought that FNM/FRE were politically untouchable. Now, President Obama is proposing eliminating them.

The Federal Reserve is currently politically untouchable. Will that change? I thought that FNM/FRE were politically untouchable. I'm noticing much more anti-Federal Reserve comments in the mainstream media.

I'm surprised that President Obama proposed eliminating FNM/FRE. It is a good idea. I thought that FNM/FRE executives would always be able to block reform.

Eliminating FNM/FRE is a step in the right direction. It's still short of the correct answer, which is "The Federal Reserve is immoral! The Federal Reserve is a price-fixing cartel! Inflation is theft! The financial industry is one big money laundering conspiracy!"

Are some government insiders reading my blog? I'm shocked that President Obama is proposing to eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Monday, February 14, 2011


"Defaultlation" occurs when governments partially default on their debts via inflation.

Suppose the President went on TV and said "I'm cutting everyone's Social Security check by 10%!" There would be rioting. Via inflation, the net effect is the same.

Social Security payments are adjusted based on the CPI, but the CPI severely understates true inflation. State comedians/economists are not logically consistent. The Social Security income threshold ("wage base") is indexed via average income, and not the CPI. Social Security payouts are indexed based on the CPI, but Social Security taxes collected are indexed based on actual wage inflation.

(The "wage base" is the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes, currently approximately $100k.)

Suppose that you have a government pension worth $100k and a life expectancy of 30 years. With 0% inflation, the present value is $3M. (Government pensions are typically underfunded/unfunded, so I'll ignore the possibility of a couple percent ROI on plan assets. It's a small effect. Besides, most State-licensed investments earn a negative inflation-adjusted return. To keep the calculation simple, I'll ignore the effect of nominal gains or real losses on pension plan assets.)

Suppose that inflation is 10%. Via the "sum of a geometric series" formula, the present value of the pension drops from $3M to $1M, even if the beneficiary lives forever.

With 20% inflation, the present value of the pension is now only $500k. With 25% inflation, the present value is $400k.

Via high inflation, the value of the pension is eroded. State comedians promote the lie "The CPI is an accurate measure of inflation!" The slaves fall for it and don't realize they were conned.

If you look at gold, silver, copper, platinum, palladium, or other commodities, true inflation is 20%-30% per year, or more. There are short-term fluctuations, but it's pretty consistent if you look at a 5+ year time period.

Consider Treasury debt. The interest rate is only a couple percent, while true inflation is 20%-30%+. If you have an unleveraged long Treasury investment, you are getting ripped off by inflation. For example, China's government has an unleveraged long Treasury investment. They are getting robbed by inflation.

Why do the banksters buy Treasury debt? They get to use leverage and cheap Federal Reserve money. The Fed Funds Rate is currently 0%-0.25%, while Treasury Debt yields 0.25%-4%. The banksters borrow at the Fed Funds Rate and buy Treasury debt. With 100x leverage or more, even a small spread of 0.1% or 0.2% leads to profits of 10%-20% or more.

For Social Security, a partial default via inflation is guaranteed. For government pensions, a partial default via inflation is guaranteed. The nominal value of the check keeps coming, so technically it isn't a default. It is a moral default, because the purchasing power is lost via inflation.

For pensions and Social Security, a default via inflation is an easy out. For Medicaid and Medicare, it's harder. Tangible goods and services must be delivered. If rates drop too low, doctors would refuse to participate in Medicaid and Medicare.

Even with the "default via inflation" trick, governments are still very insolvent. They will have to raise the inflation rate to avoid default. If inflation gets too high, then hyperinflation sets in and the State paper money loses all of its value.

The US government is technically bankrupt. However, all US government debts are in US paper dollars. State thugs can keep printing new money to pay off their debt. They're only limited by the possibility of hyperinflation and complete currency collapse.

A technical nominal default on Treasury debt cannot occur. The government can always print more money/bonds to pay off/refinance the debt. Inflation is a moral default, but not a technical default. A default via inflation is guaranteed.

You'll get your Social Security check and pension check. However, the real purchasing power will almost definitely decrease. Inflation also hurts workers, because their pay raises don't keep pace with true inflation.

All debtors benefit from inflation. They can pay off their loans with devalued money. Most insiders are heavy debtors. Banks are heavily leveraged. They don't mark-to-market losses during a recession/depression. They wait for a bailout via inflation.

Most large corporations carry a lot of debt on their books. They receive a State subsidy via inflation and negative real rates. Small business owners have limited access to credit. The taxes they pay subsidize larger corporate competitors.

Insiders benefit a lot from inflation. Via the banksters and the Federal Reserve, they have easy preferential access to credit. This is a huge drain on the productive sector of the economy.

The US government is guaranteed to default. It won't be an outright complete default. It will be a gradual default via inflation. The US government defaults on its debts 2%-3% per month, rather than all at once. I call this "defaultlation".

Sunday, February 13, 2011

"Best of FSK" - January 2011

January 2011 was a mediocre month for my blog. I had 5328 Absolute Unique Visitors.

In January 2011, my most popular posts by Absolute Unique Pageviews were:

  1. Who's the Richest Man in the World? (282)
  2. The Hunt Brothers' Silver Corner (244)
  3. Did the USA Declare Bankruptcy? (243)
  4. The Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depression (239)
  5. Ruby on Rails Sucks! (234)
  6. Goldman Sachs and Facebook (226)
  7. BMI/ASCAP/SESAC Legal Extortion Scam (224)
  8. Jared Lee Loughner (203)
  9. The Compound Interest Paradox (142)
  10. Satanic Death Hospitals (113)
  11. Premium Text Messaging Fraud - 91097 and 654654 (103)
  12. The Gold Lease Rate is Negative! (102)
  13. The Communist Manifesto's Successful Implementation in the USA (97)
  14. Is It Worth Hoarding Nickels? (91)
  15. The Gold and Silver Taxation Scam (90)
  16. Andrew Cuomo, Ernst & Young, And Lehman (85)
  17. The Tally Stick Monetary System (83)
  18. Congress Reads The Amended US Constitution (74)
  19. Arkansas Dead Fish And Birds (71)
  20. Calculating Vega and other Greeks in Black-Scholes (69)
  21. Agorist Philosophy Overview (65)
  22. StackOverflow Sucks! (65)
  23. The Fluoride Conspiracy Theory (60)
  24. Real GDP Is Crashing, 2000-2009 (59)
  25. Car Insurance vs. Health Insurance (55)
  26. Robert Kahre vs. Terrorism (53)
  27. The Five Levels of the Economy (50)
  28. Andre Bauer Welfare Fnord (49)
  29. Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2007 (46)
  30. The Pat Tillman Conspiracy Theory (46)
  31. Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2008 (43)
  32. The Compound Interest Paradox - a Simpler Explanation (42)
  33. The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 1/12 - Overview and Background (41)
  34. American Idol And Auto-Tune (40)
  35. Gold and Silver Buyer's Guide (39)
  36. Easily Import Excel and CSV Files Into Blogger! (37)
  37. Keith Olbermann And MSNBC (35)
  38. The Federal Reserve and Income Tax Conspiracy Theory (33)
If you only include posts published in January 2011, the most popular were:
  1. Goldman Sachs and Facebook (226)
  2. Jared Lee Loughner (203)
  3. Andrew Cuomo, Ernst & Young, And Lehman (85)
  4. Congress Reads The Amended US Constitution (74)
  5. Arkansas Dead Fish And Birds (71)
  6. American Idol And Auto-Tune (40)
  7. Keith Olbermann And MSNBC (35)
  8. MTV Anti-Freedom "Documentary" (28)
  9. "Best of FSK" - December 2010 - Summary 2010 (27)
  10. Debt Ceiling Increase (27)
  11. Contingency-Fee Criminal Lawyers (25)
  12. TV Has Too Many Commercials (24)
  13. Will The State Steal Your IRA Or 401(k)? (24)
  14. Wearing A Hat In A Courtroom (23)
  15. Richard Simkanin, Political Prisoner (22)
  16. Do Position Limits Matter? (18)
  17. Julian Heicklen Indicted For Jury Tampering (18)
  18. "Death Qualified" Juries (16)

Saturday, February 12, 2011

JP Morgan Chase Accepts Gold As Margin Collateral

DC has left a new comment on your post "Dueling Hearings":

It seems that it is all about tricks!

Hey, did you notice that JP Morgan is now accepting gold as transaction collateral. Article here:

What do you make of that?
This comment deserves its own separate post. I heard multiple people cite this story, so I should explain this scam.

(I've discontinued "Reader Mail". Most of my blogging time is spent on my cellphone on the subway. My crappy LG envTouch doesn't support that sophisticated editing. Also, I get more comments now.)

You couldn't figure out the scam? A pro-State troll says "Wow! JP Morgan Chase sure are super-nice guys, accepting gold as collateral!" Do you really not see the scam? It's totally obvious. I'll give you one last chance to figure it out on your own.


Hint: fractional reserve banking


If you post gold as collateral, JP Morgan Chase *GETS TO SELL YOUR GOLD*. JP Morgan Chase has no obligation to keep physical custody of your gold. They can lend it out to short sellers.

Each ounce of physical gold can back many ounces of paper gold. Allegedly, the paper-to-physical gold leverage is 10x, 100x, or more.

It's the usual fractional reserve banking scam.

From JP Morgan Chase's point of view, it's a great deal. You're giving them physical gold and they're giving you a piece of paper. (bonds or stock or cash)

When you try to reclaim your collateral, you may not be able to get your gold back! Besides, everyone who posts gold as collateral won't try to reclaim it at the same time!

Suppose the margin interest fee is 2% and you use it to buy stocks that crash. Now, JP Morgan Chase gets to keep your gold! Also, JP Morgan Chase is borrowing at the Fed Funds Rate (0.25%) and lending to you at a higher margin rate (1%-2% or more). It's riskless income for JP Morgan Chase.

JP Morgan Chase will sell lots of paper gold. This might push down the price of gold. This would force a margin call. Then, JP Morgan Chase gets to keep your gold!

This is entirely a scam to push down the gold price. If you post gold as collateral, JP Morgan Chase has no obligation to leave the gold in their vault. They're lending it out to short sellers. One ounce of physical gold backs many ounces of paper gold.

You're an idiot if you trade tangible assets (gold) for a bunch of pieces of paper.

This is the usual fractional reserve banking scam, cloaked in the language of a margin collateral trade.

This is just a clever ploy to get some physical gold so they can create lots of paper gold and suppress the price of gold. I can't believe that some people will be dumb enough to fall for it.

Friday, February 11, 2011

Fake Logical Refutation

There's a common problem, when debating statists. They say "Ha! I logically refuted your argument!" Their argument is actually incoherent gibberish. Statists recite their brainwashing as if it's a universal truth. At this point, it can only degenerate into a name-calling contest.

For example:

FSK: (detailed explanation)
Statist: That's wrong because I've been brainwashed to believe X!
FSK: (explanation of why X is wrong)
Statist: That's wrong because of unrelated item Y!
FSK: Your argument makes no logical sense at all.
Statist: FSK is arguing ad hominem! I win!
FSK: You are an idiot.
At this point, there's no reason to continue. I gave up promoting my blog on other forums. It's frustrating dealing with pro-State trolls. The pro-State trolls claim they logically refuted my points, when it's really incoherent gibberish.

I noticed that dionysus was linking to my blog on the forum. He's getting a typical pro-State troll reaction. He's getting frustrated. I don't bother anymore.

It's hard to have a reasonable discussion on someone else's forum, especially when the brainwashed zombies outnumber the enlightened people. One intelligent comment is drowned out by a sea of pro-State trolling. It's hard to tell if professional State spies troll such forums, or if people are so brainwashed that they support their masters. It's probably a combination of idiots and State-planted spies. If spreading disinformation is your full-time job, you can troll *MANY* Internet forums and disrupt discussions.

It's a type of "Stateholm Syndrome", where slaves advocate to protect their masters. It's hard to admit that you were conned, robbed, and brainwashed.

That's one reason I started blogging. I got frustrated debating pro-State trolls on other people's forums. On a wiki or forum, a lot of pro-State trolls can drown out one reasonable person. I don't have that problem here.

For example, on the (pro-State) "anarchism" subreddit, "taxation is theft" comments attract more downvotes than upvotes. On any forum where posts are rated by "upvotes - downvotes", any unpopular but correct idea won't get fair treatment. For this reason, I don't like reddit and digg. The statists are the vast majority. Any intelligent anti-State comment will receive more downvotes than upvotes, making reddit a waste of time.

People recite their pro-State brainwashing like it's a universal truth. I can derive my viewpoint from other axioms, like the Non-Aggression Principle and "Stealing is wrong when individuals do it."

What can you do when you present a logical argument, and someone responds with incoherent gibberish? The statist claims it's a logically sound argument, but it's obvious nonsense. What else can happen, but it degenerates into a name-calling contest? You can't convince someone who's emotionally attached to his pro-State brainwashing.

Here's a list of topics that confuse statists or fake anarchists. I received a lot of negative comments for these subjects, which indicates the importance of the subject.

1. Taxation is theft. (This is very important. It's the most confusing for statists. Common fake counter-arguments are "social contract", "free rider problem", "taxes are payment for services rendered", "tax-dodgers are stealing", and "implied contract, like sitting down in a restaurant". Fake anarchists like to counter "Taxation is theft!" with "Property is theft!")

2. The Compound Interest Paradox (People who were pro-State brainwashed as economists get stuck on this one. I haven't seen any logically coherent counter-arguments that even vaguely made sense. People think "There's no way that Congress would have betrayed us like this and sold us into bankster slavery!" Surprisingly, the "Austrian economists" on are very hostile to the Compound Interest Paradox, primarily because Mises and Rothbard never wrote about it.)

3. The Black-Scholes Formula Is Wrong! (Again, people who were pro-State brainwashed as economists get stuck on this. They confuse "axioms" with conclusions. I question the axioms of the Black-Scholes Formula, and not the Math that follows. No amount of fancy Math will get you a right answer, if your assumptions are wrong.)

4. Property is not theft! Even without a government violence monopoly, property rights would be recognized and enforceable. (The definition of "theft" includes a concept of "property". This is confusing, because most current property is actually stolen property. Also, "intellectual property" is not property.)

5. A government violence monopoly is immoral and unnecessary! (A common counter-argument is "Small disputes would escalate!" (A private police force wouldn't risk their business over a minor issue.) Also, "A group of thugs would go around terrorizing people and extorting!" (Police and State tax collectors already do this!) A common pattern is "Without government, abuse X would happen!", while abuse X happens in the present directly because of government. ("Without government, a group of crazy thugs might demand that I stop using incandescent light bulbs, and kill all who disobey!"))

6. Inflation is theft! The Federal Reserve is immoral! The Federal Reserve is a price-fixing cartel! (People who have been pro-State brainwashed as economists get stuck on this one. State economists make pro-central bank and pro-inflation arguments. "Inflation stimulates the economy!" "We need the Federal Reserve to manage the economy!" It's obvious nonsense.)

I have "flip-flopped" on one point. I've shifted from "All psychiatric drugs are harmful!" to "Most psychiatric drugs are harmful!" I had a severe negative reaction to most drugs I tried, but Seroquel seems to be working decently. There still is an obvious question "If Seroquel is the right drug for me to be taking, then why did it take 7 hospitalizations before I found a psychiatrist who tried it?"

If I believe "Taxation is theft!" and you believe "Taxation is not theft!", that's an unbridgeable chasm. Those beliefs are logical opposites. We literally live in two different interpretations of reality.

I'm willing to use "Bayesian Reasoning" to consider "Taxation is not theft!" arguments. Now that I know the truth, all the counter-arguments I've seen are obviously wrong. They are obvious incoherent gibberish. Most Statists lack the ability to consider the opposite viewpoint. That's the reason you can't logically convince them.

If a Statist believes "I'm absolutely definitely certain that taxation is not theft!", then you can't logically convince them, no matter what you do. They're stuck in a logical trap. I can use Bayesian reasoning, but most Statists can't. No logical argument will convince them, no matter how well-constructed. They're stuck in their pro-State brainwashing.

This is a very common problem. I present a logical argument. People respond with incoherent gibberish, but they claim it's a logical refutation. It's literally an unbridgeable chasm. Either you give up, or it degenerates into a name-calling contest.

I gave up promoting my blog elsewhere, due to the frustration of dealing with stubborn Statists. It's a lot of energy wasted for no purpose. You might convince other people on the forum, but there's little evidence it works.

I can tell, based on how many people follow links back to my blog, according to Google Analytics. I've concluded that promoting my blog on other websites is usually a waste of time. Besides, I have enough readers now that other people sometimes do it for me. Via Google Analytics and google search, I can usually tell when other people are discussing my blog.

It's a losing battle when you're outnumbered by Statists. It's frustrating and demoralizing, to debate Statists in a forum controlled by Statists. I prefer blogging, where I have full editorial control.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Dueling Hearings

Ron Paul held his first hearing as chairman of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee. At the exact same time, there was another hearing starring Ben Bernanke. The mainstream media covered the other hearing, rather than Ron Paul's hearing.

That was a very clever trick!

Guantanamo Bay Auschwitz

The Auschwitz death camp was open from 1939 to 1945. The Guantanamo Bay death camp has been open from 2002-2011, and it hasn't closed yet! The Guantanamo Bay death camp has been operating almost twice as long as Auschwitz!

The "death percentage" is lower for Guantanamo Bay compared to Auschwitz. However, wrongfully imprisoning someone is only slightly less evil than killing them. If you kidnap and torture someone for 10 years, you still stole a huge chunk of their life. It's perceived as much less evil than outright killing them.

If the Guantanamo Bay detainees weren't radical terrorists before, they sure are now! However, that doesn't justify detaining them.

The scale of Guantanamo Bay is much smaller than Auschwitz. However, if you include *ALL* people wrongfully imprisoned in the USA, then the numbers start to become comparable. Every jailed nonviolent offender is a political prisoner.

If you ask a State thug, he'll say "I'm just doing my job." That's the exact same logic as concentration camp guards. USA State abuse is less obviously evil compared to outright killing someone. State thugs usually try to kidnap the victim alive. Wrongfully imprisoning someone is still evil. You aren't killing the victim. You're still stealing a huge chunk of his life.

If you steal via taxes, that's also stealing a chunk of my life. With taxation rates over 50%, it's like government is stealing more than half my life. Due to State restriction of the market, my employment opportunities writing meaningless financial software are greater than my opportunities doing something actually useful.

I'm not a direct victim of State violence. I'm an indirect victim. I'm adversely affected, even though no policeman actually kidnapped me for failing to pay taxes. If I told my employer "I don't want you withholding taxes from my salary. I don't want you reporting this transaction to the IRS.", they would laugh at me and/or fire me. (Besides, the way the State banking system works, the transaction would be reported to the IRS even if my employer chose to not fill out a 1099 form or W-2 form. As long as you use a State bank, all transactions are reported to the IRS!)

I'm not spending my life in a death camp. However, I'm losing a huge chunk of my life via taxes. By giving me a limited illusion of freedom, I'm more a more productive slave than if I were directly imprisoned. Some really cynical people say that a modern city is organized a lot like a labor camp.

That was an amusing comparison, when I noticed it. The Guantanamo Bay death camp has been operating nearly twice as long as Auschwitz. State thugs in the USA round up political prisoners one at a time, rather than all at once. That makes it seem less evil. Via "color of law", crime is given the illusion of legitimacy.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Is Healthcare "Reform" Constituional?

A lot of people are asking "Is the healthcare 'reform' law Constitutional?" There are several pending lawsuits that will ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court.

This is the wrong question. The important point is "This is a bad law." The "reform" law is pork and corporate welfare. Real reform would eliminate the State licensing cartel for doctors. Due to State licensing requirements, there's an artificial shortage of doctors. This reduces supply, drives up prices, and reduces quality.

The mainstream media debate of healthcare "reform" never mentions "The State licensing cartel for doctors is evil!" It's an unstated hidden assumption, that State licensing requirements are beneficial. Most people are so pro-State brainwashed to blame other causes, that they won't even consider the evil State licensing cartel. In typical zombie fashion, people reflexively shut down their brain when I say "The State doctor licensing cartel is evil!"

Most laws have a "severability" clause. That means "If one part is ruled Unconstitutional, then the rest of the law still applies." The healthcare "reform" law has no "severability" clause. If the "individual mandate" part is struck down, then the whole law is nullified.

Is the "individual mandate" Constitutional? Actually, it's only slightly more evil than things the Federal government already does. Via the income tax, the Federal government has unlimited taxation power. This gives them power to encourage or heavily tax anything.

Right now, Congress "forces" people to buy a house, via the mortgage tax deduction. Congress "forces" people to save for retirement, via IRA/401(k) tax deduction. Congress forces people to participate in the Social Security ponzi scam.

Under the new law, there's an income tax hike. If you own a "qualifying" health insurance plan, then you get a tax deduction. Legally, it's not much different from all the tax loopholes that already exist. It's similar to the mortgage or IRA tax deductions.

When passing the law, politicians said "This is not a tax hike." If you look at the text of the law, the "individual mandate" was implemented via a tax hike. When arguing in defense of the law, the "income tax" argument will be used.

There are lawsuits regarding "Is this law Constitutional?" These lawsuits will be resolved by the Supreme Court. 2/9 of the judges were appointed by President Obama. There's an obvious conflict of interest.

Supreme Court judges generally rule in favor of expanding Federal government power. You don't get picked to be a Supreme Court judge unless you're a thoroughly brainwashed pro-State troll. A Supreme Court judge's job is to invent clever excuses that justify expanding State power.

The dispute over a Federal government law will be decided by the Federal Supreme Court. There's an obvious conflict of interest. Supreme Court judges are chosen by the President and Congress. They're on the same team. They're members of the same criminal gang.

Via the income tax, the Federal government has virtually unlimited power. That could justify anything, including forcing people to do X via a tax credit.

There's an obvious conflict of interest. Supreme Court judges and politicians are drawn from the same group of insiders. Any dispute with the government is resolved by the government. The slaves are SOL when State thugs abuse their power. It's a monopoly.

If you suggest that a law is Unconstitutional, Congressmen will laugh at you. They know that there are no limits to what they can do. There were many parts of the original Constitution that protected individual freedom. They have been repealed.

"Is this law Constitutional?" is the wrong question. The important point is "This is a bad law." Unless the State doctor licensing cartel is eliminated, all other "reforms" are a distraction.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Is Fox Business News The Libertarian Channel?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Sputnik Moment Or Visigoth Moment?":

FSK, you may want to check the video below out.

More people are espousing views similar to some of your own.
I'd already noticed that video. It's progress, but still short of the truth.

I regularly google "taxation is theft". It's interesting to see more and more people intelligently explaining "taxation is theft". It's interesting to see statists getting frustrated. Statists say "Why do people keep mentioning 'Taxation is theft!' We already logically refuted that."

They were making the State-approved Libertarian argument, "Government is way too big." They did not say "All taxation is theft, no matter what the purpose." They said "The authority of government is legitimate. However, it's way too big."

Walter Williams also writes for On, they all seem to be market anarchists now. He probably was instructed to "tone it down" for his appearance on Fox Business News.

If you're an Austrian economist, it's frustrating to see how Congress and government mismanaged the monetary system. Austrian economists see flagrant corruption blocking reform. This naturally leads to becoming an anarchist.

I *DON'T* consider myself to be an Austrian economist. On, I got into disagreements leading to me being censored. Therefore, I no longer post there. They said "Mises and Rothbard never wrote about the Compound Interest Paradox. Therefore, it is false." If the Compound Interest Paradox isn't officially part of Austrian economics, then I'm not an Austrian economist.

Andrew Napolitano has the most Libertarian-minded show on TV. However, he's still pro-State trolling. It's encouraging and frustrating at the same time. Andrew Napolitano says "The Constitution is wonderful! If only politicians respected it!" rather than "It's all a scam! The Constitution is not a valid contract. All taxation is theft, no matter what the purpose."

Are some insiders intentionally pushing the limits of the "debate ceiling"? Fox Business News is the most Libertarian-oriented channel. They're still short of the full truth.

The "intellectual distance" between mainstream Democrats/Republicans and Libertarians is much smaller than the "intellectual distance" between Libertarians and agorism. You can be a Libertarian, and not have fully cracked your pro-State brainwashing.

There's a huge intellectual leap from "Government is way to big. If we only vote for the right people, things will get better." to "All taxation is theft. No matter what checks and balances you have, government is fundamentally an extortion racket. A government violence monopoly is immoral and unnecessary."

Andrew Napolitano self-published on the Internet before getting his own show on Fox Business News. I should try that. I'm better at explaining economic fraud than almost everyone. "Promote agorism via standup comedy" seems like a worthwhile experiment. I'm waiting to see if I relapse.

If Andrew Napolitano pushes the "debate ceiling", then maybe, in a few years, it'll be possible to discuss market anarchism in the mainstream media. Andrew Napolitano and Ron Paul are simultaneously frustrating and encouraging. It's frustrating, because they still promote the legitimacy of the State and Constitution. They are pro-State trolling. It's promising, because they are the most freedom-oriented politicians and mainstream media celebrities.

Do government insiders already know the real truth, and they're slowly leaking it?

Monday, February 7, 2011

State Provocateurs In Egypt

This story is interesting. Allegedly, a lot of the rioters/looters in Egypt are provocateurs employed by the State.

The mainstream media reported "Concerned citizens organized, to prevent looting at Egypt's museum." They don't mention "Some of the would-be looters were captured. They had State police ID!"

Some violent looters were captured or killed. After inspection, people discovered State police ID on the looters!

20 years ago, such abuse of State power would have gone unnoticed. Now, evidence of such abuse spreads on the Internet.

Egypt's State thugs responded by shutting down the Internet. They literally shut down the phones and ISPs.

State thugs in the USA are thinking "Great! We should do that!" There's no way to shut down the Internet and telephones, without crippling the economy. If the Internet were shut down, the stock market wouldn't be able to open.

Even more amusing, some looters were caught with guns saying "Made in the USA." Here's a tip. When you give weapons to a 3rd world dictator, don't print "Made in the USA" on the guns.

When the Soviet Union fell, the first countries to fall were Eastern European countries. Similarly, as the US government falls, Middle East puppet governments will be the first to fall.

However, rioting and protesting is pointless. One famous Statist said "Let them protest all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."

A nonviolent non-State-approved protest is *IMPOSSIBLE*. Undercover cops will pose as protesters. They will make sure things get violent.

A riot or protest doesn't threaten the State's core monopoly. In fact, the riot makes people eager for State police to restore order.

Eventually, the riot energy is dispersed. Egypt's current figurehead leader is done. A new puppet will be installed. The scam of the State will continue.

Here's another interesting story. Allegedly, the Mubarak family has a net worth of $40B-$70B. The State banking system makes it easy for a 3rd world dictator to park assets offshore, when he needs to flee the country. That money represents stolen property. Mubarak used his political power to profit for himself and his family.

Representative democracy is fake freedom, rather than true freedom. Most/all politicians believe "Taxation is not theft! The way to help people is to use violence to force them to obey!" An election is a fake choice between insider-chosen candidates.

A riot or protest is a waste if time. If you're serious about protesting the State, start an agorist off-the-books business. A riot might make you feel good. It's a waste of time and energy. A protest doesn't threaten the State's core monopoly. A political protest is like a group of slaves begging their master to be less cruel.

Egypt's crisis will be "solved" by replacing the current leader figurehead with a new figurehead. The real leaders usually pull the strings in private. The real leaders usually aren't publicly known.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Jon Stewat Hypocrisy

This story was interesting. Chuck Schumer made an embarrassing gaffe.

So I would urge my Republican colleagues, no matter how strong they feel — you know, we have three branches of government: we have a House, the Senate, we have a President, and all three of us are going to have to come together and give some. But it is playing with fire to risk the shutting down of the government, just as it is playing with fire to risk not paying the debt ceiling.
The correct answer is "The USA has three branches of government: the corporations, the lawyers, and the police."

I saw Chuck Schumer on the subway in November. He was promoting a local candidate. I was able to tell right away that he was criminally insane. It was very disturbing. I wasn't able to notice based on seeing him on TV.

Whenever Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck say something stupid, Jon Stewart mercilessly ridicules them. It is hypocritical, that Jon Stewart didn't ridicule Chuck Schumer for this mistake.

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Five Year Plan

In the Soviet Union, State leaders would talk about their "Five Year Plan". They announced all planned production for the next five years.

In Communist USA, State leaders don't plan that long! A CEO talks about his "Three Month Plan" or "Twelve Month Plan". A politician doesn't plan past the next election.

Instead of the Politburo controlling the economy, instead the US economy is controlled by a handful of CEOs.

CEOs and politicians suffer from the Principal-Agent problem. They control resources they don't technically own. A corporation is owned by the shareholders, but the CEO acts like he's the sole owner. Tax revenue is owned by the people, but politicians treat it like their own personal money.

The incentive is for the CEO to use short-term tricks to push up the share price. He cashes out his options/equity and moves on to a better job. Some other fool is stuck with the losses. A "hot CEO" will switch jobs every few years. One example is John Thain.

A pro-State troll says "Option grants align the interests of the CEO with the interests of the shareholders." That is false. An option is worth nothing if the share price is flat. An option is a huge windfall if the share price doubles. The incentive is for the CEO to use tricks to push up the share price. Besides, if the share price doubles, is that genuine growth or merely compensation for inflation? Via inflation, any CEO with an option grant receives a huge windfall.

I pointed out to someone "The State financial system is falling apart. It's better to learn tangible useful skills, rather than learning financial tricks." He replied "So what? I don't care as long as my bonus check clears. If the system falls apart 5 years later, why should I care? I'm going to steal as much as I can in those five years until the system collapses."

This is why the current system is doomed. The incentive is to maximize short term profits. If there's a collapse in five years, that's someone else's problem. In the meantime, you've cashed out. Bernard Madoff is the role model, and not some who actually does useful work.

In the Soviet Union, State leaders bragged about their "Five Year Plan". In Communist USA, State leaders don't plan past the next election or earnings statement. The incentive is to maximize short-term profit, while wrecking long-term value. That is unsustainable. It's a consequence of the Principal-Agent problem. State leaders control resources they don't actually own. The incentive is to steal as much as you can, and dump problems on the next guy.

There isn't any long-term planning. The CEO isn't really looking past the next earnings statement. The politician isn't planning past the next election.

Friday, February 4, 2011

Wicked And Copyright Law

There's a book and play called "Wicked". It's "The Wizard of Oz", told from the viewpoint of the Wicked Witch of the West.

The copyright for "The Wizard of Oz" has expired. That book and play don't violate anyone's copyright.

Unfortunately, Congress has repeatedly retroactively extended copyright law. For most things written in the 20th century, the copyright has not expired. Most copyrights are owned by large corporations.

Copyright law has been used for censorship. It's been used to prevent people from publishing books that retell popular stories.

Here are examples of books that were quashed by copyright law:

  1. the wind done gone (was actually published)
  2. 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye ("Catcher in the Rye" unauthorized sequel)
  3. an unauthorized Harry Potter encyclopedia ("Harry Potter Lexicon)
Everyone can make their own version of these stories:\
  1. Shakespeare
  2. Sherlock Holmes
  3. A Christmas Carol
  4. Mark Twain (notably, removing the "n-word")
If I tried to write my own story based on Superman, Batman, Tolkein, Dr. Seuss, Charlie Brown, The Muppets, or anything from the 20th century, I would be sued for copyright infringement. Congress has repeatedly retroactively extended copyright law.

Many popular stories are now part of everyone's shared culture. It's wrong for them to still be copyrighted.

"Wicked" is an example of a clever story. It's only possible because the "Wizard of Oz" copyright has expired.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Chart Innumeracy

I see a lot of financial charts cited on many websites. They have a common flaw. Here is an example:

Do you see the arithmetic flaw?


In financial charts, the percentage gain matters, and not the absolute gain. The y-axis should be a log scale and not a linear scale. Given exponential growth over time (due to inflation), a linear scale exaggerates recent changes and makes old changes seem small.

Here's the same data copied from Wikipedia.

Here's the same information on a log-scale.

See! The log-scale makes a big difference! On the linear scale, the "national debt increase rate" is dramatically accelerating. On the log scale, the "rate of national debt increase" seems constant.

By default, Yahoo finance uses a logarithmic y-axis, which is correct. Compare a 20 year dow chart or S&P chart with and without a log-scale y-axis. (you have to go to the page and edit the settings) It makes a big difference! Yahoo Finance uses the correct y-axis scale (logarithmic) by default.

When viewing a financial chart over a 1+ year period, the y-axis should *ALWAYS* be a log-scale. If you have a linear y-axis, you're distorting the magnitude of recent changes. In financial analysis, you usually care about % gain or loss and not absolute gain or loss. Therefore, the y-axis of financial charts should be a log-scale.

It is offensive that I see this common basic math error. When viewing financial data over many years, the y-axis should be a log-scale and not linear-scale. If you use a linear scale, you're exaggerating recent changes and diminishing older changes.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at