This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Sunday, July 31, 2011

APMEX Fractional Silver and Shire Silver

Silver prices are rising. Some people are using silver as barter money.

However, 1 oz silver is worth $40+, too much for small transactions. Some people say "Use junk silver for change!" (pre-1964 government silver coins) However, no new junk silver is being minted.

Also, junk silver doesn't exactly divide into 1 ounce. A crude approximation is $0.35 of junk silver per 0.25 ounces. Also, many "junk silver" coins are worn from circulating, giving them a current melt value less than the value when minted.

APMEX has started offering fractional silver rounds for 0.1, 0.25, and 0.5 ounces.

Here is an example:

0.5 oz$23.02
0.25 oz$12.21
0.1 oz$5.30

Notice that a 1 oz round is 9% more than spot. That's due to the labor cost of converting a 1000 oz bar into rounds.

Similarly, two 0.5 oz rounds is worth more than a single 1.0 oz round. That's due to the labor of making the coin.

This is a slight problem when using silver as barter money. There's a loss when you make change.

There is one way to fix this. If the coin weights were 1.0 oz, 0.473 oz, 0.223 oz, and 0.082 oz, then the coin values would match. Then, the 1.0 oz coin would have equal value to 2, 4, or 10 of the smaller coins.

Alternatively, the person making the change could just accept the loss.

Shire silver is experimenting with fractional silver also. They are cutting silver wire and laminating it. However, they're doing it wrong.

"One gram laminated silver" costs $2.10. "Five grams laminated silver" costs $10.25. The 5 gram card should be much cheaper than 5X the 1 gram card, due to the cost of making the card.

Also, they could have picked the weights better. How many 5 gram cards equals an ounce of silver? As I write this, spot silver is $40. Does that mean 5 "five gram silver" cards equals one silver round? However, there are 31.1 grams in a troy ounce. That means the fee for making the shire silver card is 1.2 grams of silver each, or $1.5. That's a pretty hefty transaction fee.

I'd like to see the "shire silver" redo their weights so that it came out to multiples of a silver round, to facilitate making change. (I.e, cards valued at 1/5 and 1/10 of an ounce of silver, but containing less than that amount of silver due to the cost of making the card.)

Also, the transaction fee for "shire silver" is too high.

If I buy 6 "five gram" shire silver cards, that costs $60.30 for about an ounce of silver. If I buy 10 "1/10 oz" APMEX fractional silver coins, I pay $53.00 for an ounce of silver. Clearly, APMEX fractional silver coins are superior to "shire silver".

I briefly looked into possibly using copper rounds for change. There are no 1-10 oz copper rounds available at a reasonable price. I investigated small-denomination copper rounds/bars. They all include ridiculous premiums to spot, making them unusable.

One way to protest State financial corruption is to work off-the-books and use gold and silver as barter money. However, there are minor problems when making change smaller than 1 oz of silver. For small-denomination coins, the cost of making the coin is a substantial percentage of the price. The smaller-denomination coins should have a weight so that they're round fractions of 1 oz silver in value.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

What Is The Fair Credit Rating For Treasury Debt?

Due to an impasse in Congress, there is a risk of technical default on Treasury debt. "Technical default" means "payments not made of time".

Even a technical default can be partially corrected. For example, bondholders can be given extra accrued interest when a budget deal is reached. That would be "fair".

Due to the political risk of a technical default, Treasury debt may be downgraded. However, that's a smokescreen that obscures the true issue.

The credit rating agencies only exists because of the government. There's a law that says that certain businesses may only invest in high-rated debt. The three biggest credit rating agencies (S&P, Moody's, Fitch) are effectively given a monopoly/oligopoly by the government.

The biggest credit rating agencies have a lucrative business only because of government. Do you expect them to disobey their master? Of course Treasury debt has a great rating!

There's a big fallacy for the Treasury debt credit rating. The credit rating agencies are only measuring "risk of technical default", the risk you won't get dividends and payments on time. The real risk is "default by inflation", a risk that the credit rating agencies completely ignore.

The Federal Reserve has a credit monopoly. They fix interest rates artificially low. The Federal Reserve directly fixes Treasury interest rates. The Federal Reserve indirectly fixes private debt rates, because banks can borrow at the Fed Funds Rate (0.25%) and buy other bonds. Due to negative real interest rates, almost every bond investment is a lousy deal. A corporate bond interest rate of 5%-8% is insufficient compensation for real inflation.

The US government is the issuer for dollars. However, the US government has delegated money-creation power to the Federal Reserve. The US government can always create more bonds and more paper to keep refinancing its debts.

As long as US government debt is in dollars, a technical default can never occur. The only way a technical default can occur is if Congress can't agree on a budget.

The real Treasury default is by inflation. Treasury yields are 0%-4.5%, and real inflation is 20%-30% or more. That is a default rate of 1%-2%+ per month.

Banks don't mind inflation. Banks like inflation, because their underwater assets become valuable. Banks profit from leverage, making the inflation rate irrelevant.

Suppose a bank owns a $1M mortgage on a house worth $200k. That's $800k underwater. Suppose there is 100% inflation. Now, there's a $1M mortgage on a house worth $400k. That's only $600k underwater. If there's sufficient inflation, the bank is bailed out and the house is worth more than the mortgage. Therefore, banks like inflation. If there's high inflation, there's practically no risk in lending to people, because the collateral rises in value even if your foreclose. High inflation makes it easy to repay loans with devalued dollars.

Suppose a bank borrows from the Federal Reserve at 0.25% and buys Treasury debt yielding 1.25%. With 100x leverage, that's a profit rate of 100%. It makes no difference if inflation is 30%.

As an individual, you'd be an idiot to buy Treasury debt. You return is much less than inflation. Individuals only are allowed unleveraged Treasury debt investments. (Even if you did try to create your own investment fund, you wouldn't be allowed as high leverage as "too big to fail" banks. The Primary Dealers will always be able to borrow more cheaply than everyone else.)

There is a continuous default on Treasury debt due to inflation. This is a guaranteed loss of 1%-2%+ per month. Taking into account the guaranteed default via inflation, the proper credit rating for Treasury debt is not AAA; it's F.

Friday, July 29, 2011

The Carried Interest Tax Loophole

President Obama recently gave a primetime speech. One thing he said was (paraphrasing) "We should close the carried interest tax loophole, but the stubborn Republicans are blocking it." The Daily Show mentioned this excerpt.

One of my coworkers worked for many hedge funds, and he didn't know about the carried interest tax loophole. A lot of these stupid laws and loopholes persist, because most people don't know about them.

The carried interest tax loophole enables a hedge fund manager to pay ridiculously low tax rates, even though he's earning ridiculously high fees.

A hedge fund manager gets a huge "management fee", typically 2/20. "2/20" means a fee of 2% of assets, plus 20% of any gains. Already, you should see this is flagrant price gouging.

Why do hedge managers get away with such high fees? Some are idiot wealthy clients with parasitic financial advisers. A lot of hedge fund money is pension money.

Due to the Principal-Agent Problem, the incentive is for the pension manager to line his pockets at the expense of beneficiaries. Here's how it works. The pension manager says "I'll invest $1B in your fund if you hire my brother-in-law for $1M/year.", or another such under-the-table arrangement. Therefore, most of the money invested in hedge funds is *EXPLICITLY* for the purpose of skimming wealth. If the hedge fund manager makes high-risk bets, how can anyone know if he did a great job, lousy job, got lucky, or was unlucky?

Before I realized that the State financial system was a scam, I considered trying to become a hedge fund manager. Unfortunately, "hedge fund manager" is a corruption game that only insiders may play. Even if I'd be a top performing manager, I'm barred from that career path. Now that I'm more enlightened, if I were an honest financial planner, I'd advise people to be 100% unleveraged in gold, for which they don't need an expensive manager.

I'll get back to the carried interest tax loophole. The hedge fund manager charges a high 2/20 management fee. Instead of taking the management fee in cash, the hedge fund manager gets paid via newly issued shares of his fund.

So what? The difference is the carried interest tax loophole. If the hedge fund manager took his fee in cash, then it would be ordinary income. By taking his fee in new shares, it's a capital gain!

According to the carried interest tax loophole, when the fund manager takes his fee in new shares, it's treated as shares purchased with a cost basis of zero. If those shares are held for at least a year, then it's a long-term capital gain (max 15% rate) instead of ordinary income (35% plus 2.9% Medicare).

So, a tax rate of 37.9% is converted via the carried interest tax loophole to 15%.

It's actually a bigger tax break than that. For ordinary income, you owe tax *IMMEDIATELY*. For carried interest loophole shares, the manager doesn't owe tax *UNTIL HE SELLS*.

For example, suppose the hedge fund manager holds the shares for 5 years before selling. Then, his annualized tax rate isn't 15%. It's closer to 3%! In addition to the lower tax rate, the capital gains treatment allows the hedge fund manager to defer realizing income.

If the fund manager uses a trust or other tricks, he can completely dodge taxes. The fund manager can hold the shares for 10 years, owing zero taxes and accumulating value as the shares appreciate. Then, he can donate the shares to a charitable trust that he controls.

When the charitable trust sells the shares, that isn't a taxable transaction. The hedge fund manager hires his children and other relatives to be trustees of the charity, drawing a salary.

The correct answer is "All taxation is theft!" However, the carried interest tax loophole is an embarrassment that should be eliminated. It's offensive that hedge fund managers receive humongous direct and indirect State subsidies, and then dodge taxes on their stolen booty.

As usual, hedge fund managers spend a ton of money lobbying to prevent Congress from closing this loophole. Most people don't know about the "carried interest tax loophole". State laws and regulations are filled with loopholes and tricks like this.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Anders Behring Breivik

Anders Behring Breivik committed a horrible mass-murder in Oslo, Norway.

(I will refer to him as ABB, to avoid repeating his full name. You know someone is a serious criminal when the media refers to him by all 3 names, including middle name.)

The State solution to any problem is violence. Mass-murder is a type of pro-State trolling. A mass murderer is merely following the State role model for problem solving. According to State propaganda, violence is the solution to every problem. When you notice that the State is one big scam, the only solution is violence.

Suppose that everyone who starts to realize the State is a scam resorts to violence. Then, it's very easy for State police to pick off and eliminate the people who start to sense bits of the truth. It is very traumatic, to realize that almost everything you've been taught is a lie. I'm referring to both logical lies ("Taxation is not theft!") and emotional lies ("You should let psychopaths control you. You should think and feel in certain ways.")

Some people say "ABB was an idiot." That's not true. This attack was *EXTREMELY* well planned. ABB was very intelligent, but misdirected towards evil results.

What is the evidence that this was a well-planned attack? First, he spent weeks/months preparing explosives and practicing. He had a very scientific approach, when determining what type of explosives would work. He experimented with explosives.

Second, it was a two-stage attack. First, he set off a bomb near a government building. The second stage of his plan depended on the chaos caused by the first stage. Exploiting the chaos of the bombing, he pretended to be a policeman. He went into a summer camp, pretending to be a policeman helping with the bombing aftermath, and murdered people. That's an extremely well-prepared plan.

He targeted that summer camp, because it was organized by the ruling Labor party. The camp was attended by children of Labor party insiders. The summer camp was promoting the Labor flavor of statism.

ABB published a 1500+ "manifesto" on the Internet before the attack. Whenever I see such a document, I wonder "Did someone edit it, before releasing it to the general public?"

There was one interesting excerpt, also cited on Reason.

I noticed the woman who celebrated her birthday was working as a judge. A majority of the people at the party where jurists - judges and lawyers in the public sector. I chatted with most of the people at the party. It really struck me how incredibly politically correct everyone were, as if they were all members of the Norwegian Labour Party. I have never before experienced a group of people who are completely freaked out about discussing political issues relating to multiculturalism and Islamisation. I noticed a majority of these people were Labour Party sympathisers. I guess they don’t really have a choice considering the fact that they are all climbing the public sector hierarchy. A thought occurred. The judges during WW2 who had party affiliations with the NS or any affiliation with the SS were prosecuted and imprisoned. Is it therefore only fair that judges of high rank with party affiliations to the Labour Party and the other parties who support multiculturalism (and therefore Islamisation) is to be considered category B or C traitors? They obviously have a considerable responsibility and should be considered traitors of their people.
(BTW, his "category of traitor" classification would correspond roughly to psychopath-Madoff (highest level of traitor), medium-skill parasite (high-ranking bureaucrat), low-skill parasite (low-ranking unionized State employee), and intelligent-but-deluded-and-manipulated.)

ABB went to a meeting for the Labor party. He met judges, lawyers, State employees, and other insiders. ABB was impressed with how evil they were.

This is exactly what happened to Jared Loughner. He saw that Gabrielle Giffords was evil, and became obsessed with her. He met Gabrielle Giffords, and was shocked that she was evil instead of honest and intelligent. ABB noticed that Labor party leaders were almost all evil, and became obsessed with them. ABB met some Labor party insiders, and was shocked that they were evil instead of honest and intelligent.

The actual details of the discussion are meaningless (anti-Islamic). The important point is that they had evil/parasitic/psychopathic body language. They were rude to him when he questioned their beliefs.

Jared Loughner became obsessed with Gabrielle Giffords, because she was one of the most evil people he had ever met, and she was a Congresswoman! What a farce! ABB became obsessed with the Labor party, when he saw that they were a group of evil people, pretending to be honest rulers.

I'm getting better at analyzing writing style. Pro-State troll writing has a certain pattern. Intelligent writing also has a certain pattern. I've read many blogs by many different people. To avoid wasting time reading nonsense, I'm able to almost instantly identify if an author is intelligent or not.

I tried to read ABB's writing, his 1500+ page document. I couldn't read it. It was like reading a blank sheet of paper. It seemed like there was no content at all.

ABB's writing was like a blank sheet of paper. This is a good indication of his mental state. ABB had correctly determined "Everything about mainstream politics is one big lie. Everything I know is a lie." However, he did not find an alternative philosophy. (At one point, he does dismiss libertarians. However, he's writing about the pro-State troll version of libertarianism.) (The pro-State troll version of libertarianism includes advocating for the rights of large corporations. Really, large corporations only exist due to collusion with government.)

ABB probably never had heard about market anarchism or agorism. He'd successfully unlearned his false beliefs, blanking his mind. He never found a replacement philosophy.

Tragedies like Jared Loughner and ABB may have been preventable. If they were exposed to market anarchism instead of uniform mainstream media lies, they might have focused their resistance elsewhere on something useful. On the other hand, from the Statist viewpoint, it's better for disgruntled people to commit senseless acts of violence, rather than trying effective resistance.

Paradoxically, State insiders like it when disgruntled people resort to violence. That makes it easy to dismiss their concerns. It's better for partially-unplugged people to eliminate themselves by violent crime, rather than becoming fully-unplugged and having a more effective pursuit of freedom.

There's another interesting aspect. Norway has a law saying "maximum of 21 years in prison, no matter how serious the crime". There's no death penalty. That's a stark contrast to the USA, where you can almost get a life sentence for nonviolent victimless crimes.

However, Norway's law has a sure-to-be-invoked loophole. If someone is "not mentally competent" or a "risk of re-offending", then they can be detained indefinitely. That makes it surprising that his "lawyer" is advocating an "insanity defense". If ABB is ruled insane, he can be jailed indefinitely! If ruled sane, the maximum sentence is 21 years. ABB is better off with a "guilty" verdict than an "insane" verdict!

Also notice that ABB is defiantly saying "I killed them because they deserved to die!" After several years of torture and solitary confinement, he may change his attitude. State insiders prevented ABB from having a public hearing, because they didn't want him promoting his views. (Youtube also banned a video of him explaining his motivation. Here is a link.)

THAT VIDEO IS OBVIOUSLY A FAKE. I CALL SHENANIGANS. Briefly browsing both the 1500 page document and watching the video, I'M SURE BOTH WERE NOT WRITTEN BY THE SAME PERSON. Who makes a web video, and doesn't appear in it? He didn't even do a voiceover. Notice how both Jared Loughner and ABB made videos promoting their reasoning WITHOUT APPEARING IN THE VIDEO THEMSELVES. I suspect that someone else made the video, and attributed him as author. Notice that ABB is given no opportunity to publicly explain his viewpoint. The "official" reason for his attack will not be questioned.

If part of the motivation for a spectacular crime is "So I can be famous!", then who would make a video without appearing in it at all themselves?! That makes absolutely no sense!

It's much more politically convenient to say "ABB committed his attack because of anti-Muslim hate." rather than "ABB committed his attack, because he realized that Labor party leaders are a bunch of evil people."

That shows a pretty severe sense of fear, when they don't want to give him *ANY* further opportunity to present his viewpoint. ABB is barred from making any public statements. Therefore, the "official" reason for the attack won't be publicly questioned.

Incidents like this are a symptom of the collapse of the State. 30-50 years ago, ABB would have found a good job or started a business, and gotten married. In the present, an intelligent hardworking person has trouble fitting in. This causes them to turn to violent crime and revenge against a corrupt system.

Many people have pointed out that "get a decent job, have a decent salary, have a decent career" is no longer a reliable strategy for meeting women and getting married. Women can earn a living via the State. Many female-oriented "professional" career tracks, like HR and welfare workers, were created to funnel State wealth to women. When women can be supported via the State, they don't need a reliable hardworking man. Literally, part of the money stolen from me via taxes is used to subsidize women so that they don't feel a need to get married to a decent guy.

This is a very serious problem. The economy is controlled by psychopaths and parasites. Someone intelligent and hardworking like ABB has almost no opportunity to get a good job or start a business.

It is a very serious problem, when intelligent people conclude that violent crime is better than getting a productive job.

A determined intelligent person will always find a way to commit mass-murder. No matter what precautions you take, someone can frustrate them.

I've nearly completely cracked my pro-State brainwashing. I'm able to think like a serial killer, but I wouldn't do that. I'm interested in agorism and effective civil disobedience and ignoring stupid laws. Direct violence against State insiders is a waste of time and resources.

Also, ABB was taking steroids, which probably was a significant factor. He may have been taking other drugs. I saw articles saying "ABB was taking drugs!", but no mention of specific drugs. As a concession to pharmaceutical corporations, the specific drugs are not mentioned. (Levi Aron gave his victim Seroquel, a drug I'm currently taking. Contrary to the other drugs I tried, Seroquel seems to be decent.)

Another interesting point is how passive the teenage victims were. They could have rushed ABB and stopped him sooner. As usual, if some of the victims were armed, they might have stopped him before he killed so many people.

Another interesting point is that some people are already saying "This is a false flag operation." That's silly. I believe the official explanation. It's one clever disgruntled person acting alone. (Having zero accomplices helps. There's nobody to point out how stupid your plan is. There's nobody to turn you in.) However, his 1500 page "manifesto" and video may have been edited or written by others, before being publicly released.

Also, ABB mentioned that Vladimir Putin was one of his role models. Putin was offended by the comparison. Putin said "I don't take anyone seriously until they're responsible for at least 10,000 deaths."

Another interesting bit is that ABB played World of Warcraft (WoW). A pro-State troll says "Therefore, WoW is evil." One person who played WoW was a criminal. Therefore, every WoW player is a potential criminal. Is a regular WoW player more likely or less likely to be a violent criminal, compared to the overall population? I'm pretty sure the answer is "less likely". Pro-State trolls will falsely promote "X is evil!" when one criminal also did X, especially when X is something that offends Statists. Statists don't like WoW, because people are forming alternate communities.

Summarizing, there are several key points.
  1. ABB is not an idiot. He's very intelligent. This was a very well-planned attack.
  2. Reading ABB's 1500- page manifesto was like reading a blank sheet of paper. ABB had successfully realized mainstream political debate is a lie. He didn't find an alternate philosophy. It is possible that "manifesto" was not actually written by ABB.
  3. If ABB had heard about agorism or market anarchism, he might have focused on better resistance rather than pointless violence.
  4. ABB met some Labor party insiders, saw how evil they were, and became obsessed with them. It is very disturbing to see State leaders, and realize that they're evil/psychopaths/parasites, rather than being honest and intelligent.
  5. Violence against State insiders accomplishes nothing. There's always someone else available, just as evil, to take their place.
  6. In a time of greater economic freedom, ABB would have found a decent job or started a business, and gotten married. Due to a corrupt economy, someone intelligent like ABB had few options. Therefore, he turned to violent crime.
  7. I can sort of think like a serial killer. Like a serial killer, I've realized that almost everything I've been taught is a lie. However, I'm focusing on more effective resistance.
  8. The shooting victims were totally passive. They didn't try to rush him or stop him. The victims were unarmed, making it easy pickings for one guy with a gun.
  9. State police only clean up after crime. Free market police could better identify people like ABB and help them before they commit serious crimes. There's no personal relationship between police and their customers. "Help a potential criminal" doesn't necessarily mean kidnapping. Under a State system, "stop potential criminals" becomes logically equivalent to "kidnap and torture them". With free market police, there'd be more levels of intermediate help available. With free market police, there would be a more personal relationship between the police and the people they're supposed to be protecting. Free market police would have a greater incentive to identify disturbed people before they commit serious crimes. In the present, the police themselves are insane, limiting their ability to aggressively prevent crime.
  10. Whenever I hear about someone like ABB or Jared Loughner or Thomas James Ball, I think that I could have talked them out of it, if I had an opportunity to explain my philosophy to them.
  11. Some people are saying that ABB is a false flag operation. That's a predictable pattern. Whenever bad thing X happens, someone always says it's an inside job.
  12. The anti-Muslim hate isn't ABB's real concern. His real motivation is that, when he met Labor party insiders, he was shocked to see they were evil/psychopaths/parasites. They were rude to him, when he questioned their beliefs. The State media is hyping the anti-Muslim aspect, because that suits their propaganda agenda.
  13. Buildings that house State leaders are usually well-guarded. There are plenty of softer targets. You can't have military-style guards everywhere.
  14. His video is obviously a fake. What type of person makes a video without themselves appearing in it? Someone made that video after the attack, and attributed him as the author. Anti-Muslim hate is being retconned as the reason for the attack. The real reason for the attack was that he met Labor party leaders and realized how evil they were. Briefly browsing both the 1500 page document and watching the video, I'M SURE BOTH WERE NOT WRITTEN BY THE SAME PERSON.
The crime by ABB was pretty horrible. As the State has greater corruption, it's harder for honest and intelligent people to earn a decent living. Frustrated, they will turn to violence. No matter what precautions you take, a determined intelligent person will succeed at mass-murder.

In a time of greater economic freedom, an intelligent non-insider had plenty of opportunity. They would do productive work rather then crime. They might start a business, or work as an employee in someone else's small business. By sharply limiting economic freedom, intelligent people are frustrated and turn to crime.

ABB correctly sensed massive widespread corruption among State leaders. However, he picked pointless violence instead of better resistance tactics. His "manifesto" and "video" may have been written by others and retroactively attributed to him.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Time Travel "Impossible"

This story is stupid. Scientists in Hong Kong claim to have proven that time travel is impossible.

This type of research gets good headlines. It's actually very silly.

This is false. It is *IMPOSSIBLE* to prove that time travel is impossible. It is *IMPOSSIBLE* to prove that faster-than-light travel is impossible. You can never be 100% sure that you didn't make a mistake somewhere.

The fallacy is that you can never be sure of "I understand the laws of physics perfectly." There always can be loopholes and special circumstances you missed. Even current mainstream physics has problems, such as combining relativity and quantum mechanics.

It's impossible to be 100% sure of anything. For example, a Statist says "I'm 100% absolutely sure taxation is not theft!" That leads to problems, because you're trapped in your false beliefs.

The correct way to analyze real-world problems is with Bayesian Reasoning, and not true/false logic. A more accurate headline, but less sensational, is "It's extremely unlikely that time travel is possible." It's *IMPOSSIBLE* to be 100% sure of anything. In fact, it's impossible to prove that the generally-accepted axioms of arithmetic aren't contradictory. You can never be 100% sure that there's some contradiction you missed.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Cenk Uygur And State Censorship

This story was interesting. Cenk Uygur was fired from MSNBC, to be replaced with the racist Al Sharpton.

MSNBC executives claim that Cenk Uygur is a disgruntled whiner ex-employee. Cenk Uygur claims that he is the victim of censorship. I believe Cenk Uygur.

Cenk Uygur's "lucrative offer" from MSNBC probably included heavy censorship demands. He refused.

There is a key difference between now and 30 years ago. 30 years ago, if a mainstream media personality was fired and blacklisted, you'd never hear from him again. The Internet changes things. That allows Cenk Uygur to tell his side of the story, uncensored. Cenk Uygur can directly connect with his fans on the Internet. If Cenk Uygur feels too restrained by evil censors, he can self-publish on the Internet.

Self-publishing on the Internet, you won't make mega-millions like you will on the mainstream media. However, you can earn a decent living wage. Personally, I'm only making $5/month with AdBrite and blogging. I'm going to try other things in 2-3 years.

MSNBC has a State-backed monopoly. It's an oligopoly shared with CNN/Fox/CBS/ABC. It's effectively illegal to start a new channel and compete with them.

Very well-connected insiders control the mainstream media. They have an interest in preserving the scam of the State as it exists now. Anyone who questions the State, even partially, must be eliminated. If someone starts asking un-approved questions, then people will start thinking for themselves and questioning other things.

The bosses at MSNBC said "You can't criticize the establishment too much. We *ARE* the establishment." The mainstream media is controlled by a small handful of insiders. They wield incredible power for mass brainwashing. They won't allow some punk subordinate to challenge them.

He said Griffin had called him into his office in April and told him he had been talking to people in Washington and that they did not like Uygur’s tone.
Cenk Uygur's bosses said "Insiders from Washington D.C. are complaining about your show." So what? If insiders get to pick journalists, that makes it a farce rather than an independent check against abuse of State power.

Also notice how it's anonymous "people in Washington" demanding that Cenk Uygur be fired. There is no specific person claiming responsibility for demanding censorship. Cenk Uygur's actual boss is some replaceable lackey following orders.

Journalists are supposed to project the image of questioning authority and thinking outside the box. However, the can't question authority too much. They can't deviate from the script.

MSNBC has made their preference clear. They want fewer people like Cenk Uygur and more people like Al Sharpton. The "market" has spoken.

The mainstream media isn't a free market. It's controlled by a handful of insiders. If I tried making my own mainstream media TV show, I wouldn't be able to convince insiders to carry my content. Only insiders can successfully start a new TV channel. I can make a YouTube channel, but that still won't reach as many people as the mainstream media.

I've never watched Cenk Uygur. Like everyone in the mainstream media, he's probably another flavor of statist, rather than truly promoting freedom. Even that type of partial dissent is not allowed.

This is a pretty regular pattern. Some "journalist" does something that offends insiders. He is disgraced and fired. The Internet is changing things. Incidents like this one erode the mainstream media's remaining credibility. I know that the mainstream media is one big farce.

Unfortunately, many other people are still fooled and clueless. That makes the mainstream media incredibly dangerous. (However, sometimes I wonder. Have some competent insiders realizes that market anarchism is the correct answer? Maybe they're ruining things on purpose.)

Monday, July 25, 2011

Aaron Swartz Indictment

This story is interesting. Aaron Swartz was indicted for computer hacking. While at MIT, he hacked into the JSTOR academic document archive and downloaded documents. He was planning to release them for free on the Internet. Aaron Swartz faces a maximum of 35 years in prison.

He returned the documents. He settled with JSTOR and MIT. Prosecutors indicted him anyway.

Some people say this indictment is silly. Aaron Schwartz settled the civil claim. Therefore, he should not be indicted. MIT and JSTOR publicly said they don't support the indictment.

Unfortunately, that isn't the way the "justice" system works. In a criminal trial, it's "State vs. defendant" and not "victim vs. defendant". Even if the victim doesn't want a prosecution, the State can do it anyway.

This allows MIT and JSTOR to have clean hands. *OF COURSE*, they are going to publicly say they oppose criminal prosecution. They would have negative PR backlash otherwise. It is likely that their executives are privately thinking "HAHAHA!! Stick it to that SOB!", while publicly saying "We don't want this criminal trial to continue." They will testify when subpoenaed.

Aaron Swartz previously got into trouble. At one point, there was an experiment to make PACER available in libraries. PACER is the archive of Federal court filings and decisions; all those documents are public domain. Aaron Swartz wrote a Perl script that sequentially downloaded every document. He got caught, but prosecutors concluded they couldn't do anything, because PACER documents are public domain.

PACER is a paid-by-subscription archive of US court documents. Those documents are public domain, but there is no free alternative. A corporation is "tax farming" by having exclusive rights to sell electronic access to court opinions.

JSTOR is an electronic archive of academic journals. Almost all of that research was paid by tax money or student tuition money. Most of the articles were written, edited, and refereed for free by academics. However, the content is locked down behind the JSTOR paywall.

Professors don't object to JSTOR, because most universities have a site license subscription. Universities receive tax subsidies to pay for JSTOR, making JSTOR a tax farming arrangement.

For example, suppose JSTOR charges the university $100k/year for access. That $100k comes from Federal research grant money. It would be simpler to cut out the middleman, and have the government directly write JSTOR a check. That would be too obviously corrupt.

Lawyers don't mind the PACER fee. They're billing $50+/hr, making the PACER charge a rounding error on their expenses.

The JSTOR content scam means that only professors have electronic access to academic papers. The PACER content scam means that only lawyers have access to published US court opinions. It's a way of excluding non-insiders. The professors don't directly pay the JSTOR fee. Lawyers don't directly pay the PACER fee. The fee is passed on to taxpayers and customers.

The JSTOR archive *SHOULD* be public domain and freely accessible. The PACER archive *SHOULD* be public domain and freely accessible. JSTOR research articles are almost all taxpayer-funded or student-tuition-funded, and therefore should be public domain. PACER articles are written by taxpayer-funded courts.

However, most academic articles are incoherent gibberish, and not worth reading. Most judge's opinions are incoherent gibberish. They have nothing to do with natural law. A judge's job is to make up fancy excuses to justify what he wanted to do anyway.

Most academic articles are about the illusion of science, and not real science. Most judge's opinions are about the illusion of justice, and not real justice.

It is a corrupt arrangement, that a small group of insiders profit from content they didn't write, and didn't pay to write. The executives at PACER and JSTOR are profiting at the expense of everyone else.

The documents in PACER and JSTOR should be public domain and freely available. In that sense, what Aaron Swartz did is heroic.

Aaron Swartz is a political prisoner, in the same way that Bradley Manning is a political prisoner. Prosecutors are eager to stick it to him, because he previously embarrassed them with his PACER download.

HOWEVER, Aaron Swartz did inappropriately use a computer, to download the JSTOR archive. That is a type of trespassing. However, this is a relatively minor offense. There's no point to sending Aaron Schwartz to jail for 35 years, other than to punish him for pointing out the evil of the JSTOR and PACER scam.

Unfortunately, Aaron Swartz' lawyer won't be allowed to make a "jury nullification" argument. He won't be allowed to argue "Really, the documents in the JSTOR archive should be public domain." I wonder if Aaron Swartz will choose to represent himself?

It is hypocritical that Aaron Swartz is facing a 35 year prison term, while Lehman Brothers was not prosecuted for their Repo 105 fraud. It is hypocritical that the lawyers who committed foreclosure fraud were not prosecuted.

This case is an excellent example of a prosecutor abusing his discretion.

There are two justice systems, one for insiders and one for non-insiders. Aaron Swartz' crime is not computer hacking. His real crime was embarrassing the insiders at PACER and JSTOR. They are profiting from documents that really should be public domain.

The prosecutor is abusing his discretion, by demanding a 35 year prison term. Aaron Swartz did commit a minor offense, because he hacked into a computer to download JSTOR documents. That really should be a misdemeanor, and not worth a 35 year prison term; that should be a civil offense and not criminal. Aaron Swartz is a hero, for trying to free the information inappropriately locked down by PACER and JSTOR. (However, almost all academic articles and almost all judge's decisions aren't worth reading.)

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Gold Bubble Or Hyperinflation?

According to this source, the FRN-denominated price of gold has risen 12 out of the last 15 days, 16 out of the last 20 days.

Normally, prices follow a random walk. Gold is going straight up!

On another blog, someone wrote "My mother is thinking of buying some gold!" He said it was weird, when random people start thinking about buying gold. He drew conclusion #1.

Conclusion #1: Many people are seriously considering investing in gold. Therefore, there is a gold bubble.

Conclusion #2: Many people are seriously considering investing in gold. That's a sign of coming hyperinflation. It's a sign indicating the collapse of the State economic system and State paper money.

If you look just at gold and nothing else, you might conclude it's a bubble. If you look at gold/silver, gold/oil, gold/corn, gold/soybeans, or relative to any other commodity, there is no gold bubble. (In fact, the gold/silver ratio has been decreasing over the past few years. If anything, that indicates a silver bubble more than a gold bubble.) If you look at a 10 year price chart, metals and food and commodities are pretty tightly correlated.

If you invest in a checking account, money market account, or Treasury bonds, you're getting ripped off by inflation. You might as well directly write Lloyd Blankfein a check and cut out the middleman.

Corporate bonds are just as bad. The Federal Reserve keeps interest rates artificially low. That affects corporate bonds as well as Treasury debt.

Similarly, the stock market is a ripoff. Stocks pay dividends and have earnings growth. That's the pro-State troll reason to prefer stocks to gold. Unfortunately, stocks also have friction. The CEO pays himself and his buddies a huge salary and bonus. There's lots of waste and fraud and inefficiency. Corporation managers can spend $2M+ bribing policeman, and the CEO won't notice.

A stock earns a dividend, but there's also lots of hidden costs. Inflation leads to a rising stock market. It's still a loss when stocks underperform true inflation. Over the last 10 years, gold has *CRUSHED* the stock market.

So far in 2011, gold is still a couple percent better than the S&P and other stock indices, even though there were some periods where the FRN-denominated price of gold sharply declined.

Gold ETFs are risky. The GLD fund prospectus allows the fund to lend gold to short sellers. In the event of a default, the GLD fund shareholders are stuck with the loss. For any paper gold investment, even one that claims to be 100% full reserve like PHYS, there's always the risk that the fund manager will commit fraud.

In a SHTF scenario, GLD and ETFs and State paper investments will be worthless.

Even real estate is risky. Politicians can jack up property tax rates, stealing your home. Owning a home isn't really an inflation hedge, when inflation is 20% *AND* property taxes go up 20%.

I saw Cramer touting gold. He was advising ETFs and gold mining stocks. He said "Only a fool buys gold and buries it in your backyard." You should buy gold and bury it in your backyard. If the State financial system completely collapses, gold and silver buried in your backyard may be the only investment that preserves its value.

The price of gold and silver, over a 5+ year period, is the most accurate measure of inflation. If you believe "Gold is money!", then that's a definition of inflation.

It is misleading to say "The value of gold is skyrocketing." It is more accurate to say "The value of the paper dollar is crashing."

Saturday, July 23, 2011

50 Hour Workweek

I saw a post elsewhere on "Unions and the 40 hour workweek".

I realized that's a lie, even if your job only requires 40 hours a week of work.

Why? You have to add commuting time. If you spend 2 hours per day commuting, then you have a 10 hour workday and not 8 hours.

Also, most employers don't pay for lunchtime anymore. Add another half hour per day.

Most Americans *NO LONGER* have a 40 hour workweek. A lot of jobs demand 45 or 50 hours. You should add commuting time. You should add unpaid lunch breaks. Many jobs demand more than 40 hours per week.

Friday, July 22, 2011

More Facial Personality Analysis

Some commenters have asked for more analysis of "evaluate personality type based on appearance". (I suspect I can do this better than most policemen.)

Here is another example.

Frank McCourt has the parasitic or psychopathic personality type, as you can see by his nearly vertical laugh lines.

Also, look at his facial asymmetry. Notice how the left side of his face is slightly disfigured (right side in the photo). His left eye is slightly smaller than his right eye. His left cheek also looks a little off.

I'm noticing this subtle disfigurement a lot more than I used to.

Here's the reasoning. For most men, the right side of the body is for logic and the left side is for emotions. If you have the "abused productive" personality type, the right side of your body is partially disfigured. If you have the parasitic personality type, the left side of your body is partially disfigured. (People with high logical intelligence are logically stressed. People with high emotional intelligence are emotionally stressed.)

In women, it's reversed (left=logic, right=emotions).

For homosexual bottoms, it's reversed again. (The reason is that the homosexual bottom takes the opposite of his parasitic partner. Homosexual tops are people who want to be parasites, but aren't intelligent/attractive enough to dominate someone of the opposite sex.)

Here is another example. Look at President Obama's facial wrinkle pattern. You can tell he had plastic surgery. His facial wrinkles and laugh lines move in an unnatural pattern when he talks.

You can read personality type by looking at laugh line patterns and partial facial disfigurement. There is no absolute proof, but these are indications.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Insanity Defense

This story is interesting. In a high-profile crime, Levi Aron murdered 8 year old boy Leiby Kletzky.

There is overwhelming evidence that Levi Aron did it. The boy's remains were in his apartment. He confessed to police.

Levi Aron's lawyers are preparing an "insanity defense".

The "insanity defense" is stupid. Everyone is responsible for what they do.

However, the "insanity defense" plays a role in the justice system farce. It gives defense lawyers something to do. In a case like this, the defense lawyers can't argue "The police got the wrong guy!" That would be too obviously silly. The "insanity defense" lets the defense lawyers pretend they're advocating on behalf of their client.

Of course, you don't need a corrupt legal system biased against defendants in a criminal trial like this one. A "guilty" verdict would be fair.

This bit was interesting:

Levi Aron, 35, had trouble making eye contact and clammed up when confronted with uncomfortable questions, his lawyers said Monday.
As I mentioned in "Two Kinds Of Psychopaths", Levi Aron is an "abused productive" person who couldn't fit in. He is not a psychopath in the sense of Bernard Madoff.

An intelligent "abused productive" person would get a decent job and otherwise fit in somewhat. Levi Aron had the "abused productive" personality type *AND* wasn't that smart.

Most people who commit violent crime have the "abused productive" personality type. They couldn't fit in and turned to violent crime. A parasite can usually get what he wants by emotionally manipulating people. Even a weak parasite will find a weak "abused productive" person to manipulate and control.

In this case, I suspect Levi Aron had some kind of suppressed homosexual desire. That's why he focused on a little boy. Based on my observations, homosexuality is a mental illness.

The mainstream media is downplaying "Levi Aron sexually molested the boy!" aspect of the story. The mainstream media is promoting homosexuality. That aspect of this murder can't be mentioned.

If you want a good example of "homosexuality is a mental illness", look at Jose Antonio Vargas on Thursday, July 14th's Colbert Report. If you look carefully, you can see that his facial gestures are the mirror image of a typical man. People who are "abused productive" and homosexual bottoms tend to have inverted polarity, compared to a typical straight person.

(Compared to before, I'm able to notice subtle tiny asymmetries in people's faces. These asymmetries are an indication of personality type. It was a shocking thing to suddenly start noticing this. That's probably why people with a "mental illness" are frightened when they watch TV. They're noticing things they didn't notice before.)

The "insanity defense" is stupid. Everyone is responsible for what they do. It was very traumatic for me to discover that almost everything I knew was a lie. I never murdered anyone or hurt anyone, even though I had a panic attack.

The "insanity defense" gives defense lawyers something to do. In a case like this one, the defense lawyers can't argue "The police got the wrong guy!" A lawyer who said that would obviously be a fool. There's too much evidence.

The "insanity defense" gives State-appointed defense lawyers the opportunity to do something on behalf of their client.

The "insanity defense" is an evil fnord. It gives defense lawyers something to do, when their client obviously totally did it. The "insanity defense" helps preserve the illusion of a fair trial.

"Not guilty by reason of insanity" is still a loss for the defendant. The only difference is that you go to a mental hospital prison instead of a regular prison. In fact, the regular prison may be better. In the mental hospital prison, you're forcibly drugged.

Also, if you're in a regular prison, you might have already been eligible for parole or served your whole sentence, while you're still in the mental hospital prison ruled "not mentally competent". "Not guilty by reason of insanity" can lead to a longer sentence than regular guilty, because there's no parole or release if you're not mentally competent.

There's another stupid aspect for State murder trials. If the defendant totally obviously did it, why not have a trial right away? When guilt is totally obvious, why not have a rapid trial and execution? Why pay the cost of keeping the criminal alive in prison? (Given a corrupt "justice" system, delays are necessary to preserve the illusion of fairness. In an honest justice system, cases like this could be disposed with a rapid trial and execution.)

Also, the police are portrayed as heroes, solving the crime. With State police, the police don't take action until after a crime. The police don't have an obligation to determine "Levi Aron seems disturbed. Let's help him and keep an eye on him." State police have no obligation to prevent crime; they merely clean up afterwards.

In the present, police have only two choices. They can kidnap someone or do nothing. In a fairer system, there would be more intermediate levels of help. In a free market police system, police would have an obligation to identify potential troublemakers. They would prevent crime and help potential criminals, without stealing their freedom.

(Here's how that would work in a really free market. Whoever Levi Aron purchased police protection from, would have an obligation to evaluate him and make sure he didn't commit any crimes. People would be very reluctant to deal with someone who didn't have "crime insurance". When Levi Aron tried to buy "crime insurance", they would have noticed something wrong with him and helped him, before he committed a serious crime.)

In a really free market with sane police, they could be more active at preventing crime. In the present, everyone is crazy, especially the police. That makes it hard for police to identify emotionally disturbed people, when the police are also insane. Also, State law doesn't provide for active preventative police work. State police are more focused on punishment and cleaning up afterwards, rather than actively preventing crime.

It is possible to identify "abused productive" people who are close to breaking. In the present, everyone is a little crazy, making that hard. In the present, the State doesn't encourage preventative police work.

With a "monkey number" of 200, and 0.5% of the people working as police, it would be possible for one policeman to personally know everyone. That would enable police to identify and prevent Levi Aron. In the present, this isn't feasible, due to the State and because everyone is a little crazy.

That's one problem with the modern Police State. There isn't a personal relationship between the police and the people they're supposed to be protecting. Police have much more of an "us vs. them" mentality. With free market police, there would be more of a personal relationship.

It may seem like I'm making two contradictory arguments. They aren't. First, I'm saying that Levi Aron is responsible for what he did, mental illness or not. Second, I'm saying that police should have a more active obligation to prevent crime and identify potential troublemakers, without taking away their freedom. Those two ideas don't contradict each other.

This crime probably could have been prevented, if Levi Aron got appropriate help ahead of time. In the present, that's difficult, because the police themselves are insane.

The "insanity defense" is stupid. Everyone is responsible for what they do. The "insanity defense" gives defense lawyers something to do. The "insanity defense" enables a farce of an impartial trial, even though the defendant is obviously totally guilty.

Also, in this case, the murderer Levi Aron may have some suppressed homosexual desires, due to his choice of an 8 year old boy victim. He probably sexually molested the boy before murdering him. The mainstream media can't mention that aspect of the story, because the mainstream media wants to promote homosexuality.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

News Corp. Whisleblower Dies Of "Natural Causes"

This story was funny. The whisteblower in the News Corp. scandal mysteriously died of "natural causes".

The police were quick to point out that it was "natural causes". Whenever there's a suspicious death, the police seem to eager to call it "natural causes". That reminds me of the times when a group of researchers in the same military lab all died of "natural causes" or "accidents".

People don't spontaneously die of natural causes. They usually have a history of serious health problems leading to death.

Another aspect of this scandal is that it isn't just Rupert Murdoch, although the News corporation is taking most of the blame. The blame also lies with the State police monopoly. Allegedly, policemen took bribes to look the other way. Why isn't anyone saying "Due to this scandal, maybe a State police monopoly is a bad idea. What happens when the police take bribes to ignore crime?"

It was amusing to see Rupert Murdoch interviewed by Parliament. He's also going to be subpoenaed by the US Congress. That's good theater, when politicians take a scandal-ridden CEO and grill him. It lets them seem like the tough guys promoting "justice".

Whenever there's a scandal like this, the CEO uses the "stupid CEO" defense. The "stupid CEO defense" is "Duhh!! I didn't know my subordinates were committing crimes! They had me totally fooled! I'm not responsible! I'm a stupid CEO who doesn't know what his subordinates are doing! Duh!"

That is nonsense. Even if Rupert Murdoch had no personal knowledge of their crime, he still is partially responsible. A boss is responsible for what his subordinates do. Even if they fooled Rupert Murdoch, he's still responsible because he hired them.

Similarly the President says "Duh! I didn't know soldiers were committing war crimes! I totally had no clue!" At the same time, the President says "I take 100% personal credit, because my subordinates killed Osama bin Laden."

This is an important State brainwashing technique. When there is success, the leader gets the credit. When there is failure, the leader claims incompetence. The disgraced leader was tricked by his subordinates. The leaders have no accountability.

Similarly, during the housing bubble, bank CEOs got huge salaries and bonuses. During the bust, they got a bailout. Now, they're getting huge salaries and bonuses again.

The US economy cannot recover until there's real accountability for the leaders.

In a really free market, there's accountability for the leaders. If you mismanage your business, competitors will steal your market share. In the present, there's no accountability. The State has a monopoly. State insiders use violence to prevent competition. State insiders use violence to steal via taxes, and give themselves a bailout.

The rest of the mainstream media is ganging up on Rupert Murdoch, because his propaganda is slightly different than theirs and contradicts theirs. This really is a fight among two groups of criminals, rather than heroes vs. villains. Of course, "Other people are also criminal!" is not a valid excuse when you're accused of a serious real crime.

(This is a real crime. Hacking into people's personal accounts and E-Mails is a type of trespassing.)

Here is another important point. Most State leaders are criminals. Most State leaders are psychopaths, parasites, or people that psychopaths can easily control. When most of the leaders are criminals, other criminals pass undetected. Rupert Murdoch didn't notice that his subordinates were scumbags, because they have the same personality type as him!

When that whistleblower died of "natural causes", my reaction was "Who do they think they're fooling?" As leader, Rupert Murdoch is responsible for what his subordinates do. Even if he has no specific knowledge of their crimes, he's responsible for hiring them and for supervising them.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

The "Chained CPI" Scam

This story was interesting. When calculating the cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) for Social Security and other payments, State comedians are switching from the CPI to the "chained CPI".

Naturally, this move will lead to a lower inflation calculation. This will lead to lower Social Security payments. Whenever State comedians/economists change the inflation index, it leads to lower inflation. Why don't any formula changes ever lead to a higher inflation calculation?

The CPI matters because it's used to index pensions and Social Security. Also, a dishonest CPI enables politicians to lie and say "Inflation is low!"

Ben Bernanke says "I'm only willing to discuss the CPI. I'm not willing to discuss other measures of inflation." Ben Bernanke is a professional liar.

When I heard of the new "chained CPI", I realized I had to look into the Math behind the new calculation farce.

First, I will review the bias in the old CPI.

The CPI uses the geometric mean instead of the arithmetic mean. According to algebra, the geometric mean is always less than the arithmetic mean, for positive numbers.

Here is an example. Consider {1, 3, 9}. The arithmetic mean is (1+3+9)/3 = 13/4 = 4+1/3. The geometric mean is (1*3*9)^(1/3) = 3. By using the geometric mean instead of the arithmetic mean, inflation is understated.

(The geometric mean of {a_1, ..., a_n} is the product of a_i raised to the 1/n power. A theorem from algebra says that the geometric mean of positive numbers is always less than or equal to the arithmetic mean, with equality when all numbers are identical.)

Also, the CPI is reweighted. State comedians don't pick the weights ahead of time. Instead, they look at the price data, and then choose the weights. Naturally, they pick weights to underestimate inflation.

Here's the joke justifying that lie. When prices rise, people substitute what they buy. Therefore, things rising rapidly in price should be underweighted and things rising slowly should be overweighted.

Here is an example. Suppose that in year 1, chicken rises 30% but beef rises 2%. People switch from chicken to beef. Suppose that in year 2, chicken rises 2% but beef rises 30%. People switch from beef to chicken. In both years, "meat" rose 2% annually, even though actual inflation was much higher. The CPI component of "meat" is 2% annually instead of a more honest 14%, due to the reweighting trick. (sqrt(1.3) = 1.14)

Here is a second example of reweighting bias. The "cash for clunkers" discount was deducted from "price of a car", when calculating the CPI. When the "cash for clunkers" program was in effect, more people bought cars, leading to greater weight for "new car" in the CPI. When the "cash for clunkers" program expired, fewer people bought new cars, and therefore "new car" was given a lower weight in the CPI.

Here is a third example of reweighting bias. When the housing market was booming, State comedians said "A booming housing market is a negative CPI adjustment. It's negative implied rent for homeowners." When the housing market crashed, State comedians said "Housing prices are cheaper now for first-time homebuyers. That's a negative CPI adjustment."

Also, it's the "core" CPI and not the full CPI. The "core" CPI excludes food and energy and things that tend to rise in price quickly. (The supply and demand of energy is relatively inelastic, making it very sensitive to inflation. Similarly, the supply and demand for food is relatively inelastic.)

Also, the CPI is calculated via a multi-stage process. First, an index is calculated for each area and each category. Then, those are aggregated. The rebalancing trick and geometric mean trick is used at each stage, to understate inflation. (For example, prices are rising in California but decreasing in Texas. Therefore, people move from California to Texas. The actual census data is irrelevant.)

So far, I've described the *OLD* biased CPI algorithm. What's the new scam for "chained CPI"?

This is the sort of thing I can do better than anyone else. I'm illustrating exactly the formula that the "chained CPI" uses to lie about inflation.

Instead of using "price at time n", the "chained CPI" uses "average of past prices" (typically a year). How does this lead to bias?

Suppose that, instead of using the price at time n, I use a geometric-mean average of 3 prices.

Consider {1, 2, 4, 2, 4 } as the raw price data. (I.e., price is 1 in first year, 2, in second year, 4 in third year, 2 in fourth year, 4 in fifth year.)

I substitute with "3-chained geometric-mean average".

For each 3 adjacent elements, I replace those three elements with the geometric mean of those 3 elements.

The geometric mean of {1, 2, 4} is (1*2*4)^(1/3) = 2.
The geometric mean of {2, 4, 2} is 16^(1/3) = 2*(2^(1/3)) = 2.52
The geometric mean of {4, 2, 4} is 32^(1/3) = 2*(4^(1/3)) = 3.17.

Summarizing, via geometric mean 3-chaining, the series {1, 2, 4, 2, 4} is replaced with {2, 2.52, 3.17}. This "chaining" process smooths out price volatility when dealing with raw price data.

The "geometric mean" trick smooths out price data in one interval. The "chaining" trick smooths out price data over adjacent time intervals.

Notice how a 300% increase {1, 2, 4} is replaced with a 117% increase {2, 2.52, 3.17}. When this trick is combined with rebalancing and reweighting and multi-stage aggregation, this leads to a lower CPI. This "chaining" trick can be used at each stage of CPI index aggregation.

"Chaining" also leads to bias for arithmetic mean. {1, 2, 3, 2, 3} becomes {2, 7/3, 8/3}, via 3-chaining. It's unclear where the CPI uses geometric mean and where it uses arithmetic mean. I think they use geometric mean everywhere, but the documentation wasn't clear.

Why even bother with the farce? The CPI is a lie backed by really fancy Math. However, that Math has nothing to do with how people actually spend money. When I go to the grocery store, does the clerk say "OK, I'll charge you the average of the price over the last 12 months."? That is what the "chained CPI" means.

Here's my proposed price index. I call it the CPI-0. It has a very simple algorithm.

float get_cpi(BLS_Statistics *data)
return 0;

That's more intellectually honest than the actual CPI algorithm.

The CPI is a biased and manipulated statistic. The new "chaining" trick makes it even worse. The price at time T is replaced with an average of prices over the previous year. This leads to lower inflation, especially when combined with the rebalancing and reweighting trick.

This is a clever trick. Instead of admitting there's an inflation problem, State comedians change the definition of inflation! Each time State comedians change the inflation formula, they add new tricks that let them understate inflation!

This type of Math analysis is something I can perform better than almost anyone else. I've seen articles on the new "chained CPI", but none of them explained the details of the scam like me.

Monday, July 18, 2011

Debt Ceiling "Debate"

It is offensive to watch the "negotiations", regarding the debt ceiling increase.

This is not a true negotiation. Suppose I am negotiating for a job. I'm contributing my salary, and the employer is paying me. Each side is contributing something. (That distinction is blurred, when you're working for a corporation with a State-backed monopoly. A typical employment contract is take-it-or-leave-it, rather than a true negotiation.)

The Republicans and Democrats are not spending their own personal money. They are spending other people's money.

This is a common mistake. Politicians are spending other people's money. Via the Principal-Agent problem, politicians treat tax money like it's their own personal money. Anytime you control resources that you don't own, there's a temptation to line your own pockets, rather than spend it wisely.

As another example of the Principal-Agent problem, a CEO controls the corporation, but isn't 100% owner. The CEO is tempted to line his pockets at the expense of shareholders.

No matter what precautions you take, the Principal-Agent problem exists whenever you control resources you don't own. That's one of the key scams of the State. Via the State, many people control wealth that they don't actually own. This leads to theft, fraud, waste, and malinvestment, rather then people using that wealth wisely.

Suppose I'm 100% owner of a business. Then, "making a budget" is a reasonable exercise. I try to match my expenses and income, and maximize my profit.

Suppose I'm 50-50 equal co-owners with someone else. Now, there is a problem if we can't agree. Either party can threaten to torpedo the business, if we're equal co-owners. (Never enter a business with exactly 50-50 split. You can be SOL if your partner misbehaves. Similarly, if you're a minority owner, there are plenty of ways you can be cheated. I'd be reluctant to be the majority owner, because the minority holders can still sue and harass you if you're successful. Consider E-Bay vs. Craigslist, as an example where a minority shareholder can harass you.)

Democrats and Republicans act like they're 50-50 co-owners of the government. That's not true, because it's technically owned by the people. However, the average slave is nearly completely disenfranchised. The two groups of insiders act like co-owners of the government.

Government is not bound by the accounting rules of normal people. In a system of paper money, the government can have an arbitrarily high deficit and debt. The only cost is inflation. If inflation gets too high, then there's hyperinflation, and the monetary system and government collapse.

The deficit and national debt aren't free money. The cost is paid by everyone else via inflation.

If you cut taxes but don't cut spending, that's silly. Politicians could decrease the income tax, but that's offset by an increase in the inflation tax. The only thing that really matters is spending cuts.

Paper money gives politicians an unlimited fudge factor. If they want increased spending, they can run higher deficits rather than raising direct explicit taxes. Instead of raising the income tax, they can raise the inflation tax.

It also is a farce, that they're projecting $X budget cuts over the next 10 years. That is silly. No current agreement is binding on future Congress. The only thing that really matters is current spending. They can make an agreement for future cuts now, but change their mind later.

Due to the Compound Interest Paradox, the debt ceiling *MUST* be raised. Due to a flaw in debt-based money, the "national debt" must increase exponentially to keep the scam running. The "national debt" cannot be paid unless the Federal Reserve is reformed or eliminated.

The national debt is greater than the M2 money supply? Does that make any sense at all? How can the government be in debt by more money than there actually is? It's even more obvious if you add all private debt, which is $50T or more. How can people collective be in debt by a huge multiple of the money supply?

You might wonder "Why not print money to pay off the national debt?" Instead of printing new money, the Federal government continuously refinances its debt by printing more Treasury bonds. There is no substantial difference between printing new money to pay off the debt, and continuously rolling over the debt by printing new Treasury bonds; both are inflationary. The only real difference is that the banksters make a fortune on "interest payments on the national debt". The banksters borrow from the Federal Reserve at 0%-0.25%, and buy higher-yielding Treasury debt, making a guaranteed riskless profit. If the Federal government prints new money and pay off the national debt, then the banksters can't make easy profits speculating in Treasury debt.

The budget negotiations is a game of chicken. Each side threatens "I'm willing to end the criminal conspiracy of government, if I don't get what I want." Of course, they never would take such drastic measures.

The Democrats and Republicans are false opposites. They're colluding to rip off the American people. Many people think that the opposite of a Democrat is Republican. The President has more in common with Boehner than with the average slave. They're both politicians and parasites and insiders. They earn a living by corruption at the expense of everyone else.

They're pretending to debate and be responsible. Most politicians are not aware of the scam, which makes them more effective liars.

It's amusing to watch politicians argue about the debt limit and budget. They have to raise the debt limit. They have to agree on a budget. What else are they going to do? Give up, go home, and get a real job? They have to reach an agreement. They will phrase the agreement that both sides claim "victory". The losers are the slaves who suffer higher taxes and higher inflation.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Fight Or Run?

The political and economic system in the USA is collapsing. What can you do to prepare?

  1. Do nothing.
  2. Stay and fight.
  3. Leave for another country.
  4. Stay, but be prepared to flee.
Currently, I'm in the "do nothing" phase. Blogging helps raise awareness. Eventually, I have to transition to more concrete action.

For personal reasons, I can't make any more active preparation moves right now.

"Stay and fight!" is attractive. For personal reasons, I can't move. "This is my home and I'm not leaving!" is a reasonable attitude.

A pro-State troll says "If you don't like it, then leave!" Why shouldn't the statists be forced to leave? Why don't the statists all leave one area, and leave only market anarchists or voluntaryists?

Obviously the State can't voluntarily cede control of any area. First, State thugs never voluntarily give up power. Second, if one area was really free, it would be so prosperous that the most ambitious people from other areas would move there. The reason other people move to the USA is that the USA used to have much more economic freedom than other countries.

"Stay and fight!" doesn't involve violence. It can be agorism. It can be other preparations. It can involve supporting less corrupt politicians, although that's probably a waste of time.

It can be risky to organize a militia or be prepared to use force to defend your freedom or your property. Once you make preparations, State thugs will target you. Undercover police may infiltrate your group. If you are forced to act, you're hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned by the State. No matter how loyal a group you find, they may not be reliable when facing a military assault squad.

Another option is to leave for another country. But to where? The collapse is global.

The Free State Project is having some success in New Hampshire. However, people there still pay property taxes and other taxes. I'll be impressed when some people stop paying property taxes and don't lose their homes.

I've heard that some Latin American countries are attracting ex-US citizens. As more people flee there, it may become more attractive. In those countries, the government is flagrantly corrupt, even more than the USA. People don't trust the government at all. The government is smaller, leading to greater freedom.

In some areas of Mexico, the government has effectively collapsed. Maybe some market anarchists should move there, make peace with the drug cartels, and start a market anarchist colony? I haven't seen anyone try that. (The drug cartels probably would agree to "You can go and operate your business. Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone.")

There may be some 3rd world countries, that could be colonized by an ambitious group of market anarchists. The difficulty is that, if you do have a successful market anarchist community of 100-1000 people, then it's a target for invasion. Even if you have a strong market anarchist community, there's no defense against being carpet bombed. All the State media has to do is say "Those anarchists are selling guns/gambling/drugs/terrorism!", and the zombies will support an invasion.

Another option is to stay and fight, but be prepared to flee if necessary. It depends how bad things get and how rapidly things decay. In a SHTF scenario, you may only need to survive for a few weeks before order starts being restored. If falsely charged with a crime, you may decide to hope for a fair trial, or fleeing might be smarter.

The value of gold and silver is not for a SHTF scenario. As people point out, gold and silver are useless when you're starving or robbed. However, in a SHTF scenario, gold and silver will certainly be more valuable than paper.

The main value of gold and silver is that, if you can hang on until order is restored, then you preserve your purchasing power and your savings. Even in a SHTF scenario, gold and silver can be used to buy things. However, there's a risk that you may be robbed, when others find out you have gold and silver.

"Stockpile food and ammo and bunker up" isn't as useful as it sounds. If a determined enemy sieges you, then you are SOL. Unless you're with a larger group of prepared people, solo preparations won't work.

I'm pretty sure that the collapse is coming. I have no idea what strategy is best. Right now, I have practically zero options. I'm leaning towards "Stay and fight!", but I should be openminded. It depends on how bad things get, and how fast the collapse occurs.

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Fear Of Strangers

This story is horrible. A man murdered an 8 year old boy. The boy was walking home alone for the first time.

The State media loves stories like this. They are a hidden advertisement for the State.

The State police are the heroes, catching the criminal. Even without a State police monopoly, this criminal probably would have been caught.

Much police work does not involve clearcut crime. For example, there are some NYPD policemen who do nothing but kidnap people who "operate a taxi without a license". Those police are criminals employed by the taxi medallion cartel, rather than protectors of freedom.

By overhyping incidents where the police succeed and solve real crime, that reinforces the illusion that everything the State police do is beneficial.

There's another fnord in this story. A child was murdered by a stranger. Therefore, every stranger is a bloodthirsty murderer. Everyone is a potential murderer, and the State police monopoly is needed to keep them in line.

Just because there was one criminal, does not mean that everyone is at risk.

Most people are decent. Only a minority are criminals. However, State law restricts everyone's freedom, just to catch the handful of bad people.

For example, some people used a gun to commit a crime. Therefore, everyone other than policemen should be barred from owning guns. Fear is used to promote the State control agenda. The propaganda ignores the correct solution; owning a gun is the best defense against violent crime.

The State media loves stories like this one. The police are heroes, solving a real crime. This is propaganda, creating the illusion that everything police do is beneficial. By hyping one evil person, this creates the illusion that every stranger is a potential criminal, reinforcing the need for the State police monopoly.

It is horrible that the boy was murdered. It is interesting to notice the hidden advertisements, in the way the State media presents the story. The hype helps promote the State.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Roger Clemens Mistrial

This story is interesting. In a pre-trial ruling, the judge ordered that prosecutors could not introduce evidence of Andy Pettite's wife saying that her husband told her that Roger Clemens said he used steriods. That is hearsay and therefore not admissible evidence.

The prosecutors disobeyed the judge's order. The judge ordered a mistrial.

It makes no difference if the prosecutors disobeyed the order due to gross negligence, or on purpose. As US Attorneys, they should know better.

The US Attorneys are political appointees. Insiders pick which lawyers get to enforce their stupid laws. It is not a merit-based system. It is a corruption-based system.

This is unfair. The prosecutors broke the rules. They get a mulligan and can try again?

Shouldn't there be a penalty for the prosecutors who flagrantly disobeyed the judge's orders? Shouldn't they be jailed for contempt of court, fined, or have their law license suspended?

There should be no restrictions on what evidence a defendant can introduce or what arguments he is allowed to make. There should be restrictions on the prosecutor.

For example, someone who operated a medical marijuana store in California was prosecuted for violating Federal law. The judge barred his lawyers from mentioning that it was a California-legal medical marijuana store. That was obviously unfair.

Suppose that Roger Clemens' lawyer broke the rules. The judge would probably have jailed him for "contempt of court" and revoked his law license. Why do the prosecutors get away with disobeying a judge's direct order? They're supposed to know better.

Suppose Roger Clemens' lawyer made a "jury nullification" argument. He almost certainly would have been sanctioned. (Jury nullification is appropriate in this case, because "lying to Congress" isn't a real crime. It's OK for politicians and policemen to lie to you, but it's a serious crime for you to lie to them.)

Suppose that Roger Clemens' lawyer said "WTF? Doesn't the government have better things to do, than pursue my client? The banks stole trillions of dollars. They committed massive foreclosure fraud and perjury. Why weren't they prosecuted? Is this trial really worth all the money the government has spent?" His lawyer would probably have been sanctioned, if he said that.

Why should prosecutors get away with breaking the rules?

Maybe Roger Clemens' lawyer did a brilliant job during jury selection, and he was headed for an acquittal. All the prosecutor has to do is break the rules, and he gets to start over with a new jury?

Why not wait until after the trial was over, to award the mistrial? If the jury acquitted, then Roger Clemens goes free. If the jury convicted, then give Roger Clemens a new trial. Roger Clemens is unfairly disadvantaged by the prosecutor's error. Maybe the jury would have acquitted him anyway?

Why should the prosecutor get a mulligan, after flagrantly breaking the rules?

This isn't someone getting away with murder on a technicality. This is a trial that shouldn't have happened in the first place. So what if Roger Clemens took steroids and lied about it? Why should I care? He isn't going to break into my home and rob me or physically assault me. What is accomplished, by sending Roger Clemens to prison?

The job of a US attorney is literally to say "This person should be kidnapped and tortured." Most Federal trials are for things that are falsely treated as crimes. Most criminal trials are as stupid and pointless and wasteful as the Roger Clemens trial. It is relatively rare, when it's a clearcut real crime.

Roger Clemens is going to pay extra legal fees, due to the mistrial. Why should he be forced to pay his lawyers more, because the prosecutors broke the rules?

Why should I pay more in taxes, for this stupid pointless trial? Why should I pay more in taxes, for the cost of a re-trial, after the prosecutor flagrantly broke the law?

The Roger Clemens perjury trial was a farce from the beginning. More serious perjury has gone unprosecuted. Lehman Brothers' CEO and CFO should have been prosecuted under Sarbanes-Oxley for their Repo 105 accounting fraud. (Accounting fraud is a type of perjury.) Bank executives and lawyers forged mortgage foreclosure paperwork, clearcut perjury, and were not prosecuted.

Prosecutors are cracking down on Roger Clemens, who is a celebrity but not a true insider. This helps cover up the insiders who get away with crime. Public attention is focused on Roger Clemens and not real criminals.

It is offensive that prosecutors can break the rules and get away with it. Roger Clemens should get an acquittal due too the prosecutor's crime, but he won't. The prosecutors should be sanctioned, but that won't happen. Insiders who committed more serious crimes should be prosecuted, but that won't happen.

There are two justice systems, one for insiders and one for everyone else. A prosecutor is an insider. He can flagrantly disobey a judge's direct order with no negative consequences. A prosecutor can choose to pursue pointless show trials, while ignoring more serious crimes.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Antibiotic Resistant Gonorrhea

This story was interesting. Scientists have discovered antibiotic resistant gonorrhea.

Refuting the "creationists", this is evidence of evolution.

Vaccines are a legitimate way to treat disease. A vaccine enhances the body's natural immunity. However, I do object to the current trend of having too many vaccines.

An antiobiotic is not a legitimate way to treat disease. Over time, the bacteria develop antibiotic resistance.

Suppose that 99.9999% of the bacteria are killed by antibiotics. Those that survive, are breeding antibiotic resistance. By random chance and mutations, some bacteria have antibiotic resistance.

No matter what precautions you take, over time, antibiotic resistant bacteria will spread. (Also, as vaccines are more commonplace, vaccine-resistant viruses will spread. According to the mainstream science for HIV/AIDS, HIV is a vaccine-resistant virus, due to rapid mutations.)

The State medical cartel promotes symptom-suppressing drugs over other treatments. There may be other better treatments. They are suppressed by the State.

State scientists are finding new antibiotics, patenting them, and charging a high fee. The antibiotic resistant bacteria lead to higher profits for drug corporations!

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are a serious problem. Tuberculosis is making a comeback. The State medical cartel promotes research into new antibiotics, and suppresses other techniques. Due to evolution, antibiotics are at best a temporary solution to a disease.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Caylee's Law

Casey Anothony was acquitted of murder. She may have actually done it, but there was insufficient evidence. (Even if she did do it, the State isn't a valid party to this dispute. Only the father or other relatives have standing. Casey Anthony was accused of "destroying State property".)

To close that loophole, State thugs are promoting "Caylee's Law". It will now be a felony, if parents don't contact police immediately when their child disappears.

Why not simplify the process? Why not say "Anybody acquitted by a jury is guilty of a felony!"? That would make the intent clear.

Prosecutors like to pile on lesser charges, and hope some stick. Whenever prosecutors don't like someone, they will charge you with as many crimes as possible. That's an incentive for a plea bargain. That also allows prosecutors to claim victory, when the jury acquits of the serious charges but convicts of lesser charges. (Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder but convicted of "lying to the police", and was sentenced to time served.)

One rule of thumb is "It's a bad idea to pass a law, in reaction to one incident." Unfortunately, politicians love to pass new laws to fix fake emergencies.

Many people think "I would call the police if my child disappeared." It you *WANT* to call the police, you may do so now. You don't need a law to *FORCE* you to call the police. (I object to the State police monopoly. Given that it exists, you should ask them for help in a real emergency.)

How many parents are thinking "If my child disappeared, I wouldn't call the police. If only there was a law forcing me to call the police when my child mysteriously disappears!" That shows how stupid "Caylee's Law" is.

There are legitimate reasons you might not want to call the police. Maybe you didn't declare your child as State property (get a birth certificate)? Maybe you are homeschooling your child, without getting explicit permission from the State? Maybe you have a dispute with an ex-spouse, who is looking after the children without telling you?

There is another important point. The mainstream media and statists get angry, whenever someone is acquitted. Why is there no anger and outrage, over people who are wrongfully convicted? Why is there no anger and outrage, when prosecutors commit crimes in order to secure a conviction?

"Caylee's Law" is an excellent example of a stupid law. People are asking for a law, forcing them to do what they would do anyway.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Horrible Bosses - Horrible Propaganda

There's a new "comedy" film out. As usual, there's a hidden advertisement for the State. "Horrible Bosses" contains many evil fnords.

The propaganda is:

My boss is an evil abusive jerk. My only recourse is murder/violence.
That's slave-oriented thinking.

A sane person in a really free market would say:
My boss is an abusive jerk. I'll find a new job. I'll try to start my own business.
This propaganda movie emphasizes slave/State values. The characters don't consider switching jobs. This is a hidden advertisement for State violence against small business owners. (Notice how 2 out of 3 of the main characters are employed by abusive bosses in small businesses - construction and a dentist.)

Most people will take the narrow view and blame their abusive boss. They don't blame the State and a corrupt system. Slaves are forced to give up their surplus labor via taxes. The State allocates this surplus by violence and political maneuvering. The system guarantees that the most evil people wind up owning everything and making all the decisions. High taxes support parasites and psychopaths. High taxes make it hard to save up money and start a business.

Most people will falsely blame their evil boss. They should blame the corrupt system. The State was set up by evil people for their own benefit.

My employer has an explicit State-backed monopoly. My bosses got their jobs due to political maneuvering. They are not people who could build a successful business in a really free market.

The characters all reconcile with their bosses at the end of the movie. In my experience, that *NEVER* happens. If you have a lousy boss, your only recourse is to switch jobs. I have *NEVER* seen a lousy work environment get better.

There's another evil fnord in the movie. The characters try to hire a hitman. If you try to hire a hitman on the Internet, it's 99+% likely that you're going to hire an undercover cop, rather than someone who will really help you.

The movie "Horrible Bosses" has many evil fnords. Only a slave would try to murder his boss. A sane person would quit and get a new job. A bad work environment *ALMOST NEVER* improves. Also, if you try to hire a hitman, you're almost definitely going to hire an undercover cop.

"Horrible Bosses" emphasizes slave values and not free thinking. The three main characters don't decide "Let's quit and start our own business!", which is how free people would act in a really free market.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Two Kinds Of Psychopaths

There is some confusion, regarding the term "psychopath". I have seen the term used to describe two different criminal personality types.

In this post, I'll refer to these two psychopath types as "psychopath-criminal" and "psychopath-Madoff". When I say psychopath, I mean psychopath-Madoff.

A psychopath-criminal has the "abused productive" personality type. A psychopath-criminal gets frustrated at a psychopath-Madoff-controlled world, and turns to crime. A psychopath-criminal is not very smart. He makes dumb mistakes, leading to arrest.

If you have the "abused productive" personality type and are intelligent, then you'll find a decent (but not awesome) job in the productive sector of the economy. That will be enough success to deter the typical "abused productive" person from crime. Unfortunately, as the State collapses, it's becoming harder and harder for a typical "abused productive" person to earn a living. Most new "jobs" are in the parasite sector of the economy, and are taken by parasites or psychopaths.

Here is an example of a psychopath-criminal. Look at the photo.

I previously mentioned that you can read personality type by the "laugh lines" on a person's face. A psychopath-Madoff typically has nearly vertical laugh lines. Someone with the "abused productive" personality type typically has 45 degree angle laugh lines. This criminal has 45 degree angle laugh lines. (These are merely indications, and not absolute proof.)

Also, this guy is an idiot. He got caught because he brought the girl he kidnapped to his parole officer's meeting.

This criminal does not have the parasitic personality type. He has the "abused productive" personality type. He got frustrated and turned to crime and kidnapping. A psychopath-Madoff would not need to kidnap a young woman. He would seduce her and psychologically dominate her.

This is interesting. I looked at several photos of criminals. They had the "abused productive" personality type and not the parasitic personality type. They really are criminals. However, they were "abused productive" people who couldn't fit in. They were abused by the psychopath-Madoffs, got frustrated, and turned to violent crime.

One conspiracy theory is "The State justice system protects parasites/psychopaths from retaliation by their victims." Here is an example. Suppose an abusive parasitic coworker lies about me, and I am unfairly fired. If I seek true justice and punch the scumbag, then I would be treated as a criminal. Seeking justice through the State legal system would be pointless. In this manner, the State prevents justice, because you can't punch someone who deserves it. If I said "It was OK to punch him. He was a scumbag who needed to be punched.", State "justice" wouldn't accept that as a valid excuse. According to State "justice", lying about someone and unfairly firing them is 100% legal.

However, exposed to a lifetime of such abuse, some people crack and then kill a bunch of people or commit other crimes.

For example, if Jared Loughner was able to find a decent job, he probably would not have gotten frustrated and went on his killing spree. Due to the State and psychopath-Madoffs, Jared Loughner wasn't able to fit in. He figured out that something was wrong, but didn't understand the problem like I can.

The real danger comes from the psychopath-Madoffs. They aren't criminals in the State-recognized sense. They are very dangerous. In fact, the current organization of the State explicitly facilitates theft by psychopaths. Under "color of law", psychopath-Madoff theft is legitimate. Under "color of law", psychopath theft is backed by the full violent evil power of the State.

A psychopath-criminal might rob a bank with a gun, which will lead to getting caught eventually. A psychopath-Madoff might lose trillions of dollars speculating on mortgages and then get the government to give him a bailout. Clearly, the psychopath-Madoff is much more dangerous than the psychopath-criminal.

For example, Bernard Madoff played the State like a fiddle. His investors assumed "Bernard Madoff must be legitimate. Otherwise, the SEC would object." When an intelligent SEC agent started asking questions, Bernard Madoff would successfully lie to them. If necessary, Bernard Madoff would appeal to the SEC agent's parasitic/psychopathic boss, and the SEC agent would be forced to back down.

The State financial system has high inflation and low interest rates. This pushed investors towards Madoff's fund, which had returns closer to true inflation. In a free market financial system, it would be harder to promote fraudulent schemes. In a free market financial system, everyone involved would be partially responsible, when there was corruption and fraud.

Harry Markopolis concluded that Madoff's fund was fraudulent. He could not publish his conclusions on his blog, due to State libel laws. He was actually scared that Madoff might try to murder him. Harry Markopolis had discovered a piece of the huge criminal conspiracy of the State. The reasoning is "If someone like Bernard Madoff is a fraud, then maybe the entire State financial system is a fraud." The entire State financial system *IS* a fraud. Bernard Madoff was able to fit in smoothly among the banksters, because most of them are psychopaths like him!

From the viewpoint of his fellow banksters, Bernard Madoff is obviously a swell guy. His fellow psychopaths were thinking "Bernard Madoff has the same personality type as me. Therefore, he's a good guy. If only I had as much emotional intelligence as Bernard Madoff, I would be really successful! Bernard Madoff is such an awesome role model!"

Of course, the flagrant Ponzi scheme was able to overcome Madoff's reputation. Similarly, Weiner's wiener pictures and lying was so evil that he was forced to resign. Scum like Madoff and Weiner fit in among State leaders, because most of them are psychopaths! However, flagrant evil can cause a psychopath to be exposed. Then, the excuse is "He's an isolated bad apple. There's nothing to see here." Evil people fit in perfectly among State leaders, because most of them are psychopaths!

Even though Weiner and Madoff were disgraced, the mainstream media isn't asking "How was someone so evil, able to rise to a position of State authority?" No insider will ask this question, because most insiders are psychopaths. The psychopaths won't ask that question. The non-psychopaths won't ask that question, because they're afraid of the psychopaths.

If most insiders were honest and intelligent, then evil people would be identified and excluded. When most insiders are psychopaths, the honest and intelligent people are identified and excluded! In a psychopath-controlled State, it's the honest people who seem defective and deviant.

Bernard Madoff's scam was facilitated by the State. That scam could not occur in a really free market. In a really free market, all the regulators and feeder funds would be 100% personally liable for investor losses.

In State "justice", there was no incentive for any of his associates to notice that he was doing something wrong. Even though the SEC failed miserably, there's no personal liability for the SEC agents who did a lousy job. In a free market financial system, if you say "Madoff's fund isn't a fraud.", then you're partially responsible for all the losses. State regulators have no personal responsibility.

The Madoff-psychopaths have high emotional intelligence and low/medium logical intelligence. Even Bernard Madoff has some intelligent subordinates who were helping him generate convincing-seeming fake statements. Some "abused productive" people were helping Madoff with his scam.

That's one reason I disagree with "9/11 Was An Inside Job". There are psychopaths who would do that, if they thought they could get away with it and profit from it. However, they could not actually pull it off unless some intelligent "abused productive" people were helping them. That would require too much cognitive dissonance. Most State leaders sincerely believe that they're the good guys. Even a psychopath rationalizes it with "Everyone else is doing the exact same thing as me. I'm not doing anything unusual or immoral." The State functions with psychopath-Madoffs pulling the strings, assisted by intelligent deluded people.

Before I cracked my pro-State brainwashing, I assumed that everyone else was honest and intelligent and trying to do the right thing, just like me. That is false. Some people are outright evil. Similarly, a psychopath thinks that everyone else is an evil scumbag like him. When a psychopath sees an honest and intelligent person asking questions and giving logical explanations, the psychopath sees that as just another evil manipulation trick.

The psychopath-Madoffs dominate, because most people are brainwashed to be victims. There occasionally are people with partial resistance. They are isolated and the psychopaths can easily discredit and remove them.

Suppose it's two intelligent people A and B vs. one psychopath C. First, C will eliminate the smarter one, A, while sucking up to B. Once A is gone, then the psychopath will go after B.

It's even worse if it's two psychopaths vs. two intelligent people. The two psychopaths will cooperate, while the intelligent people won't understand what's going on.

Even if the psychopaths don't have an explicit agreement, they will always cooperate to ruin an intelligent person asking questions.

I can nearly instantly identify psychopaths. Psychopaths can also do this. A psychopath can always instantly identify fellow psychopaths. Psychopaths can always count on each other for cooperation, when an intelligent person starts asking dangerous questions.

This creates a massive highly-coordinated evil conspiracy. Two psychopaths will always cooperate, when an intelligent person starts asking questions. Two psychopaths will always assist each other in their evil goals. The can count on their fellow psychopaths to return the favor later, even if there is no explicit quid pro quo agreement. In a very real sense, there's a "psychopath code of ethics".

Many State leaders are psychopath-Madoffs. The ones who are not psychopaths are intelligent and emotionally weak. They are completely manipulated by psychopaths. A psychopath can nearly instantly tell if someone is a fellow psychopath, someone intelligent-but-controllable, or someone with resistance. Psychoapths can nearly instantly identify someone with partial resistance or full resistance, just like I can nearly instantly identify psychopaths.

The "abused productive" people are continually fooled by the psychopath-Madoffs. They will always think "I failed because I did something wrong." rather than "I failed because that psychopath cheated me." The "abused productive" people are prevented from learning. It was a huge shock to realize "Almost everything I've ever been taught is a lie." The system of lies is so complete, that it's a shock to realize it all at once.

The State is the mechanism that psychopaths use to control everyone else. It is hopeless to "work within the system", because the psychopath-Madoffs set up the rules of the system so that psychopath-Madoffs will always be in control. Even if no single psychopath was aware of this, their combined coordinated efforts guarantee that evil people will always control the State. Even if one psychopath is discredited and removed, there's always someone else, just as evil, ready to replace him.

Via the State, the psychopath-Madoffs conspire to enslave everyone else. How can the "abused productive" people organize to fight the psychopaths? You can't work within the system. The best alternative is agorism.

The "natural predator" for the psychopath is the intelligent "abused productive" person. Originally, the USA had an economic system that was very friendly to "abused productive" people, with a mostly free market. Unfortunately, psychopaths have organized the system for their own benefit. Most psychopaths have their theft backed by "color of law". There is no way for an "abused productive" person to legally oppose them or compete with them.

Psychopaths have nearly completely neutralized their "natural predators". The current system is of the psychopaths, by the psychopaths, and for the psychopaths. Now, theft is seen as more desirable than actually working. The psychopath is held as society's role model, and not the productive person. Everyone wants to be a middleman, rather than being the guy who actually does the work. This leads to greater and greater corruption, greater and greater theft, and less and less real work. The only result can be complete economic collapse.

I see people like Jon Ronson studying psychopaths. He made a mistake in his analysis. Psychopath-criminal and psychopath-Madoff are two different personality types. It is wrong to study psychopaths, without understanding the distinction between an "abused productive" criminal, and the psychopath-Madoffs who live by manipulating others.

The psychopath-criminals are not really dangerous. They make stupid mistakes and eventually get caught. The psychopath-Madoffs are truly dangerous. Ironically, the psychopath-Madoffs tell people "Give us more power, so we can protect you from the psychopath-criminals!" Unfortunately, most of the State leaders are psychopath-Madoffs. I'm able to nearly instantly identify someone who's a psychopath-Madoff, just like they can instantly recognize that I'm resistant to their manipulations.

If insiders are serious about preventing collapse, they have to find a way to eliminate and neutralize the psychopath-Madoffs. Unfortunately, the problem is too severe and widespread. I'm not holding my breath waiting. It's too late for the current system. It's better to let it collapse and focus your energy on building a replacement. Agorism is the best strategy for recovering your freedom from the psychopaths, but I haven't actually tried it yet myself.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at