FSK's Guide to Reality

My New Blog!

2011-10-19T13:00:00.000-04:00

I'm ready to announce my new blog! I've moved to realfreemarket.org.

I'm leaving this blog up. If something bad happens on my new site, I'll go back here.

Honest Job Ad

2011-10-19T12:00:00.006-04:00

It's discouraging reading job ads. I wish employers were more explicit about what they want.

We're looking for pathetic losers who are willing to work 60+ hour weeks, and act like we're doing a favor for letting them work so much. We only want applicants with no life and no interests outside of work.

We're looking for candidates who are dumb enough to accept a couple shares in our startup, instead of cash.

We want you to act like our stupid startup is the most brilliant thing you've ever heard. We want you to act like back-end number crunching is the most amazing and exciting thing you've ever done. There's nothing more intellectually stimulating than writing an ad hoc report that's meaningless and nobody reads.

We want you to think that free soda is awesome, and ignore the fact that we're underpaying you and overworking you.

We want people who are smart enough to be a computer expert, but also dumb enough that we can manipulate them. We want people who are smart, but who aren't smarter than us.

We want to hire a superstar genius. All programmers are interchangeable cogs.

Our startup doesn't have a technical co-founder. That's not a problem. We can hire anyone to develop our website for us. Even though we're computer illiterate, we're capable of hiring a good team and managing the product. Even though we're computer illiterate, we can tell the difference between hiring someone good, and hiring someone who's faking it.

We hired an outsourcing team to do version 1.0 of our product. They did a brilliant job and it's almost done. It just needs some tweaking and finishing. We hired losers to do version 1.0. It's a complete mess and you need to redo it. We're hoping to hire you to replace them.

We expect at least 5 years of experience in each of Java, Javascript, AJAX, UNIX, Linux, Solaris, Windows, .NET, C#, C++, ASP.NET, PHP, Rails, SQL, MS SQL, mySQL, PL/SQL, Drupal, WordPress, FileMaker, Access, Excel, and PowerPoint.

I did another interview with a startup, with no technical cofounder. I asked them "How did you build your website, without a technical co-founder." They said "We hired an outsourcing team. We managed it. It's great! We're ready for beta!" I asked "May I see the beta?" They said "NO! That's a secret! We can't show anyone! Our beta is awesome, but we're not ready to show it to you!" Given their fear of showing me the beta, what they have so far is almost definitely a turd. They're using "This is SECRET! IMPORTANT!" as cover for "We have nothing."

If you have no technical ability and hire an outsourcing team, you're practically guaranteed to get cheated.

WHY DOES ANYONE START A WEB/SOFTWARE STARTUP WITHOUT A TECHNICAL COFOUNDER? WHY DO VCs GIVE THESE IDIOTS MONEY? IF YOU DON'T HAVE A COFOUNDER WRITING VERSION 1.0, YOUR STARTUP IS WORTH $0.

Why do so many people think "I can hire anyone to implement my website for me." It doesn't work that way. There are a lot of people who can successfully implement a website. If you have no technical ability, the odds of you hiring one of them are practically zero.

I wonder how many people could configure a Linode and WordPress, like I did? Even with the guides, it wasn't easy.

This is a pretty severe symptom, of corruption in the economy. The important people are the marketing wizards with VC connections and a slick powerpoint presentation. The people who actually do the work aren't important.

If you don't have good computer literacy, it's almost impossible to make a decent website.

WordPress Runs - Hooray!

2011-10-18T14:00:00.001-04:00

I got wordpress running! I'm almost ready to move!

Best Mobile Web Browser - Opera

2011-10-18T13:00:00.000-04:00

I noticed that Android's default web browser has a bug. It cuts off pages on the bottom. This is on my Motorola Droid 3.

I tried Android FireFox. That didn't work. It was a buggy POS.

I tried Opera. That worked well.

NFL HGH Testing And The State

2011-10-18T12:00:00.002-04:00

This story was pretty offensive.

Two key congressman emerged from an hour-long meeting with the NFL and players union and announced a deal to begin blood-testing players for human growth hormone. Minutes later, union officials would commit only to testing when a fair and safe system is in place—what they’ve been saying all along.

Do you see the mistake?

The correct response to this story is "WTF? Why is it any of Congress' business, whether the NFL tests for HGH or not? The NFL is a private organization, and can make whatever rules it wants."

One problem is State labor law. Due to the way labor law works, the NFL owners can't unilaterally implement HGH testing. The union must approve. This leads to arguments over what test is appropriate. The union can veto the owner's choice, if they think the test is flawed.

A flawed test is obviously bad. You don't want players suspended for false positives. You don't want the test to be too weak. Unfortunately, if the NFL chooses a test that's too strict, the State legal system can't easily handle the dispute via a lawsuit.

No matter what doping test you use, people will find loopholes and ways to trick the test.

That story was offensive. It's none of Congress' business, whether then NFL tests for HGH or not.

Why do people assume, by default, that every sports conflict is Congress' business? It's cheap publicity for the Congressmen, because they know lots of people like sports and are interested in the results. The Congressmen pretend to be the hero, resolving the dispute. Congress created the problem in the first place, by various laws.

The NFL should test for HGH. My complaint is that Congress shouldn't get involved. Due to defects in State labor law and the State legal system, it's hard for the NFL and players' union to agree on a test. The State legal system makes it hard for players to dispute the results, if the NFL does adopt a flawed test.

I Bought A Linode!

2011-10-17T13:00:00.002-04:00

I bought my Linode! I'm still configuring it.

I'm glad I spread it out over a day or two. (domains first, Linode the next day) It takes awhile for DNS changes to propagate.

It isn't easy being root! Even though Linode has a lot of nice guides for setting it up, it still takes effort and thinking to set it up properly.

NBA Lockout Observations

2011-10-17T12:00:00.003-04:00

The NBA owners cancelled the first two weeks of the regular season. The owners demand severe concessions from the players, and the players' union hasn't caved (yet).

Even if the owners approved the players' last proposal, it's still a huge win for the owners. They already got the players to concede 4% on the cap number, 57% to 53%, a huge win.

Dropping the cap number from 57% to 53% isn't a 4% pay cut for the players. It's a 7% pay cut. (4% divided by 57% is 0.07). That's pretty severely greedy, to get a 7% pay cut concession from your workers, and still demand more.

The owners claim "We're losing money!" That's hard to prove. There's all sorts of clever accounting and loopholes. For example, suppose the same person/corporation owns the team and the TV channel. Then, the TV rights can be sold for $50M when they're really worth $100M. That allows the team to claim a loss, while the owner makes a fortune.

There's another interesting aspect. Most NBA teams play in taxpayer-financed arenas. Taxpayers are financing the owners, in the fight against the players.

Scenario #1: Suppose owners paid for their own stadium. The owner would think "WTF? I paid $1B for this arena and it's sitting empty? That's a lousy return on my investment."

Scenario #2: Taxpayers pay for the stadium. In effect, the owner isn't suffering from idle capital, during the lockout. The taxpayer bears the loss, more than the owner. With taxpayer-financed stadiums, the owners have very little capital expenses.

The franchises are very valuable. However, the owners have no real capital expense. Their biggest expense is player salaries, eliminated during the lockout. The major networks show other stuff during the lockout, continuing to enjoy their monopoly/oligopoly. The game day arena workers are all temps. All the other workers are laid off during the lockout. By getting free arenas from taxpayers, the owners aren't suffering any capital losses.

That's a very interesting observation. With taxpayer-financed arenas, the owners actually have very little tangible capital invested in their business. They enjoy a State-backed monopoly, but invested practically zero actual capital.

There's another problem with CBA negotiations. The contract is approved by a majority vote of players. The NBA could offer a lower cap, but double the minimum salary, and a lot of players would vote for the deal. That's the problem with democracy. The majority can steal from the more-productive minority. Other clauses, like the mid-level cap exemption, provide an incentive for average and below-average players to vote for a deal that cheats superstar players.

The salary cap and maximum salary hurt superstar players. A superstar will get great TV ratings and sell out arenas, but the CBA caps his salary. The current system cheats superstar players, who are worth more than the maximum salary.

Teams like the Knicks and Lakers could afford to spend 2x or 3x times the cap, because they have a monopoly position in a large market. The salary cap gives the Knicks and Lakers windfall profits. NBA franchise rules prevent other teams from moving to NYC or LA and competing with the Knicks and Lakers.

NYC probably has the population to support 4 or more teams, but NBA rules forbid it. This guarantees huge profits for the Knicks. A small-market owner can't move his team to NYC and compete with the Knicks. A small-market owner can't move to Chicago and compete with the Bulls.

That's one advantage of the European promotion/relegation system, compared to the US system of giving each team a monopoly in each city. The US system guarantees that big market teams have a big economic advantage over small-market teams. In Europe, if I wanted to and had the money, I could buy a minor league team, invest in it, and eventually get promoted to the top division, even in a city that already has a team. In the USA, the monopoly franchise system guarantees inequality between big-market and small-market teams.

The NBA owners are being obviously greedy. They already got huge concessions from the players, but want more. There are plenty of ways to cook the books, and present the illusion that you're losing money. With taxpayer-financed arenas, taxpayers are subsidizing the owners in their battle against the players, because tax-funded arenas lower the owners' capital expenses. The city-monopoly franchise system guarantees inequality between big market and small market teams, because it's illegal to move a small market team to a bigger market and compete with an existing team. The CBA process gives the players' union an incentive to ratify a contract that cheats superstar players while boosting benchwarmers' salaries. A salary cap and maximum salary provides windfall profits for owners of big-market teams.

The whole CBA negotiating process is a State-created mess. The State gives NBA owners a monopoly, making it hard to start competing leagues. In a really free market, if the players were unfairly underpaid, someone would start a successful competing league. The State subsidizes owners with taxpayer-financed arenas. The State subsidizes cable and broadcast TV, giving them a monopoly/oligopoly. Labor law forces the players to negotiate via a union, rather than each player making his own contract.

Some fans may blame the owners or players. The real blame belongs to the State. State labor law encourages brinksmanship negotiating, where neither side budges until the last minute. Under State labor law, if you make concessions early, that's a boost to the other side, because that becomes the baseline for future negotiating.

I Registered Two Domains!

2011-10-16T13:00:00.006-04:00

Yesterday, I registered two domains!

I'm going to buy a Linode today. I'm going to set up WordPress and finally get off this POS Blogger.

I don't want to reveal my new blog location yet, because I don't want anyone to go there until it's ready.

I also decided to register "fsklicious.com", and give a try at writing a delicious clone. I'm *SO MAD* at AVOS and delicious. They totally ruined it! They took out all the features I liked, and they're bragging about how awesome the changes are! That'll take a few weeks to get set up. Don't bother going there until I'm asking for alpha testers.

I figure that fsklicious would be worth my time, even if I'm the only user.

Even for the old delicious, I was vaguely unsatisfied. The new delicious is such a POS, that I'm motivated to write my own.

For the first few weeks of unemployment, I felt very little motivation. Now, I'm ready to do something. It's very interesting. A wage slave job really drains your energy. I didn't notice much, until I was unemployed for a month! My motivation is slowly returning.

How Did Insiders Profit From The Greek Bailout?

2011-10-16T12:00:00.002-04:00

Greece is bankrupt. They can't make payments on their debt. Of course, if you continually issue someone new bonds at artificially low rates, it can be extended indefinitely. However, Greece's insolvency is so severe that people can't ignore it.

Technically, if you keep lending Greece more and more money, they'll never go bankrupt or default. However, if you go to far, the monetary system farce becomes too obvious. Insiders had to do something.

Why is government debt sacred? Why not default? The banksters make a lot of money buying and selling government bonds. It's practically riskless profit, borrowing at cheap rates from the central bank, and buying higher-yielding government bonds. When a government defaults, the scam starts to unravel. If you borrow at 1% and lend at 2% and use 100x leverage, then you make a fortune. If there's a default, then all of a sudden the easy riskless profit disappears and you're bankrupt.

If banks are "too big to fail", then bailing out an insolvent government is an indirect bank bailout. Either the government defaults and then you bail out the bank, which would be too obviously corrupt. Instead, you bail out the government, indirectly bailing out the bank.

Why is government debt sacred? If you lend money to someone who can't pay, then you deserve to lose. Why was that principle abandoned? A higher principle takes precedence, which is "The banksters make a lot of profit no matter what." Bank lobbyists take precedence over sound economic principles.

There's been a lot of wrangling and dealing, regarding the fine print of Greece's restructuring/default/bankruptcy. How are insiders going to make a fortune? Do you see it?

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

Suppose that I had inside information, regarding the exact details of the Greek bailout. Then, I could profitably buy or short sell Greek bonds. If the bailout is more generous to bondholders than expected, then I can buy Greek bonds and make a fortune. If the bailout is harsher to bondholders than expected, then I can short sell and make a fortune.

You can be sure that some insiders know exactly what's going to happen, and are making a fortune speculating in Greek bonds.

9 9 9 Plan

2011-10-15T13:00:00.000-04:00

I heard Herman Cain promoting his "9 9 9" plan. I thought of an amusing joke.

The US economy already is on a "9 9 9" plan. There's 9% unemployment, 9% inflation, and a 9% incarceration rate.

Amusing Job Interview - Working For Free

2011-10-15T12:00:00.006-04:00

I went on an interesting job interview. It was another "We want you to work for free." thing.

I was 99% sure before the interview, that they wanted me to work for free. I went anyway. First, I needed to go buy something. Second, there's always a chance that someone isn't clueless. Third, it's better than staying home all day.

Here's a tipoff. If someone is in a "shared workspace", it's 99%+ likely that they want you to work for free. If they can't afford a real office, then they can't afford to pay someone to write their product for them.

Am I pulling an Alyssa Bereznak, going on a job interview, just so I could ridicule them? I'm not shaming them specifically by name. (Surprisingly, they didn't demand that I sign a non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement, as condition for talking to them.) There are probably many similar idiots. A lot of Craigslist startup ads want someone who'll work for free.

My mother's reaction was amusing. She said "Working for free must be a good idea. Otherwise, a lot of people wouldn't be asking you to do it."

Astonishingly, they had already raised $300k of venture capital, even though they had no product and no working website. Are venture capitalists really that clueless? Can venture capitalists tell the difference between two low-skill parasites and the next Mark Zuckerberg?

I met with two guys. They were so clueless that they didn't even notice that I wasn't clueless. They were grinning like child molesters. The expression on their face said "Wow! FSK is going to write our product for us! He'll do all the work, we'll own it, and we'll be multi-millionaires! I can't believe that we're about to trick someone into saving our startup!" They had raised some VC, but they weren't willing to part with their hard-stolen money until after they had a working website. I'd be writing the code for them, in the hope that they'd maybe pay me later.

"I'll work for free in the hope that I'll be paid later." is one of the stupidest ideas ever. It's a good deal for the employer, but you'd be an idiot to take it if you really believe that you'll someday get paid. First, you've already established yourself as an idiot who'll work for free. Why should they pay you? Second, when/if money does come in, it's going to be wasted on other things before paying you. Third, as a minority shareholder, there are two many ways to be cheated, even if the startup is successful. For example, if you have a typical "4 year vesting with 1 year cliff", you can work for 11 months and then get fired and get nothing.

Why would I work for someone else for free, when I can work on my blog for $0.10/hr? Why would I work for free, when I can work on personal projects and keep 100% ownership.

Their idea was stupid. Even if I wrote their lousy product and it worked, it wouldn't be worth $300k, much less the $10M+ you'd need to make the $300k investment pay off. It was a neat idea, but there's no way it'd ever be worth $300k, even if I implemented it exactly to match their fantasies.

Neither of them had written the code so far. They had partnered with a third guy, who gave up and got a real cash-paying job. They said "Our code is 95% finished. We just need someone to do the last bits." If you repeat a lie often enough, you'll believe it and your investors will believe it. What do you expect them to tell their investors? "The guy who wrote the code quit because we weren't paying him and he had to get a real job. It's nowhere near finished." No, you lie and say that it's almost done. If it really was 95% done, then their other partner would have finished it. It almost definitely wasn't done at all. It would probably have been less work for me to redo it from scratch, than for me to understand what the other guy did.

They did say one interesting thing. They said "If we can get 10,000 users, then we can raise more VC at a $2M valuation." Does that mean that, if I start a website and get 10,000 regular users, then it's worth $2M? My blog has 200 regular readers. If you extrapolate linearly, does that mean my blog is worth $40,000? That seems silly. I only make $5/month from AdBrite. A stock that pays a dividend of $60/year is worth approximately $1000. Plus, I have to keep writing new posts. I couldn't sell my blog to a fool, and have them expect to not lose my regular readers.

Most VCs really want to start a business that will have a State-backed monopoly in its market niche. VCs want to invest in a business that will be profitable even after the psychopaths and parasites take over. VCs don't want to invest in a business that requires intelligent leadership to stay competitive.

Seeing those clueless twits made me think "I should work on fsklicious and my other personal projects. They are better ideas than these fools had. Plus, I can implement it myself and bootstrap it, paying only for a domain, a Linode, and my time. I'm currently unemployed, so I might as well use the time beneficially."

If I had no emotional intelligence, I'd need to partner with a parasite in order to get anything done. Now, I can handle both things. I'd rather handle the other logistics of having a business, rather than being a parasite's employe and giving them ownership and control.

For my first few weeks of unemployment, I was feeling tired and semi-burnt-out. Now, my motivation is returning. I should get my act together and register a domain and buy a Linode. It's amazing how much it drains your energy, to work as a wage slave.

This is lesson #1 of software startups and web startups. Unless a co-founder is writing version 1.0, your startup is worth $0. I can't believe that VCs are dumb enough to fall for that. You need more than a powerpoint presentation and a slick pitch, to have a viable startup.

That's also a symptom of corruption in the economy. How did those idiots manage to score $300k in capital, while more deserving projects go nowhere? In a corruption-based economy, capital goes to the best liars, and not the best workers.

Even if they did have a $1M budget to build their website, they'd blow it hiring someone clueless. If they really were willing to shell out some cash, they would have hired a skilled liar, and not a competent programmer. The only reason they considered me at all, was that they were hoping I'd be dumb enough to work for free.

I should have told them "Learn how to write software and do it yourself.", but they probably thought "Only losers write code." Plus, they didn't have the intellectual capacity to handle it. I also should have said "You have nothing. If you're honest, you should admit you've got nothing and give your investors their money back." There's no chance of that happening.

One of the guys was very buzzword compliant. His speech was a word salad of buzzwords, without making any sense. Can't VCs notice that? Are all VCs and State leaders like that, buzzword stream-of-consciousness without any real thinking?

It was very interesting, seeing those two clueless fools. On the one hand, it was offensive that they wanted me to work for free and make them millionaires. On the other hand, it was reassuring. If those two clueless twits can start a business and raise $300k of VC, then I can surely do better!

However, VCs would probably not return my phone calls, at least until I have a working product and users. By then, I probably wouldn't need VC! However, if I go the non-VC route, I'd need about 100k regular users, to make enough from Adbrite ads to be "ramen profitable".

This meeting made me think about VC some more. I had some interesting observations.

Raising VC is a full-time job by itself. Every day I spend meeting with VC is a day I don't spend improving my website. Every VC will string you along. They won't make a formal legally-binding commitment. They do want to string you along, in case you are successful, and they want to invest.

Those idiots were thinking "A bunch of VCs are stringing us along." as equivalent to "A bunch of VCs are really interested in our business." A VC isn't going to give a direct no, because he always wants the option of investing later. It's kind of sad that nobody explained to them. "Your business idea is stupid. You'll never get anywhere if you expect someone else to implement your vision for free."

Suppose I start a website and it's successful. I decide to raise VC. I raise $1M at a pre-money valuation of $1M.

Does that mean my shares are worth $1M? No.

First, I can't take that $1M and pay it out to myself as a dividend. The VC will expect me to hire employees and spend that money. Also, the VC may expect me to take no salary or a reduced salary, because I'm part owner. The difference between my fair salary and actual salary is a partial gift to the VC.

Second, once I get VC, I can't try to build a stable business with $200k in revenue. If I'm 100% owner and the only employee, $200k in revenue would be awesome. Once I raise VC, I have to swing for the fences, because the VC wants to cash out for $500M+. In that sense, my interests aren't aligned with the VC. I'm happy with a stable medium-income business. The VC wants to be ridiculously profitable.

Suppose I do have a business that generates income to support my rent and food. After that, any further gains go 100% to me, rather than having to give a cut to middlemen. Once I raise VC, my extra productivity gets given to the shareholders. In effect, I become the VC's employee. (However, it is worth it to get VC, if the extra growth potential is worth more than the equity sold. Most of my good ideas are bootstrappable, rather than one where VC would be a good idea. For an agorist business idea, VC is pointless.)

Third, the VC will demand I cede control of the business to him. There are many clauses that the VC can use to cheat me. No matter how good a lawyer I hire to represent me, there are "standard clauses" and various loopholes that can be used against me. The VC might demand re-vesting of founder shares, which means I give up my ownership until I vest. If there's founder re-vesting with a 1 year cliff, then the VC can fire me after 11 months and I get nothing. The VC might demand liquidation preferences, giving him greater effective ownership. The VC will demand that I hire a CEO of his choosing. Also, the VC could fire me and then mismanage the business and squander any remaining assets. (see the story of Ars Digita for a good example of how VC can end in disaster)

So, even if you do raise VC at a valuation of $X, your shares aren't worth $X. You can't cash out your shares for that value.

I shouldn't bother wasting time with VC. Right now, a VC wouldn't answer my calls. Once I have a working website and a reasonable number of users, I don't need VC anymore. If I raise VC once I'm moderately successful, I'm effectively gifting my bootstrapped business to the VC.

Free Keene Foolishness - Are Prison Guards Evil?

2011-10-14T12:00:00.003-04:00

This post on "Free Keene" had a serious error.

Since my issues is with the police and “justice” system for aggressing against peaceful people, I do not give the jailers any trouble by non cooperating or being disobedient. My beef is not with them.

Are you kidding me? Police and judges and prosecutors are evil, but not prison guards? You've got to be joking.

The prison guard is cooperating in the evil of the State, in exchange for a paycheck. Of course, it's pointless to tell the prison guard "I'm innocent. WTF am I here for?" The prison guard has been brainwashed to ignore pleas of innocence. The prison guard has been brainwashed to handle his role as cattle guard, and ignore other issues. Besides, every prisoner claims innocence, so the guard gets desensitized. (I noticed that when involuntarily hospitalized. Every patient/prisoner claims "WTF? I don't belong here! Let me go!" The nurses/guards are desensitized to such pleas, and ignore them.)

The prison guards are just as evil as the policemen, judges, and prosecutors. The guards obey orders and actively supports evil, in exchange for a paycheck. The system gives the prison guard no discretion, but that doesn't excuse the prison guard's behavior.

If you want to go all Goodwin's law, you could use the same argument to say "Concentration camp guards weren't evil. They were just obeying orders. Blame the politicians and judges, but not the executioner who's just obeying orders." The prison guard is obeying orders in exchange for a paycheck. That doesn't justify his behavior. There's no "I'm just following orders!" morality fairy, that magically turns evil into good.

A prison guard earns a paycheck for caging nonviolent offenders. That places him firmly in the "evil" category. In fact, prison workers' unions lobby for stricter mandatory minimum sentencing laws! That's pretty evil. Prison workers' unions lobby for the "War on Drugs", because it's a welfare/jobs program for prison workers! Unlike the policeman, prosecutor, and judge, the prison guard doesn't have State-authorized discretion to let his victim go. That doesn't magically make him "not evil". Even a judge, policeman, and prosecutor will frequently say "I have no discretion. I have to enforce the law as written."

If the judges didn't have prison guards willing to obey orders and cage nonviolent offenders, then the judge would have no power. Without prison guards mindlessly obeying orders, the judge would just be a crazy guy in a robe. The prison guard is an important cog in State evil. I don't see how any reasonable person could characterize prison guards as "not evil". Besides, only someone with evil personality tendencies, would take a job as prison guard.

Everyone who profits from State corruption, directly or indirectly, is supporting evil. In fact, I was indirectly supporting evil, writing financial software. My work was very far removed from the evil parts, but I was indirectly supporting evil and profiting from evil. I feel guilty about it, but I have to take whatever job I can get in order to survive.

If Ian said "I'm cooperating with the prison guards, because I want better conditions and a shorter sentence.", I'd respect that. When he says "Prison guards aren't evil.", that's complete nonsense. He's a fool for believing that. Anybody who profits from State violence is evil, whether they profit directly or indirectly. A prison guard pretty directly profits from State evil, especially when he's jailing nonviolent offenders.

Of course, a prison guard will be friendly with prisoners who cooperate. That makes the prison guard's job easier. Just because the prison guards were friendly with Ian, doesn't make them "not evil".

"I have to take whatever job I can to survive, even writing financial software." is comparable to "Given that I'm in prison, I'll cooperate with the guards in exchange for better treatment and a shorter sentence." Given that the State criminal conspiracy exists, I'll try to get the best job I can inside that corrupt system. Given that Ian was jailed for something stupid, he might as well cooperate while in prison, if it make the stay less unpleasant and shorter.

It's nonsense like this that makes me not take "Free Keene" seriously. The actual reason for imprisonment was silly, a confrontation with police over a minor issue. Yes, police are evil when they enforce bad laws. It's pretty stupid to get into a confrontation with police over minor offenses. It's better to save your energy for big important issues, and let the bad guys win less important ones.

Also, if you look at the "laugh lines" pattern on Ian Freeman's face, he has the parasitic personality type. He is making an emotional argument against the State, and not a very good logical argument. "The police will use violence over minor issues!" is an example of State evil. However, you're a fool if you actually dare the police to use violence over a specific minor issue. The police will happily oblige.

What Is The Real Unemployment Rate?

2011-10-13T12:00:00.001-04:00

I already wrote a post with this title, but I have another point to make.

Suppose that the "official" unemployment rate is 10%, but 50% of people work for the government.

Then, the real unemployment rate isn't 10%; it's 20%. The people who work for the government should be excluded. Most government workers perform negative work, useless work, or heavily overpriced work. When State thugs raid a raw milk farm, that's negative work. Most bureaucracy is useless work, and not directly harmful, except for the threat of violence if your papers aren't in order. When the State repairs a road or prevents real crime, that's necessary, but the State overcharges for that service.

There's another important point. Which people are unemployed.

Official State propaganda is "It's the 10% most useless workers, that are unemployed."

What if that's false? This is a corruption-based economy, and not a merit-based economy. What if the 10% unemployed are the 10% most skilled workers? That would be a tremendous disaster. The unionized telephone or cable worker has a cushy guaranteed job, while people who are good at repairing things are unemployed, because they can't get into the cartel.

Those are two important points regarding unemployment. First, people who work for the government shouldn't be counted in the "official unemployment number". Second, which workers are unemployed, the least skilled workers or the most skilled workers?

Sleazy Recruiter Tactic - The Fake Interview

2011-10-12T12:00:00.001-04:00

I just realized another sleazy tactic, that some employers and headhunters use. It's the "fake interview".

Suppose you own a consulting business. You send out employment ads. When people respond, you use that to fish for information on what potential clients are doing.

Another trick that headhunters use is "Tell me everywhere you've interviewed, so we don't double-submit you." This enables the headhunter to make a list of who's hiring, and who to solicit as potential clients.

I'd never realized that before. Some job ads aren't posted by employers that are serious about hiring. Some of them are trolling, fishing for information.

60 Minutes Fnord - Jeff Immelt

2011-10-11T12:00:00.002-04:00

I don't normally watch 60 Minutes, because it's pretty severe propaganda. I watched a bit on Sunday, waiting for The Amazing Race, delayed due to football.

I saw Jeff Immelt on 60 Minutes. There was one bit that was really interesting.

They do a cut-away to a "reaction shot" from the interviewee to the interviewer. They interviewer had an expression of "Jeff Immelt is a genius! I'm so lucky that I'm privileged to interview him!" Contrast that with a Ron Paul or Peter Schiff interview, when they're criticizing the Federal Reserve. The "reaction shot cut-away" shows the interviewer scowling and frowning, saying "This guy is such a fruitcake!" That's a subtle, but important, piece of pro-State brainwashing. (In some of the Presidential debates, they had a cut-away shot to a scowling interviewer, as Ron Paul gave his answers.)

They also had another misleading bit. "GE pays zero Federal taxes." That is wrong. GE pays negative Federal taxes.

GE's nominal Federal tax rate was zero. However, GE receives Federal contracts and loans. Including those contracts as negative taxes, that pushes GE into negative taxes.

GE also has a massive amount of debt on its books. According to Yahoo Finance, GE has $471B of debt on its books. The interest rate on that debt is probably approximately 5%. (I don't know exactly, but that's typical corporate bond rates.) True inflation is 20%-30% or more. That means that GE is paying an interest rate of negative 20% or less on its debt, receiving a State subsidy of approximately $100B a year. This State subsidy comes from the fact that GE gets to borrow at artificially low rates, borrowing via the banksters and the Federal Reserve interest rate cartel.

This interest rate subsidy gives GE a tremendous advantage over smaller competitors. GE can use this cheap debt to invest or buyout smaller competitors, wait for inflation, and then profit. If you include this interest rate subsidy as a charge to GE's earnings, GE is destroying capital at a tremendous rate. GE receives a continuous massive State bailout, via negative interest rates.

It's the underpants gnomes, but making sense according to evil State accounting:

Borrow as much money as you can and buy as much as you can.
Wait for inflation.
Profit!

If I wanted to invest in a web startup, I wouldn't be able to borrow at a couple percent like GE. That gives GE a huge economic advantage over me and other potential small businesses. (Also, patent law benefits GE, enabling them to use the legal system to quash competitors.)

There was another amusing bit about "international corporate tax holidays." International corporations keep offshore earnings in offshore subsidiaries in tax havens, paying zero US Federal income taxes. Every 5-10 years, the Federal government declares a "tax holiday", allowing corporations to take their offshore earnings back into the USA, paying a low tax rate of only a couple of percent.

Do you see the fallacy? If you *KNOW* that there's going to be a "tax holiday" every 5-10 years, then you keep your earnings offshore until the next holiday. That's a clever loophole.

There also was an interesting bit about an NFL agent. That guy was obviously an ***hole. The athletes probably have the "abused productive" personality type, and need a parasitic/psychopathic agent to bargain for them. The agent was being promoted as an awesome guy helping out athletes. In fact, being on 60 Minutes was a huge boon to his career, making it easier for him to sign other clients.

He was a clearcut example of corruption capitalism. The middleman agent earns a huge income, without doing any real work, and he thinks he's a super-genius. The athletes are probably thinking "I'm lucky I have such a huge scumbag, negotiating on my behalf."

Here's another fallacy with agents. "The agent gets paid a commission, based on a percentage of the athlete's earnings. Therefore, the agent's interests are aligned with the player." That is false. Suppose it's a 3% commission rate, on a $10M contract. That's $300k to the agent for closing the deal. Is the agent going to risk his $300k fee, to try to get the player a little more? No. The incentive for the agent is to close the deal, rather than negotiate for an extra couple percent. Is the agent really willing to risk $300k for an extra couple thousand dollars? The agent doesn't have to go out and risk bodily injury playing. He collects his paycheck for closing the deal, and not for negotiating hard for every last dollar for his client.

It was interesting to see 60 Minutes. It was nearly complete propaganda. The "interviewer reaction shot" is a great trick for editing the interview, to make the interviewee look brilliant or stupid. The hype is "Jeff Immelt is a genius who deserves his fortune." rather than "Like almost all CEOs, he's someone who uses the State to line his pockets." An abomination like GE could not exist in a really free market. GE receives tremendous direct and indirect State subsidies, in the form of government contracts and artificially cheap debt. If you include these subsidies as a charge to earnings, GE is a huge sinkhole destroying capital and wealth.

Wall Street Protests - Astroturf or Genuine?

2011-10-10T12:00:00.004-04:00

dionysusal has left a new comment on your post ""Best of FSK" - September 2011":

FSK,
Are you gonna do a post about "Occupy Wall Street"? Don't you work on Wall Street (when you work)?

I'd be meaning to do a post about that. Actually, I'd been doing most of my post writing on the subway, so I'm sort of falling behind.

Yes, I'm unemployed now. My most recent job was in that area, although I've worked in most parts of Manhattan. The protest didn't start until after my last day of work!

There really isn't much to say about the protests. It's the usual problem. A protest doesn't really accomplish anything. A protest doesn't really threaten the bad guys. A protest is a group of slaves begging their masters to be less cruel.

Yes, a lot of people are disgruntled. Now that I'm unemployed again, my personal disgruntledness factor has increased. My personal unemployment rate has increased from 0% to 100%.

Some of the "protesters" are probably planted disinformation agents or undercover State spies.

The mainstream media spin of the protests are "Higher taxes on the wealthy." The taxation rate for insiders is irrelevant. Most State insiders are negative taxpayers. If you steal $100M via the State and then pay $50M in taxes, is it more accurate to say "You paid $50M in taxes." or "You stole $50M."? CEOs present themselves are super-patriotic people paying high taxes and donating to charity, but they are mostly spending stolen property.

"Higher taxes for the wealthy" winds up hurting successful small business owners, rather than true insiders. The tax proposal will probably hurt the people in the 99-95th percentile incomes, while it won't hurt the top 0.1%-0.01% at all.

The protesters seem to have a low level of economic literacy. Let me know when you see some protesters saying:

Eliminate the Federal Reserve!
Eliminate the income tax! (State propaganda is "The income tax steals from the rich and gives back to the poor." The reality is that the income tax steals from the average worker, with the profits going to insiders.)
The Federal Reserve is a price-fixing cartel!
Fiat debt-based money is evil! (It'd be too much to expect any of them to understand the Compound Interest Paradox.)
Gold and silver are better than paper money!

The actual protesters seem to be pro-State trolling, at least the bits I've seen. They are disgruntled, but severely misinformed. They seem to believe things like "Deficit spending for the Federal government stimulates the economy!", or "Government should regulate banks more!" and similar nonsense. The protesters may be saying "Free markets are evil!", while the current financial industry is the result of government, and not a true free market.

Yes, the banksters looted the economy for trillions of dollars, and continue to do so. However, that theft happens in collusion with the Federal government. It's pointless to criticize the financial industry, without also criticizing the government that enables their theft.

It's almost impossible to organize an effective protest. Disinformation agents will be planted to disrupt things. The mainstream media might not cover it, or have biased coverage. A protest doesn't threaten the key State evils. You're at the protest, but the police still are collecting taxes and enforcing bad laws. A lot of people are unemployed, giving them nothing better to do than go to a protest. Eventually, a protest runs out of steam, because people have to work.

The protest is a good sign, that people are very disgruntled. It's a waste of time. The protests are probably controlled by disinformation agents and undercover cops. The protesters seem to be presenting a weak pro-State troll criticism of the financial industry.

"Best of FSK" - September 2011

2011-10-09T12:00:00.003-04:00

According to Google Analytics, September was a good month for my blog. I had 7324 Absolute Unique Visitors, just shy of my record 7717 in October 2010. (I wonder why September and October tend to be really good months for my blog. That makes no sense.)

My September AdBrite earnings were $7.73. My average eCPM from AdBrite is around $0.50. That seems low, but at least they send me a check and didn't ban me. I'm at only 1/3 of my goal of making $20/month, which is what I would need to cover a Linode. Now that I'm unemployed, I might move to my own domain, since I have free time. (I'm not interested in cheaper hosting options than a Linode, because I want to write some of my own code, in addition to just having a blog.)

According to Google Analytics, my most popular posts in September 2011 were:

Groupon Is A Scam (514)
BMI/ASCAP/SESAC Legal Extortion Scam (410)
Did the USA Declare Bankruptcy? (334)
Who's the Richest Man in the World? (261)
Ruby on Rails Sucks! (247)
The Pat Tillman Conspiracy Theory (245)
The Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depression (183)
The Gold Lease Rate is Negative! (170)
Silk Road Was A Partial AgoristBay Implementation (157)
The Compound Interest Paradox (150)
The New Delicious Sucks! (149)
Agorist Philosophy Overview (120)
Solyndra Stole $500M "Stimulus" Money (107)
The Hunt Brothers' Silver Corner (92)
Calculating Vega and other Greeks in Black-Scholes (82)
Is It Worth Hoarding Nickels? (82)
Premium Text Messaging Fraud - 91097 and 654654 (79)
The Gold and Silver Taxation Scam (69)
Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2007 (69)
Warrent Buffett - Tax My Competitors More (69)
Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2008 (67)
Satanic Death Hospitals (66)
Are the GLD and SLV ETFs a Fraud? (60)
Real GDP Is Crashing, 2000-2009 (60)
Federal Reserve "Twist" (58)
The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 1/12 - Overview and Background (57)
StackOverflow Sucks! (57)
The Carried Interest Tax Loophole (57)
The Five Levels of the Economy (53)
How Well Does GLD Track Gold? (53)
The Tally Stick Monetary System (50)
UBS Loses $2 Billion (50)
The Compound Interest Paradox Revisited - Edward Flaherty is a Troll (49)
The Federal Reserve and Income Tax Conspiracy Theory (46)
The Fluoride Conspiracy Theory (46)
Are College Athletes Exploited? (46)
Goldman Sachs and Facebook (45)
The Bitcoin Conspiracy Theory (45)
Idiot Manager Tactics (44)
The Velocity of Money (43)
Corporate Death Penalty (41)
Android Classic Retro Emulator List (39)
The Nymphomaniac Pattern (38)
Kitchen Nightmares And Psychopaths (37)
Fnord Analysis - "Inside Job" Documentary (36)

I've noticed that "X sucks!" and "X is a scam!" posts tend to do well, especially when X really does suck or X really is a scam. "The New Delicious Sucks!" is underrated in this list, because I published it near the end of September. That post is doing very well so far in October.

Usually, when I say "X sucks!", some trolls come out saying "FSK, you're wrong. X really doesn't suck." Nobody has made a comment defending the new delicious. I really should write "fsklicious". Now that I'm unemployed, I should get my own domain, own Linode, and start coding some stuff. However, I shouldn't feel guilty about relaxing for the first few weeks of unemployment.

If you only count posts published in September 2011, the most popular posts were:

The New Delicious Sucks! (149)
Solyndra Stole $500M "Stimulus" Money (107)
Federal Reserve "Twist" (58)
UBS Loses $2 Billion (50)
Android Classic Retro Emulator List (39)
Fnord Analysis - "Inside Job" Documentary (36)
New Phone Today! (35)
New Phone - Motorola Droid 3 (31)
GE Receives $100B In State Subsidies Per Year (29)
9/11/01 Ten Year Anniversary (26)
Blogger On Android - All Apps Suck (22)
No Phone, No Internet, No Verizon (22)

I also updated the "Best of FSK" list in the left sidebar.

School Feedback vs. Work Feedback

2011-10-08T12:00:00.003-04:00

I noticed a severe difference between the type of feedback you get in school, compared to the feedback you get when working.

In school, especially in Math, there's explicit direct feedback. "You said that the answer is 17. The correct answer is 23. Here's why you're wrong." Even for memorization contests like history, there's feedback. "Truman was President after FDR. Your answer of Eisenhower is wrong." or "That word isn't spelled correctly."

However, it's more vague in the humanities. If an essay is given a B instead of an A, you usually can't prove why it was marked down.

At work, feedback is nonexistent or misleading. For example, if I'm given a programming employment screening test, they usually won't say "The correct answer is X." Instead, they merely say "We're not hiring you.", without giving the reason.

The employer also is failing to get feedback. If they fail to hire someone awesome, they'll never know. If they hire someone who doesn't work out, then that looks bad. So, they try to avoid one type of error (hiring someone you later fire), missing out on another type of error (missing out on someone good). (In fact, "Don't hire really smart people." matches "Don't match people I'm forced to fire because they make me look bad.") Most corporations have a monopoly/oligopoly, so missing out on someone good doesn't matter. Even for startups, the VC connections are more important than having a good product, so corruption still reigns. The fundamental problem is a non-free market. Inefficient employers don't get punished by competition.

Some of the work feedback is outright misleading. Your boss might say "FSK is not a team player." when he really means "You shouldn't disagree with me, even when I'm wrong. I feel threatened by you, because you're smarter than me." Nobody could explicitly say to me "FSK, you're a lousy programmer.", because I'd never believe them. Instead, they make up other excuses.

I used to think it was random, whether I got along well with someone or not. That's false. Some people are decent and some are scum. I get along well with the decent people. No matter how polite I am, scum won't get along well with me, because they're offended by my competence.

Of course, a pro-State troll says "That's a very ego-centric definition. People who agree with FSK are good, and people who disagree with FSK are evil." I'm very well in-tune with the truth now, so it's reasonable for me to define people who disagree with me as evil, especially people who have the parasitic or psychopathic personality type. That also includes intelligent-but-deluded people who can't see past their pro-State brainwashing, and get hostile when I challenge their false beliefs. Of course, a psychopath would define me as evil, although they'd make up other excuses, so it's fairly well reciprocated.

That was a very interesting analogy. In school, especially when studying Math, there's explicit objective feedback. At work, there's either no feedback, or vague and misleading feedback. Someone who's really threatened by your competence will make up another excuse. A coworker who's backstabbing you will be friendly to your face. (I've had coworkers and bosses tell me that I was doing a good job, while they were trashing my reputation to their bosses.) If someone doesn't hire you, they will typically give zero feedback or misleading feedback.

It is very frustrating, that it's hard to get accurate feedback when working. I'm able to see between the lines now, and see what's actually happening, and not what people say. My problem when working is not "I can't write software that runs well." My problem is getting backstabbed by evil coworkers. No matter how good you are at writing software, that won't solve the problem of sabotage by evil coworkers. In fact, being a better programmer and more in-tune with emotions, only makes evil people more eager to eliminate you as competition. Due to the nature of the State, every business has some parasitic or psychopathic people pulling the strings.

Protect IP Act, Protect Media Corporation Profits Act

2011-10-07T12:00:00.001-04:00

There's a bill in Congress called the "Protect IP Act". A more accurate name is the "Protect Media Corporation Profits Act".

For domains registered in the USA, the police can already seize your domain without trial, via "asset forfeiture".

The "Protect IP" act targets domains registered outside the USA. The US government can't seize the domain, because it's registered outside the USA. Instead, the bill forces DNS servers in the USA to not carry the domain. Google and other sites would be banned from mentioning it.

The evil part of the law is that there's no jury trial. All it takes is a warrant signed by the judge, and the domain is blacklisted.

For tangible property, the police can seize your property without trial, via "asset forfeiture". In an "asset forfeiture" case, your property is charged with a crime and not you, placing the burden of proof on you to try and recover it. This law extends "asset forfeiture" power to the Internet, forcing DNS servers in the USA to not carry certain domains.

Fortunately, the law contains a massive humongous loophole. The law only seizes the domain. You can still access the "banned" site via IP address.

Intellectual property is not property. I no longer feel guilty about downloading old out-of-print computer games. Even if I did buy a used copy, the programmers who wrote it won't get paid extra.

Via "Hollywood Accounting", most music artists don't get royalties, even for blockbuster hits. Almost all money spent on purchases goes to corporate middlemen, rather than to the artists and workers. Pro-State trolls say "Copyright benefits artists!", but the profits of one more marginal sale all go to corporate middlemen.

That's the beauty of evil copyright law. Copyright is owned by the individual, *BUT* you have to sell your copyright to get published by the cartel. Most copyrights end up owned by large corporations.

Imagine a website that had every single computer game that was over 10 years old! Due to copyright law, it's impossible to create such a website legally. People do it anyway, illegally.

It's really nice to download a torrent of *ALL* old Atari games. If it were possible to purchase it legally, it'd be worth a couple hundred dollars. Unfortunately, the only way to get a complete game collection is "illegally". There's no way to sell such a collection legally, due to legal wrangling with copyright owners. Each copyright owner would demand a huge fee, for permission to include that game in the collection.

Intellectual property is not property. The only way the copyright can be enforced, is by spying on everyone all the time. To enforce copyright, the State must restrict your ability to use your own computer. In a digital world, copying costs zero, making traditional copyright obsolete.

I'm really interested in retrogaming now. It'd be a shame if laws like "Protect IP" interfere with that. Fortunately, the Protect IP law contains a massive loophole. If you know the IP address, then you can bypass the seizure.

No matter what countermeasures Statists take, there are ways a computer literate person could evade it. If necessary, people would start mailing each other DVDs and USB drives.

I really like the retrogaming torrent websites. It's impressive that people have preserved old computer games, in spite of the fact that it's "illegal". I'm concerned that laws like "Protect IP" could interfere with that.

The annoying part of the "Protect IP Act" is that it's flagrantly protecting the profits of a handful of insiders. Even worse laws may be coming. However, I'm not that offended by the "Protect IP Act", because you can avoid the ban by directly entering the site's IP address.

Programming Employment Screening Tests

2011-10-06T12:00:00.004-04:00

I'm looking for a new job again. Most employers want you to do a 4+ hour "employment programming screening test".

That is insulting and degrading. I'm a professional! I have 10 years of experience. I went to a good university. Can't you afford to have someone talk to me for a few minutes, to see if I have a clue or not? Why did I spend 4 years getting a degree, if employers are giving me a basic skills screening on an interview? Most of the "employment screening tests" are simpler and stupider than the homework and tests when I was a CS student. Is their stupid test going to measure more than "FSK has a CS degree with honors from a good university."?

However, it does act as a filter on another level. If someone isn't willing to jump through stupid hoops for a job, then they're not desperate enough to be a willing slave.

I'm also using it as a filter. I notice a severe negative correlation between "places that offer a stupid employment screening test" and "places I want to work". By refusing to take the test, I'm filtering out the most clueless employers. (However, my last job offered a screening test. Initially, I was extremely hostile to doing it, but the headhunter talked me into it. On the other hand, it wasn't such a great job.)

It's also a waste of time. Very frequently, I do their stupid test, and don't get an onsite interview anyway. I know I did well on the test. Why am I wasting my time?

On the other hand, I'm unemployed with nothing better to do. I might as well waste 4+ hours taking a stupid test for someone that probably isn't going to give me an onsite interview anyway.

However, it is possible that there are a lot of clueless unqualified liars out there. From my point of view, it's a stupid waste of time. The stupid test may screen out the truly unqualified. However, if you can't figure that out yourself after talking to someone for a few minutes, then you're hopeless.

I can evaluate someone's technical ability by talking to them for a few minutes. If you aren't willing to spend a few minutes interviewing each candidate, then you aren't serious about hiring someone good.

For what other jobs, do you ask basic skill tests before hiring someone?

Do you ask a lawyer to define some basic legal terms, before hiring him?
Do you ask a doctor to name some parts of your anatomy, before hiring him?
Do you ask your dentist if he can name all your teeth, before hiring him?
Do you ask your accountant if he knows the difference between a debit and a credit, before hiring him?
Do you ask your plumber to name the parts of a toilet, before hiring him?

However, most of those jobs are backed by a State licensing cartel. A State licensing cartel isn't the answer for software jobs. First, the most skilled software engineers would never back a licensing cartel. Second, large tech corporations like exploiting cheap labor, and won't lobby for a State licensing cartel. Third, a programmer licensing cartel might make it illegal for me to bootstrap my own software business. Finally, some of the best programmers have degrees in other areas, like Math or Physics or other areas of Science; a licensing cartel would shut them out.

The correct solution is a free market. Ideally, in a really free market, the people making hiring decisions should be those with the most skills. In a corrupt collapsing State economy, it's the most clueless people making hiring decisions.

At this point, a pro-State troll may say "They are smarter than you, FSK. They have a job and you don't. They're in a position of authority and FSK isn't." No, that doesn't disprove my point, "The system is totally broken." In a dying corrupt system, the most clueless people, the parasites and the psychopaths, are the leaders. Being very skilled works against me rather than in my favor. Most middle managers would rather hire someone mediocre, rather than someone brilliant who could potentially replace them. Most people say "I want to hire the best!", but they really mean "I'm concerned about my own job security. I don't want to hire someone *TOO* smart."

In a really free market, it would be possible for skilled workers to get together and steal market share from inefficient competitors. In the present, that isn't possible, due to State restriction of the market.

It's a symptom of an unequal power relationship, between employers and workers/slaves. It's a symptom of a corrupt system. It isn't the underlying problem, but a severe symptom. In a freer market, if employers were rude to employees, they would work elsewhere or start their own business.

It is insulting and degrading, that employers demand a stupid screening test for a job. That's another sign that programmers aren't treated like serious professionals.

Hank Williams Jr. And State Censorship

2011-10-05T12:00:00.004-04:00

This story is interesting. Hank Williams Jr. wrote the "Are You Ready For Some Football?" song, played before Monday Night Football. He made some negative comments regarding President Obama, comparing him to Hitler. ABC/Disney/State punished him, pulling his song from Monday Night Football, denying him royalty payments.

The message is pretty clear. If you're a celebrity and you say the wrong thing, then we'll censor you and ruin your career.

The censorship is by ABC/Disney, and not the government. However, media corporations get their monopoly/oligopoly market power from the State. It's effectively illegal to start my own business and compete with them. Media corporations have a huge incentive to preserve a corrupt system. In fact, media corporate insiders have more influence than politicians. By promoting or censoring a candidate or idea, they can influence millions of people.

The "Obama is Hitler" comment is amusing. Obama isn't saying "Kill all the Jews!" That would be too obviously evil. Obama does say "If you don't buy health insurance, I'll kill you. If you buy or sell raw milk, I'll kill you. If you don't pay taxes/tribute, then I'll kill you."

Every politician is like Hitler, because his insane rantings are backed by violence and color of law. You must obey, or he'll kill you. Mentally add "or we'll kill you" to any law, and the evil is more obvious.

It is disappointing that celebrities are fired, when they say something "inappropriate". It's censorship. If you're a celebrity, you have a high-paying job, but you're a replaceable cog. Every celebrity/journalist/politician must be continually on edge. They know that if they say the wrong thing, they will be fired and their career is ruined. This is especially true when they hint at a forbidden truth. Obama isn't Hitler. However, all bad laws are backed by violence, making most politicians evil.

"No Reply" Customer Support

2011-10-04T12:00:00.004-04:00

I'm still struggling to get Verizon to give me my trade-in phone rebate. My current problem is that I have two phones and two rebate mail envelopes. However, there is no indication which phone belongs in which envelope.

Presumably, if I put the wrong phone in the wrong envelope, then I forfeit my rebate.

I'm so annoyed that they're making me jump though so many hoops to get the rebate.

They sent me some "customer support" E-Mails. It comes with a "no-reply" E-Mail address. If you try to reply to the E-Mail, it bounces.

What kind of geniuses thought up this? "Let's make sure that our customers can't contact us!"?

Why can't I just answer the E-Mail and get a response? Why make it so hard? Do they intentionally not want feedback from their customers?

It isn't hard to combine E-Mails and customer support tickets. For example, FogBugz does this.

Why intentionally make it hard for customers to contact you? When did things go from "The customer is always right!" to "Treat the customer like garbage."?

The problem is that each industry is organized via a monopoly/oligopoly. If I drop Verizon cell phone, AT&T and the handful of others are just as bad.

Our Verizon landline phone hasn't been working for more than a month. With Time-Warner, it doesn't work all the time. If I drop Verizon, the only other landline option is Time-Warner. If I drop Time-Warner, the only other choice is Verizon.

Goddamn it. The Bittorrent "illegal downloading" filesharing websites are run by volunteers, and they give me better service than Verizon and Time-Warner? Why is that? Why can't a for-profit corporation give me decent customer support and a product that actually works?

The reason is they have a monopoly. They know that if I want a phone and cable TV, there's only a handful of choices. They all hire the same braindead consultants to set up things for them. For the filesharing websites, if it was a POS, nobody would use it and go elsewhere.

If you have a monopoly/oligopoly, it makes no difference if you mistreat your customers. You can afford to ignore their E-Mails with "no reply" addresses. You can afford to have a useless website. You can afford to make customers wait for an hour for support. In a free market, if you mistreat customers, you lose them. When you have a monopoly, there's no market penalty for disrespecting customers. Verizon and Time Warner know that I have almost no other options, so they can afford to mistreat me.

Why can't I get a simple rebate rather than get a runaround? Why can't I just E-Mail customer support, instead of this stupid "no-reply" E-Mail trick? Why doesn't my phone work? Why doesn't the cable work? Does nobody know how to do anything anymore? Are all the competent workers unemployed, while psychopaths and parasites are running things?

"News" = "Advertisements"

2011-10-03T13:00:00.000-04:00

I was watching the "news". They had a story on the "X Factor".

Is this news, or is it an advertisement?

In fact, the "news" contains many hidden advertisements for the State, and subtle pro-State brainwashing.

For example, notice the staccato tone of the news speaker. It's a type of hypnosis.

Who, Pencil?

2011-10-03T12:00:00.000-04:00

I have some 20+ year old pencils. I have some newer pencils.

For the new pencils, the point frequently breaks when I sharpen it.

For the old pencils, they sharpen without difficulty.

Nobody knows how to make a pencil anymore.

Raw Cantaloupe, Raw Milk

2011-10-02T12:00:00.002-04:00

This story is interesting. A lot of people got sick form contaminated cantaloupe. 72 people got sick and 16 died.

The contamination was traced back to one large farm, Jensen Farms.

Shouldn't there be any liability for the farm? If 16 people died, and a wrongful death claim is $5M+, then there should be liability of $80M+. Even if there is a lawsuit, damages probably won't fall on the executives and workers.

When you have a large factory farm, and there's contamination, many people get sick.

When you have small local farms, any contamination affects fewer people.

To prevent contamination on large farms, regulations are passed. In practice, these regulations are a regressive tax on small farmers. This encourages abuse by large factory farms.

That is very interesting. More people have gotten sick from cantaloupe poisoning than from raw milk. However, State thugs are very eager to crack down on raw milk sellers and buyers.

Yankees Starting Pitching Error

2011-10-01T14:00:00.001-04:00

The Yankees and Tigers both made a serious error in Game 1. They knew that a rain delay was a near-certainty, with a likely rainout. They both wasted their superstar pitchers, Verlander and Sabathia. They won't be able to pitch again until Game 3.

They should have used relievers in the first two innings. For example, the Yankees could have used Soriano or Robertson for the first two innings. Then, if there's a rainout, Sabathia is saved for the next day. If there's a rain delay but no rainout, then Sabathia pitches after the delay.

The Yankees have great relievers. They should have been willing to use relievers for the first two innings.

In the unlikely event that the relievers give up a bunch of runs, then Sabathia can be saved until Game 2.

I never understood why teams never try that. If you have great relievers, you can use them for the first few innings and put in your starters later.

With a near-certain rain delay, the Yankees and Tigers should have saved their star pitcher until after the delay.

Firefox Interesting UI Tweak

2011-10-01T13:00:00.001-04:00

I noticed an interesting UI tweak in Firefox. It no longer displays "http://" at the start of a URL. If you do other protocols, like file://, it displays the prefix.

If you cut and paste the URL, it adds the "http://" for you.

I like the tweak, because "http://" is an obvious space-wasting default.

It's interesting to notice the difference between nice UI tweaks, and crap like delicious. Open source projects tend to have nice improvements (Firefox, WordPress). Closed-source projects tend to be lousy and aimed at controlling users (Facebook, Delicious).

State Priorities?

2011-10-01T12:00:00.001-04:00

My parents have been fighting with Verizon, to get them to try to fix the landline service.

The customer support is one big runaround. When they call, they say "Use our website!" When we look on the website, it says "Call us!"

I also got one big runaround from Verizon, trying to claim the $100 credit for trading in my old cellphone after my upgrade.

Verizon has a monopoly. The have no incentive to give good customer support.

As I already mentioned, I recently lost my job. I decided to file an unemployment claim. I had to call them for something. (I filed one week late. After I called, they gave me credit for that week.)

Here's something that shocked me completely. The "customer support" for the NY Unemployment office wasn't a clueless twit! She actually knew what she was doing and fixed the fact that I filed one week late. (However, it must be a common error. Their script probably covers that case.)

(Some people say that it's immoral to accept an unemployment claim. I was forced to pay for it via a payroll tax. I might as well claim the partial tax refund now. If I don't do it, then the State will just waste that money on something else. Because my employers had to pay unemployment tax, I got a lower salary.)

Another interesting thing about unemployment claims, is that it enables the State to track workers much better. If you give unemployed people a cash incentive to register with the State, then it's much easier to track things.

That shows where State priorities are. When you need your phone fixed, the State monopoly gives lousy service. The unemployment office is important!

I found that hilarious. Verizon gave me lousy customer support, but the unemployment office was surprisingly competent.

Social Security Is A Ponzi Scam

2011-09-30T12:00:00.001-04:00

I've written about this before. Social Security is one big Ponzi scam.

In some ways, Social Security is worse than a Ponzi scam. With Bernard Madoff, I could have protected myself by refusing to invest or doing due diligence. With Social Security, I'm forced to participate via taxes. Also, State accounting is exempt from the rules that normally apply to the private sector. If the State does something, it's presumed to be a good idea.

This is a current issue, because Rick Perry criticized Social Security.

It seems that Rick Perry's character is "I'm saying politically incorrect things. Therefore, all people who believe these things are fools."

Rick Perry has picked a few "politically incorrect" statements.

Social Security is a Ponzi Scam. (true)
"Carbon dioxide causes global warming" is a scam. (true, but Rick Perry presents a weak criticism, which almost makes it seem like an edorsement)
criticizing the Federal Reserve (again, it's a weak criticism)
I doubt evolution. (gotta throw in something silly to make him look like a complete fool)

BTW, Rick Perry seems like the insider's choice, for the next President. Ron Paul is the least evil candidate. The fnords seem to indicate that Rick Perry will win.

Getting back to the post title, Social Security is a Ponzi scam.

First, I'll address one irrelevant point, "Social Security is Unconstitutional". The Social Security tax is an income tax. It's as valid as everything else the IRS does. (I'm ignoring people who say that the income tax is invalid due to a legal technicality. Unfortunately, Federal judges and appeals court judges have consistently ruled that the income tax is 100% legal, as currently enforced. Even if they are wrong, they have a "justice" monopoly and their decision is final.)

Suppose that younger workers were given the choice to opt-out. They agree to not make any future claims, and in return they don't pay any more Social Security taxes (both employer and employee portion). The worker effectively pays the employer portion of Social Security tax. His salary is reduced by the amount of payroll tax the employer pays.

A pro-State troll says "You're being silly. Social Security would collapse in insolvency if younger workers could opt-out." Isn't that proof it's a Ponzi scam?

A pro-State troll says "Social Security isn't a Ponzi scam. It's pay-as-you-go." This is arguing definitions. Pay-as-you-go is a fancy word that means "Ponzi scam". Current Social Security taxes pay benefits to people who pay in previously. That's a Ponzi scam; current payments go to previous investors.

A pro-State troll points out "Government is not required to obey the same accounting rules as the private sector." Any private business that used the same methods as Social Security would be shut down for operating a fraud. Government does it and passes a law saying it's legal. That doesn't make it not-a-scam.

There's no way that current Social Security promises can be kept, unless there's massive inflation, tax hikes, or benefit cuts. It's a Ponzi scam.

Like all Ponzi scams, Social Security was initially profitable for the scamsters, until it collapses as the scam is exposed via insolvency. Until 2010, Social Security was a massive profit center for the State. Until 2010, Social Security taxes collected exceeded benefits paid. The surplus was not put into a "trust fund". That's an accounting fiction. That money was immediately spent. Because Social Security ran a taxation surplus, deficit spending could occur elsewhere without causing inflation.

Consider this analogy. "Bernard Madoff is running a Ponzi scam. Let's give him another $5B so he can keep his scam running." That's obviously silly. That's what all the "reform Social Security" proposals sound like.

With Bernard Madoff, his scam was stopped and leftover money was returned to investors. The Social Security scam should be stopped and the leftover money should be returned to taxpayers. There's nothing in the Social Security trust fund, just a stack of IOUs. The "leftover funds" is $0.

In many ways, Social Security is worse than any private-sector Ponzi scam. I didn't invest with Bernard Madoff. In the private sector, I can be clever and not be fooled by scamsters. Under threat of violence, I'm forced to participate in Social Security via taxes. Via State lawmaking magic pixie dust, Social Security is not-a-scam, because State lawmakers and comedians say so.

Social Security was sold to the public as an "insurance plan". To maintain that illusion, the Amish were given an exemption. Social Security is an income tax. The complicated "benefit formula" helps hide the fact that it's a tax. It makes it seem like you're paying taxes in exchange for some future benefit. Even for current retirees, they're getting a lousy return compared to most other investments. It's going to be even worse for younger workers.

Social Security is one big Ponzi scam. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool or a liar. Current Social Security taxes pay benefits to previous "investors"/taxpayers. That's a Ponzi scam.

Unemployed Again

2011-09-29T12:00:00.004-04:00

My contract ended and I'm unemployed again. I mentioned this indirectly, but not explicitly.

So far, I'm getting 1 interview per week, which is decent.

I'm doing the usual jobsearch grind. You might say "FSK, start your own business!" That isn't easy as it sounds. I'm making only $5/month from AdBrite ads. It's not that easy to find something that's a moneymaker.

That's the problem with the economy. If it were easy for someone like me to start a business or co-found a business, then the economy wouldn't be in the toilet. Instead, people with political connections have spectacular success, while I'm struggling to get by.

Even if I'm bootstrapping a successful business, I still need income in the meantime.

I like my new Android phone. I'm going to download the SDK and experiment.

Now that I have greater awareness, searching for a job is frustrating. I'm interviewing with people who have *BOTH* less emotional awareness and less logical ability, compared to me. Previously, I usually outranked employers on logical awareness but not emotional awareness.

It is very frustrating, to try to convince someone who doesn't know as much as me, to hire me. You might say "Act stupider!", but I'm not going to do that.

Nobody says "FSK, we're rejecting you because you're too smart. You'll make me look bad in comparison. I'm rejecting you out of concern for my own job security." Nobody will say that. Instead, they make up some other excuse.

There's always one parasite or psychopath on the hiring committee. The rule usually is "Everyone has to vote 'yes' to hire someone." Therefore, the evil interviewer will veto hiring me, because he feels threatened by me. Due to the nature of the State, *EVERY* work group has someone evil or evil-leaning.

Another good trick is "I'm making up a reason to reject FSK, because there's someone else I want to hire." It's very easy for the interviewer to give me a bad rating when nobody else is looking, and then give favorable ratings to his friends or people he doesn't feel threatened by. I suspect that, in some cases, the interviewee gets the interview questions ahead of time.

My favorite joke is "We want you to work for equity only." In other words, work for free. I'm not dumb enough to fall for that one, but it doesn't hurt to ask or try. Even if I worked for equity-only and the company was ridiculously successful, there's too many ways to get cheated. The same type of person who would ask me to work for equity-only is the same type of person who would cheat me if the business is successful. As a minority shareholder, there's too many ways to get cheated. Why would I work for equity only, when I can make $5/month working on my blog? My effective blogging salary is approximately $0.10/hr, which is $0.10/hr more than I'd ever get in an equity-only job.

The ideal scenario would be to find a promising startup and join as one of the early technical employees, and write version 1.0 of their product by myself. No such opportunity has come up. For every next-Google, there's 10,000+ fools with a stupid business plan and some VC connections. Moving is not an option; I might have more success in Silicon Valley. I'm staying in NYC.

Paradoxically, being too skilled makes it hard to find a wage slave job. I'm going to be way overqualified for any job I can actually get. The only way out is to start your own business, on-the-books or agorist-style. That isn't easy.

The New Delicious Sucks!

2011-09-28T12:00:00.004-04:00

At one time, Delicious was a useful tool. It was purchased by Yahoo. Yahoo's clueless executives did nothing with it, introducing zero useful new features.

Google is also mismanaging Blogger. While WordPress is heavily updated, Blogger is stagnating. Google has introduced two useful new features in the 4+ years I've been using Blogger. They introduced post queuing, and comment spam filtering. I'm looking forward to switching to WordPress and my own domain and my own Linode.

Yahoo's executives realized they wasted their money buying a website they didn't know how to run. They decided to either shut it down or sell it. A group of investors, including YouTube's founders, bought Delicious from Yahoo.

They promised to finally upgrade and improves Delicious. Their new version finally went live yesterday. It's a POS. They removed all the useful features that I liked.

Here's a press release announcing the new delicious.

Here's a comment that shows what geniuses these people are:

The list of organized tags in the right side is now gone, replaced with a search navigation tool.

You're making me search to find my bookmarks now? Great. I'll use Google instead. The tag list was one of the desirable features.

Also, they don't support more than 10 links on one tag or page. That kills any usability.

What geniuses decided "Let's fill up the page with whitespace! That'll make it more usable?"

Let's see. Which design do I prefer?

Design #1:

Link #1 {tags} {edit tools}
Link #2 {tags} {edit tools}
Link #3 {tags} {edit tools}

Design #2:

Link #1

{tags}

{edit tools}

Link #2

{tags}

{edit tools}

Link #3

{tags}

{edit tools}

Come on you twits. Can't you see that design #1 is much better than design #2?

Luckily, I found the "export tool" and downloaded my bookmarks file to my PC.

(BTW, the "new Blogger UI" also has the same "too much whitespace flaw". If Google forces the new UI on me, I may give up on Blogger also.)

Summarizing the flaws in the new Delicious:

They removed the right hand side tag list. If you're making me search to find my bookmarks, I'll just use Google.
They don't support more than 10 links on one page.
They are using way too much whitespace in their page design.

That's it for delicious. RIP. At one time, I tried Google Bookmarks and one or two others. They also sucked.

I'm just hand-editing some HTML files and using Firefox's bookmark feature. After one day, I'm noticing that hand-editing HTML is better than delicious was.

There's another bonus of hand-edited HTML. I have control over the order in which my bookmarks are displayed. I can make sub-groupings. Delicious only supports sort-by-name or sort-by-date.

I may check back again in a few months to see if they fixed things. For now, I'm done with delicious. It's now clearly inferior to hand-edited HTML files and Firefox's default bookmark feature.

Homeland Security And Copyright

2011-09-27T12:00:00.002-04:00

This story is interesting.

The Department Of Homeland Security is prosecuting people for copyright infringement. WTF? When did Homeland Security change its mission from "Get violent terrorists?" to "Stop people from sharing movies and music"?

The State says "We need more spying power to stop violent criminals." In reality, this power is used to protect profits for corporate insiders.

The correct answer is "Intellectual property is not a valid form of property." It's pure corruption capitalism, when "homeland security" is enforcing intellectual property, rather than chasing violent mass-murderers.

That's the problem with expanding State spying power. The official reason is "terrorism". Those powers have been abused.

As another example, the Patriot Act's "sneak and peek" search clause was used for drug dealers 100x more than for terrorists.

The problem is not "Collecting information is evil!" The problem is that government will use that information for evil politically-motivated purposes. If State insiders could be trusted to use their spying power only for legitimate purposes, it would be OK for them to collect information. The State has a monopoly. They will inevitably use their spying power for evil rather than to stop real crime.

State insiders claim they need more spying power to stop criminals. Then, they use those powers to crack down on things that aren't real crimes. In these examples, State spying power was abused to enforce copyright and the "War on Drugs". Copyright is not a valid form of property. It is wrong that certain substances are forbidden, with long prison terms for possession.

The "War on Drugs" and "War on File Sharing" cannot be enforced without invading people's privacy. Those laws cannot be enforced without unreasonable search and seizure. If a law can only be enforced by spying on people all the time, then it isn't a valid law.

Lies And UBS' $2B Loss

2011-09-26T12:00:00.006-04:00

Kweku Adoboli was blamed/scapegoated for $2B in losses by UBS. More details have emerged, including an "official explanation" for the losses. Here are some links that question the "official explanation" of events.

The "official story" is that Kweku Adoboli entered fake trades into UBS' computers, to hide his losses.

There's one flaw in the "official explanation". It makes absolutely no sense.

If you have any knowledge of bank clearing and settlement, the "official explanation" makes no sense.

Kweku Adoboli had real losses on his trades. He had fake gains that offset the losses. Adoboli was trading liquid ETFs and currencies and index futures. They actively trade and have prices quoted daily.

UBS should have had mark-to-market gains and margin calls, on the fake trades. It is *IMPOSSIBLE* that UBS ignored the missing payment. Banks don't forget to collect collateral and margin on large trades.

Adoboli was only authorized to hedge. If a customer bought S&P futures, then Adoboli would go and buy the matching index future or basket of stocks. Adoboli's position should have been hedged at all times. By entering fake trades, Adoboli created the impression that he was hedged, even though he was gambling on market moves.

Initially, Adoboli had small losses. He made bigger and bigger bets, to try to get back to even. He kept making the wrong moves, buying high and selling low. When you're gambling with others people's money, and there's no accountability, you can lose a lot!

If UBS lost $2B, then some other traders have $2B in windfall profits! It is possible that a trader could intentionally dump losses to a confederate. According to the "official explanation", that didn't happen in this case.

To lose $2B, Adoboli needed positions of $10B-$20B+. There's no way that a trader can make a $1M+ trade, without his boss noticing and approving. Adoboli's boss and boss' boss had to notice and approve his trades.

However, my now-ex-empolyer's computers had an interesting defect. If a DBA edited the database, nobody would ever know. (I suspected that some dishonest DBAs were actually doing this.) However, to pull that off, Adoboli would have needed the DBA password *AND* several other people complicit in helping cover his tracks. Adoboli was promoted from the back office to trading. Even if Adoboli still had his back office password, he would have needed help from others to commit fraud.

If I were advising Adoboli's lawyer, there's a clear path to acquittal or a favorable plea-bargain. Adoboli's lawyer should emphasize all the ways that UBS' risk managers failed miserably. UBS should allow a lenient plea-bargain. They don't want a public display of their gross negligence. Adoboli's lawyer should threaten to totally embarrass UBS' risk managers, if they insist on a trial.

That's the fallacy in the "official explanation". Allegedly, Adoboli made fake trades to hide his losses. UBS should have made mark-to-market and margin calls on the fake positions. How could they have missed that? The official lie makes absolutely no sense.

Annoying Android Gmail Feature - Password Change

2011-09-25T12:00:00.000-04:00

I'm noticing lots of little annoying UI flaws in my Android phone.

I changed my gmail password from the web client. I do this occasionally, for security.

The phone didn't register that I changed my password. The phone gmail client stopped updating, but didn't display an error.

I found a workaround. Click on "load more messages". That forced the phone to connect, and notice that the password was no longer current. Only then, did it prompt me to re-enter my new password.

That was annoying. I like the Android phone overall. There's lots of little places where the UI shows a lack of polish.

Blogger On Android - All Apps Suck

2011-09-24T12:00:00.001-04:00

I tried using Blogger from my new Android Droid 3 phone.

My conclusions is "All the Blogger Android apps suck."

First, I tried the official Google app. It didn't have the ability to queue posts for later publishing. It didn't have the ability to moderate comments.

I tried Blogger-droid by Anders Hedstrom. It wouldn't go to landscape move when I opened my keyboard. I didn't investigate further.

I tried Blogaway. That also didn't have the ability to queue posts. It had a clunky UI.

Technically, I can moderate comments via gmail, by clicking on the moderation link. However, not being able to queue posts for later is a dealbreaker for me. I can't use any of these Android Blogger clients.

If I can't queue a post for later publishing, I might as well write the post in jota text editor, and transfer the post to my blog when I get home. All of those "Android Blogger" clients were inferior to "text editor plus transfer it later".

The WordPress Android client is orders of magnitude ahead of the Blogger client. Maybe I should switch to WordPress. I might get the Android SDK and Blogger API and write my own client.

It's very annoying. Google's support for Blogger has been abysmal.

Fundraising Letter From SPLC?

2011-09-23T12:00:00.003-04:00

I got a fundraising letter from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). That's pretty ironic. I'm more likely to be on their "official enemies list" rather than giving them money.

For example, the SPLC has put Rand Paul on their "official enemies" list for his "radical libertarian" beliefs. The SPLC insiders seem to think that, if you believe that government is too big, then you're a terrorist.

State propaganda organizations have a title that's usually the opposite of their true purpose. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center is an organization dedicated to promoting poverty and lawlessness.

The letter was incredibly misleading. They had a retired FBI agent write the fundraising letter for them. That made it look like it was a letter from the FBI, rather than from the SPLC. The letter also implied that there was some sort of official connection between the SPLC and the FBI. That may be true, but for the purposes of fundraising, there shouldn't be any explicit or implied connection.

I was amused to get a fundraising letter from the SPLC. I was offended that the SPLC letter implied that there was some sort of official connection between the SPLC and the FBI. It's probably one of those things that skirts the bordeline of illegal, although they'd probably win in court if someone tried to challenge it. It definitely was unethical.

Android Classic Retro Emulator List

2011-09-22T12:00:00.002-04:00

There's no "retro emulation" for the iPhone. Due to Apple's "no 3rd party runtimes" rule, emulators are banned from the iPhone. One guy spent a year writing a Commodore 64 iPhone app, only to have it banned! He even negotiated the right to sell games with his app, but Apple banned it anyway.

For the iPhone, Apple 100% controls distribution. It's impossible to install an iPhone app that Apple didn't approve, unless you hack your phone.

On Android, there's no such restriction. Even if an app is banned from Google's store, people can still offer the .apk installer file on their personal website. This has led to a lot of emulators. (Some copyright owners are attempting to censor emulators, by sending takedown notices and legal threat letters. People still leak the .apk file or put it on their personal website.)

Unfortunately, the trend is for stricter and stricter enforcement of copyright law. So far, nobody has been prosecuted or sued for downloading rom images on the Internet. That may change. There is a push to change copyright law from civil to criminal. Why do police arrest someone for growing marijuana and smoking it themselves? Because they can. Similarly, in the future, police may be prosecuting file sharers. Can you imagine a no-knock raid, because someone was suspected of downloading Super Mario Brothers?

Most violent copyright enforcement is focused on movies and music. That may change in the future, with more focus on games.

Nintendo claims that it's illegal to play a game in an emulator, even if you own a copy of the original game. That claim hasn't been tested in court (yet). Nintendo claims that if I want to play Super Mario Brothers on a newer console, I have to buy another license, even if I already bought it once.

It's impossible to legally obtain a collection of all Atari 2600/800 games. If there's no legal option, people will download it via BitTorrent. Even if I hunted down used copies and bought them, the money would go to collectors and not the original game authors.

I'm much more interested in playing games I actually own and played, rather than experimenting with other games. It is interesting to browse in an emulator.

Many games were never released in the USA. If you want to play the arcade version of "Tetris: The Grand Master", your only choice is in an emulator. If you want to play the original arcade version of Mario Brothers, your only choice is in an emulator. (The NES version of Mario Brothers isn't as polished as the arcade version. For example, in the arcade version, if you get to phase 30, you get two bouncing red fireballs! That isn't in the NES version. Also, the NES version doesn't have the icicle levels.)

Most Android emulators are based on open source GPL-ed code, made for other systems. There's one guy "yongzh", who made a bunch of paid emulator apps based on GPL-ed code, without releasing the source of his version. You should be able to find free alternatives. If you know where to look, you should be able to find free versions of most emulators.

There's another nice bit when you play games in an emulator, the "save state" feature. This is useful when you're playing on the subway and have to get off for your stop. It also helps to get past tricky parts of a game.

I didn't see a good emulator app list, so I made one myself! Other lists include paid apps. Here is another list, but it contains lots of paid apps (mostly by yongzh).

I only tested these emulators on my phone, a Droid 3. They may not work at 100% speed on older phones.

Atari 2600

This is was my first game console. Here is the emulator for Atari 2600 on Android.

This is a pretty good emulator. It worked fine on my phone.

I like the way that paddles are emulated via the touchscreen. Super Breakout (advancing walls mode) and Circus Atari are great classic games.

The only negative is that it uses the "camera key" for the reset button. The Droid 3 doesn't have a camera key! After much experimenting, I figured out how to remap the reset button and select button.

It's awkward using the keyboard, but I'm getting used to it. I'm undecided if I prefer the keyboard-as-joystick or the on-screen joystick overlay.

Also, you can't play any games that require two joysticks, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark. Fortunately, only a small handful of games require two joysticks.

It really is amazing that "every game written for the Atari 2600" fits in 0.5GB on my 16GB micro SD card. The same is true for many of these emulators, that the entire game library only uses a fraction of my micro SD card space.

Atari 800

This is another one of my favorite consoles.

Here's one emulator. Unfortunately, development seems to have stalled. This emulator worked, but it wouldn't recognize my keyboard in the "remap joystick" feature.

This emulator seems buggy. It's based on an older version of the Atari800 core. It wouldn't run "Mountain King", so I didn't try any other games.

Allegedly, "kostas" wrote an Atari800 emulator. The droid800 developers claimed that they stopped supporting their emulator, because kostas' was better. He received a legal threat letter from Hasbro, who owns the copyright and trademarks for Atari. He stopped distributing his emulator.

Annoyingly, all the Atari800 emulators expect you to unzip the file before using it. The Atari2600 emulator will directly play zipped rom images.

Also, the Android phone OS can't handle directories with much more than 100 files. I wrote a PHP script that takes a big rom collection and breaks it up into 100 file subdirectories.

Commodore 64

This is another classic console. Frodo C64 seems like the best (only?) emulator.

It had a couple of problems. This emulator seems like it isn't actively developed anymore.

I couldn't figure out how to make "joystick mode" work. I tried one game "Super Pipeline", and it didn't work properly.

I tried it with one game (Super Pipeline), and it didn't work. I also tried "Raid on Bungeling Bay" and couldn't get that to run at all. I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong.

It requires game images to be already unzipped.

It read .D64 format but not .T64 format. I noticed a lot of the rom images were in .T64 format but not .D64 format.

I tried the VICE emulator. I couldn't get that to work either.

Atari ST

I couldn't find an Atari ST emulator for Android. I never had played that console.

Amiga

"AEU4Droid" is the emulator for Amiga. I had never played that console. I didn't try out that emulator.

Apple II

"Candy Apple" is the Apple II emulator. Almost all the good Apple games were released for other consoles. I didn't try out that emulator.

Colecovision

I couldn't find a colecovision emuoltor.

Intellivison

I couldn't find an Intellivision emulator. "Intellivision Lives!" was released for iPhone but I didn't see an Android version.

I have "Intellivision Lives!" on the Xbox. The only Intellivision game I really like is Astrosmash. The Intellivision version of Astrosmash is better than the Atari 2600 version.

Dosbox

This is a great emulator. You can play old dos games on your phone.

The Droid 3 keyboard doesn't exactly map to the DOS keyboard. The only keys I notice missing were the escape key and function keys. You can map them to the onscreen keyboard overlay, but there's a limit of only 6 keys.

I couldn't get the touchscreen mouse to work, when I tried playing Rampart.

You need to experiment with each game, to see if it's playable in Android dosbox.

The only annoying feature of dosbox is NO SAVE STATES. You can only save your game if the original game supported saves.

Unfortunately, you can't play Windows games on your Android phone. WINE won't work, because the underlying hardware isn't x86.

Fortunately, until around 2000, most games were written for DOS. Those will work on dosbox.

GOG bought the right to sell some old DOS games. They also sponsor dosbox development.

Some people installed Windows on top of a dosbox installation. That seems like an abomination. That works, because dosbox emulates the x86 hardware.

You might be able to install Linux on top of dosbox, and then run WINE from there. That also seems like an abomination. That would work, because dosbox emulates the x86 hardware needed for WINE.

NES

There's "Tiger NES". If you want it, you have to download the "Where are Tigers" app. It was banned from the Google app store.

It was pretty good at supporting key remappings and recognizing my keyboard.

Tiger NES is adware, which is annoying. Also, it only loads roms from \sdcard and won't load from \sdcard-ext.

There was another annoying bit about Tiger's emulators. His emulator asks permission to read your phone # and your real name. I found that disturbing, but there's no other good emulators available.

SNES

There's "Tiger SNES". If you want it, you have to download the "Where are Tigers" app. It was banned from the Google app store.

It was pretty good at supporting key remappings and recognizing my keyboard.

N64

Tiger doesn't have a Nintendo 64 emulator.

Bit64 seemed like a decent Nintendo 64 emulator. I couldn't find it.

Here's a page for a Nintendo 64 open source emulator. It isn't finished yet. Note: this has nothing to do with yongzh's n64oid.

Gameboy, Gameboy Color, Gameboy Advance

Tiger has emulators for the gameboy and gameboy advance. I haven't tried them yet.

Gameboy emulation seems like a really good idea, because the games were originally written for a handheld.

Sega Genesis

Tiger also has a Sega Genesis emulator.

Sega Saturn

I didn't see a Sega Saturn emulator.

Sega Dreamcast

I didn't see a Sega Dreamcast emulator. There were some people working on porting nullDC (PC emulator), but they aren't done yet.

My favorite Dreamcast games were "Mr. Driller" and "Crazy Taxi".

Sony Playstation

There are two options here. First, there's PSX4Droid. Second, Tiger has a PSX emulator.

MAME

Tiger wrote a partial MAME emulator. It only works on NEO-GEO games and Capcom games.

Some people have ported an older DOS version of MAME to Android.

There no longer is a DOS version of MAME. If there were a DOS version, you could run it under dosbox. You could run an older DOS version of MAME under dosbox.

I considered compiling MAME with dosbox+cygwin. I didn't try.

Apparently, there's a lot of things you would have to change, if you wanted to get the full version of MAME working on Android. Each game has its own special code.

Don't Bother - Not Enough CPU Horespower

In order to get emulation to work, you need a CPU that's a *LOT* more powerful than the hardware you're emulating. Your emulation CPU needs to emulate the underlying CPU, plus all graphics chips and sound chips.

The following consoles can't be emulated, because the phone isn't too much more powerful than the emulated hardware: PSP, DS, Playstation 2, Playstation 3, Gamecube, Wii, Xbox, Xbox 360.

I'm trying to make this a complete list. If you notice any errors or omissions, I'll update the post.

I like my Android "Motorola Droid 3" phone. If you want game emulation, you need the phone with the most CPU horsepower. Right now, that's the Droid 3.

It's really neat that you can run old games on your phone! Technically, it's illegal copyright infringement, but it's not enforced. Hopefully, corporations won't lobby for stricter copyright law and crack down more. Right now, most copyright enforcement focuses on movies and music, but that may change. Most of these older games aren't on the market. They wouldn't be preserved if collectors didn't dump the rom images.

Downloading a 20 year old game is morally equivalent to copying a 70 year old book. Lawyers and judges don't think that way, but it's an important analogy. Copyright shouldn't last forever.

If you own an iPhone, you can't run old games, because of Apple's control freak app policy. Classic consoles are a good reason to pick Android over iPhone. Some of the best Android games are old console games played in an emulator!

a

2011-09-21T15:56:00.001-04:00

Verizon Promo Fraud

2011-09-21T12:00:00.004-04:00

I recently upgraded my Verizon cellphone to a Droid 3. I finally received my new phone via FedEx 1.5 weeks after ordering in the store. The guy in the store originally said my phone would ship the day after purchase. I got two new phones, one for me and one for my sister, on a family share plan.

They had some really confusing promos, when you upgrade.

They have a program "Turn in your old phone for a $100 gift card." I thought we could bring the phone to the store. No. You have to mail it.

When they shipped me my new phone, they included an envelope for turning in your old phone. HOWEVER, that envelope is for donating your phone to charity. If I used that envelope, I wouldn't have received the $100 gift card. That was really confusing and tricky.

I had to separately order a rebate envelope online. However, I need a "promo code". They mailed me the promo code only for my phone, and mailed my sister the other promo code.

I tried their website and it didn't work. I called customer support. I asked "Can't you just mail me the damn envelope?" The support idiot insisted that I use their crappy website.

I finally managed to get it to work.

They also had a "$50 credit for buying a tablet, when you upgrade your phone." When I was in the store the first time, the clerk said "You can wait until later, after the phones arrive, to claim the credit." When we came back 2 weeks later, the clerk said "Sorry! You had to use the $50 credit the same day you upgraded your phone."

I also thought it was a $50 credit on buying accessories. No. It's just $50 credit for buying a phone. It was incredibly confusing and misleading.

Why was Verizon trying to trick me? If I used the envelope they shipped with the new phone, I would have been donating the phone to charity, rather than getting the $100 credit. Why can't they just mail me the rebate envelope like a normal sane person would? Why can't the support clerk just mail me the envelopes, rather than making me use their crappy website? (I'm certainly not computer illiterate. It was a crappy hard-to-use website.) Why make me jump through all these hoops to get a rebate?

Why couldn't they make the promo simple? Why didn't they just give me the right envelope? Why can't I turn my old phone in the store? Why do they make the promos so complicated?

The problem is that Verizon has a monopoly. Even if I get mad and drop them, AT&T and the others are just as bad or worse. Can't I buy a phone without all these stupid and confusing promos? Can't they just give me their best price, without all the stupid tricks?

Fnord Analysis - "Inside Job" Documentary

2011-09-20T12:00:00.007-04:00

I saw the documentary "Inside Job". It covered corruption in the financial industry, and the housing bubble/bust/bailout.

One thing overwhelmingly impressed me. Every single person interviewed in the film had the parasitic or psychopathic personality type. Even the people saying "WTF? There's too much corruption!" had the parasitic personality type.

Some parasites go around saying "WTF? This is wrong!", just to provide cover for the other parasites. "Inside Job" was a very weak criticism of the financial industry, compared to my blog.

When people weakly criticize corruption, that helps provide cover for the criminals. "Inside Job" was a very weak criticism of bankster corruption.

However, the issues are very complicated and lies are rampant. Did the filmmakers have a sincere desire to expose the truth? Was that film a whitewash, because it offered criticism but didn't present any serious challenge to the State financial system scam?

If the authors of the film weren't completely clueless, they should have read a little about Austrian economics. That's a pretty serious omission, from a film criticizing the financial industry and corruption among academic economists. (I don't consider myself an Austrian economist, because Austrian economics doesn't include the Compound Interest Paradox.)

"Inside Job" didn't touch any of the "big issues". "Inside Job" failed to discuss:

Is having the Federal Reserve central bank a good idea?
The Federal Reserve is one big price-fixing cartel.
With negative real interest rates, the incentive is for banks to load up on as much debt and leverage as they can. No matter what other reforms you have, negative interest rates give the banksters free money.
Paper money or a gold standard?
Regarding credit rating agencies, the law says that certain institutions may only invest in high-quality debt. The fabricated A credit ratings matter, because the fake ratings allowed more institutions to buy the lousy bonds. "Inside job" briefly criticized the ratings agencies, but failed to mention that the ratings matter due to various laws. (This is a minor but serious error in the film.)

There were some lesser State-approved evils discussed:

The banksters own the government via lobbying.
The banksters own the economics profession. Many "top economists" have very lucrative side jobs consulting and speaking for the banksters.
There's a revolving door between government and big banks. (However, they didn't explain the "Captured Regulators Problem" as explicitly and clearly as I do.)

Films like "Inside Job" give me a mixed reaction. It's a step in the right direction, because it is some mainstream criticism of bankster corruption. It's also an evil fnord, because the criticism presented is only a tiny fraction of the truth.

I was shocked by the personality type of the interviewees. All the people interviewed had the parasitic or psychopathic personality type. All of the people interviewed came across as criminals, even the ones saying "WTF? This is wrong!" That was extremely disturbing.

An Interesting Analogy

2011-09-19T12:00:00.001-04:00

I thought of a weird analogy.

Consider this "conspiracy theory".

There's no way that high-ranking US Federal government insiders would intentionally allow guns to be sold to Mexican gangsters. There's no way that policemen trying to arrest gun smugglers would be ordered to stand down.

Of course, this "conspiracy theory" is now Official Truth. This is the ATF "Operation Fast And Furious" scandal. The motivation was to create a crisis. This would lead to more laws restricting gun freedom, because Mexican gangsters were caught with guns made in the USA.

(Buying and selling and smuggling guns is not a real crime. That makes this scandal seem silly.)

Consider this "conspiracy theory".

There's no way that high-ranking US Federal government insiders would intentionally allow a large terrorist attack. There's no way that police who tried to prevent the terrorist attack would be ordered to stand down.

This is one variation of the "9/11 conspiracy theory". The motivation for allowing the attack is to create a crisis. This justifies expanding State power and taking away people's freedom.

I still mostly believe the "official explanation" for the WTC terrorist attack. It was a very disturbing analogy. Here are two similar ridiculous conspiracy theories. High-ranking State insiders allowed a crime so they could create a crisis and claim more power. The first story is definitely true. I mostly disbelieve the second one, but I'm not 100% sure.

Fnord Analysis - Al Gore On The Colbert Report

2011-09-18T12:00:00.000-04:00

I watched Al Gore on The Colbert Report on Tuesday. There was a really interesting bit.

Watch Al Gore's body language and voice inflection. When he discusses global warming, he strongly implies "Everyone who disagrees with me is a fool!" Watch the body language and listen to the voice. That's very important.

Now that I'm mostly unplugged, I understand better. It's like Al Gore's body language was saying "Yup! This is a hoax! We've got everyone conned!" (Of course, Al Gore himself is probably not aware that it's a hoax. That makes him a more effective liar. He's just doing what his handlers are telling him to do. If Al Gore consciously knew that he was spreading lies, then he wouldn't be able to do it so effectively.)

If you didn't have high emotional awareness and watched that bit, you would think that you were smart for disagreeing with Al Gore, and an idiot for questioning him. If you don't have high logical awareness, you would just agree with Al Gore's emotions and not spot the logical fallacies in "carbon dioxide causes global warming".

Stephen Colbert even jokingly said the truth. "The scientists who promote global warming are all working for the government. Therefore, they can't be trusted." Of course, none of the serious anti-"global warming" arguments were discussed.

To recap, the serious questions are:

Exactly how much carbon dioxide causes how much global warming? This has never been satisfactorily proven. In fact, one experiment showed that adding carbon dioxide to air doesn't increase its energy absorption capacity, after about 200 feet of air.
It may be a "correlation confused with causation" fallacy. The temperature has risen in the past 100-200 years. Humans have used more fossil fuels in the past 100-200 years. That doesn't prove causation.
Increased solar output may be causing global warming, rather than human activity. The sunspot cycle may be a factor.
The raw data regarding temperature readings was destroyed. Records older than 10 years were destroyed. Scientists intentionally massaged the data, to get the desired results. Only the "massaged" results were kept, and not the raw data.
The temperature monitoring stations were moved, distorting results. For example, if you move a temperature sensor next to an air conditioner exhaust vent, that will cause the temperature reading to increase. Here is a link that discusses this "conspiracy theory".
Even if "carbon dioxide causes global warming" is true, global warming may be beneficial overall. For example, temperate regions get longer growing seasons.
Even if "carbon dioxide causes global warming" is true, and "global warming is harmful" is true, then the solution is not to give the State more power. Most of the "carbon cap/tax" plans are thinly disguised corporate welfare agreements.
"Global warming" and "terrorism" are scare issues. Statists bully the slaves into accepting more State power.
Another interesting bit is that "global warming" has a lot of similarities to the eugenics movement. The grandchildren of the people who promoted eugenics are now promoting "global warming". Just because a lot of "scientists" believe something doesn't make it true. The truth is not determined by a majority vote.

Peer review is a great censorship tool. In "climategate", scientists specifically bragged about corrupting the peer review process to silence critics. If the majority of people believe that "Carbon dioxide causes global warming!" is true, then via peer review it becomes almost impossible to publish dissenting papers. If all science funding comes from the State, then scientists who have dissenting views don't get funding, don't get published, and don't get tenure.

Watching that interview was a really convincing argument for "Global warming is one big hoax!" Watch carefully, to see if you can notice Al Gore's body language and voice inflection, when he discusses "global warming".

New Phone - Motorola Droid 3

2011-09-17T12:00:00.002-04:00

I got my new cell phone. It's a Droid 3 from Motorola.

Overall, I like it so far.

The "pentile" screen seems fine. It doesn't bother me. A lot of people said they didn't like it.

The phone is 3G and not 4G. That doesn't bother me, because my primary goal is to use it on the subway. (Ironically, my contract ended and I'm unemployed again. That means I won't be using it for my daily commute. I should find a new job again soon.)

Now that I have free time, I may experiment with the Android SDK.

There were some UI gotchas.

You click on "e-mail" to configure a new account. You have to go to apps-gmail to actually read your e-mail. That was extremely confusing. I kept clicking on email-gmail, and it asked me to configure a new account, but no hint on how to use an already-configured account.

I'm trying to figure out how to get it to stop saying "Droid!" every time I get an E-mail. (I googled and found the answer. Go to the gmail app and change the settings.)

If you want to delete a desktop icon, it's very unintuitive. You have to click and hold the icon, then a trash can appears, then you drag it to the trash.

If you have the phone plugged into the USB port, you can't read any files on the SD card. It mysteriously didn't work, instead of giving a helpful error message.

If you put more than 100-500 files in a directory, the file manager can't handle it. I put an Atari 2600 emulator on my phone, but mistakenly put all the roms in one big directory. It's better to break it up into a, b_c, etc. (I told my coworker about that. He said "WTF? You can make folders on an Android phone? I didn't know that.")

Astro File Manager is a must-have app. I'm using the free ad-supported version.

I'm using jota text editor to write this. There's no plaintext editor that comes with Android. Amusingly, they make text files default to UNIX-style carriage returns, rather than Windows-style CR/LF. You can change that in the settings.

It seems that all the Blogger Android apps suck. I'll do a more detailed analysis later. The jota text editor is still orders of magnitude better than my crappy LG envTouch.

When I plug the phone into my USB port, the sd card nicely mounts as a drive. That was a problem with my LG envTouch. I had a hard time transferring data from phone to PC. The Windows driver was crappy/buggy, and the phone wouldn't mount properly.

I got a 16GB micro sd card from Radio Shack for $25. The 32GB cards were a *LOT* more expensive. They were $60+. Apparently, there's an "external SD card" and also an "internal SD card". There's about 2GB of internal app space. With most apps under 1-2MB, I shouldn't run out.

You can download .apk installer files on your PC and then transfer the file to your phone. That saves bandwidth.

Allegedly, Verizon banned tethering apps, because they want to sell the $10/month tethering package. The Droid 3 seems to support tethering by default. However, I tried it, and it didn't work. (However, I mysteriously get no Internet reception at home.)

The battery ran out quickly on the first day. However, some sites said that it takes a couple of charge cycles before the battery performs at 100%. Allegedly, the newer batteries don't have a "memory". (With old rechargable batteries, if you consistently only used 50% before recharging, then the max charge on the phone became 50%. The new batteries don't have that defect.) After a few days, the battery duration seems better.

I'm not going to bother with a case. I do want to get a screen protector, from my fingerprints and scratches. I've had a hard time finding a store carrying ones that fit a Droid 3. Even the Verizon store didn't have any Droid 3 compatible accessories. I got some generic screen protectors at Radio Shack.

Overall, I like the phone. It seems worth it.

UBS Loses $2 Billion

2011-09-16T12:00:00.001-04:00

This story is interesting. A "rogue trader" at UBS lost $2Billion. Kweku Adoboli is the theif/scapegoat.

It's hilarious they way the mainstream media says "One rogue trader is to blame. There are no structural defects in the financial system. Move along! There's nothing to see here." Who do they think they're fooling?

He didn't lose $2B all by himself. His boss, his boss' boss, and UBS' risk managers are also to blame.

It's much easier to say

It's one isolated bad apple.

rather than

The financial industry is one big cesspool of corruption.

The financial industry is a very psychopath-friendly environment. This post on zero hedge had some good bits.

According to an entry on Facebook, Kweku Adoboli, a 32-year-old computer science graduate described as an "up and coming" trader by colleagues

...

"There is a lot of shock, horror and disbelief," the person said of his arrest. "He was incredibly straight and upstanding with very high integrity. He would definitely not be the first place you start looking."

Notice the psychopath indicators. "Up and coming" means "His fellow psychopaths were in awe of his l33t evil skills."

A psychopath convinces everyone else that he has super-high integrity. Here's a tip. If there's an employee for which everyone says "He has very high integrity. He would never steal from his employer. We're lucky to have him working here.", that's a dead giveaway that he's probably a crook.

For example, one of my current coworkers is somewhat psychopathic. He has everyone thinking he's a super genius, when he's only somewhat competent. People say they're lucky to have him. It's obvious to me that his reputation far exceeds his actual ability, due to his social manipulation skills.

It's obvious what happened. Adoboli used his psychopath skills to cover his tracks and deflect suspicion. It also is possible that someone else is the true thief, and he's the scapegoat.

I couldn't find a good source regarding what he was trading. The explanations were:

ETFs
naked silver short
derivatives

I don't see how anyone could hide $2B in losses with ETFs. Everything is exchange traded and marked-to-market. He may have been supposed to hedging his ETF trades but he didn't. That is possible, but that wouldn't lead to $2B in losses.

"Naked silver short" doesn't make sense either. Silver didn't spike recently.

"Derivatives" is the most likely explanation for the loss.

Via derivatives, it's possible to construct a trading system that makes $1M/month 99% of the time, but loses $2B the remaining 1% of the time. That's a good system, because you make a big bonus 99% of the time and get a new job 1% of the time.

"Other people's money" exacerbates the problem. Adoboli wasn't risking his own personal money. He was risking UBS' shareholders' money. Once he was $10M+ in the hole, he turned to fraud. If he came clean immediately, "I lost $10M!", then he would have been fired immediately. Instead, he took bigger and bigger risks. He was hoping to get lucky and return to profitability. It makes no difference if you get fired with $10M in losses or $2B in losses.

The risk managers at UBS should have seen what was happening. They are partially responsible. No matter how cleverly he tried to hide his losses, the risk managers should still be checking.

It's possible that Adoboli is the fall guy for someone else. It's possible that he's a psychopath, manipulating others to trust him and not verify his trades. In either case, he is not solely responsible for the loss. UBS' risk managers are partially responsible. Adoboli's bosses are partially responsible.

When there's a crime like this, the mainstream media blames one bad apple. That covers up the systemic problem. The financial industry is very psychopath-friendly. A skilled psychopath can steal lots of money in the financial industry, usually legally without getting caught. Adoboli probably crossed the line into direct flagrant fraud. UBS is still too big to fail. Unfortunately for him, Adoboli is not too big to fail and too big to get blamed.

There's another possibility. Instead of wasting $2B to random strangers, the losses may have been dumped to a confederate. Derivative trades are nearly zero sum. If UBS lost $2B, then someone else has $2B in windfall profits.

Anybody who suggests that Adoboli is solely responsible for the $2B loss is clueless or lying.

No Phone, No Internet, No Verizon

2011-09-15T12:00:00.002-04:00

Verizon's landline service has stopped working. First, they said it would be fixed by mid-September. Now, they say it'll be fixed by the end of October.

My DSL service works intermittently. It only works sometimes. When it does work, it is slow.

Notice the assymetric service contract, with a telephone monopoly.

If you are late sending your check, severe fines and penalties applie.

If they don't give you service, they give you a prorated discount on your bill. They don't have to reimburse you for the inconvenience. They don't have to reimburse you for the time wasted getting them to fix it.

Lazy And Incompetent MTA Employee

2011-09-14T12:00:00.001-04:00

Here's another example of lazy and unqualified State employees.

I had a scratched MetroCard. It still had $30 on it.

With MetroCards, the value of the card is stored both on the card and on the server. That's a fraud-prevention technique.

If a MetroCard gets scratched, you can give it to a token clerk. He's supposed to transfer the remaining value onto a new card, and give you a replacement card.

The clerk didn't know how to process the transaction. He said in an authoritative-sounding voice "You have to mail it to the MTA for a refund." He was wrong. I left in disgust.

I found another token clerk who wasn't unqualified, and got a replacement card.

The vending machines and token clerks have more-sensitive card readers. There are cards that don't work in the turnstyles but will work for the token clerk and vending machine.

Alternatively, I could have found a vending machine that was able to read the card, added some money, and it would have given me a new MetroCard. Any MetroCard with less than 6 months to expiration will be auto-replaced if you put it in a vending machine and add value. Also, damaged MetroCards are sometimes auto-replaced.

It was pretty offensive, that the token clerk didn't know how to process the transaction.

Worst Buy

2011-09-13T12:00:00.000-04:00

I went to Best Buy and bought a $20 pair of headphones for my new phone.

The checkout clerk said "Do you want to spend $5 to buy insurance on your headphones?" I said "Seriously? $5 insurance on a $20 pair of headphones?" The clerk didn't get it. He didn't notice I was being sarcastic. He was still trying to sell me the insurance.

It's offensive, the way that stores try to rip you off with extra charges. Verizon did the same thing. They tried to sell me insurance on my new phone. Even though I actually lost my phone once, it's cheaper to not buy the insurance.

Similarly, whenever you call your credit card for anything, they try to sell you extra charges.

It's offensive the way that stores try to nickel and dime people by adding extra charges.

Crying Wolf

2011-09-12T12:00:00.005-04:00

In the past few days, the State police and media said something really bizarre and self-contradictory. They said:

We think that terrorists might attack on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/01. BE SCARED!
There's nothing to worry about. Do whatever you were planning to do anyway.

The whole purpose of that exercise was to frighten people. It was pretty shameless.

It's almost like Cuba's government. They always said "The USA is planning to attack! They didn't attack yesterday. That proves our leadership is brilliant."

It's exactly the same thing. They said "Terrorists might attack again!" When they don't attack, that proves that the leaders did a great job.

Of course, if there is another successful attack, that proves that government needs more power and more resources.

The way the spin works, the State insiders win either way. If there's no terrorist attack, that proves the leaders are brilliant. If there is another terrorist attack, that proves that the leaders need more power and more resources.

It's pretty obvious, the way that the police and mainstream media are intentionally scaring people.

9/11/01 Ten Year Anniversary

2011-09-11T12:00:00.002-04:00

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Radical Extremists For Rule Of Law":

I have a request for you, FSK. How albout putting some of your considerable analytical/anti-bullshit skills toward the 9/11 story? You live in New York, right? The 10 year anniversary is nearly upon us and that's probably the one topic I have never seen you address. What are your thoughts?

Oh, boy. Not this subject again.

I have addressed this before.

My conclusions are "More likely than not, I believe the official explanation. I'm not completely sure."

Basically, "9/11 was an inside job!" requires too much cognitive dissonance, for an intelligent-but-deluded State insider. Most State evil occurs by deluded people with good intentions.

In contrast, "Pat Tillman was assassinated!" is a much more likely conspiracy theory than "9/11 was an inside job!" Pat Tillman's murder could have been accomplished by one or two people with a gun. The "9/11 conspiracies" require the active complicity of *MANY* people.

Would a psychopath like Bernard Madoff or Chuck Schumer organize a terrorist attack, if they thought they could profit and get away with it? Absolutely. However, they couldn't actually pull it off unless they had some intelligent-but-deluded people assisting them.

By themselves, psychopaths can't accomplish anything. The key mechanism of State evil is intelligent-but-deluded people, with psychopaths giving orders and pulling the strings. You couldn't convince an intelligent-but-deluded person to organize a large false flag terrorist attack. State evil occurs, because the intelligent-but-deluded people think they're the good guys.

Any "coverup" is probably actually a coverup of the gross negligence by State police who are supposed to prevent that sort of thing. I sometimes wonder if State spies intentionally promote the 9/11 conspiracies as a distraction from other things. For example, the mortgage bubble and bailout was a *MUCH MORE DAMAGING* and *MUCH MORE OBVIOUS* "inside job" than 9/11. I'm much more interested in discussing bankster conspiracies/facts, than the 9/11 conspiracies.

Politicians did exploit 9/11, to pass many severe liberty-restricting laws. These laws were planned, but had previously encountered resistance. Just because politicians exploited 9/11 to take away freedom, doesn't mean they organized it on purpose.

Some people get very angry, when I say "I mostly believe the official explanation of 9/11." The conclusions, that the authority of government is not legitimate, is valid whether you believe the official 9/11 story or not.

Even if you disagree with my analysis of 9/11, that does not invalidate the other points I make.

Solyndra Stole $500M "Stimulus" Money

2011-09-10T12:00:00.000-04:00

This story is interesting. Solyndra received $500M of "stimulus" money. Solyndra was supposed to be manufacturing solar panels.

It was a $500M stimulus "loan". Notice that "Solyndra got a $500M loan from the government." is logically equivalent to "They couldn't find any private investors who would invest on such stupid terms." Those "economic development loans" have an artificially low interest rate compared to other loans. Also, the government may make a nominal profit of a couple percent on the loans and then claim the government profited via the loan. That completely ignores "cost of capital". For example, State comedians claim "TARP was profitable for the government!", which completely ignores the fact that TARP was a lousy investment compared to practically anything else.

It's pretty obvious where the $500M went. It was stolen.

Usually, the $500M gift would be wasted on lucrative salaries for the CEO and his buddies. The CEO hires useless consultants for high salaries. Maybe $5M-$10M would be returned as kickbacks/lobbying.

It seems that Solyndra crossed the Madoff line. Instead of grey-area theft (overpaying people), Solyndra had explicit outright theft. That's why the FBI is investigating.

A Statist says "Solyndra is just one bad apple. That doesn't prove that the whole stimulus was wasted." Solyndra probably was the most brazen, regarding stealing stimulus money. If Solyndra stole/wasted 100% of the bailout money, but someone else only stole 50%-75%, that doesn't make it right.

Solyndra is an excellent example of State-enabled theft. Almost all the "stimulus" money was stolen and/or squandered. Solyndra's management were merely the most flagrant criminals.

Federal Reserve "Twist"

2011-09-09T12:00:00.002-04:00

This story was funny. The Federal Reserve plans to "Twist" its balance sheet.

Translating into English, the Federal Reserve plans to sell some short term Treasury debt and buy longer term Treasury debt. They will still keep the Fed Funds Rate at 0%-0.25%.

What's the point? Who benefits? Duh! I'm not even going to bother with spoiler space.

The point is that the Federal Reserve is giving more free money to the banks. The Federal Reserve can't do the exact same thing as before, because that would be too obvious. They change the details a little.

The yield curve is normally upward-sloping, with short-term yields less than longer-term yields. This isn't due to the "free market", but rather due to Federal Reserve policy. By selling short and buying long, the Federal Reserve is flattening the yield curve. In the process, they're giving free money to banks, who usually borrow short and lend long.

Changing the bailout details helps the "economists" think they're doing a good thing. Instead of realizing "The banksters are drinking a firehose of free money.", the Federal Reserve economists make up fancy excuses for why they're doing the right thing.

If the Federal Reserve sells 3 month Treasury debt for 0.5% while the Fed Funds Rate is 0.25%, that's a sure profit of 0.25% for the banksters. Multiply that by 100x+ leverage, and it's a lucrative scam.

Anybody who knew about the details could profit, by trading ahead of the Federal Reserve. For example suppose that the Federal Reserve decides to sell 2 year bonds and buy 10 year bonds. If a bankster makes that trade before the Federal Reserve, he'll make a nice profit.

Alternatively, the Federal Reserve might decide to sell 3 year bonds and buy 9 year bonds. If you know ahead of time exactly what the Federal Reserve will do, you can make a nice profit.

The knowledge of "Twist" isn't enough. If you know which specific bonds the Federal Reserve is buying, then you can make a nice profit. Goldman Sachs probably gets better inside information than the other Primary Dealers, giving them an extra edge.

The Federal Reserve keeps coming up with new names for the same evil idea. There was "Term Auction Facility", "Quantitative Easing", "QE2", and now "Twist".

Each time, the name of the plan and the details are slightly changed. This keeps the slaves distracted and confused. The Federal Reserve is printing new money and giving it to their bankster buddies. The "Twist" is a variation of the usual theme.

The Federal Reserve uses its money printing power to buy and sell Treasury debt. The Federal Reserve buys high and sells low, while the banksters buy low and sell high. It's pure illicit interest arbitrage for the banksters.

Speculating in Treasury debt, the Federal Reserve makes a guaranteed riskless profit. The Federal Reserve has an unlimited budget. It doesn't matter if the Federal Reserve loses money by making stupid trades with banks. Ben Bernanke isn't spending his own personal money. He's spending the people's money. The Federal Reserve finances its operations by creating new money, by inflation.

That's how the banksters earn huge profits, without doing any real work. That's how the big banks show a profit from trading every day. They're trading with the Federal Reserve! Everyone else pays the cost via inflation. The Federal Reserve eagerly makes stupid trades. Some of the Federal Reserve economists think they're "stimulating the economy". In reality, they're just giving the banksters free money.

Via "Twist", the banksters get another stealth bailout. Everyone else pays higher prices when they buy things.

$300B Jobs Package, $1000 Mugging

2011-09-08T12:00:00.001-04:00

This story is interesting. President Obama is planning a $300B "jobs package".

$300B divided by 300M people is $1000 per person. It's like the President stole $1000 from me and gave it to his friends. The "$300B jobs package" is logically equivalent to "Steal $1000 from everyone, and give the profits to a group of insiders."

State comedians act like deficit spending is magic free money. $300B in deficit spending isn't free. The cost is paid by everyone else by inflation. The only way you can get $300B for a "jobs package" is by stealing from people who actually work.

Statist "logic" is amusing. The economy is crashing to do rampant corruption. The obvious solution is "Let's steal more!"

Disabling Technology

2011-09-07T12:00:00.002-04:00

I went to the Verizon store to upgrade my cell phone. I ordered a Droid 3. It's on backorder, so they'll mail it to me.

The sales clerk didn't know how to operate the sales computer. The software was a lousy POS. He seemed competent. The problem really was the crappy sales software.

I went to Verizon's webpage. I'm concerned that the clerk didn't enter the transaction properly in Verizon's computer. He probably messed it up.

Some "gains due to technology" are actually a loss. It would have been better, if the clerk could have processed the transaction on a piece of paper, and properly entered the transaction later. If the clerk really did mess up the transaction, it's a loss for Verizon, because now I have to call them to try and fix it. That wastes my time more than Verizon's time, making me wait on hold for an hour on support, but it's still an economic loss.

That was amusing. The sales clerk couldn't use the computer to enter a simple "upgrade phone" transaction. I don't blame the clerk. Most likely, the software was a lousy POS. Most corporate software completely ignores the needs of users.

People Who Want To Shrink Government Are Racist!

2011-09-06T12:00:00.004-04:00

This story is interesting.

The public sector is the most important source of employment for African Americans and a key source of high-paying jobs, especially for black women, according to a study by the U.C. Berkeley Department of Labor. African Americans are 30% more likely to hold government jobs than other workers; from 2008-2010, 21.2% of black workers were employed in the public sector, compared to just 16.3% of non-black workers.

A higher percentage of black people work for the government, compared to other groups. The government is racist, in a reverse-discrimination sense.

That total only includes people directly employed by the State. There's also the Welfare State. A greater percentage of black people are on welfare, compared to the overall population.

This naturally leads to accusations of racism, against people who want to shrink government. The problem is "reverse"-discrimination by the government, favoring one group at the expense of another.

That's very interesting. A greater percentage of black people work for the government, compared to other groups. A greater percentage of black people are on welfare, compared to other groups. Therefore, if you want to shrink government or welfare, then you're a racist.

Some people might accuse me of racism for pointing this out. Government hurts all people in the productive sector of the economy, no matter what your skin color. The important class conflict is "productive vs. parasitic", although State comedians like to phrase it as "group X vs. group Y, with the State as hero mediating disputes between X and Y".

"Best of FSK" - August 2011

2011-09-05T12:00:00.002-04:00

In August 2011, my most popular posts were:

Agorist Philosophy Overview (468)
Groupon Is A Scam (460)
BMI/ASCAP/SESAC Legal Extortion Scam (353)
Did the USA Declare Bankruptcy? (322)
Ruby on Rails Sucks! (273)
The Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depression (226)
Who's the Richest Man in the World? (208)
The Pat Tillman Conspiracy Theory (200)
Silk Road Was A Partial AgoristBay Implementation (168)
The Carried Interest Tax Loophole (151)
The Compound Interest Paradox (134)
The Hunt Brothers' Silver Corner (132)
How Well Does GLD Track Gold? (120)
The Gold Lease Rate is Negative! (115)
The Five Levels of the Economy (95)
The Gold and Silver Taxation Scam (92)
Is It Worth Hoarding Nickels? (85)
Premium Text Messaging Fraud - 91097 and 654654 (78)
Calculating Vega and other Greeks in Black-Scholes (77)
The Bitcoin Conspiracy Theory (77)
Satanic Death Hospitals (73)
The Fluoride Conspiracy Theory (67)
Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2007 (67)
Are the GLD and SLV ETFs a Fraud? (66)
Venezuela, Chavez, and Gold (61)
The Federal Reserve and Income Tax Conspiracy Theory (58)
The Tally Stick Monetary System (54)
TBA Mortgage Bonds (54)
Utah Didn't Make Gold And Silver Legal Tender (54)
The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 1/12 - Overview and Background (53)
Real GDP Is Crashing, 2000-2009 (53)

If you only count posts published in August 2011, the most popular were:

Venezuela, Chavez, and Gold (61)
New Phone Soon (49)
Georgetown vs. China (43)
A Common Evil Photo Propaganda Trick (41)
Gold Futures Margins Raised (35)
Big Brother Lying Analysis (34)
Don't Be Afraid If You've Got Nothing To Hide (32)
Jailhouse Snitches (30)
Debt Ceiling "Deal" (28)
Rick Perry On The Federal Reserve (28)
"Best of FSK" - July 2011 (25)
"Dishonest" College Coaches Are Agorist Heroes (24)
Fracking And The Halliburton Loophole (22)
A Good Article On Pre-1913 Banking And Money (22)
Tea Party Terrorists (22)
Treasury Credit Rating And Bond Prices (22)

New Phone Today!

2011-09-04T12:00:00.002-04:00

I'm planning on getting a new phone today! I'm planning to get a Motorola Droid 3. My current LG envTouch was such a POS.

I'll give my analysis of the phone after I get it.

I did a preview of the apps I want to install. I looked at the Blogger apps, both the official Google Blogger app and others. My preliminary analysis is that they all are a lousy POS. I'll give more details after I get the phone and experiment. Deficient features include no comment moderation support, inability to edit drafts that weren't created your phone, and inability to schedule/queue posts.

The WordPress Android apps are *MILES* ahead of the Blogger apps. It makes me want to switch to WordPress just for that.

I'm so angry that Google has provided practically zero support for Blogger. There's been something like 2 useful new features in the 4 years I've been using it. If you have a Blogger account, there's a "Try the updated Blogger interface!" option. I tried and it was inferior to the old interface. The new Google Analytics interface is also inferior to the old interface.

I may experiment with the Blogger API and Android SDK and make my own Blogger app. It's been awhile since I made a for-fun software project. Also, my contract is ending and I'm getting fired, so I'll have more free time.

Who Cares When The President Gives A Speech?

2011-09-03T12:00:00.002-04:00

This story is pretty funny. This shows how pathetic political debate in the USA is. People are arguing about WHEN THE PRESIDENT SHOULD GIVE A SPEECH.

I don't watch political speeches. I never understood why the audience applauds after every sentence. That's too obviously farcical for me. The Democrats must applaud each point like it's the most brilliant thing they've ever heard, while the Republicans show a mixture of disgust and polite respect. One of my vblogging ideas is "Creatively edit political speeches to enhance the real meaning."

Apparently, this "speech scheduling" debate was way overhyped in the mainstream media. My father was really excited when he mentioned this story to me.

Here's a summary of the "scandal". The President wanted to give a speech on "creating jobs", which is politician-speak for "give money to my buddies". The President initially scheduled his speech for the first day Congress is back in session, September 7.

In order to give a speech in front of a joint session of Congress, the President needs permission of Congress. Of course, the President can give a speech on TV anytime he feels like it. However, a speech in front of Congress is "special". (as if any Congressmen would change their vote based the speech) A Presidential speech in front of Congress is pure political theater. As mentioned above, it's a huge farce the way the Congressmen behave during the speech.

The speech was originally scheduled for September 7, the first day Congress is back in session. The President asked speaker Boehner, Boehner said "OK", and the speech was announced.

However, after Boehner gave informal approval to the Sept 7 date, and after the speech was announced, people realized there's a schedule conflict. There's a Republican Presidential debate already scheduled for Sept 7. It would be unfair for the President to upstage it.

Once the conflict was discovered, the approval for Sept 7 was revoked. The speech was moved to Sept 8, immediately before the first NFL game.

The controversy is "Did Boehner disrespect the President, by approving and then revoking the Sept 7 date?" Seriously, that's the #1 political issue? Are we no longer pretending that the rulers aren't spoiled children?

Obviously, both sides made an error. They should have noticed the schedule conflict. It's a reasonable oversight. However, both sides are claiming the other acted maliciously. Can't they both just say "Oops, my bad, didn't notice the schedule conflict."?

This is funny and pathetic. People are arguing about the date the President is giving a speech, rather than important issues. The correct answer for "Jobs! WTF?" is "Slash the size of government, cut taxes, and cut stupid regulations." That isn't going to happen.

GE Receives $100B In State Subsidies Per Year

2011-09-02T12:00:00.000-04:00

This is very interesting. GE has $471B in debt on its books. (I'm looking at "Total Debt".)

You might say "So what?" Suppose that the average interest rate on that debt is 5%/year, and true inflation is 30%+/year. In that case, GE is receiving a State subsidy of $100B+ per year.

GE borrows at artificially low real interest rates of negative 20% or less. They use that money to build factories or buyout smaller competitors. When you can borrow at -20%, even the stupidest investment will be profitable.

This wealth doesn't go to shareholders. It goes to the insiders who control GE. GE shareholders still get returns that underperform true inflation.

Notice that with a $100B State interest subsidy, GE only has profits of $75B. If GE couldn't borrow at negative interest rates, GE would be *LOSING* $25B per year!

That was very shocking. GE has nearly $500B of debt on its books. They are paying a real interest rate of -20% or even less, because interest payments are less than true inflation. Enter your favorite corporation into that page, and see how big of a State debt subsidy they receive per year. (Other examples: Goldman Sachs (GS): $485B debt, Citigroup (C): $688B debt, Bank of America (BAC): $771B. With negative interest rates, that's a huge State subsidy per year.)

That was very offensive. GE receives an indirect State subsidy of $100B+ per year. They borrow at artifically low interest rates and pay it back with inflated dollars. All they have to do to profit is borrow cheaply, buy tangible assets, and wait for inflation. It's pure corruption capitalism.

Connections Vs. Ability

2011-09-01T12:00:00.001-04:00

I hear this frequently stated. "Your connections are much more important than your ability."

I have pretty high ability but no useful connections. It would be nice to join some promising startup and write version #1 of their product singlehandedly. No such opportunity has come up.

Many employers would hire a friend of a friend, rather than hiring the most skilled applicant. If you're like me, with high ability but few connections, you're SOL.

"Connections are more important than ability!" is a symptom of a non-free market. Here is an example.

Suppose most employers hire their friends, rather than hiring skilled strangers. Then, there would be an arbitrage opportunity. Someone could search for well-qualified strangers, and then get skilled workers cheaply. That business would have an advantage. This arbitrage does not occur, due due to a non-free market.

What is a job? If a job is an exchange of value for value, then jobs should go to the most skilled workers. If a job is a meal ticket, then jobs should go to your friends. In a corrupt economic system, a job represents a meal ticket much more than an exchange of value.

People say "Connections are more important than ability!" as if it's a universal economic law. That is false. It is a symptom of a non-free market. In a really free market, clever employers would seek workers who are skilled, but lack the connections or experience.

Radical Extremists For Rule Of Law

2011-08-31T12:00:00.002-04:00

This article had a really neat quote.

A society is in serious trouble when its political pariahs have at the core of their demands a return to the rule of law.

By "rule of law", I mean natural law. When a Statist says "rule of law", he means "A group of insiders make up rules and use the threat of violence to force everyone else to obey."

For example, the War on Raw Milk is a clearcut violation of natural law. According to statutory State law, the War on Raw Milk is 100% legal, because a bunch of lobbyists and Congressmen approve of the law. Even if you believe, "Raw milk might be bad for you.", you should believe "People should be allowed to buy and sell raw milk, if they're 100% informed of the potential risk." If you take proper precautions, raw milk isn't that dangerous. Some people believe that raw milk tastes better, which is actually an indication that it's healthier. There's a clearcut economic terrorism reason for the War on Raw Milk. It benefits large corporate farms at the expense of small farms. The pasteurization requirement is a regressive tax on small farms.

The raw milk clubs are a partial implementation of agorism. State thugs are now very aggressively infiltrating them and shutting them down. The problem is that a raw milk seller needs 100% assurance that a potential new customer isn't an undercover cop. There's no agorist trading network that can make such assurances.

A Statist believes "The current legal system is a very good approximation of natural law!" Initially, the USA legal system was a decent approximation of natural law. It still had flaws, because it allowed for some taxation and enabled insiders to use violence to enforce bad laws, like the Fugitive Slave Act and the Alien and Sedition Acts. The USA system no longer is a decent approximation of natural law. It has degenerated into a corruption game for the exclusive benefit of insiders.

The USA was initially very successful, because the USA system was a decent approximation of natural law. The system in the USA has deviated severely from natural law. This leads to the current decline.

This is a common Statist mistake. State statutory law has almost no relationship to natural law.

That is pretty funny. That's a good summary of the problem with the USA. The "radical extremists" are the people demanding "rule of law" or, more accurately, "rule of natural law".

Warrent Buffett - Tax My Competitors More

2011-08-30T12:00:00.001-04:00

Warren Buffett consistently advocates for higher taxes. Recently, he called for higher taxes on people making $250k+/year.

Is Warrent Buffett a swell guy? Is it enlightened self-interest?

This post had an interesting quote.

"Warren Buffet is a dirtbag who has made millions buying small businesses that are forced to sell in order to raise money to pay estate taxes."

Suppose you built a successful small business worth $50M-$100M. When you die, you're hit with an estate tax bill of $20M+. You probably don't have $20M cash to pay the estate tax bill. You are forced to sell your business, due to taxes.

Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway specialize in buying small family-owned businesses. Many of the businesses are forced to sell due to estate taxes.

Warren Buffett likes the estate tax. The estate tax enables him to buy businesses at fire-sale prices. It's a forced sale due to the estate tax.

In effect, the State stole the small business. The State gets a fat tax check. Warren Buffett gets control of the business. In effect, the State seized the family-owned business and gave it to Warren Buffett.

Warren Buffett is a bankster. As a large insurance corporation, he gets to borrow for close to the Fed Funds Rate, although Berkshire Hathaway is not a Federal Reserve Primary Dealer. Insurance contracts have an implied interest rate, with the Fed Funds Rate or Treasury Rate as the benchmark.

In effect, Warren Buffett buys family-owned business with newly-printed money. A bank prints new money, borrowing from the Federal Reserve. That money is lent cheaply to Warren Buffett. He uses that money to buy the business. That money pays the estate tax bill, with a little left over.

The family does get some cash after the estate tax bill is paid. However, they lost their business. The family doesn't get the cashflow and profits from operating the business for another generation. In many cases, the family members who know how the business works become Berkshire Hathaway employees. In fact, Warren Buffett openly brags about how he treats family members well, after the State forces them to sell their business to him.

Insiders use trust and tricks to avoid taxes. Consider Comcast. Even though it is a public corporation, Brian Roberts owns special supervoting shares that give him control, even though he only owns a tiny slice of equity. Brian Roberts inherited those supervoting shares from his father, Ralph Roberts, using trusts and tricks to dodge estate taxes.

Estate taxes do not hurt true insiders like Brian Roberts. Estate taxes hurt small business owners who want to pass a business on to their children. Income taxes and estate taxes do not hurt insiders, who already control a State monopoly. Taxes hurt someone who's trying to bootstrap a small business.

It makes no difference, if Brian Roberts' taxes are raised. If his taxes are raised $20M, then he can just pay himself $20M more in salary from running the Comcast monopoly/oligopoly.

Comcast has an explicit State-backed monopoly. It's illegal for me to compete with Comcast. It's illegal for me to lay down wires and start my own cable/Internet/telephone business, even if I could recruit customers and raise capital.

I'm trying to bootstrap a profitable Internet-based business. Right now, I'm blogging and planning to expand. Part of the taxes I pay subsidize large media corporations that compete with me.

The tax system acts as a barrier to non-insiders, as they accumulate wealth. You might make millions of dollars, but you probably won't become a true insider like Brian Roberts.

The income tax hurts someone bootstrapping a successful business. If you raise tax rates, that hurts the successful small businessman making $200k-$500k/year. He has to pay a higher tax bill, reducing his ability to reinvest in his business. That money/wealth is stolen by the State, and used to subsidize insider-controlled businesses.

True insiders use trusts and tricks to dodge taxes. Why is Warren Buffet using a charitable trust to dodge taxes? Why doesn't he pay estate tax on the full value of his inheritance, just like the families whose business he steals?

Warren Buffet is actually a negative taxpayer, just like most insiders. The actual taxes he pays are less than the value of the State subsidies he receives. As a bankster, Warren Buffet benefits from artificially-low interest rates. Warren Buffet invests in corporations with a State-backed monopoly, making profits practically guaranteed. For example, Warren Buffett's recent investment in Bank of America is backed by the State financial system money laundering scam, and the fact that Bank of America is "too big to fail".

Taxes don't hurt true insiders. They receive State perks worth more than any taxes they pay. Insiders are negative taxpayers. Instead of raising taxes, State subsidies for insiders should be eliminated. If you receive $100M in State subsidies, it makes no difference if you pay back $40M or $60M in taxes. If your taxes are raised $20M, then you'll just take an extra $30M in State subsidies. For true insiders, the nominal taxation rate is irrelevant, because they're negative taxpayers. The people hurt most by higher taxes are people bootstrapping a successful business.

Higher taxes hurt people who have a successful business, but can't afford their own Congressman.

That's why I like agorism. Agorism enables you to bootstrap a small business without being robbed by the State. Any taxes you pay subsidize your larger corporate competitors.

This point is missed in the "raise taxes" debate. True insiders are negative taxpayers. Their nominal taxation rate is irrelevant. Taxes hurt non-insiders who want to bootstrap a business, or pass it on to their children.

The important point is not to tax insiders more. True reform would remove their State-granted perks. The taxation debate is a smokescreen. It hides the fact that true insiders are negative taxpayers. Insiders like Warren Buffett receive State subsidies worth more than any taxes they pay.

Insiders profit twice from the tax system. First, they use taxes to line their pockets. Second, they use taxes to prevent others from accumulating wealth and influence and challenging them. Nominal taxation rates are irrelevant, because true insiders are negative taxpayers.

President Obama Bans Campaign Contributions To Rick Perry

2011-08-29T12:00:00.001-04:00

This story is offensive. The SEC passed a rule banning campaign contributions by financial services employees to sitting governors.

Ostensibly, the rule prevents banks from unduly influencing State governments. However, this rule prevents Rick Perry and other governors from getting money from banks, the #1 source of campaign funds.

This law doesn't prevent campaign donations to the President, only governors. Literally, the President passed a law saying "It's illegal to donate money to my competitors." WTF? Isn't the corruption getting too flagrant?

Technically, the rule was passed by the SEC and not the President. You can be sure the President approved of the rule. He probably could overturn it if he wanted to.

It's pretty flagrant, that the SEC passed a rule that so blatantly favors the President.

Hurricane - No Problems

2011-08-28T22:02:00.001-04:00

dionysusal has left a new comment on your post "New Phone Soon":

FSK,
How'd you make out with the hurricane? Did you have to evacuate? Too bad Wall Street didn't get swept out to sea. That would have been cool.

Only "Zone A" was evacuated. Those are people who live right by the water or in Coney Island or Rockaways or downtown Manhattan. I'm not even in "Zone C" where I live.

I didn't lose water or electricity here. Everything was fine. I stayed home all weekend.

The subways resume tomorrow before rush hour. I'm going to work on Monday.

At work, I'm on floor -3 (negative 3). I wonder if it flooded? They didn't make any preparations.

New Phone Soon

2011-08-28T12:00:00.002-04:00

I'm planning to get a new cellphone soon. I'm probably going to get a Droid 3.

I'm not getting an iPhone. I don't like the locked-down environment.

With Android, you don't get root access unless you hack your phone. However, you can publish Android apps without going through the Google store.

There are many nice apps available for Android that are banned from the iPhone. I'm particularly interested in classic console emulators. You can play old Atari games on your Android phone! That's banned from the iPhone, due to the "no 3rd party runtimes" rule.

I might experiment with the Android SDK. It's been awhile since I did any personal software projects for fun. Unfortunately, I don't have much energy leftover after working.

The only negative for the Droid 3 is that it doesn't support 4G. I'm primarily using the phone on the subway and at work, so that doesn't matter much. (At work, I'm on the -3rd floor (negative 3), getting zero bars.)

The other negative of the Droid 3 is that it has a weird "Pentile" display with sometimes-pixellated resolution. I'm willing to overlook that.

Here's an interesting word of caution. Don't buy a 32GB micro SD card from the Verizon store! They are $100+ at Verizon but only $50 at Best Buy. Similarly, I'm not going to buy a case at Verizon. The Droid 3 comes with 16GB memory + 4GB micro SD card. I'm going to go with a 32GB card, especially if I'm putting a bunch of games on it.

The library of all old Atari games takes up 0.5GB. That is very amusing. All games written for the old Atari 800 fit in 1/60 of my 32GB micro SD card!

There's also a Blogger app for Android. It seems lame compared to the WordPress version, with very limited features. Still, it'll be better than my lousy LG envTouch. I could always write drafts in the Android word processor and copy them to Blogger later.

I'm also going to use an Android spreadsheet to keep track of the "FSK price index". I'm doing it crudely in Excel now. It'll be easier with an Android phone, immediately entering the price in the store.

I really am looking forward to the Droid 3. I hope it's a good choice.

A Good Article On Pre-1913 Banking And Money

2011-08-27T12:00:00.002-04:00

This article has a very nice summary of banking laws before 1913. Summarizing, it was not a free market. There were many laws that explicitly encouraged fraud.

Here are some highlights.

Before the Civil War and the National Bank Act, banking was still regulated at the state level, even though Andrew Jackson vetoed the renewal of the 2nd central bank.

In many states, bank charters were specifically allocated by the legislature. You could not open a new bank unless you got the legislature to pass a law allowing it! That's a neat barrier to entry.

In many states, banks were allowed to issue paper banknotes. They were required to invest in state bonds as collateral. This artificially inflated the price of state bonds.

The law explicitly encouraged banks to make lots of paper banknotes and then declare bankruptcy, "wildcat banks".

The National Bank Act in the Civil War placed a 10% tax on state banknotes, effectively making them illegal. A system of Federal banknotes were established. Banknotes were issued by the banks and not the government. It wasn't until the Federal Reserve in 1913 that banknotes were issued by the government.

Banks were required to invest in Treasury debt, using that as collateral for banknotes. This led to the perverse circumstance that, if the national debt were repaid, then banks couldn't issue banknotes!

The law explicitly allowed for various levels of pyramiding paper on top of gold. Larger banks were allowed to use more aggressive leverage ratios. This naturally led to periodic bank runs.

Under the National Bank Act, there was a hybrid system of gold coins, US Notes, and bank-issued banknotes. US Notes were not gold-redeemable, but there were legal tender laws. Banknotes were redeemable in gold, BUT banks had a tendency to declare bankruptcy and default.

There was an experiment with a bimetallic standard near the end of the nineteenth century. This was a failure, because the bimetallism law set the gold:silver ratio artificially low, overvaluing silver and undervaluing gold.

There was *NEVER* a true free market banking system in the USA. There always were regulations at the state and/or Federal level.

Fracking And The Halliburton Loophole

2011-08-26T12:00:00.001-04:00

There's a lot of mainstream media discussion of fracking, or hydraulic fracturing. This article is typical.

Fracking is a new way to mine for natural gas. You pump water and chemicals into the ground. This breaks the rock formations, releasing the natural gas.

The problem is "and chemicals". Those chemicals, along with the released natural gas, are polluting drinking water. The most famous example is the guy who lights his water on fire.

Most mainstream media discussion of fracking fails to mention the "Halliburton Loophole". That is a serious omission. The patents for the fracking technique are owned by Halliburton. Via heavy lobbying, there was an exemption put into the Water Pollution Act, exempting fracking. Since Halliburton owns the fracking patents, this loophole exclusively benefits Halliburton.

I am very offended, that almost all mainstream media discussion of fracking doesn't mention the "Halliburton Loophole".

Now, government bureaucrats are rushing in to solve the problem THEY CREATED. The politicians say "Government is the hero, for protecting people from greedy polluters." Government caused the problem, by exempting fracking from pollution laws.

You might wonder "People had their property damaged by fracking. Why don't they sue and win?" This is the evil of the State. The State actively protects polluters. First, laws like the Halliburton Loophole explicitly exempt polluters from liability. Second, even without that loophole, it's almost impossible to hold polluters accountable in a State court. The legal fees will be much more than your property was worth. The corporation can stall and drag out the case for decades. A corrupt and inefficient legal system protects polluters from responsibility for their crimes.

In a legal system based on natural law or common law, it would be very easy to hold polluters accountable. Statutory law explicitly shields polluters, limiting or eliminating liability. An inefficient legal system makes it unprofitable to pursue valid claims.

This is a very common misconception. A pro-State troll says "Government is needed to protect people from polluters!" In fact, government enables polluters. The inefficient and corrupt State legal system shields polluters, enabling them to hide behind an army of lawyers. Laws like the Halliburton Loophole and the Oil Pollution Act explicitly exempt polluters from liability or cap liability. Limited liability incorporation enables polluters to weasel out of payment, even if they do get caught.

With complicated regulations, insiders can say "But we followed the regulations!", even if the net outcome is massive environmental damage.

The government does not prevent pollution. The government is the biggest enabler of pollution.

Treasury Credit Rating And Bond Prices

2011-08-25T12:00:00.002-04:00

Recently, S&P downgraded US Treasury debt.

Politicians are angry over the debt downgrade. They can't prosecute S&P for "downgrading US Treasury debt". Instead, they're prosecuting S&P for ratings on subprime mortgage bonds during the housing bubble.

That's a pretty standard trick. State police want to nail you for X, but instead they prosecute you for Y.

It's a pretty flagrant "Wink, wink. We really want to prosecute you for downgrading Treasury debt. Instead, we're prosecuting you for something else." If politicians really wanted to, they could probably send the CEO of any big financial institution to jail for the rest of his life.

It's pretty obvious selective prosecution, when S&P is prosecuted but not Lehman Brothers' CEO and CFO. Their "Repo 105" accounting lie was a pretty flagrant violation of Sarbanes-Oxley.

Amusingly, the CEO of S&P resigned (i.e. was fired with a golden parachute), and was replaced by another bankster figurehead. Hopefully, he learned a lesson regarding the value of honesty in the financial system. This continues with well-established precedent, that anyone who tells a bit of the forbidden truth has their career as an insider ruined.

Here's a good test of your knowledge of real economics.

After the US Treasury debt downgrade, what should be the effect on Treasury bond prices?

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

The net effect of the US Treasury downgrade on Treasure prices should be *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING*.

Why is that?

The Federal government, in collusion with the Federal Reserve and financial industry, buys back its own bonds. Because the Federal government buys back its own bonds, observed market prices for Treasury debt has nothing to do with the free market.

That's the reason that Treasury debt yields are low even though inflation is high. The Federal government buys back its own debt, making returns completely uncorrelated with real inflation.

The Federal government prints new money to finance the purchase of its own debt. It isn't explicit. It's done indirectly with the Federal Reserve and financial industry via "debt monetization". In a fiat paper monetary system, there is no restriction on the State insiders' ability to print new paper money to buy back their debt and manipulate interest rates.

The "credit rating" only measures the risk of technical default, that you won't get payments as promised. The real risk of Treasury debt is that returns will be less than inflation. S&P is ignoring that risk.

The only way a technical default can occur is if Congress refuses to pass a budget or raise the debt limit. The Federal government can keep on creating new bonds and new paper, to keep refinancing their debts.

There's a moral default on Treasury debt all the time, because interest payments are less than inflation. That doesn't count as a technical default, according to bankster logic.

Treasury yields are used as a benchmark for other types of debt, because banksters can borrow at the Treasury rate and buy other debt. The Federal Reserve isn't just lowering the price of Treasury debt. They are also lowering the price of all corporate bonds. You'd be an idiot to buy any type of bonds, not just Treasury debt, because returns are much less than true inflation.

It also is amusing, to see all the mainstream media hate directed against the "Tea Party", blaming them for the credit rating downgrade and debt ceiling impasse. Most "Tea Party" Congressmen are still shills for the State. Even that type of limited dissent is not appreciated.

The whole "Treasury credit downgrade" debate is a smokescreen and an illusion. The real problem is that Treasury yields are less than true inflation. There is a Treasury debt default continuously, at a rate of 1%-3%+ per month.

The banksters gladly buy Treasury debt. They borrow at the Fed Funds Rate (currently 0%-0.25%) and buy higher-yielding Treasury debt. They profit from the spread. The actual inflation rate is irrelevant.

As an individual, you'd be an idiot to buy Treasury debt. You are guaranteed to be robbed via inflation.

State Vs. "Tea Party"

2011-08-24T12:00:00.000-04:00

This story is interesting. Allegedly, the "Tea Party" is very unpopular.

Is the "Tea Party" unpopular because it's evil? Is the "Tea Party" unpopular due to a massive State propaganda campaign?

It almost seems like a tautology. "This group of people has been heavily slandered by the mainstream media. A new poll says this group of people is very unpopular."

Most people associate the Tea Party with racism. If you're against the Welfare State and big government, then you're a racist. I never understood that "logic".

The mainstream media shows the guy holding the racist sign, rather than the guy complaining about high taxes. (The guy with the racist sign may be a planted disinformation agent.) Many politicians sincerely believe that the Tea Party is a group of racists and terrorists. That label enables politicians to dismiss their concerns.

You can really hear the hatred in some people's voices, when then denounce the "Tea Party".

Also, logically contradictory beliefs are promoted. They show the guy with a sign "Keep government out of my Medicare!", rather than people complaining that government is way too big.

As a grassroots Internet-enabled movement, there is no "Tea Party" leader. The mainstream media anoints pro-State trolls and fruitcakes as "Tea Party" leaders, and then draws the conclusion that everyone opposed to big government is evil.

The mainstream media has done a pretty thorough job of smearing the "Tea Party". I can sense the fear, with the large volume of propaganda denouncing the "Tea Party". The "Tea Party" label has been mostly ruined by mainstream media. There still are plenty of people angry at big government. That isn't going to change.

I suspect that a new label other than "Tea Party" may start being popular. The idea "Government is way too big!" is continuing to spread. That isn't going to change, even if the "Tea Party" label stops being used.

Don't Be Afraid If You've Got Nothing To Hide

2011-08-23T12:00:00.003-04:00

There is criticism over increased State surveillance. The Statist retort is "Don't be afraid if you have nothing to hide."

However, State insiders get very hostile, when you want information on what they're doing.

It's OK for police to videotape you. The policeman can then decide to disclose or not disclose the videotape, depending on whether it makes the victim look bad or not. (Police cameras always "mysteriously malfunction" when it might make them look bad.) If you try to videotape an on-duty policeman, he may kidnap you or destroy your camera. Via a creative interpretation of wiretapping laws, people are then prosecuted for videotaping police.

One criminal defense lawyer said there's an interesting quirk in the US legal system. Suppose you accuse the police of misbehaving. If the police file criminal charges against you, then your complaint against the police is automatically ruled invalid. That seems bizarre, but that's the way it works. As part of any plea-bargain, the police may demand you drop your claim against them. Therefore, if you have a valid claim against the police, then the police will be eager to charge you with a crime to silence your claim.

This law should be clarified. An on-duty policeman should have no expectation of privacy. It should never be illegal to videotape an on-duty policeman. An honest policeman should not be afraid, if someone videotapes him while working.

State insiders collect a ton on information on their slaves. By itself, collecting information is not evil. The problem is that the State police/justice monopoly will tend to use that information for evil purposes.

Suppose there were surveillance cameras on every corner. That information could be used to solve real crimes, like robberies. Unfortunately, in the present, that information will be abused.

The police might decide "FSK has undesirable political views. We'll prosecute all his friends and associates. We'll prosecute everyone who reads his blog." Under those circumstances, a surveillance camera on every corner could be used to identify and kidnap all of my friends and business partners.

Unfortunately, the State tends to abuse such information more than beneficially using it. By itself, information is not evil. The problem is that the State monopoly abuses that information. Many innocent behaviors are falsely classified as crimes.

Police and insiders can't be trusted, to not abuse information they collect. Therefore, they should be barred from collecting information. By itself, information is not evil. Unfortunately, the State monopoly abuses information far more often than properly using it.

This story was interesting. Rick Perry said the Federal Reserve should fully open its books. If you believe "Don't be afraid if you've got nothing to hide.", then the Federal Reserve should open its books. The Federal Reserve refuses full disclosure, because people would be outraged if they knew the truth.

(I'm more inclined to believe "Rick Perry is criticizing the Federal Reserve, to attract some of Ron Paul's support and anti-Federal Reserve sentiment. Rick Perry has no intention to reform or eliminate the Federal Reserve." However, it's still progress, to see prominent politicians criticizing the Federal Reserve.)

(There were some disclosures recently, regarding $1T+ of bailout loans. There's an important footnote not emphasized. The Federal Reserve has only disclosed *SOME* of its "emergency lending". The Federal Reserve has successfully resisted 100% full disclosure. The stuff you heard about is only part of the total secret bailout package.)

Via the ironically-named "Bank Secrecy Act", State insiders have the power to spy on every single bank transaction. Whenever you use a State-licensed bank, you should assume that the transaction is being reported to the IRS and FBI. State insiders literally have full financial information on everyone. However, if you want to know what the Federal Reserve is doing, that's an important secret that can't be disclosed. That's an obvious double standard.

As another example, the SEC refuses to publish details for naked short selling. Following "If you're innocent you have nothing to hide!", the SEC should publish a full naked short selling list. They should publish the stock, bank, and number of shares for *EVERY* failure to deliver. By refusing to do this, the SEC is protecting financial criminals.

This is a very common pattern. When State insiders want to spy on you, they say "If you're innocent you have nothing to hide!" When people demand information from State insiders, there's always excuses and refusal. Insiders don't have to follow the same rules as the slaves.

This is a very important point. By itself, information is not evil. The problem is that State insiders cannot risk the temptation to use information for evil. Similarly, State insiders always block the disclosure of information that might make them look bad. State insiders have a default policy of blocking disclosure on everything, even innocent-seeming activities.

When State insiders want to spy on you, they get all your records. When you want to get information on State insiders, there's always denial and excuses and loopholes. It's a clearcut double standard.

Gold Crushed The S&P 500 Over The Past 6 Weeks

2011-08-22T12:00:00.004-04:00

Over the past month and a half, gold has *CRUSHED* the S&P 500.

Using GLD as an approximation for gold, GLD closed at $147.63 on 7/5/2011, and GLD closed at $179.95 on 8/19/2011. (GLD does track gold reasonably well.)

SPY closed at $133.81 on 7/5/2011, and SPY closed at $112.64 on 8/19/2011.

That's a 21%+ gain for gold, and a loss of 15%+ for the S&P 500. Overall, gold outperformed the S&P by 44%+ from 7/5/2011 to 8/19/2011. (It's more than 21%+15%, because you multiply 1.218/0.841 = 1.448, instead of merely adding.)

It certainly is possible that the stock market might outperform gold over the next year or two. I'm convinced that gold and silver are a better long-term investment than the stock market.

If gold has a higher expectation than stocks, then you're an idiot to buy stocks instead of gold. Even if you're an expert stock picker, you won't be able to make up the 1%+/month that gold is crushing the stock market.

With stocks you get dividends and earnings. However, there's all the theft and waste and fraud associated with a large corporation. With stocks, the friction is greater than the earnings.

Even though gold has had a great run recently, I still predict that gold will outperform the stock market over the next 5-10 years. Even if you pay a premium of 10%-20% for buying at a local minimum, any losses relative to the stock market should be recovered quickly.

"Dishonest" College Coaches Are Agorist Heroes

2011-08-21T12:00:00.002-04:00

This story is interesting. There was a scandal at Miami, where "inappropriate" payments were made to players. This follows immediately after a scandal at Ohio State and several other top teams.

The NCAA has colluded to fix student athlete salaries. The only payment a player may receive is his scholarship. The actual value of a student athlete is much higher.

The schools make millions of dollars off football, but only return a pittance to the players.

A scholarship is worth around $20k, but a lot of that is funny money. The school is charging the athletic department $20k, and adding that money to the school's general fund. Most football players work almost full-time on football, and don't take serious classes. For example, a very low percentage of student athletes take advanced calculus or other advanced engineering or science classes.

Even if you assume the scholarship is worth the face amount, it's a ripoff. The NFL minimum salary is $375k. It is ridiculous to think that a player is worth only $20k/year as a college player, and then $375k/year as a pro. The high draft picks and star players get even more, although the new CBA restrained that a bit. (Not every college player gets to play in the NFL. However, many college players are probably worth more than their $20k/year tuition, even ones who don't qualify for the NFL.)

When I was in graduate school, I taught Math classes in exchange for tuition+stipend. In fact, I chose one school over another partially because it made me a better offer. Why not let players play football for tuition+stipend? Why not let schools compete with each other on salary offers?

The NCAA insiders are exploiting their monopoly position. The NFL, also having a monopoly, has no minor league system, with college functioning as the minor league system. The NFL won't accept a player until he's been in college for 3 years. This forces star players to work for a pittance in the NCAA, instead of turning pro.

The "dishonest" coaches realize that their players are way underpaid. They arrange for under-the-table payments, to make sure that players are fairly compensated.

The NCAA has created this problem, by capping player compensation at tuition. The only way to eliminate under-the-table payments is to declare that players can be paid their fair market value, with free market competition and no payment cap.

That would be an embarrassment, because the top players might earn $50k/year or more. However, it would be less embarrassing than under-the-table payment scandals. Also, schools would be forced to compete on salary, making football less of a lucrative gravy train for NCAA insiders. What's wrong with paying players $50k/year, when they're earning millions for the school?

If it's against NCAA rules to pay players their fair value, then honest coaches will find a workaround, by paying players under-the-table. The rule-breaking NCAA coaches aren't criminals. They are heroes, because they're making sure their players are fairly paid for their services. The real criminals are the NCAA and NFL, exploiting their monopoly to force players to work for artificially low salaries.

Georgetown vs. China

2011-08-20T12:00:00.001-04:00

This story was pretty interesting. Georgetown played an exhibition game in China against a top Chinese pro team, the Bayi Rockets. That is one of the top pro teams in China, comprised only of former soldiers with no foreign players allowed. (They aren't actual soldiers serving combat duty. They are nominally soldiers, whose primary duty was playing basketball.)

The referees were obviously biased in favor of China. By halftime, China's team had only 11 fouls but Georgetown had 28 fouls, and China's team was playing very dirty.

Even though the referees were trying to fix the game, Georgetown was making it close. The game was tied. It ended in a bench clearing brawl without being finished. The Georgetown players walked out of the game after the brawl, with the Chinese crowd starting to get ugly.

That second link has a clip showing the start of the brawl. (The clip on Yahoo cut out the very beginning of the brawl.) The fight was pretty obviously started by the Chinese team. There was a foul and minor scuffle. The Georgetown player tried to run away from the Chinese player, but the Chinese player escalated it to a full fight.

The Chinese government has censored the story in China.

In the USA, there's no official connection between sports and the government. Even if a USA national sports team misbehaves, nobody is going to blame the President.

In China, this team was touted as a military team. The referees were cheating to favor China. Even with that advantage, it was a close game, and the players got frustrated when they were losing. This is an embarrassment for the Chinese government, because there's an explicit connection between the team and the military and the government. The USA system is better, where sports teams are used as bread and circuses, but sports are independent of the government (although they receive direct and indirect State subsidies, like taxpayer-funded stadiums).

Interestingly, Georgetown's players have not been suspended after the fight. Usually, the USA sports policy is "In a fight, both sides get suspended, even someone who's defending himself." The fact that Georgetown players were not suspended, shows that it was obviously a one-sided fight.

The problem is that the referees didn't control the game, showing an obvious pro-China bias. There's a simple solution. The NCAA should pass a rule saying "All games involving NCAA teams must use NCAA referees, even exhibition games."

Venezuela, Chavez, and Gold

2011-08-19T12:00:00.003-04:00

This story is very interesting. Huge Chavez nationalized Venezuela's gold industry, seizing control from the corporations who own and operated the mines.

Hugo Chavez also demanded physical delivery, to Venezuela, of 99 tons of gold on deposit at the Bank of England. Also, the price of gold rose sharply yesterday (Thursday).

The conspiracy theory is that the Bank of England doesn't have the 99 tons of gold for physical delivery. The gold was lent to short sellers, and now they must scramble to get some gold.

Even if you buy gold in an allocated account, that doesn't mean the bank has the gold they promised! There are many stories of people with "allocated" accounts with delivery option, but the bank stonewalls when the customer demands delivery! Obviously, many "allocated warehouse accounts" are really frauds. For this reason, actual physical gold is preferable to all forms of paper gold.

Allegedly, this physical delivery demand caused the price of gold to rise. The banksters are now scrambling to get 99 tons of gold for physical delivery. If the banksters default and fail to deliver, then many other people will start demanding physical delivery.

The State financial system has an annoying habit of freezing the accounts of out-of-favor dictators. Therefore, Hugo Chavez is making a wise move, demanding physical delivery of his gold.

That's the classic fractional reserve banking scam. It could be a classic bank run. Many "allocated gold accounts" are frauds and really fractional reserve banking. If there's one big redemption, then the scam is exposed, and everyone demands physical delivery.

That is a very interesting conspiracy theory. Hugo Chavez demanded physical delivery of 99 tons of Venezuela's gold. The price of gold is increasing, as the banksters scramble for physical to deliver. If there's a delivery default, then the whole paper gold market could unravel, as everyone demands physical delivery.

You Can't Tax A Corporation

2011-08-18T12:00:00.000-04:00

There was an amusing incident, where Romney debated a heckler regarding taxation of corporations. Both Romney and the heckler were misinformed.

A corporation is an abstract fictional representation. You can't tax a corporation any more than you can tax Santa Claus.

A "tax on corporations" is actually a tax on the people who use the corporation. You can tax the shareholders. You can tax the CEO. You can tax the employees. You can tax the customers.

You can't tax the corporation itself.

Any tax on a corporation will be realized the people who make up the corporation.

If you tax shareholders, then you're pushing down the stock market.

If you tax the CEO 10% more, he might just pay himself 10% more. After all, he has a monopoly.

If you tax the employees, then the people are working harder for less salary.

If you tax customers, then people are paying higher prices.

In the current economic system, large corporations have an oligopoly/monopoly. If corporate taxes are raised, the cost will merely be passed on to customers as higher prices.

Corporate tax rates only really matter when corporations compete with unincorporated individuals. In that case, higher corporate tax rates make it easier for individuals to compete with large corporations. In the present, it's effectively illegal to compete with established large corporations.

Most State costs are a regressive tax on individual business owners. For example, regulatory compliance costs are a huge regressive tax.

You can't tax a corporation. A corporation is an abstract fictional entity. When corporations have a monopoly, any tax is passed on to customers via higher prices. Corporate tax rates only matter when corporations compete with unincorporated individuals. In the present, the State economic system makes it almost impossible for an individual to compete with an established corporate monopoly.

Rick Perry On The Federal Reserve

2011-08-17T12:00:00.004-04:00

This story is very interesting. Rick Perry said that the Federal Reserve is almost treasonous, due to their inflationary policies.

At this point, a pro-State troll says "Why is Rick Perry whining about inflation?! The CPI is low! I know inflation is low, because Bernanke and the mainstream media said so!"

This post on zerohedge had a great inflation analysis. I believe he's looking a commodity futures/spot prices. This is the 1 year change. Notice how gold is close to the middle of the range. I consider gold to be the best inflation measure over a 5+ year time period.

Unleaded gas prices are up 45%.
Heating oil prices are up 46%.
Corn prices are up 71%.
Soybean prices are up 26%.
Rice prices are up 13%.
Pork prices are up 31%.
Beef prices are up 25%.
Coffee prices are up 38%.
Sugar prices are up 48%.
Cotton prices are up 13%.
Gold prices are up 42%.
Silver prices are up 115%.
Copper prices are up 23%.

Rick Perry is criticizing the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies.

This is a very promising sign. Politicians other than Ron Paul are more openly criticizing the Federal Reserve.

Why should the Federal Reserve be "independent"? "Independent Federal Reserve" is a code word for "We can inflate and steal as much as we want, without any public disclosure or accountability." Why should there be "more accountability for teachers" but the Federal Reserve gets to be "independent"?

It's also amusing to see people denounce Perry as "irresponsible", because he dared to criticize the sacred Federal Reserve. There's the usual backlash from statists, when someone says a bit of the forbidden truth.

New York Times Washington correspondant Binyamin Applebaum tweeted that Perry's comments were "horrifying," and asked the question, "This is a major party presidential candidate??"

It is very predictable, the hostility against accidental truth-tellers. I wonder if someone had a sit-down with Perry and told him "Dude! You can't criticize our gravy train like that! You aren't going to get elected if you talk like that!"?

Also notice that criticizing Rick Perry's comment is a type of endorsement. It's better media coverage than Ron Paul, who is typically ignored.

Cynically, Rick Perry may be doing this to gather some of the Ron Paul voters. It is very likely that Rick Perry is criticizing the Federal Reserve, but won't do anything about it (if elected President). It still is progress.

Rick Perry also correctly pointed out that, if Ben Bernanke heavily inflates, that will benefit Obama's reelection chances. Inflation creates the illusion of economic growth and the illusion that the economy is getting better. For example, if the Federal Reserve inflates, that pushes up the stock market. A rising stock market is touted as a sign of economic recovery, even if returns are less than true inflation.

If the Federal Reserve adopted a tight monetary policy, that could hurt Obama's reelection results.

The Federal Reserve can influence the election results. That's a valid complaint by Rick Perry. That's also a valid reason for Rick Perry to shut up and stop criticizing the Federal Reserve.

Also, Rick Perry seems to have the "abused productive" personality type. Look at this photo.

Notice the 45 degree laugh lines. Notice that the right side of his face is slightly disfigured compared to the left. I can't be 100% sure, because I haven't met him. It's hard to evaluate personality type from a photo, when dealing with a politician.

(I wonder if some insiders are doing a serious personality profile, and making sure the next President isn't a psychopath or parasite. However, most/all politicians have evil tendencies, or evil people advising/lobbying them.)

Ron Paul is a longshot to win. Rick Perry is one of the favorites. In the Republican Presidential primaries, the governor of Texas gets a bye to the semifinals.

It is a good sign, that Rick Perry is openly criticizing the Federal Reserve. Whether Rick Perry really means it, or is doing it to attract votes, it's nice to see top politicians openly criticizing the Federal Reserve.

A Common Evil Photo Propaganda Trick

2011-08-16T12:00:00.000-04:00

Michele Bachman was on the cover of Newsweek. Look at the photo.

This is an *EXTREMELY COMMON* propaganda trick. If you want to make someone look bad, cherry pick a lousy photo.

There are thousands of photos of any politician or celebrity. If you want to make someone look bad, look through them and pick the worst photo.

Normally, magazines publish airbrushed pictures. Publish a non-airbrushed photo of your victim.

I also saw this trick used against Ron Paul. Other candidates would be portrayed smiling. Ron Paul would be portrayed as frowning and from a bad camera nagle.

The propaganda goal is clear. If you say that government is too big, then you're a dangerous fruitcake.

Michele Bachman is another flavor of statist. However, she is somewhat moving the public debate in the direction of "Government is way too big!"

This is a pretty flagrant piece of propaganda. By publishing a non-airbrushed carefully-selected photo, the mainstream media can make anyone look bad.

A Common Statist Fallacy

2011-08-15T12:00:00.001-04:00

TJ has left a new comment on your post "Indications Of Progress":

I've heard the argument for privatizing law enforcement, but what would take the place of Department of Justice and district courts, if the state monopoly on justice is abolished? What is to prevent profit from being the priority over justice?

"Profit over justice" is *EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS RIGHT NOW*.

With free market courts, if a court had a reputation for making bad decisions, they would lose customers.

If I have the ability to force you to use my biased corrupt court, then I'm the government. With market competition, courts will be forced to be as fair as possible.

In the present, if insiders buy judges and Congressmen, then people are SOL.

Consider other examples:

Without government, there would be pollution! The Oil Pollution Act explicitly exempts oil drillers from liability. The "Halliburton Loophole" explicitly exempts fracking from liability. The polluter can declare bankruptcy and default on their responsibility. (There's no limited liability incorporation in a really free market.) It is very hard to sue a polluter and hold them accountable, in a State court.

Without government, corrupt bankers would rob and steal and cheat depositors! You're an idiot if you really believe this.

Without government, a bunch of thugs would go around extorting from people! This is how tax collectors behave.

Without government, a bunch of thugs would assault business owners! Have you seen the various "raw milk" raids?

Without government, a bunch of thugs might murder people! Have you heard any of the stories of people murdered by police?

Without government, it's be hard to collect from someone who injured you! The legal system is incredibly inefficient, denying many people justice.

This is a VERY COMMON MISUNDERSTANDING. A pro-State troll says "Without government, abuse X would occur.", when the reality is that abuse X occurs right now, PRECISELY BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT.

Takes One To Know One

2011-08-14T12:00:00.004-04:00

I was thinking a little more about "Tea Party Terrorists". Vice President Biden accused "Tea Party" Congressmen of being terrorists, for voting against the debt ceiling increase.

Scott pointed at that Vice President Biden is a terrorist. In fact, all Congressmen are terrorists. Most Congressmen won't physically assault you themselves to enforce their evil laws. They are perfectly happy authorizing other people to commit crimes on their behalf.

The biggest terrorists are the ones who go around accusing other people of being terrorists.

The biggest racists are the ones who go around accusing other people of being racist.

That's a very interesting observation.

"Best of FSK" - July 2011

2011-08-13T12:00:00.002-04:00

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

Groupon Is A Scam (575)
Did the USA Declare Bankruptcy? (560)
BMI/ASCAP/SESAC Legal Extortion Scam (315)
Ruby on Rails Sucks! (279)
Silk Road Was A Partial AgoristBay Implementation (263)
Who's the Richest Man in the World? (231)
The Compound Interest Paradox (164)
Casey Anthony - Who Cares? (159)
The Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depression (143)
Premium Text Messaging Fraud - 91097 and 654654 (94)
The Hunt Brothers' Silver Corner (86)
Calculating Vega and other Greeks in Black-Scholes (84)
Is It Worth Hoarding Nickels? (84)
The Gold Lease Rate is Negative! (79)
Two Kinds Of Psychopaths (73)
Agorist Philosophy Overview (69)
The Gold and Silver Taxation Scam (68)
The Bitcoin Conspiracy Theory (66)
Who Cares About Obama's Birth Certificate? (65)
How Can Every Government Be Bankrupt? (64)
The Pat Tillman Conspiracy Theory (62)
The "Chained CPI" Scam (61)
Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2008 (58)
The Fluoride Conspiracy Theory (57)
Satanic Death Hospitals (52)
Your Strawman Corporation (50)
Thomas James Ball And The Second Set Of Books (50)
Lindsay Lohan On The Federal Reserve (50)
Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2007 (47)
Fight Or Run? (47)
Gold Bubble Or Hyperinflation? (44)
Modern Marriage Vows (44)

If you only count posts published in July 2011, the most popular were:

Casey Anthony - Who Cares? (159)
Two Kinds Of Psychopaths (73)
How Can Every Government Be Bankrupt? (64)
The "Chained CPI" Scam (61)
Lindsay Lohan On The Federal Reserve (50)
Fight Or Run? (47)
Gold Bubble Or Hyperinflation? (44)
Modern Marriage Vows (44)
DSK And False Rape Accusations (41)
Updated Declaration Of Independence (41)
Debt Ceiling "Debate" (38)
News Corp. Whisleblower Dies Of "Natural Causes" (34)
Anders Behring Breivik (32)
Scalia's Son Represented Wal-Mart (32)
More Corporate Waste (31)
Antibiotic Resistant Gonorrhea (28)
Insanity Defense (26)
Aaron Swartz Indictment (25)
The Carried Interest Tax Loophole (24)
Time Travel "Impossible" (24)
Horrible Bosses - Horrible Propaganda (22)
Tax Farming (22)
Roger Clemens Mistrial (21)

Gold Futures Margins Raised

2011-08-12T12:00:00.000-04:00

This story was interesting. The price of gold rose sharply recently, probably due to inflation and expectations of future inflation.

The debt ceiling was raised. The Federal budget deficit grows. The Federal Reserve is continuing its "zero interest rate" police, which is an inflationary stealth bank bailout.

Yesterday, the price of gold declined a bit. Why? The COMEX raised margin requirements!

The "margin requirement" is a fixed dollar amount per contract. It would be more sensible for the margin requirement to be a fixed percentage. However, that would reduce the ability to periodically cause the gold price to decline by raising margin requirements.

There are lots of tricks that insiders can use to manipulate gold and silver prices. One trick is periodically jacking up margin requirements.

Federal Reserve Zero Economic Growth Policy

2011-08-11T12:00:00.001-04:00

The Federal Reserve announced they were continuing their "Zero Economic Growth Policy" until at least mid-2013. They are calling it "Zero Interest Rates".

"Zero interest rates" doesn't actually encourage economic growth. Actually, I should have called it a "negative growth policy" instead of "zero growth policy".

The Fed Funds Rate is 0%-0.25%, while true inflation is 20%-30%. This is a huge State subsidy for the banksters. The banksters are borrowing at 0%, and buying tangible assets or lending to other insiders. With 0% interest rates, the banksters are practically guaranteed to profit.

Why would banks lend to individuals and small businesses? They can speculate in Treasury debt and make a guaranteed profit. They can lend to large corporations, with the ever-inflating value of the State monopoly as collateral. Why should banks take risks financing the productive sector of the economy?

The CPI is far less than true inflation. This causes inflation to be misreported as economic growth. By increasing the inflation rate, that will increase the measured "inflation-adjusted" GDP rate, while actual economic activity decreases.

Suppose that inflation is 100% and the stock market goes up 50%. State comedians say "Hooray! The stock market went up 50%!" They ignore the fact that the gains are less than true inflation.

Gold continues to crush the stock market. If you measure stock returns in gold rather than FRNs, then the stock market is obviously a losing proposition.

By keeping interest rates at 0%, the Federal Reserve is not "stimulating the economy". In reality, the Federal Reserve is subsidizing the parasite sector of the economy at the expense of the productive sector.

When Ben Bernanke keeps interest rates at 0%, he isn't spending his own personal money. He's spending the people's money, creating to new money to finance 0% interest rates. Zero interest rates aren't free. Everyone else pays for it via inflation.

Indications Of Progress

2011-08-10T12:00:00.000-04:00

Blog posts like this one are interesting. In many ways, that blogger is a pro-State troll. He rabidly defends policemen. However, even he is saying "There's something fundamentally wrong with the political system in the USA."

I'm noting more and more people saying "The political system in the USA is completely broken." However, most of them are still short of the correct answer, which is market anarchism and "All taxation is theft! It makes no difference how taxes are collected or what they're used for. A government monopoly for police/justice/lawmaking is evil and unnecessary."

More people are saying "The system is completely broken." That's an indication of progress. There's an increase in awareness for market anarchism on the Internet, but market anarchism is still not discussed in the mainstream media.

Jailhouse Snitches

2011-08-09T12:00:00.001-04:00

This story is hilarious. California passed a law saying "You can't convict a defendant based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a jailhouse informants." Do you see the joke?

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

Do you get the joke? This was such a problem common, that they passed a law forbidding it!

Can you imagine that? Judges and juries are saying "The only evidence against the defendant is a jailhouse informant. That's good enough for me! I'm convicting!" Not only that, it's a common problem?!

Here's how jailhouse snitches work. Suppose you were already convicted (or plea bargained), and sentenced to 5 years in jail. The prosecutor offers you 2 years off your sentence, if you testify against someone else. Under those circumstances, most people will react "What do you want me to say?"

There is a huge temptation for a jailhouse snitch to lie. It is offensive that prosecutors get away with such abuse. It is even more offensive that judges and juries rubberstamp convictions based solely on jailhouse snitches.

If a defendant tries to bribe a witness, that's felony witness tampering. If a prosecutor bribes a witness via a sentence reduction, that's a normal day at the office.

That's the joke. In California, abuse of jailhouse snitches was such a big problem, that they passed a law explicitly forbidding convictions based solely on jailhouse snitches. (I wonder. If two different jailhouse snitches say the same thing, is it now corroborated? That loophole may still exist.)

Alex Rodriguez And Poker

2011-08-08T12:00:00.001-04:00

This story is interesting. Alex Rodriguez is a star baseball player for the Yankees. Allegedly, he played in an "illegal high-stakes poker game".

According to natural law, there's no such thing as an "illegal poker game". If a group of people get together and voluntarily play poker, there's nothing wrong with that.

If the person who organizes the game charges players a fee, there's nothing wrong with that either.

Allegedly, some people at the poker game were using cocaine. Again, that's not illegal, according to natural law.

Cocaine really is bad for you. That's a separate issue from "Cocaine should be illegal!"

Allegedly, some of the players got violent. That is another problem with making poker illegal. For a legal poker game, people could resolve disputes through the legal system. For an "illegal" poker game, the players' only recourse is violence, if they feel cheated.

Also, an "illegal" poker game has a strong incentive to be as fair as possible. First, they are dependent on reputation. Second, they don't want players complaining to the State.

According to "natural law", there's no such thing as an "illegal poker game" or "illegal drug". This story is being overhyped, to promote the State ban on unapproved gambling and unapproved drugs. Sometimes, the most State propaganda is put promoting things that aren't real crimes. The State needs continual propaganda, to promote the fact that many "forbidden activities" aren't really crimes.

Why is it anyone else's business, if Alex Rodriguez wanted to play poker?

Dilbert And TSHTF

2011-08-07T12:00:00.000-04:00

This Dilbert comic strip was really interesting. (July 31)

That is one point I made about preparing for collapse. If you make preparations, and you're alone, you will be looted by roving bandits.

Inconsistent Tax Treatment

2011-08-06T12:00:00.001-04:00

I just realized another unfair bit about the tax system.

If you're a US citizen living outside the USA, the US government claims the power to tax you on income earned in another country.

If a US corporation has income outside the USA, there are plenty of loopholes and tricks. A US corporation typically pays zero US income tax on income earned outside the USA.

The correct answer is "All taxation is theft!" However, individuals and corporations are taxed differently on non-USA income. That's another example of the State biased against individuals in favor of large corporations and insiders.

The net effect of the taxation system is that it transfers wealth from individuals to insiders. Most people believe the opposite, that taxes redistribute wealth from insiders to individuals.

Tea Party Terrorists

2011-08-05T12:00:00.002-04:00

This quote was offensive. Vice President Biden said that Tea Party Congressmen who voted against the debt ceiling increase were "terrorists".

That's the new definition of terrorism. If a Congressman says "This law is bad. I'm not voting for it.", then he's a terrorist.

If the Vice President is hostile to inside-the-system protest, like Congressmen voting against a law, then what alternatives are there? Doesn't the Vice President know that the "Tea Party Congressmen" are mostly shills for the State, helping provide the illusion of a serious attempt at reform?

Government spending needs to be slashed. The actual cuts were a farce. "We're increasing spending by less than we previously said. We count that as a budget cut". That's silly.

If insiders are serious about preventing complete collapse, government spending needs to be slashed by 50%, 75%, 90%, or more. Unfortunately, most government spending is "politically untouchable" (i.e., lobbyists will complain). At this point, collapse seems incredibly likely.

Clueless Coworker

2011-08-04T12:00:00.000-04:00

There was an amusing incident at work. One of my coworkers is doing a project. I know exactly what the project is, and it'd take me 2-3 days. He's taken more than 2 weeks, and he isn't done yet.

One thing he needed to do, was convert some files from format X to format Y. It was a 1 hour project. He asked me to do it for him.

I was sort of offended, but I did it anyway. I probably saved him 2-3 extra days of work, for doing the conversion.

That was very interesting. One of my coworkers took 2+ weeks, for something that I know I could have done in 2-3 days. That means I'm 5x more efficient than him. Of course, I'm not getting paid 5x as much.

Dofenism

2011-08-03T12:00:00.000-04:00

I saw an interesting term, called "Dofenism". It means "Why bother?"

It comes from the Soviet Union. In an absolute communist dictatorship, it makes no difference if you do a brilliant job or a barely competent job. The incentive is to do just enough work to get by.

This attitude is spreading towards to the USA. The USA is acting more like an absolute communist dictatorship, and less like a free market. A lot of people are giving up. They know it doesn't make a difference, so they do the minimum possible work.

For example, in my current wage slave job, it makes no difference if I do a brilliant job or a barely competent job. I do my best, but maybe that's because I'm stupid. Even if I stay with my current employer for 20 years, the odds are practically zero that I would get promoted to Vice President or higher. Why should I work excessively hard?

You might say "Switch jobs if you're underused." However, any wage slave job will have the same problem. If I switch jobs, my next employer won't know what I'm doing now. How can a clueless prospective employer tell the difference whether I'm a good worker or an unqualified loser? I should start my own business, but the State makes that hard.

For most wage slaves, hard work no longer leads to promotion and advancement. Why should anyone work hard? The people who work hard are exploited losers. This attitude is spreading and it's dangerous.

State thugs have mostly disconnected effort from reward. The result is that most people have stopped trying. The USA is in danger of collapse like the Soviet Union collapsed. The USA is getting more like a communist dictatorship, and less like a free market.

Big Brother Lying Analysis

2011-08-02T12:00:00.008-04:00

Most State TV shows are propaganda. Most "reality" shows are not a model for normal human interaction. The rules of most "reality competitions" guarantee that you have to lie and backstab in order to win. With normal human interaction, it's about building a long-term relationship. On a reality TV show, you never have to see someone again once you backstab them.

Still, there are interesting bits.

On Sunday's episode of "Big Brother", there was an excellent bit that illustrates lying.

Here is a link to the episode. (It's "episode 11", if you watch after Wednesday, when that link changes.)

Watch the next to last segment, when Danielle, Brendon, and Rachel are talking. (This is around 35:00.) All 3 are completely lying. Brendon and Rachel have already decided that Danielle is their next target. Danielle has already decided that she's nominating Brendon and Rachel. They are pretending to make a deal.

Notice the way that Brendon, Rachel, and Danielle all are blinking during the conversation. This is one thing I've noticed. People tend to blink when they're lying. Notice that the blinking intensity is proportional to the amount of lying. Watch when Rachel says "There's no reason for us to not work together." She's blinking very rapidly.

You can also see this sometimes on the Communism Channel (CNBC). The speaker blinks in proportional to the amount of lies.

You won't notice this with world class liars, like politicians. They're usually just reading from a teleprompter or reciting memorized talking points, without thinking. For the world class liar, the lie is the truth, making it not a lie. Politicians almost *NEVER* deviate from the prepared script, so you won't notice their lying body language.

Even though State TV is almost pure propaganda, there are interesting bits if you know where to look. The rules of reality shows like "Big Brother" explicitly reward dishonesty and backstabbing. However, it's interesting to notice people when they're lying. The segment with Brendon, Rachel, and Danielle is an excellent example of "People blink a lot when they lie!"

There's another interesting bit, from earlier in the same episode. On Big Brother, the "token black guy" is very often also the "token homosexual". They're knocking off two minority checklist groups with the same person.

Debt Ceiling "Deal"

2011-08-01T12:00:00.002-04:00

Last night, there was an announced agreement on the debt ceiling increase.

The deal reached by Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress, Obama said, would first cut nearly $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years while raising the debt ceiling by the same amount.

Notice the semantics. "We're cutting spending by $1 trillion."

However, that's the cuts *OVER 10 YEARS*. The cut in current spending is around $100B, on tenth.

Notice that $100B is a negligible amount, compared to the total Federal government's budget.

Really, the Federal government's budget needs to be slashed by 50%-75% or more. That "isn't politically feasible", because lobbyists will always object when you cut their pork.

Also, the cuts in years 2-10 mean *NOTHING*. A future Congress can always change their mind.

State budget logic is amusing. If you increase spending by less then expected, that's a budget cut.

As I predicted, the Republicans and Democrats reached a deal. What do you expect them to do? Shut down the Federal government permanently and go get a real job? Of course they reached a deal.

Unless Congress repeals or reforms the Federal Reserve, an exponentially-increasing national debt is needed to keep the monetary system scam running. The rules of the monetary system guarantee that Congress must periodically raise the national debt limit.

APMEX Fractional Silver and Shire Silver

2011-07-31T12:00:00.003-04:00

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:

spot	$40
1oz	$43.55
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.

What Is The Fair Credit Rating For Treasury Debt?

2011-07-30T12:00:00.002-04:00

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.

The Carried Interest Tax Loophole

2011-07-29T12:00:00.003-04:00

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.

Anders Behring Breivik

2011-07-28T12:00:00.009-04:00

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.

ABB is not an idiot. He's very intelligent. This was a very well-planned attack.
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.
If ABB had heard about agorism or market anarchism, he might have focused on better resistance rather than pointless violence.
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.
Violence against State insiders accomplishes nothing. There's always someone else available, just as evil, to take their place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Buildings that house State leaders are usually well-guarded. There are plenty of softer targets. You can't have military-style guards everywhere.
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.

Time Travel "Impossible"

2011-07-27T12:00:00.002-04:00

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.

Cenk Uygur And State Censorship

2011-07-26T12:00:00.003-04:00

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.)

Aaron Swartz Indictment

2011-07-25T12:00:00.002-04:00

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.)

Gold Bubble Or Hyperinflation?

2011-07-24T12:00:00.002-04:00

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."

50 Hour Workweek

2011-07-23T12:00:00.000-04:00

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.