Million Dollar Game Show Disease

I've noticed a disturbing trend in recent game shows. Every show features a million dollar prize. You have to risk previous winnings to go for it, which means the grand prize should never be won by a rational contestant.

On "Who Wants to be a Millionaire", it made sense to force the player to risk their winnings. The player got to see the question and answer first, making it an informed risk.

On "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader", "Million Dollar Password", "Minute To Win It", and now "Downfall", the player must risk their winnings to continue. However, the player doesn't get to see the question first. That makes it an unreasonable risk. Unless you're already wealthy, only an idiot would risk $250k or $500k for a shot at the grand prize.

I'm very offended by game shows where the contestant should not win the grand prize if they play rationally. On "Deal Or No Deal", the grand prize was theoretically attainable if several big cases last until the end. If the last 3 cases were $400k, $500k, and $1M, then the player might as well go for the $1M. On most "big-money" game shows, the player should quit with $100k-$250k, if they're playing rationally.

It seems that $1M is the minimum grand prize for a game show. There's been more than 4x inflation since 1999, making $1M not as valuable as it used to be.

A good game show is really interesting. Most game shows seem to be fixated on "player vs. house" play and "The grand prize must be $1M!" and "The player must risk his winnings to continue!" I'd like to see more classic-style game shows.

Discussing The 9/11 Truth Movement Again

dionysusal has left a new comment on your post "The Pro-Defamation League":

I find this offensive in the extreme since it was the Zionists who destroyed the WTC buildings in the first place as a "false flag." Disgusting beyond words.

We're discussing this again?

My opinion on "9/11 was a false flag operation!" is still "not proven either way".

"9/11 was an inside job" makes as much sense as "A farmer killed his chickens because they looked at him funny." State insiders are very conservative. They'd be reluctant to do something that might ruin their scam. A farmer doesn't kill his own cattle, except to eat them.

Are there people evil enough and influential enough to do such a thing? Yes. Did they actually do it? I'm not sure.

It's an interesting attitude. There's enough anti-State sentiment in the USA, that people would believe "State insiders would murder their own cattle, just to scare them!"

I'm more inclined to believe "Pat Tillman Was Assassinated!" than "9/11 was an inside job!"

Did politicians ruthlessly exploit 9/11 for their own personal gain? Yes. That doesn't prove it was an inside job. That reinforces the appearance that it was an inside job.

After the WTC terrorist attack, State parasites said "We failed miserably! We didn't do our job! Give us a raise! Give us more power! Give us more resources!" When the State fails, the solution always is "More power for State parasites!" Why not organize a false flag operation, and use it as an excuse to claim more power? Alternatively, wait for the next disaster, and then use it as an excuse to claim more power.

Some discussion forums, especially Ron Paul forums, now ban people for discussing "9/11 was an inside job". This creates the illusion that they're supporting a coverup. They're concerned that being associated with a radical idea undermines the more mainstream things they're doing. "Ron Paul for President!" is much less radical than "9/11 was an inside job! The State is one big scam!"

They're concerned that the mainstream media will say "People who support Ron Paul also believe that 9/11 was an inside job! Therefore, Ron Paul and all his supporters are wrong." Jesse Ventura was censored, regarding his discussion of "9/11 was an inside job!" That reinforces the idea that there's a coverup.

The mainstream media doesn't cover "9/11 might have been an inside job!" for the same reason they don't mention "Taxation is theft!" It's forbidden to discuss anything that questions the legitimacy of the State. The "9/11 Truth Movement" indirectly questions the legitimacy of the State, and is therefore banned.

"9/11 was an inside job!" is censored because it comes too close to the real truth, "The State is one big scam!" However, "9/11 might have been an insider job!" is a useful stepping-stone to help someone realize that government is one huge scam. The fact that State parasites might have had an incentive to organize a false flag operation, illustrates how evil the State is.

The WTC terrorist attack really was a "burning of the Reichstag" moment for the USA. It's been an excuse for cracking down on personal freedom.

There are three things for which you can jail someone indefinitely without trial:

1. mental illness
2. sex offender
3. terrorist

I'm noticing a disturbing trend where people are arrested because they *MIGHT* commit terrorist acts in the future. That's a bit severe. There should be some way to help a prospective terrorist, other than kidnapping and torturing them.

"You're a terrorist!" is the new "You're a Communist!" It's an accusation that allows State thugs to jail someone without trial.

It's wrong to be overly obsessed about the World Trade Center. Inside job or not, the State is one big extortion racket. Whether it was a false flag operation or not, your best strategy for fighting State evil is still agorism.

My answer for "9/11 was a false flag operation" is "I'm not sure." If you disagree, that doesn't invalidate the other points I make. The State is one big scam. I'm not overly concerned with "9/11 false flag!", because it's a minor issue compared to other State evils.

Hollywood Accounting

This story was interesting. The rights to "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" are owned by Celador, who developed it in the UK. ABC/Disney signed a contract to develop the US version, in exchange for a share of the profits. It was ridiculously profitable for ABC/Disney. Celador sued ABC/Disney for failing to pay the share of profits, as specified in the contract.

The correct answer is "'Intellectual property' is not property." If I wanted to develop my own version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", I shouldn't need a permit from anyone. It would be poor taste to make an exact copy of someone else's idea, but it shouldn't be illegal.

For the rest of this post, I'll ignore "'Intellectual property' is not property!" By that standard, ABC/Disney owes $0.

ABC/Disney agreed to pay Celador a % of the profits. They exploited a commonly-used legal loophole. The production company for "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" was a separately-incorporated subsidiary of ABC/Disney. The licensing fee that ABC/Disney paid to the subsidiary was exactly equal to the production costs! The subsidiary had no net profits. Therefore, ABC/Disney owed Celador $0.

ABC/Disney's defense was "You should have known we would cheat you. Only an idiot signs a contract in exchange for a % of profits." A jury disagreed, and awarded $270M in damages.

This trick is also applied to movies and music. All sorts of frivolous expenses are charged to the movie/band. This leads to no profits and royalties, even for a mega-hit. Most band contracts specify "% of profits", leading to no royalties even if it's a mega-hit. The SAG and WGA union contract specifies "% of profits". The SAG and WGA union contracts specifically encourage "Hollywood accounting".

It would be much better to pay everyone a flat salary, and dispense with the "% of profits" nonsense. The "% of profits" clause fools clueless amateurs.

ABC/Disney exploited an accounting trick. However, Celador was an idiot for signing such an easily-exploitable contract. The correct answer is "'Intellectual property' is not property!" Technically, that makes ABC/Disney the victim, but it's always nice to see sleazy accounting penalized.

Liberty Dollar Website Shut Down

The Liberty Dollar website was shut down. Bernard von Nothaus was the owner of the Liberty Dollar and Liberty Dollar website. He was arrested/kidnapped/tortured. He is being prosecuted for currency fraud.

As terms of his bail, he was ordered to cease operating the Liberty Dollar and not discuss the trial. A judge ruled that he violated his bail conditions. I didn't see a description of which specific bail condition was violated. Nothaus was kidnapped/arrested/tortured, and State thugs seized his website.

This violates the "no excessive bail" clause of the Constitution. Originally, "bail" meant that you place a monetary deposit so you appear at trial. Now, "bail" also includes other restrictions. Those additional restrictions are immoral/Unconstitutional. Unfortunately, that's not the way State thugs think.

Bernard von Nothaus was deprived of his property, even though he was not convicted of a crime (yet). He was barred from operating his business until his trial is over (if acquitted). State thugs seized his website. State thugs seized the gold and silver that backed paper/electronic Liberty Dollars.

This is an aspect of State law I never understood. If accused of a crime, you're barred from publicly discussing it until the trial is over. That is unfair when the mainstream media loudly pronounces your guilt. The mainstream media isn't covering the Liberty Dollar at all.

Bernard von Nothaus is the victim of State economic aggression. However, I don't like the Liberty Dollar. The Liberty Dollar is inferior to using generic silver rounds and valuing them based on the spot price of silver.

State thugs print "$100" on $0.03 of paper. That works for them, because there's a huge criminal conspiracy backing the money. The difference of $99.97 is seignorage profit for the financial industry and Federal government.

The Liberty Dollar printed "$20" on (at the time) $10 of silver. The difference of $10 is seignorage profit for the Liberty Dollar business.

Bernard von Nothaus says "With Federal Reserve Notes, if there's 200% inflation, your $100 is only worth $33.33. With the Liberty Dollar, if there's 200% inflation, your '$20' one ounce silver Liberty Dollar is now worth $30. Therefore, the Liberty Dollar is better than Federal Reserve Notes."

After the price of silver goes over $20/oz, the "$20" one ounce Liberty Dollar becomes a "$50" Liberty Dollar. However, you must pay a reminting fee if you own any Liberty Dollars.

Instead of buying one "$20" Liberty Dollar for $20(FRN), you should have bought two 1 ounce silver rounds. Then, after 200% inflation, you would have 2 ounces of silver (worth $60) instead of 1 Libery Dollar (worth $30 melt value or $50 face amount).

The Liberty Dollar is inferior to using generic silver rounds. It is loss-oriented thinking, when your alternate monetary system is based on slave points. Printing "$20" on your alternate money is wrong, because that's still referring to State money.

Instead of thinking "This costs $20!", a free person thinks "This costs one ounce of silver!" It's very easy to convert from FRN-denominated prices to real money. Just divide by the spot price.

If my only monetary choices were FRNs and Liberty Dollars, I would prefer Liberty Dollars. If generic silver/gold rounds are also a choice, I'd prefer to use metal coins valued at the spot price.

The Liberty Dollar was set up as a multi-level marketing scam. The silver costs $10/oz. The Liberty Dollars were sold to agents for $18/oz. The agents sold them to the general public for $20/oz. However, that is not illegal. That isn't what Nothaus is formally charged with.

Bernard von Nothaus made a tactical mistake, when choosing the design for the Liberty Dollar. He made it sort of look like State-issued money. He minted "$20" on the coin. He minted "Trust in God", similar to "In God We Trust".

If Bernard von Nothaus had minted "THIS IS NOT LEGAL TENDER!" on the Liberty Dollar, then he might not have been prosecuted. However, State thugs always find something else. If you threaten the State extortion racket, then you must be punished.

Bernard von Nothaus is charged with minting coins that look like State-issued money. Some stupid people confused Liberty Dollars for State-issued money. This led to confusion, when some stupid people tried depositing them in a State bank.

Even if Bernard von Nothaus had picked a less confusing Liberty Dollar design, he might still be prosecuted. It is a high priority for State thugs to kidnap and torture people who threaten their extortion scam.

Most high-profile critics of the Federal Reserve and IRS wind up in jail. That doesn't prove they're wrong; that proves the efficiency of the State extortion racket and "justice" racket. Once you realize that the State is a scam, you have a patriotic obligation to avoid paying taxes and to stop supporting organized crime.

The Liberty Dollar is immoral, because Nothaus stamped "$20" on $10 of silver. Only a fool would prefer Liberty Dollars to generic rounds. Only a fool would prefer FRNs to real money, although State violence forces the slaves to use paper money.

There was an amusing quote on the Liberty Dollar ex-website. Bernard von Nothaus complained that his State-appointed defense lawyer was really an assistant prosecutor. His lawyer was trying to coerce him into accepting a plea bargain, rather than going to trial and getting convicted. The lawyer thinks "Bernard von Nothaus is going to be convicted. I have a professional obligation to talk him into accepting a plea bargain, so he doesn't go to jail for as long."

This is a problem with State-licensed lawyers. "Negotiate a favorable plea bargain!" is a higher priority that getting the client acquitted. A State-appointed attorney will be barred from arguing "The Federal Reserve is Unconstitutional".

The Liberty Dollar is immoral, but should not be illegal. A corrupt State judge disagrees. I predict that Bernard von Nothaus will be convicted in a sham trial. That doesn't invalidate his criticism of the Federal Reserve.

Homicidal Rampage

Last Friday, Mark Hurd was fired from his job. He retrieved a gun hidden in his desk and went on a homicidal rampage, killing 8 of HP's board members.

Actually, that isn't what happened. He got a $40M+ severance package. That includes cash, options/equity, and other perks.

Mark Hurd's severance payout seems absurd. If he was "fired for cause", then why pay him severance? If not, then why force him to resign. That's inconsistent behavior by HP's board. It's an example of insiders doing favors for each other.

The way "sexual harassment" works, employers take a "guilty unless proven innocent" approach to minimize liability. "Sexual harassment" policies are the result of insane State law and legal precedents. In a really free market, an abused worker would get a new job or start a new business.

"Sexual harassment" cannot occur in a really free market. Workers would have sufficient bargaining power to get non-abusive work conditions. When your employer has a State-backed monopoly, the worker has no choice but to accept abuse.

There are two economic systems, one for insiders and one for everyone else. CEOs get "golden parachutes". One CEO typically serves on other boards. They're spending other people's money, so why not be generous to each other?

If you have a unionized job with a pension, getting fired can be a huge loss. Suppose it's "20 years cliff vesting". Then, it's a huge loss if you're fired after 19 years.

Even if it's "3% vesting per year * last year salary", it's still a huge loss to get fired. You get raises and promotions. In NYC, State employees load up on overtime the year before retiring, leading to ridiculously huge pensions.

When someone has a gun and murders multiple people, the mainstream media says "We need stricter gun control laws!" Actually, gun control laws exacerbate the risk, when there's one angry person with a gun. If someone had a gun, they could have stopped the murderer before he killed so many people. A mass murder is hyped as an excuse for stricter gun control laws, when it's really a reason to allow gun ownership! When a non-policeman gun-carrier stops a crime, that is not hyped as "Hooray for gun ownership!" If a non-policeman uses a gun to stop a crime, he might face personal liability, even if he did the right thing.

I've been unfairly fired from many jobs. It is frustrating. Now, my attitude is "I'll find another job." It is annoying when managers are abusive jerks. It's a consequence of the corrupt State economy. I should start my own business, but State restriction of the market makes it harder than it should be.

Now that I've cracked my pro-State brainwashing, I can think like a mass-murderer, even though I have no plans to kill anyone (and probably won't). A serial killer thinks "Everything is a lie! Why not take as many people down with me as I can?!" State insiders use violence to "solve" problems. A serial killer follows the role model set by the State. According to State logic, you help someone by threatening to kidnap/kill them. A serial killer is trying to help as many people as he can!

There are two economic systems, one for insiders and one for everyone else. Insiders always get a "golden parachute". Non-insiders can be really hurt when fired, especially when it was a unionized job paying above-market wages.

Tanning Salon Tax

There's a new Federal tax on tanning salons. It was included in the healthcare reform "law".

Before the "Tanning Salon Tax" was passed, there were a lot of mainstream media stories hyping "Tanning salons are bad for you!"

That's an interesting insight into the "manufacturing consent" process. The mainstream media hypes "X is harmful!" Then, a law is passed banning or taxing X.

Lately, there have been a lot of stories on "soda is bad for you" and "salty food is bad for you". This may lead to a tax on soda or salty food. There was such a proposal recently in NY, but it was shot down. Even if an attempt to raise taxes is defeated, State parasites will merely try again later. Once a tax is in place, it usually isn't repealed.

As long as fewer than 50% of the people use tanning salons, a majority might reasonably vote for the law. A bad law has inertia. The people who benefit from the law will block repeal.

The tanning salon tax benefits State parasites, because they get more resources. The tanning salon tax hurts small businesses more than large businesses. The small business much spend a greater % of income making sure they're in compliance with the tax bureaucracy.

It was interesting to notice the hype surrounding the tanning salon tax. It's an example of the State "manufacturing consent" process.

Congress Buys Votes

This story was amusing. The House of Representatives was called back into session, from summer recess, to pass an emergency stimulus/bailout bill. The bill was stalled in the Senate, but it was passed after the House adjourned.

This spending bill provides stimulus/bailout money to state governments. This will prevent the layoff of teachers/police/bureaucrats, before the November election.

Why is this bill an "emergency"? This is flagrant vote-buying. State employees are unionized. They vote as a bloc. They usually vote Democratic. An extra 1%-2% might make a difference in close Congressional races.

Even though 51% of the vote is required to get elected, a bloc of 2% is a huge swing. This enables unionized State employees to have a huge influence.

Some people say "If you work for the government, you shouldn't be allowed to vote." I'd extend that to indirect State employees. Working for a large financial institution, I'm an indirect State employee.

This is one problem with voting and high taxes. More than 50% of the people work for the government, directly or indirectly. That makes it *IMPOSSIBLE* to achieve real reform by voting. If State employees vote as a bloc for "big government", then reform *CANNOT* occur.

"More than 50% of the people work for the State!" is possible because:

1. Not every worker has equal productivity. Highly skilled workers pay more than their "fair share" of taxes. In addition to taxes, the difference between the value of my labor and my salary is profit for the State. For example, my headhunter/pimp probably gets paid more per hour of my labor than I do.
2. Some State employees produce some useful goods, albeit at above-market prices. Workers in the State electricity/telephone monopoly produce useful goods, while receiving above-market wages. Their State subsidy is the difference between "fair salary" and "actual salary" and not "entire salary". However, unionized indirect State employees tend to identify with the State.
   

This "emergency" spending bill is a flagrant example of Congress buying votes. The cost is paid by productive workers in the form of higher inflation. You should keep your long-term savings in physical gold and silver, to prevent theft via inflation.