atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#3713: Economy is still tanking.

Consumer confidence took a nosedive after the election.

...seriously, the country re-elected Obama and then said, "Oh, shit! We re-elected a moron! What do we do?"

*sigh*

And the media is naturally downplaying this. Their guy won, so they're not going to tell us the whole truth: THE ECONOMY SUCKS BECAUSE NO ONE HAS A JOB, BECAUSE OBAMA.

Andy at AoSHQ resurrects Monty's DOOM graphic for this post on the "fiscal cliff". Seems to be that the politicians in D.C. are saying exactly the same things they said during the big budget "fight" in 2011.

Because--as I noted at the time--the deal didn't fix anything except the timing of the crisis: it let them put off doing anything about it until after the 2012 election, because they knew any actual solutions would be unpopular.

Since neither party is interested in decreasing D.C.'s power over the country, the idiocy will continue--and it will continue until it absolutely cannot be pushed any further. This road has a finite length; it ends abruptly at a cubic mile of granite, and the closer we get to it the faster we're going. Greece is ahead of us, as is most of Europe. It's dark and foggy and we're turning our headlights off even as we stand on the accelerator.

...because the people driving the car would rather do anything other than stop the car and let someone else drive.

*

Vox Day says, "This is why you're stressed."
It has gradually become apparent that this increasingly negative social mood has come about because very nearly everyone has either been laid off, missed out on a job opportunity, knows someone who has been laid off, or has family members who are unemployed.
Welcome to the Obama Nation! We get to discover what the 1980s would have been like if Carter had won re-election!

The problem comes when you consider the theory Vox Day shares with Karl Denninger, that the economic prosperity of the last thirty years was due to debt expansion, not real economic growth:
The U.S. economy's dependence upon a rapid rate of credit growth is not a recent phenomenon. While the 9.8 percent growth from 2005 to 2007 does exceed the 60-year average of 8.6 percent from 1948 through 2007, the 2008-2012 average of 2.0 percent is less than one quarter of the lower figure. The current rate of credit money growth is also less than half that of the previous four-year average lows, 5.1 percent in 1948-1951 and 5.7 percent in 1991-1994.

As Karl Denninger and I have both independently demonstrated, the US economy has not actually grown in real macroeconomic terms since the early 1980s when not only M2 inflation, but Z1 inflation as well, is taken into account. However, the illusion of growth was preserved by the quarterly credit inflation of 2.36 percent. Once that inflation stopped, however, the illusion began to fail. GDP growth has continued by virtue of the federal government's massive attempt to single-handedly prop up credit growth; if Z1 had kept pace with the federal sector's rate of growth, Zg would be $112,021 trillion and we would finally have the massive inflation that the inflationistas have been expecting.
Emphasis mine. Denninger has some charts up that show something interesting: if you consider the economic output of the United States in units which don't inflate, invariant units, the economic output of the United States has contracted since 1980.

And this nicely dovetails with the fact that people my age have a harder time buying houses than our parents did. It just costs more, in terms of earning power, to do anything. The guy that made $40,000 in 1975 could buy a family car for $5,000, and a house for perhaps $40,000, and his wife could stay home. Today he must pay $25,000 for a family car and $100,000 for a house, while his salary may be perhaps $60,000, and his wife also must work full-time.

* * *

Vox Day discusses the flight from California's confiscatory taxes.



What else do I need to say?

* * *

Lesbian fakes hate crime. "...[P]olice have claimed she staged the attack for attention and to spark change."

I'd say probably mostly for the former. The latter is the kind of high-minded thing you tell yourself when you've done something egregiously stupid for a stupid reason.

And--this woman is 34? In the present-day pictures, she looks like she's in her fifties.

(There's one picture of her in her college days. It's captioned, "Nebraska's Charlie Rogers, guards Creighton's Corey Sweeney during a women's volleyball match in Lincoln, Nebraska...." Odd how they're using a basketball to play volleyball. Is Nebraska that broke?)

(InB4 "That's a MAN, baby!")

* * *

The endgame of the progressive movement. It got its start late in the 19th century, and it was all about giving government control of a great many things, but now it's turned into jackbooted thugs removing all personal choice.

Some of this was probably necessary. We ended up with labor laws and an agency devoted to making sure that medicines actually did something about the condition they were allegedly concocted for (and weren't actively poisonous in the bargain). Having some reasonable government standards for food and drug safety are probably, on balance, a good thing; this way you can be sure that you're buying a gallon of gasoline rather than a gallon of water, oil, keroene, and piss. This way you know that the bottle of aspirin you're buying actually contains tablets with acetylsalicylic acid in them, instead of corn starch.

Coca Cola and Pepsi and Doctor Pepper became soft drinks. They started as patent nostrums.

But now?

Besides the government deciding what kind of food you get to buy (and who gets to sell it to you) we have the unions trying to maintain power long after they've ruined the machinery that used to provide employment for millions of people.

I've got three links, all from Michelle Malkin's blog, on this:

Democrats are vowing "there will be blood" because of Michigan's impending "right to work" law.

Union thugs commit violence to keep their power and their access to money. When they don't get their way, they resort to violence, and it has been ever thus.

Teachers go protest instead of working and they ought to be fired. Of course these people tell themselves it's "for the children" but it is, in fact, "for the union."

Unionization was another thing to come from the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries--and as you can see, they too have far outstripped their usefulness.

Even FDR, the President most revered by socialists for his contributions to their cause, was against the idea of government workers being unionized. And for good reason.

* * *

I thought I had a fourth link on that story: Democrats love violence when it helps them accomplish their goals or keep their power.

"Michigan has both the highest unionization and unemployment rates in the Midwest." Cause, meet effect.

* * *

Air Force launches X-37B again. No news on what the mission is, of course, because "is secret".

*

I had to laugh at this bit, posted after the article:
You May Also Like...

Bikini Photos: 2012 Hooters International Swimsuit Pageant

Caught on Camera: Dashcam catches 14 illegal immigrants jumping from SUV

Really?!?: Dashcam catches man urinating on patrol car

Gah: Nose ring found in McDonalds burrito

7-11 Nudie: Nude robber boosts 7-11, video

Lil Girl Gang: Little girls busted in burglary ring

Oh Deer: Video catches deer tangled in Christmas lights

Sex Offender Search: Look up Florida Sex Offenders here

Lawsuit: Scientology allegedly covered up woman's death
I'm not replicating the links here, but...uh. Yeah.

* * *

If the feds really want to find you, "Anonymous", they will find you. I've said it and said it: hiding behind "six proxies" only makes it more difficult, not impossible, for them to track you down, because one way or another the packets have to find their way to and from your computer.

Further, the guy in the article is a communist dicklick. Like all of his ilk, he congratulates himself on his stand against "the man" all the while doing things like shutting down free speech in the name of free speech, and not doing anything useful, choosing instead to perpetrate stupid stunts that cause trouble for ordinary working people and does nothing to hurt "the man".

Look: the US government is increasingly encroaching on our freedom, but this guy says it's "one of the world's worst tyrannies." That is simply not so; that viewpoint is one of the shibboleths of American communism.

And the lawyer who agreed to represent this slimebucket?
“I’m usually an Armani guy if I can be, but I went from jeans into the one of the nicest $99 suits I had seen, plus a tie, pocket square, and socks,” says Leiderman. “I got the shoes and belt at a Ross [Dress for Less store] in between the tailor and the courthouse. The guys that worked security were impressed.”

Leiderman had involved himself with Anonymous after watching the Lulzsec crew wreak mayhem that summer. “Oh shit, someone here is going to really need a lawyer,” he began thinking. He “floated a tweet out there” during the early summer, offering pro bono work to “righteous hacktivists.” He heard from many Anons, including Commander X—whose name he recognized from Ars Technica’s reporting on the HBGary story—and had to pick one. He chose Doyon.
Anyone who looks at this dork's story and says he's "righteous" is himself a fellow traveler--and this lawyer is a rich one if he normally only wears Armani suits.

Gee, a rich communist. What a surprise.

Anyway, the guy that the article about is a self-important leftist douchebag.

* * *

Vox Day continues his disdain for John Scalzi.
Won't you please buy a copy of one of his Heinlein derivatives, or his Piper derivative, or his Star Trek derivative? If enough of us join together and help out, perhaps he'll not only be able to afford Christmas Holiday presents, but an original idea for a novel too!
I'm wondering what Scalzi's "Heinlein derivatives" are. The Piper derivative, that's his reboot of Little Fuzzy, which was completely unneeded, but I'm wondering what he derived from Heinlein.

I don't know how good of writer John Scalzi is, never having read him, so I can't comment on the quality of his writing.

Oh well.

* * *

...and speaking of obvious derivative works, here's today's home-brewed Garfield WIthout Garfield! It's a derivative of a derivative, making it a second-order derivation. (Sign up for CALC-402 today!!!)

Subscribe

  • #7557: Whose fault, exactly?

    Kid is ranked 62 out of 120 with a GPA of 0.13. What's his mother have to say? He didn't fail, the school failed him. The school failed at their…

  • #7556: Yakisoba night!

    I don't get to make it very often, but I saw a really nice piece of round steak at the store the other day, so I bought it. 1-1.5 lbs beef (round…

  • #7555: And it's only nine o'clock! *sigh*

    Today I watched the Jeep blow its taillight fuse. It blew when I went home for lunch; I drove back to work with no taillights. Before leaving the…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment