Oh the fallacy that the liberal left is against war continues to this day. It rears it uninformed head again here:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/beck-takes-sharp-turn-to-the-left/
Do we forget about Wilson, FDR, Kennedy and LBJ. And don't forget about all those protesters like the ones we saw in Pitt last year.
One one group has been consistently anti war through all these years and it's the libertarian groups, and they are decidedly "right wing" at the moment.
Liberals and Progressives (of both parties) are responsible for all of our interventionist acts in the past 100+ years. What we are told is that the Progressive Socialists are against war, when their actions throughout history are the exact opposite. You see the Progressive Liberal/Socialist seeks to use government to protect/enlighten/force people to do what is best for the collective. (Only they call it the public good)
It seems that Beck might actually be shedding his blind faith in the military industrial complex. Only time will tell if he is serious or not. But the truth at the moment is that our Progressive Liberal president continues the same foreign policy plan of the last sixty years. Sure some of the rhetoric is different, but we still find ourselves in Iraq, we have expanded actions in Afghanistan, we are posturing to take on Iran and we still have over 700 military bases around the world. I fail to see where there is any substantive difference.
Isn't it time to stop mortgaging our country to nation build?
Monday, April 19, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Protesting
The government needs us to believe that the tea parties are a bunch of right wing loons, all lathered up in a racist fit of nationalistic pride that can only be outdone by a member of Mussolini's fan club.
The truth of the matter is far more complicated, and the national media looses credibility when one really looks into who is protesting and why.
To start it would be dishonest to claim that all tea party-ers are classical liberal ideologues who believe in the principles of freedom and equal rights for all. There are clearly tea party members that are clearly racist asses. But this is no less true of the left. Liberal supporting unions are filled with racist pigs equally as obnoxious. Racism isn't something that is unique to any human group or society.
But the real issue is that the government needs us to dismiss the tea parties as a bunch of kooks. Because if we listen to the message of smaller, more responsible government that actually follows the laws as specified in the constitution, it becomes a threat to the level of power currently wielded by the federal government.
The media ignores the fact that there is no evidence of racial taunting by protesters. Or evidence of people spitting. Despite dozens of people taping the entire event and an offer of a big bag of money for anyone who has anything to show.
The media ignores real violence by leftist (big government) protesters in California and Pittsburgh. But then again these people are not a threat to the federal government's power, just a threat to average citizens.
An honest review of the tea party movement would reveal a wide mix of politically conservative people who want responsible government. And within this group you will find both tolerant and intolerant people, conservatives and libertarians, people who are both socially liberal and conservative. Most of the people are not well trained in economics and politics and have difficulty in articulating how they really understand the problems. This I think is always a problem with populist movements.
But if you doubt my view as someone who has actually attended such demonstrations, perhaps you should come out and see one for yourself and talk to a few of your fellow citizens who feel moved enough to get up and speak out for the future of our country. If you rely on the traditional media outlets you will be grossly misled as to the true nature of who is at the heart of the tea parties.
Some fun viewing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0UIUdDMbeU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdPTpOyUk4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgjMF3y1ytQ&feature=related
The truth of the matter is far more complicated, and the national media looses credibility when one really looks into who is protesting and why.
To start it would be dishonest to claim that all tea party-ers are classical liberal ideologues who believe in the principles of freedom and equal rights for all. There are clearly tea party members that are clearly racist asses. But this is no less true of the left. Liberal supporting unions are filled with racist pigs equally as obnoxious. Racism isn't something that is unique to any human group or society.
But the real issue is that the government needs us to dismiss the tea parties as a bunch of kooks. Because if we listen to the message of smaller, more responsible government that actually follows the laws as specified in the constitution, it becomes a threat to the level of power currently wielded by the federal government.
The media ignores the fact that there is no evidence of racial taunting by protesters. Or evidence of people spitting. Despite dozens of people taping the entire event and an offer of a big bag of money for anyone who has anything to show.
The media ignores real violence by leftist (big government) protesters in California and Pittsburgh. But then again these people are not a threat to the federal government's power, just a threat to average citizens.
An honest review of the tea party movement would reveal a wide mix of politically conservative people who want responsible government. And within this group you will find both tolerant and intolerant people, conservatives and libertarians, people who are both socially liberal and conservative. Most of the people are not well trained in economics and politics and have difficulty in articulating how they really understand the problems. This I think is always a problem with populist movements.
But if you doubt my view as someone who has actually attended such demonstrations, perhaps you should come out and see one for yourself and talk to a few of your fellow citizens who feel moved enough to get up and speak out for the future of our country. If you rely on the traditional media outlets you will be grossly misled as to the true nature of who is at the heart of the tea parties.
Some fun viewing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0UIUdDMbeU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdPTpOyUk4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgjMF3y1ytQ&feature=related
Sunday, January 3, 2010
NFL review
ESPN just asked who is the team to look out for in the playoffs? Based on a complete view of the season's performances I'd say that it's Green Bay.
One of the more OCD sort of things that I do is sit at the computer on a Sunday night in the fall and winter and compile NFL stats. For three years now I've developed a ranking system for the NFL that takes into consideration of each teams opponents and weighting their statistics based on the prowess of the opponent in each category.
Here is the final listing for 2009.
First I'd like to cut you all off who immediately want to go on about momentum or how one team "looks".
This isn't a predictive exercise. It's a statement on what HAS happened, not what WILL happen. This merely shows that Green Bay, by my methodology, was the best team during the course of a 17 week season. And I'm sure many of you will really have a problem with that considering that they didn't even win their division. In fact they were swept by their division rivals the Minnesota Vikings. But the numbers are what they are, and after Indy went week in and out as the run away best team in the league (despite being the worst running team), they faded enough in the last two games to drop to fifth.
Now a note on the methodology. Like it was mentioned earlier this ranking was created to take into the strength of the opponents. But I didn't want to just figure out some strength ranking and then factor the order of the teams. I wanted to look at each game and factor each performance turned in. I wanted a team to be rewarded for performing at a top level against a great team and equally hammered if they turned in an egg against a dog of a team.
So I track 1) points scored by offense, 2) offensive TDs, 3) defensive scoring, 4) rushing, receiving and total yards produced, 5) w/l record which is quantified by ranking the teams winning percentages.
So with that I track each teams running totals on offense and defense during the course of the year. And with those raw numbers I rank each team in each category which produces a weighting factor. Then I apply the factors for the stats in each game based on the opponents ranking. If the Browns played a team that holds opponents to low yardage totals, then their yardage total for that day will be boosted. Or reduced when playing a weak defense. The inverse is done for the teams defenses. Additionally this is done based on a teams ranking in that specific category. So a team may be staunch in giving up yardage but in turn gives up a lot of points. So, in theory, a teams factor may be positive for one and negative for another statistical set. (Am I loosing you yet? I find this hard to explain in the written form)
So I guess the point is that I compare each team on each stat independently. Then I aggregate rankings in all the stat groups to create an overall offensive and defensive rankings. I then rank teams based on their offensive and defensive rankings and record. The strength of schedule factor is embedded within the ranking of the teams offensive and defensive rankings.
If you've read my GIS posting then you've heard me warn of biases and author agendas. And of course my dataset has them just as any other ranking. I'm biased in that I have played down the weight of the teams actual record. The record is in there more for tie breaking purposes and to hopefully keep an 8-8 team from being in the top five simply because they have a kick ass offense or defense. Another thing I don't even consider is head to head matchups.
The reason I started this is because of the sickeningly simple rankings thrown around by media talking heads. Most often they claim that this team or that is the best defense simply because they have the lowest yards against. Now this is a good measuring stick, but not enough to be crowning some team as the best. Shouldn't we consider other factors when we look at where a team stacks up against others?
Now much to my chagrin it seems to be that the yards against does most often correlate with the best defense (it has for the last two years at least). But that will be answered as the sample increases.
And a final note, last year (again much to my chagrin) the ranking did turn up Pittsburgh as the number one team for the 2008 season. So I'm interested to see if the same can be said with this dataset. I'm thinking not.
One of the more OCD sort of things that I do is sit at the computer on a Sunday night in the fall and winter and compile NFL stats. For three years now I've developed a ranking system for the NFL that takes into consideration of each teams opponents and weighting their statistics based on the prowess of the opponent in each category.
Here is the final listing for 2009.
First I'd like to cut you all off who immediately want to go on about momentum or how one team "looks".
This isn't a predictive exercise. It's a statement on what HAS happened, not what WILL happen. This merely shows that Green Bay, by my methodology, was the best team during the course of a 17 week season. And I'm sure many of you will really have a problem with that considering that they didn't even win their division. In fact they were swept by their division rivals the Minnesota Vikings. But the numbers are what they are, and after Indy went week in and out as the run away best team in the league (despite being the worst running team), they faded enough in the last two games to drop to fifth.
Now a note on the methodology. Like it was mentioned earlier this ranking was created to take into the strength of the opponents. But I didn't want to just figure out some strength ranking and then factor the order of the teams. I wanted to look at each game and factor each performance turned in. I wanted a team to be rewarded for performing at a top level against a great team and equally hammered if they turned in an egg against a dog of a team.
So I track 1) points scored by offense, 2) offensive TDs, 3) defensive scoring, 4) rushing, receiving and total yards produced, 5) w/l record which is quantified by ranking the teams winning percentages.
So with that I track each teams running totals on offense and defense during the course of the year. And with those raw numbers I rank each team in each category which produces a weighting factor. Then I apply the factors for the stats in each game based on the opponents ranking. If the Browns played a team that holds opponents to low yardage totals, then their yardage total for that day will be boosted. Or reduced when playing a weak defense. The inverse is done for the teams defenses. Additionally this is done based on a teams ranking in that specific category. So a team may be staunch in giving up yardage but in turn gives up a lot of points. So, in theory, a teams factor may be positive for one and negative for another statistical set. (Am I loosing you yet? I find this hard to explain in the written form)
So I guess the point is that I compare each team on each stat independently. Then I aggregate rankings in all the stat groups to create an overall offensive and defensive rankings. I then rank teams based on their offensive and defensive rankings and record. The strength of schedule factor is embedded within the ranking of the teams offensive and defensive rankings.
If you've read my GIS posting then you've heard me warn of biases and author agendas. And of course my dataset has them just as any other ranking. I'm biased in that I have played down the weight of the teams actual record. The record is in there more for tie breaking purposes and to hopefully keep an 8-8 team from being in the top five simply because they have a kick ass offense or defense. Another thing I don't even consider is head to head matchups.
The reason I started this is because of the sickeningly simple rankings thrown around by media talking heads. Most often they claim that this team or that is the best defense simply because they have the lowest yards against. Now this is a good measuring stick, but not enough to be crowning some team as the best. Shouldn't we consider other factors when we look at where a team stacks up against others?
Now much to my chagrin it seems to be that the yards against does most often correlate with the best defense (it has for the last two years at least). But that will be answered as the sample increases.
And a final note, last year (again much to my chagrin) the ranking did turn up Pittsburgh as the number one team for the 2008 season. So I'm interested to see if the same can be said with this dataset. I'm thinking not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For my fellow Browns sufferers I offer these thoughts.
- Mangini has met my two goals for this season; 1) beat the Steelers 2) improve on the record; he's also met my constant criteria of at least winning one division game a year.
- I don't think by any stretch the draft was a homerun, but I do also caution optimism. Mack made solid improvement all season. Robiskie actually showed up after a while. I liked what Massoquoi showed all year, at the very least he looks to be a solid number two. Veikune didn't show much of anything, but did end the season with an injury. Maiava looked serviceable at the end of the season once he had a shot at some playing time. And I'm looking forward to seeing more from James Davis.
- And speaking of a running back, it's great that Harrison has emerged what appears to be a solid running threat. At the very least it's worth giving him another year to see what he can do over the long haul. He looked good in the last games. Fast, elusive, quick to the hole or corner, decisive behind the line of scrimmage, and not as easy to bring down as we feared. Perhaps if Davis or Jennigns can become a punishing buiser to complement we have a tandem to work with for a few seasons. At the very least we shouldn't feel bad about not drafting a high back with the first pick. After all there doesn't seem to be a big name in the draft this year.
- And speaking of the draft, we need a D tackle or snot knocking safety. I like that lineman from Nebraska (who doesn't right?), but would be happy with a trade down to get the USC or Tennessee safeties. But then again I think we might see a QB drafted somewhere.
- Can we finally say that Anderson is not the answer? I think we can. But I can't say the same for Quinn.
- Of course with a team that has so many holes we can take at just about any position, but I like what I saw down the stretch. And in the end the Mangini team made the playoffs this year, it just wasn't the Browns....
- Mangini has met my two goals for this season; 1) beat the Steelers 2) improve on the record; he's also met my constant criteria of at least winning one division game a year.
- I don't think by any stretch the draft was a homerun, but I do also caution optimism. Mack made solid improvement all season. Robiskie actually showed up after a while. I liked what Massoquoi showed all year, at the very least he looks to be a solid number two. Veikune didn't show much of anything, but did end the season with an injury. Maiava looked serviceable at the end of the season once he had a shot at some playing time. And I'm looking forward to seeing more from James Davis.
- And speaking of a running back, it's great that Harrison has emerged what appears to be a solid running threat. At the very least it's worth giving him another year to see what he can do over the long haul. He looked good in the last games. Fast, elusive, quick to the hole or corner, decisive behind the line of scrimmage, and not as easy to bring down as we feared. Perhaps if Davis or Jennigns can become a punishing buiser to complement we have a tandem to work with for a few seasons. At the very least we shouldn't feel bad about not drafting a high back with the first pick. After all there doesn't seem to be a big name in the draft this year.
- And speaking of the draft, we need a D tackle or snot knocking safety. I like that lineman from Nebraska (who doesn't right?), but would be happy with a trade down to get the USC or Tennessee safeties. But then again I think we might see a QB drafted somewhere.
- Can we finally say that Anderson is not the answer? I think we can. But I can't say the same for Quinn.
- Of course with a team that has so many holes we can take at just about any position, but I like what I saw down the stretch. And in the end the Mangini team made the playoffs this year, it just wasn't the Browns....
So what is GIS?
I make it no secret. I'm a bureaucrat. Which I find ironic since I tend to have some strong Libertarian and Classic Liberal tenancies. But people ask what it is that I do and I really haven't a good answer. I usually say that I'm a data analyst for the county appraisers. Or I might mention that I use GIS depending on who it is I'm talking with.
But I don't want to assume that you do or don't know what GIS is. Perhaps there are less people than I think who has heard of this software technology. It's called a few different things, but generally I think most would call it Geographic Information Systems (GIS). To a certain extent it's digital mapping. But to just call it mapping software is to really miss it's power as an analytic tool. For the thing that makes GIS software more than just Street Maps 2010 is that there is a database that is associated with the shape information.
Essentially it works like this, there is a file containing shapes (either points, lines or polygons), and these shapes have a coordinate system based on a cartographic projection. This gives each shape a spatial definition on the Earth. This spatial definition allows one to overlap (or layer) multiple types of shape files over top of each other. Finally there is a spreadsheet "behind" the shapes that holds data about these shapes.
For example one could have a shape file of cuyahoga county municipalities. There are fifty nine cities, villages and townships that comprise this file. The file then can have a spreadsheet that has demographic information like population totals, income info, size of city and so on. We then could color coordinate the shapes to show what cities have, say, high crime rates compared to those with low. Or we could layer this map with one of streets or parcels and start to compare one layer to another. I could take a map of zoning districts and then take my parcel layer and "ask" the software to tell me where all of the vacant properties are that are zoned for heavy industrial uses. Or I could define boundaries for a retail center's trade area and use census data to determine how many people live within five miles of the shopping center; and then estimate the median income for that never before defined area. GIS technology is used to create the directions we get from an internet mapping sites.
The name GIS gives the impression that it's a highly technical sort of software. Like it's really an IT sort of thing. And I suppose it can be in certain applications. But for my position within my government department, it's an analytical tool. While there is a level of knowledge and experience to using the software, the real "skill" comes in by applying cartographic skills and analytical ability to take raw data, show it in a spatial context, and then interpret and communicate what it tells us about a place. This last bit is why GIS is so important to the world of urban planning. For some that is a fair definition of what we do with comprehensive plans.
But now I must digress, for the real reason I posted this blog was not to talk about my thoughts on GIS and to define it for all. (Although I just spent a lot of time talking about that.) The point is that I had an interesting map I made this evening and wanted to share it.
It's what I would call a down and dirty map, but the results are interesting for those interested in the history and growth of the county.
There is a difference between a good map and a bad map. More are bad rather than good. The thing is that all maps must lie; most commonly as a lie of omission. Because if we include every piece of information about a place on the map it would be unreadable. And after all when one makes a map, it is meant to be read. So the need is to selectively choose what information to show and stress to the reader. This can be quite subjective with certain topics.
I've uploaded a map, I would say that this is a C- map. I'm making a lot of assumptions when I made this map. Most importantly I'm assuming that the intended recipient will be able to make out what it is that I'm conveying with little to no guides. There are hints, but only a scant few. And it really isn't pretty. But here it is:
It's a map of Cuyahgoa County and it shows all of the residential property within.
First there are no labels, no guides to any real landmarks, no north arrow (but it would be absurd to have a map with this small of a scale to NOT orient up as north), no scale. There aren't any road names or highways or rail to give any clues.
There are however city boundaries, but that only helps if one is familiar enough with the county to know where what is since those too are unlabeled.
The colors indicate what range of years that the house was built. The thematic key indicates that there are six colors and a dark grey that indicates residential property without a building (vacant). The remaining light grey is not residential property at all.
The ranges chosen were made at the discretion of the maker based on his opinion and his knowledge of the data source. Breaks were chosen at 1900, 1929, 1945, 1960 and 1990.
Thematic maps like this can show interesting things. I tried to break the ranges in a way that corresponded with different eras/generations. The problem with the data set is that while I would have preferred to have a break around 1880 the accuracy for the pre-1900 parcels leave a lot to be desired. There are several thousand houses listed as built in 1900 and I think that a great many could have really been built up to ten years before or after.
The other interesting break I think is the 1929 to 1945 range. Of course this is during the depression and second world war. We are told that there was little to no construction during this period, which on the whole is a relatively true statement. However we see by the results that there was more going on in this period than we are lead to believe. Most certainly the bulk of these homes would be built in the little period after the 1937 "recession within a depression" and before the war. In fact my neighborhood in South Euclid fits into that period.
The second effort shows a little different story:
Here I added a seventh range to split out those before 1880 (pink) from those between 1880 and 1900 (red). The 1880 to 1900 represents the first half of the ascendancy of the city of Cleveland. The second half being the era after Mayor Johnson leading into the depression.
I also changed the newest range from the dark purple to teal to help bring out where the most recent developments have been. Finally I tweaked the post war range to include the 60's with the 50's. This evened out the length that the ranges represent.
But here is another point on thematic maps. This is in no way a scientific exercise. I chose the ranges, I didn't use any standard deviations or other scientific methods to create the breaks. I chose the breaks. And my bias is a factor. I wanted to show how the bulk of our housing in the county was created in the first two decades of the 20th century and immediately following the second world war. I chose breaks that made sense to me. And this sort of decision making process must always be questioned when one reads a map that is trying to tell you something. Ask "who's telling me this and why/what is their motive?"
I'm posting this for someone who is interested in where the oldest housing stock is within the county. And I think this should meet his curiosity. Hopefully he'll let me know.
But I like the second version better.
But I don't want to assume that you do or don't know what GIS is. Perhaps there are less people than I think who has heard of this software technology. It's called a few different things, but generally I think most would call it Geographic Information Systems (GIS). To a certain extent it's digital mapping. But to just call it mapping software is to really miss it's power as an analytic tool. For the thing that makes GIS software more than just Street Maps 2010 is that there is a database that is associated with the shape information.
Essentially it works like this, there is a file containing shapes (either points, lines or polygons), and these shapes have a coordinate system based on a cartographic projection. This gives each shape a spatial definition on the Earth. This spatial definition allows one to overlap (or layer) multiple types of shape files over top of each other. Finally there is a spreadsheet "behind" the shapes that holds data about these shapes.
For example one could have a shape file of cuyahoga county municipalities. There are fifty nine cities, villages and townships that comprise this file. The file then can have a spreadsheet that has demographic information like population totals, income info, size of city and so on. We then could color coordinate the shapes to show what cities have, say, high crime rates compared to those with low. Or we could layer this map with one of streets or parcels and start to compare one layer to another. I could take a map of zoning districts and then take my parcel layer and "ask" the software to tell me where all of the vacant properties are that are zoned for heavy industrial uses. Or I could define boundaries for a retail center's trade area and use census data to determine how many people live within five miles of the shopping center; and then estimate the median income for that never before defined area. GIS technology is used to create the directions we get from an internet mapping sites.
The name GIS gives the impression that it's a highly technical sort of software. Like it's really an IT sort of thing. And I suppose it can be in certain applications. But for my position within my government department, it's an analytical tool. While there is a level of knowledge and experience to using the software, the real "skill" comes in by applying cartographic skills and analytical ability to take raw data, show it in a spatial context, and then interpret and communicate what it tells us about a place. This last bit is why GIS is so important to the world of urban planning. For some that is a fair definition of what we do with comprehensive plans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But now I must digress, for the real reason I posted this blog was not to talk about my thoughts on GIS and to define it for all. (Although I just spent a lot of time talking about that.) The point is that I had an interesting map I made this evening and wanted to share it.
It's what I would call a down and dirty map, but the results are interesting for those interested in the history and growth of the county.
There is a difference between a good map and a bad map. More are bad rather than good. The thing is that all maps must lie; most commonly as a lie of omission. Because if we include every piece of information about a place on the map it would be unreadable. And after all when one makes a map, it is meant to be read. So the need is to selectively choose what information to show and stress to the reader. This can be quite subjective with certain topics.
I've uploaded a map, I would say that this is a C- map. I'm making a lot of assumptions when I made this map. Most importantly I'm assuming that the intended recipient will be able to make out what it is that I'm conveying with little to no guides. There are hints, but only a scant few. And it really isn't pretty. But here it is:
It's a map of Cuyahgoa County and it shows all of the residential property within.
First there are no labels, no guides to any real landmarks, no north arrow (but it would be absurd to have a map with this small of a scale to NOT orient up as north), no scale. There aren't any road names or highways or rail to give any clues.
There are however city boundaries, but that only helps if one is familiar enough with the county to know where what is since those too are unlabeled.
The colors indicate what range of years that the house was built. The thematic key indicates that there are six colors and a dark grey that indicates residential property without a building (vacant). The remaining light grey is not residential property at all.
The ranges chosen were made at the discretion of the maker based on his opinion and his knowledge of the data source. Breaks were chosen at 1900, 1929, 1945, 1960 and 1990.
Thematic maps like this can show interesting things. I tried to break the ranges in a way that corresponded with different eras/generations. The problem with the data set is that while I would have preferred to have a break around 1880 the accuracy for the pre-1900 parcels leave a lot to be desired. There are several thousand houses listed as built in 1900 and I think that a great many could have really been built up to ten years before or after.
The other interesting break I think is the 1929 to 1945 range. Of course this is during the depression and second world war. We are told that there was little to no construction during this period, which on the whole is a relatively true statement. However we see by the results that there was more going on in this period than we are lead to believe. Most certainly the bulk of these homes would be built in the little period after the 1937 "recession within a depression" and before the war. In fact my neighborhood in South Euclid fits into that period.
The second effort shows a little different story:
Here I added a seventh range to split out those before 1880 (pink) from those between 1880 and 1900 (red). The 1880 to 1900 represents the first half of the ascendancy of the city of Cleveland. The second half being the era after Mayor Johnson leading into the depression.
I also changed the newest range from the dark purple to teal to help bring out where the most recent developments have been. Finally I tweaked the post war range to include the 60's with the 50's. This evened out the length that the ranges represent.
But here is another point on thematic maps. This is in no way a scientific exercise. I chose the ranges, I didn't use any standard deviations or other scientific methods to create the breaks. I chose the breaks. And my bias is a factor. I wanted to show how the bulk of our housing in the county was created in the first two decades of the 20th century and immediately following the second world war. I chose breaks that made sense to me. And this sort of decision making process must always be questioned when one reads a map that is trying to tell you something. Ask "who's telling me this and why/what is their motive?"
I'm posting this for someone who is interested in where the oldest housing stock is within the county. And I think this should meet his curiosity. Hopefully he'll let me know.
But I like the second version better.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
meanings
Today I started to think about the cost of living. I've noticed in the past few days that daily living items like food and gas have been creeping up.
On the flip side I keep seeing stories in the media about how things are getting better. How the Federal Reserve Chief is calling the possible end of the recession. How retail spending is up, which commonly is interpreted as an increase in consumer confidence in the economy.
I find this strange. If output is going up, and the economy is returning to better levels; then I would expect prices to be stable or go down...
The thing is that the value of the dollar is falling. And that makes me think about what the value of the dollar is based on. Things like the total value of the economy, the total monetary supply and these levels in relation to other currencies in the world. So if the economy was holding steady, and all other things are equal, then we should see the value of the dollar increasing. But that isn't the case. The dollar is weakening, the cost of gold is increasing, the money supply is increasing dramatically. Some report that while we're seeing some strong gains in the stock exchanges in the US, we are actually see much stronger positive movement in other foreign markets. Job losses continue to mount and companies are showing no signs of hiring. Companies are cutting hours and instituting furloughs. How is it possible to claim that the production of this country is increasing?
I wouldn't doubt that there has been some increases in spending. I for one have increased my household spending out of necessity. It's time to get the house ready for the winter. But is it really realistic to claim the end of the recession with the economic signs all around us? Isn't it possible that the increase in retail spending was higher than expected because of rising prices due to the increases in the money supply and weakening of the dollar versus other economies?
The signs that point to inflation.
And the problem is that the government and the federal reserve (which is not a government entity) will not admit that there is inflation until the CPI index is running up. By then it will be too late. But what we really aren't told is that inflation benefits the government and the banks. Inflation helps those who owe. Debtors. As the value of the dollar declines our debts are fixed. If I bought the house I live in for $100,000, then I pay $100k. Even if the value of the dollar I use to pay the mortgage is half of what it was. Since the government is in over its head in debt letting inflation set in will allow for a quicker pay down of the debt without having to raise taxes. Banks love inflation since it tends to transfer real wealth from lower classes to upper classes. Those in the economy who own large amounts of real property like land or commodities will see the "biggest" gains since the value of real goods will hold value as the currency declines. But it really sucks for us, the tax payers as our wealth is drained by the government to pay the debts it makes in our name.
This brings me back to Bernanke and those who want to tell us that the worst is over. People like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul were laughed at in '05 and '06 as they predicted the bursting of the housing bubble caused by the federal reserves meddling with the market. They knew that the unnaturally low interest rates were pumping too much money in the the markets that lead us to our peaks. It isn't the first time that the fed has caused a bubble that lead to a recession. These same people are also pointing out that this massive increase in spending and stimulus that will really kick in next year is merely an attempt to reinflate the bubble we created. There is no real value in what happened in the housing market. It was driven by cheap money and speculation. Another jobless recovery doesn't seem possible at this time. At least in my opinion. As our position in the global economy weakens the cost to borrow for the country will rise and interest rates will have to follow suit. The economy will grind to a halt as the cost of business increases yet again.
All the while our federal government seeks to shoulder the costs of health care and force the price of energy to "skyrocket". Will our government continue to spend and fiddle as Rome burns? Will they continue to undermin our economy? Will we let them?
On the flip side I keep seeing stories in the media about how things are getting better. How the Federal Reserve Chief is calling the possible end of the recession. How retail spending is up, which commonly is interpreted as an increase in consumer confidence in the economy.
I find this strange. If output is going up, and the economy is returning to better levels; then I would expect prices to be stable or go down...
The thing is that the value of the dollar is falling. And that makes me think about what the value of the dollar is based on. Things like the total value of the economy, the total monetary supply and these levels in relation to other currencies in the world. So if the economy was holding steady, and all other things are equal, then we should see the value of the dollar increasing. But that isn't the case. The dollar is weakening, the cost of gold is increasing, the money supply is increasing dramatically. Some report that while we're seeing some strong gains in the stock exchanges in the US, we are actually see much stronger positive movement in other foreign markets. Job losses continue to mount and companies are showing no signs of hiring. Companies are cutting hours and instituting furloughs. How is it possible to claim that the production of this country is increasing?
I wouldn't doubt that there has been some increases in spending. I for one have increased my household spending out of necessity. It's time to get the house ready for the winter. But is it really realistic to claim the end of the recession with the economic signs all around us? Isn't it possible that the increase in retail spending was higher than expected because of rising prices due to the increases in the money supply and weakening of the dollar versus other economies?
The signs that point to inflation.
And the problem is that the government and the federal reserve (which is not a government entity) will not admit that there is inflation until the CPI index is running up. By then it will be too late. But what we really aren't told is that inflation benefits the government and the banks. Inflation helps those who owe. Debtors. As the value of the dollar declines our debts are fixed. If I bought the house I live in for $100,000, then I pay $100k. Even if the value of the dollar I use to pay the mortgage is half of what it was. Since the government is in over its head in debt letting inflation set in will allow for a quicker pay down of the debt without having to raise taxes. Banks love inflation since it tends to transfer real wealth from lower classes to upper classes. Those in the economy who own large amounts of real property like land or commodities will see the "biggest" gains since the value of real goods will hold value as the currency declines. But it really sucks for us, the tax payers as our wealth is drained by the government to pay the debts it makes in our name.
This brings me back to Bernanke and those who want to tell us that the worst is over. People like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul were laughed at in '05 and '06 as they predicted the bursting of the housing bubble caused by the federal reserves meddling with the market. They knew that the unnaturally low interest rates were pumping too much money in the the markets that lead us to our peaks. It isn't the first time that the fed has caused a bubble that lead to a recession. These same people are also pointing out that this massive increase in spending and stimulus that will really kick in next year is merely an attempt to reinflate the bubble we created. There is no real value in what happened in the housing market. It was driven by cheap money and speculation. Another jobless recovery doesn't seem possible at this time. At least in my opinion. As our position in the global economy weakens the cost to borrow for the country will rise and interest rates will have to follow suit. The economy will grind to a halt as the cost of business increases yet again.
All the while our federal government seeks to shoulder the costs of health care and force the price of energy to "skyrocket". Will our government continue to spend and fiddle as Rome burns? Will they continue to undermin our economy? Will we let them?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
A Bitter Pill
Conservatives, both social and political, have a bitter pill to swallow. The anti-Iraq war folks on the left were most likely right. This isn't something that I always believed.
Ron Paul is a congressman from Texas. He's generally described as a conservative libertarian. I think he's more like a Classical Liberal or Jeffersonian Democrat. Something of a fundamental constitutionalist who believes in free markets, small controlled central governments, and less power in the banks. His foreign policy views are along the line of what we profess to believe in, freedom and liberty for all. We all generally believe (with some notable people who are exceptions) that everyone has the liberty to do what they want in their own house, so long that they don't infringe on others same basic rights. Only we have a history of ignoring this fundamental belief on the international stage for about one hundred years now.
I'm linking to this speech he made in the House of Representatives because I feel this might be his best of all his great speeches. I think that the content of the speech, in a contemporary way, poses a series of questions that prove this point without ever really lecturing you on how it really is. It frames questions that NEED to be asked today.
Doesn't war and empire building always lead to larger government?
Should we as a country start a war with a sovereign country without provocation or a request for defense from an ally?
Should we allow our country preform acts of torture, no matter how benign, in our name? Or send prisoners to other countries to do our dirty work? (This would be called rendition)
Don't war time periods always lead to greater infringement of OUR liberties in the name of national security? And yet they cannot worry about securing our borders?
We as conservatives, who value personal liberty and responsibility, who drink the kool-aid of the boot strap mantra, who preach smaller government; don't we need to look in the mirror and rethink our blind nationalist support of a federal government or political party that continues to grow the central state, infringe on our freedoms and liberties and continues to treat other human beings so poorly?
Shouldn't WE have been the people to rally in the streets against Bush all those years ago demanding better behavior from our government and "conservative" leaders?
Ron Paul is a congressman from Texas. He's generally described as a conservative libertarian. I think he's more like a Classical Liberal or Jeffersonian Democrat. Something of a fundamental constitutionalist who believes in free markets, small controlled central governments, and less power in the banks. His foreign policy views are along the line of what we profess to believe in, freedom and liberty for all. We all generally believe (with some notable people who are exceptions) that everyone has the liberty to do what they want in their own house, so long that they don't infringe on others same basic rights. Only we have a history of ignoring this fundamental belief on the international stage for about one hundred years now.
I'm linking to this speech he made in the House of Representatives because I feel this might be his best of all his great speeches. I think that the content of the speech, in a contemporary way, poses a series of questions that prove this point without ever really lecturing you on how it really is. It frames questions that NEED to be asked today.
Doesn't war and empire building always lead to larger government?
Should we as a country start a war with a sovereign country without provocation or a request for defense from an ally?
Should we allow our country preform acts of torture, no matter how benign, in our name? Or send prisoners to other countries to do our dirty work? (This would be called rendition)
Don't war time periods always lead to greater infringement of OUR liberties in the name of national security? And yet they cannot worry about securing our borders?
We as conservatives, who value personal liberty and responsibility, who drink the kool-aid of the boot strap mantra, who preach smaller government; don't we need to look in the mirror and rethink our blind nationalist support of a federal government or political party that continues to grow the central state, infringe on our freedoms and liberties and continues to treat other human beings so poorly?
Shouldn't WE have been the people to rally in the streets against Bush all those years ago demanding better behavior from our government and "conservative" leaders?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Mark one for 'Toby'
I've been very hard on Dr. Cosgrove when I discuss the current regime at the Cleveland Clinic. While I support the organization to impliment whatever the hell they want, I do not agree with their overly parental stance on their employees personal lives. I just feel that people don't need to be told how to live their lives...
But I have to say that his little bit in the PD shows a thoughtful and insightful view of what I would expect to be indicitive of what most doctors think of the topics covered. While I fully expect the actual health care community to be all for covering every American, and actually be willing to listen to single payer ideas; I am happy that Dr. Cosgrove was willing to also point out that the politicians in DC are not only generally ignorant of the ins and outs of the industry but also moving rather fast in making whole system changes in a short period of time.
If there's one thing our federal government has shown us time and again throughout our countries history is that they are very good at making big changes or moves without understanding what they are doing or causing throughout the economy. Look at what is and will happen with cash for clunkers.
But I have to say that his little bit in the PD shows a thoughtful and insightful view of what I would expect to be indicitive of what most doctors think of the topics covered. While I fully expect the actual health care community to be all for covering every American, and actually be willing to listen to single payer ideas; I am happy that Dr. Cosgrove was willing to also point out that the politicians in DC are not only generally ignorant of the ins and outs of the industry but also moving rather fast in making whole system changes in a short period of time.
If there's one thing our federal government has shown us time and again throughout our countries history is that they are very good at making big changes or moves without understanding what they are doing or causing throughout the economy. Look at what is and will happen with cash for clunkers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)