Links

A state senator from California got arrested for trafficking guns.  He also supports gun control.

I hear all the proffessional journalists are looking into which party he belongs to, since no one seems to know yet.  lolz

---

Apparently Argentina and Venezuela are discovering how well price controls work.

Let's raise the minimum wage; who's with me!

---

Sometimes I read things like this post on how stupid kids are these days, and yet I don't recall ever reading in any one of them about who is at fault for stupid kids.  Is it the kids (who aren't yet old enough to know better) or the people writing about how kids these days aren't so great (who are the teachers and parents of the dumb kids).

---

Is a post of links really a "post of links" with only three?

Read something here (Rhymes with Cars & Girls) and we'll call it four links.

Government is Bad; News at 11

Vox has a post on how our government is failing.

I had a post on Matt Forney's website, pointing out that the debate over more/ less government has been resolved long ago.

There can be no debate that less government is better.  It has been decided many times over.

Hong Kong vs Detroit

More government:



Less government:



So what should you do?

1. Stop bothering with morons
2. Stop funding the government

If only the people who voted for Romney in 2012 stopped paying their taxes, how long would our oppressive government survive?  What percentage of the government is funded by Romney supporters?

If you have willfully ignored the evidence to the contrary and want more government, then you too should put your money where your mouth is.  Start your own commune, and you can kick all us racist misogynists out.  Also: Fuck you slaver!

Trucks

I'm interested in buying a newer truck.

My problem arises from the fact that the options today aren't what I'd care to get.

I don't want a Dodge becasue their quality isn't great, to the point where I've met Chrysler builders who are unimpressed with their quality.

I don't want a GM becasue of their quality issues and my experiences with them (something is always wrong).

I also don't care for the fact that those two companies accepted the bailouts from Washington.

I don't want a Ford becasue of all the people I know who have nothing but problems with them.  (Although I think that they're still better than Dodge and GM.)

Then there's the fact that I know people who've spent time in many of the car manufacturing facilities on the continent, who'll say that the American car companies will cut corners when no one will notice, and the Japanese companies do what is right even if no one will ever notice.

One coworker has been stranded 3 times in his F-150, but "it has a hundred thousand miles on it."  My uncle will say that a friend of his is always having issues with his F-350, as he himself just spent several grand to replace the transmission in his wife's Chevy Trailblazer.

I don't want a Nissan becasue they seem to be not quite as good as Toyotas.  (My last car was a Nissan, and it was fine other than I needed to replace the window winder motors 3 times before I sold it at $400 a go.)

Which leaves me with Toyotas.  And I like Toyotas.  Dad's '05 Tundra has 280,000 miles on it and its only unscheduled maintenance so far was, I think, a starter a month or so ago.  My first car was a '99 Tacoma which was fantastic up to 170,000 miles when I sold it. 

So that leaves me with a Tundra or Tacoma, at at least $27,000.  Which leaves me with a used Tundra or Tacoma.

A Toyota truck's biggest issue seems to be that the oxygen sensor on its (government mandated) catalytic converter always goes bad.  So the check engine light on my current Tundra is always on because I know it will go bad and its not worth the $70 part every so often, so I only replace it when I need to to pass my local emissions test (up yours government regulators).

The other problem that was revealed to me about the new Toyotas was becasue of all the new environmental regulations put on cars now.  Pre-2007 Toyotas are darn near bulletproof.  Post-2007 cars have much more stringent emissions requirements which have resulted in lots more electronic fiddling with how things work in order squeeze just a bit more fuel economy out.  All the new electronic shit means more things to break.

The new Ford's ecoboost is a turbo charger which gets a bit more fuel economy but is at the cost of replacing the turbo every few years at a cost of a few thousand.

Have you noticed the lack of new Ford Rangers, Chevy S-10s, Dodge Dakotas, or Chevy Colorados?  Because of the new CAFE environmental regulations a car manufacturer's range of cars must meet certain fuel economy standards.  This means that a car company cannot have two trucks that do not meet the requirements, and they can't get rid of the bigger better selling version, so the smaller ones need to go.

(This is interesting in how someone may prefer a smaller, better fuel economy Ford Ranger, but is left with the only option of worse fuel economy F-150 becasue Ford cannot make Rangers anymore.  Producing the opposite result of what the regulators claim to have wanted.)

I've considered getting something like a mid '90s Toyota as my daily driver, but I'm informed that once cars get old enough the wiring will get bad and become a major headache.

So, I'll get a Tacoma or Tundra.  And one no newer than 2006.  What will my options be in 10 years?  Will there be any options?

And I'd still like to build my own MK4.

Its Now Illegal to Have a Good Idea

Reason:

It’s all part of the energy efficiency standards mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The law already killed off the 100-watt incandescent bulb in 2012, followed by the 75-watt bulb in 2013. Now, in the final step of the phaseout, the minimum efficiency standards have effectively banned the ubiquitous 40- and 60- watt light bulbs.

The ban is crony capitalism in its most seductive form—when it’s disguised as green.
Major light bulb manufacturers supported the ban from the outset. The profit margin on old-style bulbs was pitifully low, and consumers just weren’t buying the higher-margin efficiency bulbs. New standards were needed, a lobbyist for the National Electrical Manufacturing Association told Congress in 2007, “in order to further educate consumers on the benefits of energy-efficient products.”

So Philips Electronics and other manufacturers joined with environmental groups to push for tighter lighting standards. As the New York Times Magazine explained in 2011, “Philips told its environmental allies it was well positioned to capitalize on the transition to new technologies and wanted to get ahead of an efficiency movement that was gaining momentum abroad and in states like California.” After much negotiation, a classic “bootleggers-and-Baptists” coalition was born. Industry and environmental groups agreed to endorse legislation to increase lighting efficiency by 25 to 30 percent.

---

You know that the idea of limited government is a joke when that government declares the international symbol for a good idea to be illegal.

-Sarcasmic

It would be Cool to be a Democrat Politican.

If you were a democrat politician you could solve all of the world's ills buy merely passing laws!

Want clean water?  Pass a "clean water" bill and demonize all those who don't like clean water.

Want wealthier people?  Pass a "jobs bill" or increase the minimum wage and demonize all those who don't like poor people.

My question is, since we all want to see a live unicorn, why the democrats have not passed a "unicorn bill"?  If they can create jobs with a "jobs bill", then why don't they create a "unicorn bill"?

Democrats must hate unicorns!

 

Demand that your representatives pass a "unicorn bill" today!!!

2014 Predictions

The Whited Sepulchre has posted 10 predictions for 2014.  I'll try the same with similar subjects for each prediction.

1.  Obamacare continues to be awful; our daily lives will get marginally worse throughout the year as a result.

2.  Republicans will do marginally better in the elections.  Not much changes.

3.  The Green Bay Packers win or lose a very close game with the 49ers this weekend with questionable officiating calls affecting the outcome.  I won't watch (shrink the rulebook if you want me to watch).

4.  Voting will still be for suckers.

5.  I'll finally get The Food Plot Store off the ground.

6.  hmm...

7.  Global Warming will occur...in March, April, May, and June in the Northern Hemisphere, and in September, October and November in the Southern Hemisphere.  (Help me fight the horror of Global Warming!!!)

8.  We'll get a minimum wage increase as part of some bi-partisan deal that involves spending cuts that will never happen in reality.

9.  Democrats will continue to call Bush a warmonger whenever Obama intervenes internationally.

10.  The morally correct response to democrats will continue to be to punch them in their stupid faces.

Happy new year.

Evil

I've missed a lot since deer season began; one thing I noticed was a discovery of absolute evil.

Detroit's War on Small Business

Amidst a bankruptcy and a fast-dwindling population and tax base, the city has prioritized the task of ensuring that all businesses are in compliance with its codes and permitting. To accomplish this, Mayor David Bing announced in January that he'd assembled a task force to execute Operation Compliance.

Operation Compliance began with the stated goal of shutting down 20 businesses a week. Since its inception, Operation Compliance has resulted in the closure of 383 small businesses, with another 536 in the "process of compliance," according to figures provided to Reason TV by city officials.

How can that be any good for anything at all?

Is it not just blatant destruction of society?

Blogger Stinks, Here's a link in lieu of a post

Syria and the Perpetual War Economy

Who were the 1984ians perpetually at war with?

Reason.com Comments

-The most telling thing about the government, John, is that the country has managed to continue to operate and people have an overall pretty good standard of living, despite the government and the criminal goons who staff it. It tells you how utterly meaningless having a government is, and how much of a relentless parasite it is, and how much it hinders otherwise "normal" life and commerce.

- "Still Going Despite the Government" should be our country's fucking slogan. Maybe in Latin.

-Illstay Oinggay Espiteday ethay Overnmentgay

American Wars

With news of war in Syria, I wonder how many wars have been good for America?

The Revolutionary War was legitimate and good.  No arguments with overthrowing tyranny.

The War of 1812 was legitimate.  No argument with keeping the aforementioned tyranny away.

The Civil War wasn't a "civil war" because the South did not want to control the Union.  The country was made up of voluntary members of a Union, when the South no longer wished to belong they should have been allowed to leave.

The Spanish American war seems silly in hindsight; had Cuba become a state we would, at least, have gotten something out of it.

As far as I know the Mexican-American War seemed legitimate in trying to prevent Pancho Villa's raids into America.

There are some who think that if America had not entered WWI it would have ended in a draw, no harsh conditions would have been placed on losing Germany, and Germans would not have voted for the political party that gave us WWII.

Defeating Japan in WWII was certainly legitimate, but what did we gain from fighting Germany?

What has been gained in every war since?  I begin to wonder.

No Income Tax = Success

Burt Folsom:

Shortly after the Civil War, Congress made the income tax a flat tax; then in 1872 Congress abolished the income tax completely. The war was over, and the U.S. would continue to stress individual liberty and limited government as the best way to happiness, prosperity and strong national character. As a nation, the U.S. decided to limit the outreach of government and pay off most of our Civil War debt.

When the rest of the world saw the U.S. emphasis on liberty and fiscal restraint, America became a magnet for the wealth of Europeans seeking a stable environment for their capital. The rise of the U.S. as a major world power was just around the corner.

No American income tax from 1872 until 1913. 

Guess which period of time it was when America caught up with the economies of the rest of the world?

More from Burt:

Those who favor class warfare sometimes cite Mark 10:23, which says, “Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.’”

A closer look at the original Greek language clarifies God’s attitude toward the rich.

According to Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest, a better translation of Mark 10:23 shows that Jesus said, “How hard it is for those who keep on holding onto wealth to enter the kingdom of God.”

As 2 Corinthians 9:7 says, “God loves a cheerful giver.” Wealth is the opportunity to be a giver, and rich people can thus help people around the world.

Unemployment Rate

The Whited Sepulchre

Healthcare Spending Growth is Down

Obamacare is working!

The growth in healthcare spending is slowing!

In totally unrelated news, fewer people have full time jobs than they did before and therefore have less health insurance, and so spend less on healthcare than they did before.

In other words, success for Obamacare!

In 2011, national healthcare spending climbed 3.9 percent, the same as the year before. That was the slowest increase since the 1960s - See more at: http://lfb.org/today/obamas-2009-promise-of-cheaper-health-care-has-morphed-into-2013-price-hikes/#sthash.JAe7b9hf.dpuf

Even "Good" Laws Harm You

Most people think that there is a purpose for having a government.  Most people also think that their government does some good.  Even libertarians think that some government should exist.

But all that government does is funded, one way or another, by first taking from those who produce things and then spending it as they feel like it.

And while that's not pointed out or criticized nearly enough, the point of this post is to explain that even when the government extorts taxes for its funds and then spends them in ways you think are good, it is still hurting, rather than helping you.

There are two ways the government hurts you with "good laws," by forcing you to pay for them, and by preventing you from being as productive as possible.

Let's look at the example of owning a car and the amount of your time that is wasted by the government.

Let's say you buy a car, after paying the government its cut, you need to buy a car license; that's about a half hour of your time spent getting one.  Then you need a new driver's license every ten years; that took me three hours a few months ago, and that comes out to around 1/3 of an hour a year.  Some of us are required to have our car's emissions checked yearly, that'll take me another two hours per year, plus another hour, and some money for an o2 sensor because mine always go bad.  Then you need to get car insurance, which will also take several hours.

Maybe you think requiring all of those things, drivers licenses, car licenses, emissions, etc, is a good thing.  Perhaps it is, but have you ever seen a study comparing the time wasted to the alleged benefits of having these laws?

A thought experiment for you:  Speed limits supposedly save lives.  Since saving lives is good, we want to do whatever saves the most lives, right? 

Speed limits are arbitrarily set.  If they were set, say, 10 mph higher everywhere, we could get from place to place a bit quicker.  If you drove 10 mph quicker to, and from, work each day, you might save 5 minutes per trip.  5 minutes per trip, times 2 trips per day, and 5 days a week, means that a 10 mph increase in the speed limits would mean you have 50 more minutes per week to be productive.  50 minutes per week times 50 weeks in a year equals, about, 42 hours wasted commuting each year because of speed limits.  42 hours per year times 40 years of working equals about 70 extra days of your life spent commuting merely because speed limits are not 10 mph higher.

That might be a fine rational for you.  Spend 70 more days of your life commuting than necessary, and a few lives might be saved. 

But everyone is slowed with our current laws.  1000 people slowed by speed limits at 70 days per year is 70,000 days per year not spent growing food, sewing clothes, inventing medicines, or other wise producing.  How many lives were lost thanks to this law? 

When we hit the point where the days lost to slow speeds exceeds the lives allegedly saved by the speed limits, shouldn't we reconsider them?

Have you ever even heard of a study comparing the lives lost becasue of a specific law compared to the alleged lives saved?

No one ever considers the hidden costs, we only look at the numbers of deaths each year and wish we could do better.

And we still haven't gotten to the fact that the traffic judge, prosecutor, cops, secretaries, etc, the materials, buildings, and cars they all use are not creating food to eat, clothes to wear, or homes to live in.  Each of those lives and resources is unproductive, and therefore wasteful.

Minimum Wages

Last week I noted that raising the minimum wage is a stupid idea.  Why not raise it to $1 million per hour?

But I wonder, is there any argument that you could make for increasing the minimum wage to $15 or whatever, that you could not also make for $1m?

Logical arguments:

Minimum wages are stupid
The minimum wage should be hugely high

If you are not going to make one of those two arguments, then Shirley you must be admitting that the reason you proposed minimum wage is not higher is because having it too high would hurt the economy.  And so you've settled on an arbitrary number.

Can it be any other way?  Are there any arguments for $15 that you couldn't use for $1 million without admitting that minimum wages harm the economy?

One more example of progressive politics being about the gain of progressives at the expense of someone else.  And to heck with everyone else.

Another Stupid Idea

Were I still taking politics and economic news seriously, the idea of a $15/ hour minimum wage would sound awful.  I'd say, "how stupid are the people proposing this idea?  Why not make the minimum wage a million dollars an hour instead?  What arguments are there for $15 and not for $1m?"

Of course this idea is stupid and would harm the economy.  And of course the people promoting the idea are stupid and/ or evil.  (see RWC&G on the lying going on to support this stupid idea.)

Instead of being annoyed by the stupidity, my first reaction upon hearing of this idea was to say, "HA! HA! Do it! It'll be hilarious! HA!"

It would be funny to see the unemployment rate shoot up and to see prices rise, while the supporters of this stupidity blame the evil big businesses and 1%.

Before we raise the minimum wage however, it would be nice to know what the actual unemployment and underemployment numbers are.  We obviously cannot believe the government's numbers.  Does anyone know where we can find the actual numbers?

If you do believe in the government's unemployment numbers, do you also support the idea of raising the minimum wage to $1 million per hour?  Would you mind lending me a few grand while we're at it?

China: A History

by John Keay

This is a great big book on the history of China.

The first point that jumps out at me is the fact that if you are not an emperor, then you'll be almost completely ignored by history.  Even if you are an emperor you'll likely get no more than a mention, unless lots of important stuff happened while you were in charge.

Then again, if we wanted to remember everybody, we'd have no time for anything else.

Another point of interest is that the name we know people by are different from what we think they are.  Confucius was not some guy's name.  His name was Kong.  The way it works "in the East" is family name, then first name or title.  Master Kong is "Kong Master," as in Kong then something approximating "fucius" for "master".  

The first Chinese emperor is known as Qin Shi Huang.  This is a "name" he picked for himself.  (I hear many Chinese pick the name they are known as as an adult, themselves.)  It actually means "first emperor."  It would be like referring to George Washington as "first president," and mentioning him by no other name or title.  First President was born in...  First President was a military officer in the French and Indian wars. First President lead the revolutionary army during the war of independence.

Apparently, the next guy was "second emperor."  And after that other dynasties took charge and changed their naming ideas.

Another interesting note is how much of China's history occurs after around 300 BC.  There is a chapter, or two, before then, but I don't recall anything about the earlier times.

One of the early empires was known as the Han.  Today the largest, numerically, ethnic group is the Han Chinese.

The Han empire was divided by some events into the "Former" and "Later" Han.  One of the most important characters in between the two empires was known as Wang Mang.  He was emperor for a while and wanted to reform the country to make it more prosperous.

He instituted price controls, divided the land equally among the citizens, and so on.

Guess what happened when he improved the lives of the poor by taking land from the wealthy, gave it to the poor, and did things like institute price controls?

A.  Prosperity ensued, Wang Mang was widely admired, and his dynasty lasted hundreds of years.

B. Nothing good, starvation and so on, his line ended with him, and all historians from the time despised him.

If you've visited this blog before, you don't need to be told which was the case.

That is not the only economic fact I found interesting.  A while before 500 AD land ownership was banned and whenever there was a war the citizens fled to wherever there wasn't a war.  Around 500 AD the various emperors determined that they needed to incentiveize staying in place, so they allowed private property to accumulate.  And the book explicitly stated that this was the last time, until Mao that China attempted to progressivize the country.  They seemed to notice that it never turned out well and they avoided much of it for around 1500 years.

Anyway, from my perspective, it seems that the various emperors can be grouped into four parts, in somewhat equal measure: the well meaning, the mean and awful, those with no interest in running an empire, and those who were too young and had regents run things for them, often to take up the title themselves and join one of the first two parts.

The succession of emperors takes up a large part of the book.  Their numbers and even the empires that they ran are too numerous to mention, or even understand after reading such a book.

***

This is a good book.  Even though I'm not as interested in India as I am in China I would read Keay's History of India if I was not already so far behind in my reading.

Recommended for those of you who are interested in lengthy readings on the whole history of China. 

Can you be right and a nut at the same time?

Race has something to do with it. A lifetime of mixing with East Asians has left me with the impression that the level of nuttiness there is somewhat higher than it is among Europeans. I don’t have much direct experience with blacks, but people who do tell me that high proportions of them believe in something crazy: AIDS is a CIA plot, a mad scientist named Yakub created the white race, O. J. Simpson didn’t kill his wife, etc.

Oh, and all those blacks being murdered in Chicago? Illinois State Rep. Monique Davis says it’s the cops:

There’s some suspicion—and I don’t want to spread this, but I’m just going to tell you what I’ve been hearing—they suspect maybe the police are killing some of these kids.

-Taki's mag

Politics is a Waste of Time

I used to spend too much time thinking about politics.  I wondered, for example, how incompetent all of our politicians must be since we never have a balanced budget.

But now that I've stopped watching TV, and therefore the news, and stopped exchanging comments with the commenters at the Huffington Post, it seems that I'm more relaxed about the whole subject.

Someone else: "Something happened politically."

Me: "Don't care, but it will be worse than you think it is."


Someone else: "Politician X is an incompetent jerk."

Me: "He's worse than you think, and don't forget about his corruption too."

And that's the extent of my new conversations, and thoughts on politics.


That's not to say government is any less incompetent, corrupt or awful.  I just attempt to spend more time ignoring it.


On the other hand, I just got a speeding ticket.  Who was my alleged victim?  If there is no victim, then why is it a crime?  If its just potential victims, then why not fine me for committing every crime ever?  Potentially, I could commit any or all of them.

And I also grow plants for deer (food plots, fruit and nut trees, etc.).  For this I need fertilizer.  Some places do not sell fertilizer with nitrogen, thanks to laws forbidding it.  How are plants supposed to grow without nitrogen?

And I wonder about how much more difficult it is to create something than it should be.  What are the relevant laws?  Where would I find the relevant laws?  How am I supposed to be productive if i don't even know where I can look to find all the relevant laws?  Maybe they're making everything illegal so that the government can direct our live however they see fit?

Where have I heard a similar idea before?

I still spend too much time thinking about politics, but I only do so now when its forced upon me.

How much better off would we be if the only laws were: don't harm others, fulfill your contractual obligations?

A commenter at Reason.com said he saw a study that concluded that were it not for government interference, the median yearly American income would be north of 300k.  I can't imagine how such a think could be calculated, but I don't doubt we've lost a tremendous amount of prosperity thanks to the government.

One Liners...

...to defeat political arguments.

Obamacare

Keep your laws off my body.

Abortion

Do you ask pregnant women: "how's the fetus?"

Death Penalty

The government can't get anything else right, why would they be competent at killing people.

Stimulus spending

Is there any amount that would have been enough to fix the economy?

School choice

But...I thought you were "pro-choice"...

Border fences

What makes you think such a fence wouldn't end up being used to keep you in and paying taxes?

Gun control

I dare you to put a "gun free zone" sign in front of your house.

Atheism

There is more support of atheism now than in past decades; and our society has gotten...as a result?

Buy Local

What makes you think increased shipping costs is worse than increased production costs?  See: growing citrus in cold climates


This post was a better idea before I started writing it.  Perhaps I'm not in the mood.  Put better lines in the comments.