Not really, but the truth is not far off. My former student and currently third year law student at Cardozo Law School, Pini Bohm, sent me this link to David Rose's article in the UK Daily Mail about the current trend toward GLOBAL COOLING. The article states:
"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."
Apparently, none of the political advocates of the global warming theory care whether the factual evidence supports or refutes their claims. The Mail article quotes Professor Mojib Latif, who has developed evidence that a cooling trend originating from oceanic depths will reduce temperatures. Latif finds that we are now in an incipient global cooling trend:
"Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was ‘settled’...
"Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.
"He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September."
As I e-mailed Pinni, I was in the parking lot of the IGA Supermarket in Boiceville, New York this afternoon and someone said aloud "Where's global warming!?#?." It was 28 degrees Farenheit.
About a year ago I blogged that the global warming advocates had not outlined a means by which their theory could be falsified. Falsifiability is the basis of all science. If a theory is not falsifiable it is not science. Ordinarily, falling temperatures as we have seen in the past two years would evidence falsification of the global warming hypothesis, but as the article notes, global warming enthusiasts deny that the presence of global cooling contradicts the claim of global warming.
Perhaps global warming advocates practice a Keynesian version of geology, whereby it can be getting hotter and getting cooler at the same time. According to Keynesian economics we become wealthier by wasting money. There are actually strange people, crackpots, who read the New York Times and believe things like this.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Whither Gold?
Gold went up today just four days after I blogged that I was mostly in cash. I just wrote a column for a popular local newspaper called the Lincoln Eagle that should come out in a few days and I suggested that there are four scenarios that might evolve: (1) bank failures/inflation; (2) deflation/inflation; (3) inflation/stagflation and (4) steady course. Jon Nadler of Kitco had suggested that we were in for a higher interest rate regime like we saw in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but I do not believe that it will be possible for the Fed to successfully execute a deflation or regime of high interest rates followed by a moderate (by 2010 standards, not by 1950 standards) re-inflation as was done under the Carter and Reagan administrations. It is likely that interest rate hikes will lead to stress on banks and additional unemployment. I do not believe that Obama is naive as was Carter to appoint a Fed chairman with the discipline to raise rates. Paul Volcker was exceptional and has not been equaled in the Fed's history. Even there, he reversed his monetarist policy by the early 1980s.
This time around the scenario is much worse. We are at zero (negative real) interest rates and ten percent unemployment. If the Fed raises interest rates then there will be additional unemployment and the Honorable Barney Frank will blow his stack as well as some other things. Moreover, with less reserves the banks will be expected to earn money like everyone else, by working for it, and that will make them unhappy, and the American public cannot allow bankers to be unhappy. It is not part of the American way.
So which way is gold going to go? In situations like this I use the coin flip test. Heads market up short term, tails market down short term. It kept coming up tails, so I'm staying put for now. But not in the long term.
The time for Obama to demand that the Fed clamp down on interest rates was this year. The Fed could have triggered a recession, higher unemployment and higher welfare payments, and the economy would have had two or three years to improve after a year or two of high rates. Instead, Bush handed the banks nearly a trillion dollars, the Fed tripled the monetary base and the money supply is growing like bamboo. Obama added additional handouts, and the likelihood of any sort of fiscal and monetary discipline is now an impossibility for the Messiah of Bloat.
Although I remain in dollars this week, I am watching this closely as my strategy is not wise for the long term.
This time around the scenario is much worse. We are at zero (negative real) interest rates and ten percent unemployment. If the Fed raises interest rates then there will be additional unemployment and the Honorable Barney Frank will blow his stack as well as some other things. Moreover, with less reserves the banks will be expected to earn money like everyone else, by working for it, and that will make them unhappy, and the American public cannot allow bankers to be unhappy. It is not part of the American way.
So which way is gold going to go? In situations like this I use the coin flip test. Heads market up short term, tails market down short term. It kept coming up tails, so I'm staying put for now. But not in the long term.
The time for Obama to demand that the Fed clamp down on interest rates was this year. The Fed could have triggered a recession, higher unemployment and higher welfare payments, and the economy would have had two or three years to improve after a year or two of high rates. Instead, Bush handed the banks nearly a trillion dollars, the Fed tripled the monetary base and the money supply is growing like bamboo. Obama added additional handouts, and the likelihood of any sort of fiscal and monetary discipline is now an impossibility for the Messiah of Bloat.
Although I remain in dollars this week, I am watching this closely as my strategy is not wise for the long term.
Kingston New York Tea Party Meeting
Monday January 11. The Kingston, New York Tea Party organization headed by Tom Santopietro met to exchange ideas this evening. I had attended a previous meeting in December but was unable to stay for more than a few minutes. The meeting was productive. It was held in the Town of Ulster Town Hall in Lake Katrine, two short left turns off Route 209.
Overall, I would call the meeting a marked success. Between thirty and fifty people were present. For a cold Hudson Valley January evening that is an achievement. I drove there from the Town of Olive, about 25 miles away.
The initiatives of the Tea Party are worthwhile. Several demonstrations in Washington and elsewhere were discussed, and there was discussion of George Phillips's announcement-of-candidacy for Congress meeting this Thursday. Phillips will be initiating a second candidacy against knucklehead-incumbent Maurice Hinchey.
My chief concern about the Tea Party movement is the likelihood of its cooptation by (a) Progressive or Rockefeller Republican types and/or (b) Democratic Party infiltrators. The Republican Party in New York has so far ignored the Tea Party. In appointing Edward F. Cox chair of the state committee the party has confirmed its self-destructive commitment to the Wall Street Republicanism of Newt Gingrich, Theodore Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller. I have several times contacted Cox without any kind of response to my inquiries.
I would like to encourage the Tea Party movement to begin to think about concerted infiltration of the Republican Committees at the town, county and state levels. This takes time but it would seem the best way to overthrow the current commitment to special interest corruption, to the failed education system and to big government.
One of the most interesting points of the evening was the discussion of a committee to try to influence public education in a more productive direction. This is a subject of importance to me and I offered a few suggestions.
Overall, I would call the meeting a marked success. Between thirty and fifty people were present. For a cold Hudson Valley January evening that is an achievement. I drove there from the Town of Olive, about 25 miles away.
The initiatives of the Tea Party are worthwhile. Several demonstrations in Washington and elsewhere were discussed, and there was discussion of George Phillips's announcement-of-candidacy for Congress meeting this Thursday. Phillips will be initiating a second candidacy against knucklehead-incumbent Maurice Hinchey.
My chief concern about the Tea Party movement is the likelihood of its cooptation by (a) Progressive or Rockefeller Republican types and/or (b) Democratic Party infiltrators. The Republican Party in New York has so far ignored the Tea Party. In appointing Edward F. Cox chair of the state committee the party has confirmed its self-destructive commitment to the Wall Street Republicanism of Newt Gingrich, Theodore Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller. I have several times contacted Cox without any kind of response to my inquiries.
I would like to encourage the Tea Party movement to begin to think about concerted infiltration of the Republican Committees at the town, county and state levels. This takes time but it would seem the best way to overthrow the current commitment to special interest corruption, to the failed education system and to big government.
One of the most interesting points of the evening was the discussion of a committee to try to influence public education in a more productive direction. This is a subject of importance to me and I offered a few suggestions.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Henry Sidgwick on American Moral Depravity
Henry Sidgwick was a 19th century utilitarian philosopher and classical liberal. John Rawls calls his Method of Ethics the first modern academic work on moral theory. Sidgwick's writing, unlike the German idealists, is clear. His ideas are detailed and elaborate, so reading Method of Ethics is not light, but it is well worth your time. Although Sidgwick was an accomplished classicist, I don't think he does a great job on virtue ethics and Aristotle. Toward the end of his discussion of what he calls intuitionism, that is, duty based ethics (think of the Ten Commandments or Kant's dictum of practical reason that we should act as though our action is a universal law), Sidgwick recommends two universal duty-based ethical principles that are the most convincing that I have seen. The first principle involves duty toward ourselves and amounts to a statement of the importance of deferral of gratification or neutral time preference. The second principle involves duty toward others. Sidgwick calls it the benevolence principle. The principles are as follows (pp. 381-2):
1. Hereafter as such is not to be regarded neither less nor more than now...a smaller present good is not to be preferred to a greater future good (allowing for differences of certainty).
2. The good of any one individual is of no (greater) importance, from the point of view...of the Universe, than the good of any other; unless, that is, there are special grounds for believing that more good is likely to be realised in the one case than in the other...as a rational being I am bound to aim at good generally--so far as it is attainable by my efforts--not merely a particular part of it...(so that) each one is morally bound to regard the good of any other individual as much as his own, except in so far as he judges it to be less, when impartially viewed, or less certainly knowable or attainable by him.
Upon consideration of Sidgwick's two moral principles, that we should treat the future with the same respect as the present and that we should consider the good of others as much as our own unless it is less knowable or attainable than our own, that American society is morally depraved.
The first principle, deferral of gratification or neutral time preference, has been ignored by the United States government; by Keynesian economics; by the banking system; and by the Federal Reserve bank. The reckless borrowing, spending, inflation and waste in which the American economy has engaged would, in Sidgwick's view, be unconscionable. Even more so, he would view the subsidization of house construction at the expense of alternative uses and the future and the aggressive subsidization of such waste as depraved.
As well, Sidgwick's second principle has been ignored by business executives and by the government. The closing of successfully operating plants in order to reap short term stock option rewards at employees' expense; the manipulation of earnings to induce payment of bonuses and stock; the abuse of shareholders in order to reap excessive executive compensation, using spurious claims of market demand as a rationale (spurious in part because the executives cannot point to any ability with respect to which many others do not have better endowments and scrupulously avoid measurement of potential abilities with respect to recruiting; and when their firms fail they demand subsidies from the public) all evidence depravity in the planned corporate sector.
Even worse, governmental decision making is tainted with the corruption of special interest manipulation. It is laughable today to claim that the US or state governments represent the general good.
Professor Sidgwick would likely turn in his grave were he to see the ways in which the American dream has declined. (Sidgwick, again was British, not American, but he would surely have been deeply concerned with the American example.)
1. Hereafter as such is not to be regarded neither less nor more than now...a smaller present good is not to be preferred to a greater future good (allowing for differences of certainty).
2. The good of any one individual is of no (greater) importance, from the point of view...of the Universe, than the good of any other; unless, that is, there are special grounds for believing that more good is likely to be realised in the one case than in the other...as a rational being I am bound to aim at good generally--so far as it is attainable by my efforts--not merely a particular part of it...(so that) each one is morally bound to regard the good of any other individual as much as his own, except in so far as he judges it to be less, when impartially viewed, or less certainly knowable or attainable by him.
Upon consideration of Sidgwick's two moral principles, that we should treat the future with the same respect as the present and that we should consider the good of others as much as our own unless it is less knowable or attainable than our own, that American society is morally depraved.
The first principle, deferral of gratification or neutral time preference, has been ignored by the United States government; by Keynesian economics; by the banking system; and by the Federal Reserve bank. The reckless borrowing, spending, inflation and waste in which the American economy has engaged would, in Sidgwick's view, be unconscionable. Even more so, he would view the subsidization of house construction at the expense of alternative uses and the future and the aggressive subsidization of such waste as depraved.
As well, Sidgwick's second principle has been ignored by business executives and by the government. The closing of successfully operating plants in order to reap short term stock option rewards at employees' expense; the manipulation of earnings to induce payment of bonuses and stock; the abuse of shareholders in order to reap excessive executive compensation, using spurious claims of market demand as a rationale (spurious in part because the executives cannot point to any ability with respect to which many others do not have better endowments and scrupulously avoid measurement of potential abilities with respect to recruiting; and when their firms fail they demand subsidies from the public) all evidence depravity in the planned corporate sector.
Even worse, governmental decision making is tainted with the corruption of special interest manipulation. It is laughable today to claim that the US or state governments represent the general good.
Professor Sidgwick would likely turn in his grave were he to see the ways in which the American dream has declined. (Sidgwick, again was British, not American, but he would surely have been deeply concerned with the American example.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
