Author: VD

You want liquidity trap? You can’t handle liquidity trap! Scroll to the bottom, and notice how the peak is at 08 2003. This, in spite of interest rate accomodation and smoke coming off the printing presses. If Greenspan and company can bob, duck and weave their way out of this one smoothly, I may have to reconsider my opinion on the inefficacy of monetary policy.

Always fear to argue with someone who isn’t afraid to say “I don’t know.” Chances are very high that they’re playing on a completely different level.

Thomas Sowell writes: Once, after giving a talk, I was confronted by a lady in the audience who asked what some people regard as the ultimate question:

“What is YOUR solution?”

“There are no solutions,” I said. “There are only trade-offs.”

“The people DEMAND solutions!” she shot back angrily.

The people can demand square circles if they want. But that doesn’t mean that they will get them. What they are more likely to get is the illusion of a solution by someone seeking their vote.

What he said.

Paul Craig Roberts explains a number of things, including why I’m not an odds-on bet to ever be featured on Townhall. Fortunately, I don’t give the proverbial rat’s patootie. I don’t entirely agree with the eminent Mr. Roberts, though, as I think it is possible for a columnist to educate those who are already somewhat inclined his way, but are not as informed.

I tend to think of it more as providing ammunition. In any case, I”m just defending the mike.

I have no doubt that the terrible news about vaccines is going to make its way out before the public eventually. There’s no way that the Congress would have protected the manufacturers, distributors and docters from liability if they actually were anywhere nearly as safe as they’re claimed. I hope this is the beginning of the end of the charade, but we’ll see. You’d think there’s far too much money at stake for the veil to fall easily, but hopefully a few honest scientists will value millions of children’s lives more than their careers.

OTTAWA– After assuring parents that additives in vaccines don’t cause brain damage, scientists have found what they believe could be a “smoking gun” linking these additives to autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. In a study that was rushed to print on-line today, two months ahead of its scheduled publication in the journal Molecular Psychiatry, U.S. researchers have discovered an apparent link between thimerosal, a controversial mercury-based preservative once commonly used in childhood vaccines, to an increased risk of neurological disorders such as autism and ADHD. While most vaccines distributed in Canada have been thimerosal-free since the early 1960s, the preservative was used in the annual flu shot that doctors recommended this year for even healthy children. In tests on human brain cells, researchers found two natural chemicals — one compound that stimulates cell growth and also dopamine, which transmits nerve signals — are both key to a process in the brain called methylation.

Methylation helps DNA work properly and is crucial to the normal development of the brain.The team found thimerosal, ethanol and the metals lead and mercury all interfere with methylation. What’s more, thimerosal did so at doses 100 times lower than a child would receive after a single shot with a thimerosal-containing vaccine. “It was by far the most potent,” said investigator Dr. Richard Deth, a professor of pharmacology at Northeastern University in Boston. He said the study, which also involved researchers from Johns Hopkins University, the University of Nebraska and Tufts University in Boston, could account for the rising rates of autism since the early 1980s, when more thimerosal-containing shots were added to a child’s vaccine schedule.

A recent review of vaccine-related “adverse events” in the U.S. found a”significant correlation” between shots containing thimerosal and autism,the researchers report.

I’m generally loathe to continue a previous day’s discussion, so as to avoid beating a lifeless equine, but Kevin McCullough wanted to contribute his take by way of his column today. I don’t think I buy into the concept myself; Canada is showing that there’s no need for such a redefinition of marriage in order to crack down on the traditional and the faithful with newly manufactured hate crimes, while in other places, like Zurich, such “marriage” exists without any attendant speech codes and PC enforcement. As with gun control, a failure to look beyond the borders can sometimes create false dichotomies. But don’t take my word for it, go see for yourself.

KMC writes: …if a state were to give “sanctity” to an otherwise “immoral” activity then there is no need to worry about what that church says anymore. In fact, if the right hate-crime laws are passed then maybe … just perhaps … we can shut down those voices who say such things all together.

Maybe this argument might impress a few moderates and shaky conservatives who still believe that legality equates to morality. Since my libertarian logic rejects that concept, I’m left fairly cold by this notion. But, it is conceivable and it is true that the Stalinist nature of the American gay rights movement is surpassed only by the abortionette Left. Not being privy to the inner circles of the Lavender Mafia, I have no idea what the grand master plan behind such “marriage” is. The Norwegian and Swedish statistics suggest that most homosexuals aren’t actually interested in “marrying” and are highly unlikely to stay “married” even if they do go through with it . Perhaps the Gayfather will deign to enlighten us; I’m pretty sure our non-rabid queer friends have no more clue than we do.

Speaking of columns, I just turned in next week’s. I imagine we may get a few angry feminist sorts popping their noses in, assuming they aren’t too bent out of shape to fit. If nothing else, there should be some amusing fodder for the cannons. Just a little something to anticipate in case you feel the need to sharpen your knives over the weekend.

The Aberdeen News reports: Opponents warned legislators that passing the measure would be a costly mistake. South Dakota will wind up in court, and the legal fees will be huge, they said, reminding state lawmakers that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 1973 ruling that abortion is legal.

Excellent. If the infanticidists are reduced to arguing about the cost of legal defense, the pro-life forces must have the votes to push it through. And just how much of a cow town do they believe South Dakota to be if they think no one there has heard of Roe v. Wade?

This post brought to you courtesy of The Evangelical Outpost

The thing that’s important to keep in mind is that most Republican politicians, for all their supply-side rhetoric, are still Keynesians. They believe that the prime mover of the economy is government spending, since C+I+G = GDP. Consumption + Investment + Government Spending = Gross Domestic Product. C and I are outside of their direct control, so therefore, G must be increased if the economy is going to grow in a dependable manner.

This is all the more true since I = S. Investment = Savings, but American savings are actually negative, since people are spending more money than they are earning thanks to low interest rates and easy debt. The post-1991 economic boom has entirely consisted of debt-funded C + lots of G + foreign I.

Now here’s where we’re looking at trouble. In order to pay off the interest on old I, the dollar is dropping off a cliff. This is why foreign I has dried up – remember, domestic I is nonexistent – except for the Japanese, who are playing their own bizarre Keynesian game. C can’t increase much more, since everyone has already refinanced their homes several times, blown all their equity and are in debt up to their eyeballs. This leaves two alternatives, rampant inflation or a massive increase in government spending. It looks to me as if the decision has been made to pursue both at once, which shows that things may be extraordinarily fragile. Without this spending, George Delano’s advisors believe the economy will tank before November despite the modest increase in C derived from the tax cuts. They don’t care what they spend it on, just so it gets spent.

However, the negative reaction of the conservative base appears to be causing the Republican braintrust to rethink this strategy, which means that either a) they’ll take the chance that conservatives will stay home and announce more spending; or b) they’ll announce new tax cuts to attempt to stimulate C enough to make up for what they hoped to achieve by increasing G. In either case, expect federal debt to increase dramatically.

Of course, the deeper problem is that the entire Keynesian macro model is total nonsense, so the very conundrum is a false one, but until we’ve got Austrian-school economists from the Mises Institute in the White House, this analytical model should be useful for understanding political behavior as the Season of False Promises draws nigh.

Thus endeth the lesson.

The Original Cyberpunk writes: We *know* that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them against the Kurds and the Iranians, ergo, he had them. To argue otherwise is idiocy. We *know* that chemical weapons can stay hidden and dangerous for quite a long time. For example, just last summer, construction workers in China acccidentally dug into a chemical weapons dump hidden by the retreating Japanese army in 1944 or ’45, resulting in fatalities and much hard feelings between the two countries. Ergo, this issue won’t go away. We *know* that American voters have short attention spans: two months, tops. Further, we *know* that there’s no point in announcing political news before Labor Day or on Halloween weekend. So, the question: WHEN *EXACTLY* will Donald Rumsfeld announce the discovery of vast stores of Iraqi chemical, radiological, and/or biological weapons? I pick Saturday, October 16, 2004:

Here’s the deal. If you want in, check the Comments and go to The Toxic Pool and see what dates are taken. Nothing’s up there until tonight. Then pick your date, add it to the Comments so everyone can see AND mail it to me so OC can add it to the table. Whoever is closest gets first prize, which is a signed copy of at least four of our books, the next three closest get a signed copy of Rebel Moon. Only one date per person, current or former employees of either the Iraqi or Syrian regimes are not permitted to enter. If there’s no announcement, then, well, it didn’t cost anything to play now, did it.

I got Monday, October 18th.

UPDATE: The Toxic Pool is up! Check it out before picking your dates.

I seriously fail to see what the deal is here. [There’s been a bit of a discussion floating around the Sphere thanks to J. Goldberg and the PuppyAbuser] You know everything you need to know about a blog from the ideas they express. I daresay that those of you who visit here regularly or have read my column for two years know who I am a lot better than half the people who primarily encounter me socially on a regular basis and with whom I only engage in meaningless small talk.

It makes no difference that we know Jonah Goldberg=Jonah Goldberg but we don’t know if BloggerX=Mark Smith or Jane Weatherbee. Who cares? Ideas must be capable of standing on their own right and I hate the notion that X = true if A is black, but false if A is white. Substitute your personal identifying adjective of choice, but you get the point.

I’m not anonymous anyhow, as anyone with 30 seconds and an Internet link or a decent grasp of classical languages can figure out my private joke between me. But this is the persona that I have chosen for myself in this field, just as Desert Cat and Physics Geek have carved out their own little niches and I think that’s cool. Heck, I was just talking with the White Buffalo about the right name for someone who has personally threatened me if their blogstar name is insufficiently flattering. (By the way, El Zinko Pinko, I have to tell you that he has been absolutely dying to make a Teletubbies reference and he is very sad that he doesn’t know you well enough to rip you. Oh, that I were so fortunate.)

Which reminds me. There is no better set of monikers than on the radio shows when Todd Steussie was playing in Minnesota. There was “Holding On Number 73 On The Offense Guy” and “False Start on Number 73 On The Offense Guy”. Space Bunny was hoping Carolina would lose just so I’d stop saying that every time they showed Steussie on TV. “Hey, false start on Number-” “Would you PLEASE shut up with that?” “But, see, the irony is that it actually was a false-” “I DON’T CARE!”

What was the point? Did I have one? Oh, right. Anonymous blogging is moral, virtuous, good and healthy. And let’s face it, it’s fun.

Hank writes on homosexuality and Roman decline: Speaking of false correlations here’s a great counter example. The rise of Christianity tracks the collapse of the Roman empire. Perhaps Christianity is the root of the collapse. I’d guess probably not, but they both share the same space of history so we could try and draw that kind of a ridiculous conclusion.

If you’d look at how the homosexual emperors were behaving, you’d better understand the notional relationship between the moral degradation and the imperial decline. More than one emperor was murdered by his bodyguard because they couldn’t stomach his behavior, which didn’t contribute a great deal to political stability. Edward II met a similar fate, as well, but he was an aberration for an English king.

I think my favorite example is this. “He [Elagabulus] impersonated the Great Mother in a lion-drawn chariot and publicly posed as the Venus Pudica, dropping to his knees with buttocks thrust before a male partner…. He had to be dissuaded from castrating himself, reluctantly accepting circumcision as a compromise.” His reign didn’t last long or end well. Gibbons writes: “he was massacred by the indignant Praetorians, his mutilated corpse dragged through the streets of the city, and thrown into the Tiber.”

I imagine that when our president begins behaving in like manner, total collapse won’t be too far off. When you compare the first openly Christian emperor (Constantine) with the first openly homosexual emperor (Nero), you get an interesting picture of the different influences on the society. (Yes, I know about Sulla and Caesar, but the first kept it hidden and wasn’t an emperor, in the case of the second there are only rumors and insults. I’m not sure about Tiberius, but then, neither were the Romans.)

UPDATE: by the way, I’m quite certain that Christianity helped bring about the ultimate downfall of Rome. Generally speaking, the intellectual freedom that Christianity can and has inspired in many individuals is not particularly conducive to totalitarian rule, which, no doubt, is why totalitarians tend to hate Christians and attempt to control the Church. I personally view homosexuality as a mid-to-late stage symptom of societal decline, not a cause.