Tag: mailvox

Peter Thiel raised some questions about trade, capital flows, and tariffs at a recent talk at the Economic Club of New York. Specifically, why does capital flow in the opposite direction now than it did in 1900, when slow growing economies like the UK invested in fast growing economies like Russia and Argentina? 

There is something really odd going on in the trade relations… The way you’d expect things to be working in a healthily globalizing world is that capital would flow from the slow growing to the fast growing economies, from the developed to the developing world.  This was the way trade patterns looked in 1900, which was a relatively open, free trade world, where the UK had a current account surplus of 4{e1e765f6645cfe4995202f72094ad9c88a5cb669127c8020c4b88ace2386bb53} of GDP and the capital got exported to invest in Russian railroads or Argentina, or all sorts of other countries that had higher growth rates and promised a higher return on capital.  That’s the way globalization is supposed to look.

Today, it’s quite the opposite, where capital is flowing uphill from China to the US and is the other side of these enormous current account and trade deficits that the United States has. And so, we are exporting $100 billion a year to China, importing $450 billion a year from China. And China, an economy that’s growing at, say, 6.5{e1e765f6645cfe4995202f72094ad9c88a5cb669127c8020c4b88ace2386bb53} a year is investing in an economy that is maybe growing at 3{e1e765f6645cfe4995202f72094ad9c88a5cb669127c8020c4b88ace2386bb53} a year, when the flows should be the other way around.

And so I think that tells you that something is incredibly off. It pushes you to have to ask questions, why it is off?  Why does nobody in China want to buy anything from the US? Why are our goods so undesirable? Or, are there policies that skew things too much towards consumption in the US and more to investment in other places, and should we be rethinking that? Or, are there intellectual property things that are not being enforced? There are a lot of very granular questions that we need to be asking.

Even if free trade is good in theory, and that’s what you want to get to, I think the way you get there is, perhaps, by not being too dogmatic and too doctrinaire.  And if you have people negotiate trade treaties who are doctrinaire about free trade, I always get the sense they won’t do that much work because if you negotiate a good trade treaty, that’s a good thing, and if you negotiate a bad trade treaty that still a good thing because we know that all trade is always good for everybody, in all times, in all places. And so we have to always be careful that free trade orthodoxy not become just a euphemism for the sloppiness or the laziness of the people negotiating these treaties.

Capital chases profit. There is more profit to be made in the US financial sector, which eats up about one-third of all profit in the USA, than there is in the non-financial sectors of other, faster-growing economies. That’s my initial thought, anyhow.

Zaklog the Great poses a trivial objection:

So, Vox, what would you say to someone who hasn’t studied economics enough to seriously parse through these arguments, but has observed that, almost without exception, the government is a terrible way to get things done? There seem to be very few things the government is capable of doing effectively, and therefore, the idea that managing the economy is one of those very few seems doubtful.

1. Tariffs are no more “managing the economy” than any other form of taxes are. Falsely equate the two demonstrates that you are engaging in dishonest rhetoric rather than honest dialectic. 
2. Getting what done? Governments have historically done a better job of defending borders than any other form of organization, and are certainly a damned sight better at it than international corporations, which, by the way, are government-created entities. Tariffs are a form of border defense, in more ways than one.
3. Tariffs are considerably less intrusive, and cause less economic disruption, than any of their three primary alternatives, income taxes, consumption taxes, and wealth taxes. If you believe that government is a terrible way to get things done, why would you rather have it interfere on a holistic and daily basis with the economic activity of every single domestic citizen rather than on a far less frequent basis with the cross-border shipments of a limited number of foreign corporations?
4. Tariffs don’t require effectiveness, and domestic governments have proven to be far more susceptible to control by the will of the people than international corporations.
5. Even if one assumes government corruption and inefficiency, it is still preferable to convey legal advantage to manufacturing companies that employ large numbers of people in a tariff system than to financial companies that do not in a free trade system. (Courtesy of Jack Amok.)

Has it ever occurred to feminists that perhaps there is a very good reason for the glass ceiling?

You have probably heard about the collapse of a pedestrian bridge at FIU in Miami today.  I was researching who the builder is, I stumbled across an article from yesterday celebrating the bridge’s construction.

 Key quote from the female engineer/project executive, Leonor Flores (speaking about teaching her daughter that women can go into STEM):

“It’s very important for me as a woman and an engineer to be able to promote that to my daughter, because I think women have a different perspective. We’re able to put in an artistic touch and we’re able to build, too.”

Yeah, about that…

FIU pedestrian bridge collapses days after installation; police say multiple deaths, cars trapped.

If you think about it, what is this but an example of Merkel’s Germany or May’s Britain writ small? Or, to put it in even more brutal terms, Carly Fiorina’s Hewlett-Packard….

Written by economist Steve Keen, one of the few professional economists to have correctly anticipated the global financial crisis of 2008, eCONcomics is a series of three satires explaining why the science of economics has gone so terribly wrong. In these savagely erudite satires, Keen highlights the lameness of the excuses offered by economists for their failure to predict anything from the financial crisis to the recent stock market highs. From “secular stagnation” to the “non-accelerating inflation rate of employment” and the “full employment real interest rate”, Keen expertly mocks both the myths and the incompetence of his professional colleagues.

After reading eCONcomics, you will understand why no economist ever seems to be able to explain what is going on today, or tell you what will happen tomorrow.

Steve Keen is Professor of Economics at Kingston University in London, and an Honorary Professor at University College London.

I wasn’t planning to announce this until next week, as it’s still not in stock on Amazon, and there are some pricing/discount issues that we have to resolve, but since I know some of you are checking out the Castalia Books Direct store and it’s as cheap to ship five comics as one, I figured I’d go ahead and make the print edition of Steve Keen’s economics comic book available to those who are interested today: eCONcomics: Taking the CON out of Economics.

Which, I will warn you, even in comic book form is challenging. On the other hand, it is indubitably a unique collector’s item from one of the great minds of economics. Imagine owning a first edition of Albert Einstein’s first comic book….

Anyhow, this is a larger 10×7 32-page book that we did not originally plan on selling anywhere but through Amazon and the chain stores – the comic stores are hardly going to carry a highly esoteric educational one-off – so we set a low retail price and a low discount. The problem is that this means the $4.99 price on the Castalia Direct store is actually higher than the $3.99 retail price. We will resolve that somehow, but whether it involves raising the retail price and the discount or something else, I simply don’t know. So, if you very understandably would prefer to wait for the retail price, it should be on Amazon by the end of the next week. While it is being published by Castalia, for the time being I put it in the Arkhaven collection on the store for simplicity’s sake. You can even pick up a copy of Steve’s Can We Avoid Another Financial Crisis? while you’re there.

Also, a reader who is a former comic book store guy had an idea for how we could produce limited collector’s editions to benefit the early supporters. He suggested that we do something to signify the first X number of copies printed, such as a gold Arkhaven logo or whatever, as this would potentially increase their value to collectors down the road. While I’m not interested in playing the variant covers game, or charging people more for mirrored reflective holographic covers, something like this that doesn’t cost the reader any more and simply rewards those who were the first to support our new comics strikes me as a win-win situation.

So, is this of any interest to the collectors in our midst, and if it is, what should X be? Our goal is to eventually hit average issue sales of at least 50,000, so keep in mind that we probably want to establish a limited edition base that we will not change in the future. Also keep in mind that it costs us both time and money to make this change on every single comic, not much, but enough that we don’t want to do it for 50 or 100 comics. My thought is that something in the range between 500 and 5,000 would be about right, but I will defer to the wisdom of the enthusiasts.

And finally, how would you like us to signify these collector’s editions? The aforementioned gold logo, distinctive yet tasteful? A giant garish COLLECTOR’S EDITION stamp? Share your thoughts.

Keep in mind, all of this is after many repeated warnings, bannings, and finally, spammings.

Hi,  I was a chatter on your blog,  Mature-Craig, citizen Pepe

I want to apologize for not staying away as you asked

There was a couple topics you brought up that gave me a chance to get some things off my chest publicly that I needed to get off my chest.

I am going to stay away from now on.

I sincerely wish you all the best
– Craig Joseph, 4/3/2017 5:56 PM

OK sir I will leave and not come back.  My wife doesnt liike me spending too much time on this anyway.

I wanted to apologize to you one more time.  I wanted to apologize to both you are and your wife as well for my gamma behavior ten years ago.  I want both you and your wife to know I think very highly of both of you.  I think back at some of the things I was saying 2004-05 and I am disgusted with myself.     Best to you and your family.

Its not a good spot for me.
– Craig Joseph, 2/25/2018 4:41 PM

American Christianity has generally had a deeper love for the Old Testament than European Christianity. And the vast majority of religious American Christians see the Jews as the root of the tree of Christ.

fair enough I guess

The fact that America is Judeo-Christian and not merely Christian is a reflection of those facts.

kind of an antagonistic thing to say,

its also fact that America has a lot of Anglo Saxon Christians, its a fact that America is also Anglo-Christian, Italo-Christian, Afrikana-Christian, Latino-Christian, Oriento-Christian etc

The roots of the Jewish people are more closely tied to Jesus Christ than those other groups that is true, but I say its a fact that America is Anglo-Christian, there are many many Anglo Christians in this country
– Craig Joseph aka The Pepe report 3/1/2018 10:40 AM

it wont happen again,
– Craig Joseph 3/1/2018 5:04 PM

Seriously, what is the problem? Look, it’s really NOT THAT HARD to not visit a blog, let alone not comment on it. For example, John Scalzi asked me to stop commenting on his blog back in 2008. I haven’t commented on it since and I’ve barely even visited it except to occasionally copy a post that someone else has pointed out to me for subsequent quoting here.

If you’re told not to comment here, then don’t do so. You are not welcome. You are trespassing. You may even by illegally cyberstalking, depending upon the law in your jurisdiction. You’re not going to change anyone’s minds, you’re not going to get me back somehow, and you’re not going to prove anything except for the fact that you have less self-control than the average crack-addicted teenage prostitute.

JS observes that the BBC is attempting to completely eradicate the real history of British invasions. At this rate, it won’t be long before they’re not only denying Bede, but trying to write Caesar’s Commentaries out of the historical record as well.

After watching the first Voxiversity episode (well done, btw), by chance I watched a series of BBC documentaries on “Arthurian Britain” which argued the opposite occurred in Britain: that there were no invasions, that the native British gradually accepted the multicultural influences of continental culture with no disruption to daily life and they all lived happily ever after.

King Arthur’s Britain  (Roman Britain Documentary)

• Part 1 of 3
• Part 2 of 3
• Part 3 of 3

I say “argued”, in fact the series is a transparent exercise in persuasive rhetoric verging at times on outright propaganda. I have been an amateur student of the period for many years and my own conclusion is that there is not enough available evidence to ever come to any conclusions. The best it can do is inspire fiction.

The well-spoken, avuncular presenter starts with a fully constructed straw-man; that current history insists Britain collapsed into the Dark Ages in 410 AD when the Roman legions left. Overnight, people fled the towns and returned to subsistence farming, forgot how to read and write while woodlands reclaimed the land. He then goes on to “prove” that this didn’t happen and that it was merely the interpretation of Victorian imperialists who saw themselves as Rome reborn and wanted to emphasise the dangers of removing imperial power.

Over the three episodes, various experts deconstruct and reinterpret the scant, available evidence to show that there was no Anglo-Saxon invasion and no population replacement. Genetic evidence showing that the indigenous people were driven west into Wales while continental people settled in the east was dismissed out of hand because one other study showed something different and the presenter himself didn’t believe it.

I’m no rhetorician but even I recognised the fallacious language used throughout e.g. “There is no evidence, but this is what must have happened,’ when it supported his thesis, “There is no evidence so it must be wrong,” when it didn’t as he insisted throughout that he was telling you the “real” story etc.

Bede’s “The Ecclesiastical History of the English People” was dismissed as a complete fiction by a young, female expert who concluded that there were never any Anglo-Saxons in Britain, consequently there never were any English and that Bede made the whole thing up and reinvented history.

The projection was palpable. The fact that they were arguing their central thesis, that everything we believe is wrong because previous generations interpreted the evidence to support their political biases, by overtly manipulating the evidence to support their own political bias seems to sail right over their heads. They state that there never was a pure British race (which the presenter paradoxically argues in support of half the time) and you can guess the final conclusion, can’t you?

“The real people of Britain AD did not only survive an influx of foreign influences but actually flourished because of it.”

Diversity is our strength!

It descends into farce at the end as former socialist politician, Robin Cook explains that Chicken Tikka Masala is the English national dish as it represents the rich, diverse people that the English have always been. Literally saying at one point, “… what makes Britain great, makes Britain strong is not purity, it is our diversity…” 

I understand you might not have time to watch the series but I think it could make an interesting “compare and contrast” exercise for the Voxiversity viewership.

BD reflects upon his professional observations concerning recent events.

I was a cop and investigator for around twenty years. Law enforcement goes back in my family for generations and one of my sons is a cop. I understand law and criminal justice better than most.

My grandfather told me three things that stuck with me. First, treat everyone with respect. He said, “You might be the only guy who calls the wino in the gutter, ‘Sir’ and mean it. You’ll be the only man to show him respect all day.” I’ll get to why that’s important in a second. Second, he said, “Walk your beat. Get to know the people. Know where the mean dogs are and where somebody has a clothesline in their back yard.” That advice served me very well over the years. Almost as much as the first thing. The third big thing he said was, “Be honest. Always tell the truth. Always keep a promise. Even little ones, if you tell a guy he can smoke a cigarette while you’re driving him to jail, give him a cigarette.” I don’t smoke but I always kept a pack and lighter in my car.

Showing respect is vital. People notice if you’re a dick. They’ll trust you more and respect you more if you treat them decently. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve arrested have come up spontaneously to apologize later for being stupid and making me use force and arrest them. I got pictures of their kids in my wallet almost twenty years after I’ve quit being a cop.

Getting to know your neighborhood is equally important. Once they get to know you they’ll stop to talk. Kids will want you to kick a ball around or shoot hoops for a minute. People will try and give you all the food and coffee you can hold. I know it goes against the rules of gratuities but don’t refuse coffee (use your judgement on food). Some places it’s an insult and nobody’s trying to bribe you with a cup of coffee. If somebody sells food then that’s different but don’t say no to grandma’s frybread or biscuits.

Be honest, always keep your word. You can use a little deception if you’re trying to get a guy out from under a car, “We’re sending in the dog!” (you don’t have a dog but the drunk has forgotten that). That kind of thing nobody resents later. But if someone asks you something be honest. Saying, “I can’t tell you that either way,” is being honest.

The reason I’m writing this is because I read about these places like Miami and don’t recognize what I used to do. My son works in a small county and the rot hasn’t reached here but when he worked for the state he quit because the prosecutor would simply let the guys he caught go. Or give them a deferred sentence for ‘drug treatment’. Virtually ninety percent of who you actually arrest has some drugs or alcohol problem. It’s why most thieves steal to support their habit or buy smokes or get gas money. Illegals just got deported regardless of the crime.

So he went back to the county and does honest cop work where the prosecutor gives jail time to felons instead of getting them off the books as fast as they can.

My son in law is thinking of becoming a cop. He would be a good one, he’s kind, honest and has integrity. He has the physical and mental abilities as well but they are not as important as character. You cannot teach those things in any classroom. That piece of shit that ran and hid from the gunfire makes me sick. If you’re not brave enough to run towards gunfire find something else to do. If you do the job right it can be as satisfying as any job in the world. But if you’re a corrupt piece of crap covering up crime, you’re a criminal with a badge.

I don’t know what’s going to happen to law enforcement in general but when or if we split into different nations, Calexit, Dixie States, Texas whatever, I predict we’ll see different kinds of cops on each side.  The communities will pick the kinds of police they want.

At Brainstorm last night, one of the subjects we discussed was the common practice of management from below and how some of its effects can be downright devastating on a business. In fact, several of the biggest failures I have ever witnessed were the direct result of subordinates knowingly hiding information from their superiors. It was a spirited discussion, as more than a few people copped to regularly utilizing the practice, and one participant emailed a few of his subsequent thoughts:

I wanted to share some thoughts from last night’s Brainstorm on “Managing from Below”.  No real solutions; just some experiences from work.

My experience with “management from below” comes as part of mentoring junior officers and enlisted on the larger concept of Leadership.  I’m currently group lead for [single-digit] people, all junior to me in rank.  We have about [double-digit] projects or tasks ongoing at any one time.  My peer and I dole out tasks to the group members and pick the critical ones to keep for ourselves.  These projects usually are interrelated or are builders – one relying on another.  We layout processes for completion where needed and lay down internal timelines to meet external requirements. Pretty standard.

For the more junior of the staff, the challenge is how to balance responsibility for their project with how much decision authority do they have, or as my guys would say, flexibility in solution.  In most cases, before they start the work, we’ve talked about what output is needed, the deadlines to hit, external groups who require coordination along the way, possible roadblocks, and how to get past them. Guidance I give is (1) I want the output we agreed upon, (2) I want to meet the time line we agreed to follow, (3) I want to know if there are internal or external factors or “bad actors” the staffer can’t sort out, and (4) I want periodic status updates.  Outside these parameters, unless it’s illegal, immoral, or unethical, find me a solution and get the output to me on time.

The threat for the junior staff is that they don’t want to be seen as someone who needs hand-holding or someone who can’t do their job, so they struggle with things longer than they should, trying to find the solution on their own and avoiding help.  Just as you pointed out last night, they start dissembling and getting vague with status.  The problem is they now unknowingly (or knowingly) violate Rule 3 above.  We call that “Blindsiding Your Boss”, and its a no-no.

A solution that worked for me is the 15-minute stand-up.  A weekly meeting where each team member has about 90 seconds to give hard facts on project status and a meets/does not meet status for the project time line.  Invariably, the people who are having problems with Rule 3 go soft on data.  The “softy” gets pulled aside after the stand-up to get some private questions and sort what the real issues are.  Rule 3 compliers fess up and tell the boss what’s up.  At this point, one or more other staff usually volunteer to help and its tabled.  We finish the 15-minute meeting and go into a huddle to discuss how to resolve the road block.

The staffer who needs help either gets a support intervention to solve an external threat by me or my peer, or a leg up from another junior staffer.  The staffer in the bind still leads the project unless they
ID themselves as unable.  We’ll juggle the projects a bit in most cases and figure out how to get the staffer spun up through another task or project.

This method seems to work in most cases.  Most staffers who see roadblocks or issues now don’t wait for Monday to let my peer and me know about issues they can’t solve.  Often a short huddle gives them a couple fresh ideas and they go back at it.  Sometimes we have to do more to sort the issue, but we aren’t surprised by it before it is too late to recover.  We call this “managing the boss” and its really about keeping the boss informed so the project can succeed, but it’s not what you were talking about last night.  What you were talking about is “assuming responsibility you don’t have”.

My concern with some of the folks in Brainstorm is that as subject matter experts, we get to thinking we *know* the real solution.  Why can’t management see it?  Why can’t the boss understand it?  This is usually due to the subject matter expert having a very narrow view of the problem.  This then devolves into taking actions without talking to management and leadership, due to either fear or pride.  Problem is if the SME has no clue as to the larger organizational challenges or direction they can tank the larger projects.  People get used to your version of “managing the boss”, thinking they are saving the company when they do it or it became a self-preservation tool, and they stick with it when they go elsewhere in many instances.  It’s hard to break someone out of this once they fall into this habit.

Megamerc relates the difference between the message of the Gospel and the message preached by the converged Churchians:

There was an Englishman called Arthur Oakman who joined a certain church here in the United States. He became a minister and one of the leaders of that church, and in 1966 he preached a sermon to a large group of his fellow ministers. Below is a quote from the transcript of it that reminded me of your take on several things, including race and the idea that Satan rules the world.

Here is the quote:

Some of the difficulty with our talk about race today. You don’t just tell people they’re brothers when they’re not. God isn’t the Father of all men, He’s the Creator of all men. He loves all men, it is true. But He only becomes their Father when they are obedient to the gospel of Jesus Christ. And it’s only in Christ that there is no Jew nor Gentile, there’s no bond nor free. And in Christ, even in sex, there is no male nor female. And all the distinctions between all the races of the world are banished in Christ, but gentlemen, the world isn’t in Christ. That’s the difficulty. To impose by force an ideal situation on people is utterly impossible, hence we must preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in every place, that His Spirit might motivate men so that they may come to know Him.
 – Arthur Oakman

Oakman died in 1975, and barely nine years later the church, that in many ways he helped lead, began to ordain women to their priesthood. There was a huge falling out because of the decision, many people left immediately, and ever since that church has gradually lost more and more of its membership. They watered down their fundamental teachings, embraced diversity and social justice, adopted churchian teachings, and are for the most part morally bankrupt, not to mention nearly financially bankrupt.

If I was more economically savvy and had greater familiarity with their financial state, I would make a guess on the exact time of their eventual collapse. But even without that knowledge and expertise, it’s only been 34 years since the initial influx of female clergy and they’re more or less dead already.

Christian civilization is a battle that must be fought and refought by each and every generation if it is to survive. The two generations before us lost. Let us do better. Deus vult!

But win or lose, do not despair. Remember, where there are two, there are always three.

DL writes concerning his perspective on the battle between Churchianity and the Christian Alt-Right:

After reading your recent posts responding to Churchian attacks on the 16 points and your post addressing an accusation that the Alt-Right is anti-Christian, I felt obligated to explain what the Alt-Right has done for me in a little over a year.

Here is what the philosophy of the Alt-Right as it is laid out in those 16 points has done for that wretched little creature:

1. It has made me pro-Christian.

A broken and humiliated atheist has lost all purpose and sometimes the will to live. When I found myself in that situation the Alt-Right presented me with what so many churches cannot: practical reasons to support orthodox Christianity. It reminded me of everything that Western Civilization has accomplished and that contributing to it is something I can be proud of. It has shown me sufficient evidence to convince me that the two are linked. I never intentionally acted to undermine Christianity, but I did so by foolishly endorsing ideas that undermine Western Civilization.

2. It replaced a philosophy of hedonism.

It’s easy to be a hedonist when you are successful. What I didn’t realize is that my success was not a result of my natural abilities alone but the combination of those abilities with the virtues that were instilled in me while I was raised in a Christian household. Once I abandoned those virtues my natural abilities could not slow down my descent into substance abuse, bankruptcy, and nihilism. The philosophy of the Alt-Right has provided me with a framework to find my way back onto the path of a good man.

3. It taught me that I know nothing.

I have opened my mind to the possibility that there could be a God. I always claimed that was the case but it was a lie. I listen when people pray for me now. I no longer recoil when I hear or read scripture. The neologisms you created regarding science were unpalatable at first but just thinking about the meaning behind them made me realize I had stopped searching for the truth on my own and simply accepted whatever the consensus was.

The alt-Right isn’t anti-Christian. In just over a year the Alt-Right has done what 20 years in church could not: exposed me as a fool, forced me to accept it, and taught me how to change.

He is correct. The Alt-Right is not anti-Christian. How can it be, when it is the foremost philosophical defense of Western civilization? It is said that the value of something can be determined by its fruits. What, pray tell, are the fruits of Churchianity?