Different Economic Models

I seem to have found an unlikable bug, and just spent a large portion of the night in that bathroom. So here’s a simple but still correct post.

To cheer you up I bring you – the Economic Models explained with Cows – latest update

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk
away…

ANARCHISM
You have 2 cows.
Either you sell the milk at below cost price or you neighbours will try to take the cows and execute you.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.

Keep reading: Different Economic Models | Oyia Brown.

Are Low Oil Prices Good or Bad? Yes

0621_WTIC_Crude_Oil_Prices_Per_Barrel_HistoryIt seems that oil prices, like climate temperatures, are an all-purpose villain, when they go up they hurt the economy, and when they go down, they hurt the economy, and when they stay put, they are a drag on the economy. Steven Hayward had something to say about it yesterday.

There’s just no pleasing some people.

When oil and gasoline prices at the pump are high, liberals (and Bill O’Reilly) complain that the oil companies are gouging us, even though certified enlightened opinion among environmentalists is that cheap oil and fuel prices are bad because it encourages consumption and makes it harder for their (subsidized) renewable energy unicorns to compete in the marketplace. I still have somewhere the New York Times headline from 1991, the second-to-last time oil prices were this low, that read “Low Oil Prices Are Bad, Some U.S. Experts Say.”

“Experts” would say that. That’s why they’re experts. (Or “top men,” as they’re rightly called in Raiders of the Lost Ark.)

But there is a bit more to the story, that you likely haven’t heard.

Six Years Later, 93% of U.S. Counties Haven’t Recovered From Recession, Study Finds

More than six years after the economic expansion began, 93% of counties in the U.S. have failed to fully recover from the blow they suffered during the recession.

Nationwide, 214 counties, or 7% of 3,069, had recovered last year to prerecession levels on four indicators: total employment, the unemployment rate, size of the economy and home values, a study from the National Association of Counties released Tuesday found. . .

via Are Low Oil Prices Good or Bad? Yes | Power Line.

As Steve noted, it’s remarkable that Obama hasn’t told us about that, isn’t it?

Saturday Links

Well, I’m more or less recovered, but there is a mass of stuff I read (and archived for use) while I was ill. So how ’bout some links today to help you (and me) catch up?

Hillary Clinton & Double Standards on the Left

The Flint Water Scandal

The Tribal War with Islam

This refers to much the same thing I said yesterday.

Obama’s Middle Eastern policy is a bad replay of Woodrow Wilson’s post-WWI efforts (and we know how that ended)

What we really need to talk about after Cologne

Europe Braces Itself for Terrorism as Germany and Other Countries Experience Sexual Jihad Firsthand from Rapefugees

Are there really two popes?

Affirming Anglicanism

The one thing most people think they know about economics is wrong

Sell everything ahead of stock market crash, say RBS economists

Oil could crash to $10 a barrel, warn investment bank bears

Project Fear: how Cameron plans to scare us into staying in the EU

The Brexit vote: it’s neck and neck

Why farms die and should die

And finally, only marginally suitable for work, but an example of “Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome”.

How To Use A Thong

Well that cleans up some of my archives, and there’s something for nearly everyone there! :)

 

Male and female he made them?

 

 

chivalry-e1325295151962

Looking back, as we tend to, at this time of the year, it may go down in history as the one where the Western world finally gave up trying to argue the obvious – which is that we are born female or male. It’s true that there have always been a small number of people whose gender was doubtful at birth, and that their lives have often been blighted thereby, not least by the way wider society treats them. But I’m not sure that explains the great outburst over the gender-reassignment of the former Olympic athlete now known as Caitlyn Jenner. Not having either a TV or regular access to the Internet, I don’t know anything about the Kardashians, except that they exist in the way a pool of toxic goo can exist and that it is wise to avoid such things. But the fierce ways in which some defended Jenner against attacks, and the fierceness of some of the attacks, suggested something bigger was going on.

Germaine Greer wrote on Jenner, with, as ever, her lovely unique perspective. As a long-standing feminist, she was sceptical of the way in which someone who was still genetically and physically male, was seeking the limelight as woman of the year. I found myself cheering her comment:

“I think misogyny plays a really big part in all of this, that a man who goes to these lengths to become a woman will be a better woman than someone who is just born a woman.”

It was horrid that people were nasty about Jenner, but it was horrid that those complaining about that were, themselves, horrid in return. It seemed to mark a breakdown in civilised discourse. What was it here that struck such pay-dirt in terms of commentary and reaction?

I wonder if it reflects a wider malaise? Even when I was little (and that’s the 1980s) it was clear enough how things worked. My daddy owned and managed a hill-farm. He and the hands (all male) would go out early in the morning, they would take care of the animals in all weathers, using their muscle when (as it always was) necessary. I remember being out one day with a female relative much older than me, and we found a sheep who had fallen over. Try as we might, we could not get her upright – we needed to go get ‘the men’. The men would go down to the pub, where they’d drink with men who worked in the mills or the mines of the valleys of South Wales. When we visited friends in the Rhondda I remember being struck by the muscled men with coal-blackened faces, some with scars a livid white against the coal dust. The women were wives and mothers, some of whom worked in the shops or the pub. That society was already under strain, and by the time we left, many of the mines and the steel mills were gone. The new economy makes fewer gender-based demands on people.

Many of the traditional males skills are either no longer needed as they were, or no longer exclusively male (I can wire a plug or fix a washing machine if I have to). In a world where sperm-donors can provide the necessary for those women who are not sexually attracted to men, we may even face a real crisis of what men are for. Perhaps this is why there is such a fuss about the Jenner case? It touches on our neuroses which are really quite near the surface?

That’s where Christianity retains an important message for us. God knew what he was doing when he ‘made them male and female’ for mutual comfort and companionship – not to mention child-bearing and rearing. To say these things is to state the obvious, but no doubt to be accused of denigrating others with a ‘different lifestyle’ Well, I hope not, as a childless woman living in a community of women, I hardly fit the ‘traditional female’ stereotype. If someone wishes to identify herself as ‘non-binary’, fine, but to tell the rest of us that everyone is really non-binary is a form of politically correct bullying; if they wish to live and let live they need to do the same. We should not discriminate against others, as they should not against us – this simple Christian message is one we are in danger of losing sight of in all the fuss being made.

Save the planet…from Barack Obama

w704 (4)Well, Obama is back from wasting, however much energy he could in his jaunt to Paris and back, to make an interminable, wasted, and wrong speech on something that no one in the world care about much, unless one is a crony-green-capitalist.

Have you noticed, as I have, that nearly every one of those bleating on (and on, and on) about global cooling global warming climate change. That’s right they stand to benefit, in money or power (and don’t kid yourself, money and power can easily be turned into each other) from the money that government steals from its citizens to fund these boondoggles.

And don’t kid yourself, they don’t give even a smidgen of a damn about anybody but themselves. Because who these policies will hurt more than anyone is the poor, in unaffordable energy, lack of jobs, lack of opportunity, and, yes, loss of liberty, as well.

If they have not taken it already, Obama’s actions and inactions portend an enormous human toll with adverse environmental consequences thrown in for good measure. Yet Obama is in Cloud Cuckooland (White House transcript here, video below) talking about imaginary catastrophes in a far-off future:

The reason is because [sic] this one trend — climate change — affects all trends. If we let the world keep warming as fast as it is, and sea levels rising as fast as they are, and weather patterns keep shifting in more unexpected ways — then before long, we are going to have to devote more and more and more of our economic and military resources not to growing opportunity for our people, but to adapting to the various consequences of a changing planet. This is an economic and security imperative that we have to tackle now. And great nations can handle a lot at once.

Obama takes his cue from Book 3 of Gulliver’s Travels, devoting himself to undoing what the scientists of Laputa sought to do. The scientist of Laputa sought to extract sunbeams from cucumbers. Obama would force sunbeams back into the cucumber — to mitigate the phenomenon formerly known as global warming. Swift! thou shouldst be living at this hour. But this might be beyond the powers of the greatest satirist ever to write in English:

You go down to Miami, and when it’s flooding at high tide on a sunny day fish are swimming through the middle of the streets.

Source: Save the planet…from Barack Obama | Power Line

Matt Ridley writing in The Spectator adds this:

The next generation is watching, Barack Obama told the Paris climate conference this week: ‘Our grandchildren, when they look back and see what we did in Paris, they can take pride in what we did.’ And that, surely, is the trouble with the entire climate-change agenda: putting the interests of rich people’s grandchildren ahead of those of poor people today.

Unfair? Not really, when you look at the policies enacted in the name of mitigating climate change. We’ve diverted 40 per cent of America’s maize crop to feeding cars instead of people, thus driving up the price of food worldwide, a move which according to one study killed about 192,000 poor people in 2010 alone, and continues to affect nutrition worldwide. We’ve restricted aid funding for fossil-fuelled power stations in developing countries, leaving many people who would otherwise have had access to electricity mired in darkness and cooking over wood-fires — the biggest environmental cause of ill health, responsible for more than three million deaths every year.

Closer to home, by pushing up energy prices with climate policies, we’ve contributed to the loss of jobs of steelworkers in Redcar and Scunthorpe, and of aluminium workers in Northumberland (where I live and where coal from under my land has supplied the now-closed Lynemouth smelter — whose power station announced this week that it will reopen as a ‘biomass’ plant, that is to say burning wood from American forests, producing more carbon dioxide per unit of energy and at twice the price of coal). We’ve also worsened fuel poverty among the poor and elderly and we’ve damaged air quality in cities. These human costs are not imaginary or theoretical: they are real.

Source: The green blob: who will protect the victims of environmentalism?

The thing is, if we are worried about people going hungry, we could run American cars without burning forty percent of our corn crop in the fuel, gasoline would be cheaper as well, although I grant that Iowa farmers might get a bit less welfare.

On the other hand, Allen Brooks, writing on www.masterresource.org reminds us:

“The earth is greener. Terrestrial ecosystems’ productivity is up 14% since 1982. Even the IPCC has acknowledged that productivity is 5% greater than that experienced during pre-industrial times. What this has meant is a significant increase in human well-being.”

“Until the movement shifts away from its witch-hunting approach to debate, the climate change believers look increasingly like the mobs that over-ran the Bastille during the French Revolution. I’m sure some of the climate change believers would be happy to see the guillotine resurrected in the Place de la Concorde (formerly Place Louis XV and then Place de la Revolution) and used against deniers and doubters. Maybe it is fitting that COP21 is being held in Paris.”

In the face of the impending COP21 conference, a new report authored by Indur Goklany for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), CARBON DIOXIDE The good news, was published. It reminds one and all that carbon dioxide (CO2), the major manmade greenhouse gas, is not a pollutant but a positive part of the biosphere.

After reading (a lot) about it, and applying my common sense, I have reached my conclusion

It’s a Scam; and nothing else.

Many people have (and will) get rich of off government largesse, and the people (the ones who have to work for a living) will, as always, be the losers.

Even Piers Corbyn (Jeremy’s brother) has figured that out.

The Alarming Signposts that this Could Be a Crazy Year

This is interesting, and amongst all the theories floating around describing events, it makes as much sense as anything else. Does that make it true? Nope, neither does it make it false. Like global warming, global cooling, climate change, it’s a theory, although this one doesn’t have several trillion dollars of rent seeking money attached. It’s a hypothesis, neither proved nor disproved. We shall see.

I was fifteen, it was 1968, and seeking refuge from adolescence and the turmoil of the times, I often curled up with science fiction. When your world spins apart, you can find some respite in alternate worlds. And so I did – until one story wrenched me back to the chaotic present.

It was “The Year of the Jackpot,” in which Robert A. Heinlein stunningly foresaw it all.

The story had been published in 1952, but it conjured up the annus mirabilis/horribilis that I could see flashing before me every day: nudity in public, nudity in the churches, transvestites, draft-dodgers, cigar-smoking feminists, bishops promoting sex education, ludicrous lawsuits, a “startling rise in dissident evangelical cults,” and the Alabama state legislature proposing to abolish physics (not the teaching of physics, no, they wanted to repeal the laws of nuclear physics). Heinlein even predicted that weird antiwar protesters would be arrested in Chicago and disrupt their subsequent trial. In the story, a bespectacled statistician (they always wear glasses) discovers that all varieties of human behavior move in waves, and now (as he plots on graphs) all the waves are cresting at once. “It’s as clear as a bank statement,” he warns. “This year the human race is letting down its hair, flipping its lip with a finger, and saying, ‘Wubba, wubba, wubba.”‘

Source: History News Network | The Alarming Signposts that this Could Be a Crazy Year

Or as some of us might have said back in 1968, ‘Beaucoup dinky dau, redux’. I bet some of my readers recognize that!


P.J O’Rourke has a new book out, it’s called Thrown Under the Omnibus, and it’s an anthology of his earlier works, a greatest hits album, as it were. So if you have his books, it may be a bit repetitive, but it’s a great introduction to the author who has been compared to S.J. Perlman on acid as well as H.L. Mencken, that’s some heady company. Here’s a few quotes:

On the fall of the Berlin Wall:

They may have had the soldiers and the warheads and the fine-sounding ideology that suckered the college students and nitwit Third Worlders, but we had all the fun . . . in the end we beat them with Levi’s 501 jeans. Seventy years of communist indoctrination and propaganda was drowned out by a three-ounce Sony Walkman. A huge totalitarian system with all its tanks and guns, gulag camps, and secret police has been brought to its knees because nobody wants to wear Bulgarian shoes.

On the differences between the parties:

Democrats are in favor of higher taxes to pay for greater spending, while Republicans are in favor of greater spending, for which the taxpayers will pay.

Why conservatives being called Nazis never bothered him:

I don’t let it bother me for one simple reason. No one has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a liberal.

Not to mention this:

It is true that Republicans are squares, but it’s the squares who know how to fly the bombers, launch the missiles, and fire the M-16s. Democrats would still be fumbling with the federally mandated trigger locks.

I’ve been reading, and laughing with, O’Rourke since he was a liberal, and I just bought this book, I like greatest hits albums, often they are the concentrated essence of what we loved.

%d bloggers like this: