Jobs Statistics?

Every week, or so it seems anymore, an article is published on one of the major news sites I watch about job creation statistics. While, all throughout the week, I read about companies dropping thousands of workers, somehow there are statistics out there that regularly show that the economy is “improving” and new jobs are being created in greater number than those lost in the same time period.

What no one seems to be discussing is the parity between the jobs lost and the jobs created. What I mean by that is, as far as I can tell, no one is evaluating the overall difference in compensation between the jobs lost and the jobs created.

Using the amazing powers of observation, I could deduce, however, that there is a difference, and that it is probably pretty significant.

First, I think it is worth mentioning that I don't see a lot of “Help Wanted” or “Now Hiring” signs or ads, but when I do, the jobs I see advertised are not impressive. Places like McDonalds always appear to be hiring, probably because the bulk of their workforce always seems to be under the age of 18 and those “kids” are probably heading off to college for large portions of the year. Basically, I don't really count working a fast food joint as having a “job” unless you're at least an assistant manager, and even that doesn't pay all that great and tends to leave much to be desired on insurance and long term financial planning (such as 401k programs).

I see a lot of warehouses offering jobs as pickers / packers starting around $9 (if you take the worst-offered shift). Again, that hardly counts as a “job” if you compare it to the thousands of high-end positions eliminated over the last month at companies developing pharmaceuticals or tech gadgets.

Maybe looking at a site like monster.com yields better results for some people, but every time I look about half the listings appear to be bogus (“werk at hom and make $100,000 a YEAR!”) and most of the ones that look legitimate make about the same pay I do working in a warehouse.

So what I'm attempting to illuminate is the fact that a lot of people see jobs numbers in the positive and think things are improving, but the numbers don't tell the whole story. I think we all need to be honest with ourselves – what we observe with our senses does not always mesh well with what we are being told by the media or government. I don't see anything improving in my little corner of the world, do you?

Also, while I have the moment, I want to share a link that tries to show the volume of debt currently being shuffled around by the U.S. federal government in a graphical format. Oh, come now, in light of the credit downgrade this week, you knew I wasn't going to let that subject drop, right?

http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/

In game or life, “There is safety... in mindfulness.”

Be well, friends.

Never Before Debt Default Fallacy

Okay folks, I get it...  Everyone wants to believe that the United States has never defaulted on it's financial obligations, but this fallacy goes too far when news organizations, such as Fox News did today, perpetuate the lie in print:

(red underline added by me)

Article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/20/senate-republicans-show-flexibility-in-debt-debate/

Above, Fox News perpetuates this idea that the United States has a perfect debt repayment record, but a simple Google search reveals the error in this assertion.  In 1979, for instance, due to error more than anything else, the Treasury Department was late making payments on T-bills, resulting in late payments in excess of $100 million.

And of course, lets not forget the Joint Resolution To assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States, signed in 1933, which refuted the concept of the Gold Standard.  Again, Google it if you want to know more -- I've posted about it previously.

My point here is that if the media is pushing lies and misinformation such as this, they are doing more harm than good.  Use your brains and think about what they give you -- don't just accept it as truth without questioning.

World Debt Apocalypse

Okay folks, in light of the massive looming debt crisis here in the United States, I'm inclined to do a little writing.

Most of us have read at least a little about the 14 + trillion dollar “debt ceiling” that the idiots in Congress are arguing over of late. It would seem that there is argument over whether that's a lot of money or not, whether they should be allowed to borrow more, and what the impact would be if this limit isn't increased.

I'm not really sure that I care to get into all of that at the moment because, quite frankly, I don't see a good end to it regardless of what happens. I did, however, do a little reading on debt in general.

So, when you and I go into debt, generally there is someone to whom we owe money, and the prevailing logic would be that this person or entity has money in abundance, and thus would have little or no need to incur any debt of it's own.

Of course, this is a logical fallacy. One being able to lend money has no correlation with one's own ability to stay out of debt.

In terms of the world debt situation, there seem to be very, very few countries that have little or no debt, and those countries are, in fact, not the kind of countries anyone would flock to for a loan. Inversely, even China (the largest single holder of U.S. treasury debt) has a national debt of it's own, officially equivalent to around 400 billion dollars (although I've read some articles pegging it closer to one trillion).

If every country on the planet owes money to another (or to many others) and no single one on the planet has any actual money to pay any of them, doesn't that kinda look like a really bad scenario waiting to happen? With all of this massive debt laying around, I would think that someone out there would have to have a shit-ton of money laying around, or at least a giant, debt-free, warehouse full of IOUs. But, thanks to the inventors of fractional reserve banking, this simply is not the case.

I've posted about this sort of thing before, but I can't speak out enough about it. Here's another, easy to find but probably often ignored, link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

This system, simply put, allows for a situation to exist where there is more debt in existence than there is actual currency with which to repay it. This is what leads to what I said above – everyone owes but nobody has any!

I guess I'm not supposed to have an opinion on that, huh... I'm just supposed to shut up and go to work. Speaking of which... 

Two Hundred and Thirty Five Years

Using a more modern definition, one might see the United States as a sort of Empire. No, not the same manner of empire as that which was maintained by the British from circa 1580 to 1997 (a span of over 400 years) which entailed establishing colonial authorities across the globe, but one that executes it's authority via cultural, economic, and military influence without directly commanding the affairs of each individual country.

Actually, in many ways, America's “empire” is similar to that which it previously was subservient, in that, for a long time, there has been little or no real political rivalry, and we have commanded the world economy, in a manner of speaking, for decades. Problem is that we seem to be trying to copy what the British accumulated in two centuries while only being at it for less than one, and doing it without the same colonial enterprise that the British utilized.

This, combined with our lack of a King or other such solitary leader, somehow makes the United States less of an empire...

This gigantic military and economic power is precisely that which will bring about our downfall, and further, is exactly what the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution wanted us to avoid. Our President, not Obama specifically but the authority of the office, has risen to be something very similar to a King, which today can even wage limited warfare without the approval of another authority. People often credit the President with having accomplished things (or not) that are totally outside of the power of the executive branch, and in some way they are often correct simply because some manner of [probably corrupt] behind-the-scenes pressure seems to be in use to effect change. Further, the pomp and splendor of state dinners and other political and diplomatic events has certainly surpassed that to which British Kings were accustomed in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, something I believe says a lot about how detached they are from the laborers of the country – the knuckledraggers that actually do all of the work.

Fact is, the United States maintains a significant military presence in at least nine different countries, three of which are considered combat zones (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya). In Japan and South Korea also reside a heavy man-count, I presume to counter threats from North Korea. In all, nearly a quarter of our active-duty personnel are stationed in other countries, some of which today seem nonsensical, including our so-called combat zones. Mind you, Congress hasn't formally declared war on another country since our June 5, 1942 declaration on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania during World War II. Since then, lesser designations and possibly Constitutionally-questionable military actions have been authorized and funded by Congress, but never an admission that a state of war actually exists.

In many of the most important ways, the Executive Branch today operates independently of the other branches of government, and in many other ways may pressure the other branches to bend to it's will. No one man controls the country, but the President and his administration has a number of officies that tend to function without direct oversight of any other government body. Politically, economically, and internationally, the behavior of our government is in direct opposition to the core values supposedly espoused by the founding fathers, yet many of us continue to blindly accept it based on some concept of the greater social good... a concept that wouldn't even exist had we not spent ourselves into a debt oblivion that is crushing everything in sight under it's weight.

In closing, yes, I love my country. I love it for what it was prior to World War I, for what it could have been had it held fast to principles of non-intervention and, dare I say, isolationism, and for the fact that I still have the right to speak out against it when I deem it necessary.

Of those, one (at least partially) remains. When it is totally gone, there will be nothing left of America as far as I'm concerned.

Take the Time to Re-Read

The idea came to me recently to read through certain points of the United States Constitution, particularly as it pertains to treaties that the United States has entered into, and their implications in law. This was, of course, in an attempt to refute certain concepts of international law on the basis of their Constitutionality, but it would seem that I may have to revise my earlier understanding.

I found several mentions of treaties in the document, but three stood out. I have truncated them for brevity (within reason), but I believe the meaning of the text is undamaged:

• Article 2, Section 2:
  “The President shall... ...have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...”

• Article 3, Section 2:
  “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”

• Article 6:
  This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The preceding segments plainly state that treaties entered into via the Constitutionally defined process are, in fact, equal to the Constitution for the purposes of the judiciary process. While I think this is dangerous, it is stated in the document twice.

Bear in mind that the Constitution does defend itself, but the text does not specifically declare that treaties cannot be held above it in such conflicts – only “laws” of “any state.” Even if we mean to define the word “State” to include foreign “States,” treaties and laws aren't the same thing. This certainly brings into question the original founders' meaning, but I'm stuck on a logical failure in that I don't feel like we can be truly certain of what they meant at the time – the only thing we have to go on is what the text of the document literally reads.

The above supports the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) that declared that the Geneva Conventions had to apply to “enemy combatants,” which to me really means foreign terrorists. I argued at the time that the Supreme Court had no business even ruling on the basis of the Geneva Conventions, and it would seem that I was probably in error in that.

Frustrating, but inevitable from time to time.

So our own Constitution, when relating to treaties with other nations, is on parity with authorities granted by those treaties, effectively forcing me to re-evaluate the entire relationship with the United Nations. I don't have to like the U.N., mind you, but I feel compelled to try to understand the organization a little better.

So here is what I intend to do: I've selected a few key documents that I intend to read (some of which I have read before, but I feel like I should read again in this context) and I will try to expand my understanding of them. I'm sure I'll come across other materials to read, at which point I'll surely share them if they are relevent.

Key Documents of Interest:

• The Constitution of the United States
  http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
• The Charter of the United Nations
  http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml
• Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_the_Permanent_Court_of_International_Justice
  (Considered an “integral part” of the U.N. Charter, but for some reason not included in the Charter's actual text).
• Text of the Geneva Conventions:
  http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView

I don't have to like the concept of our sovereignty being subject to international interests, but if I'm going to argue against the current way of the world, I might as well find ways to do so within the context of it rather than trying to argue it away entirely – because it won't be changing anytime soon. Call it the New World Order, or blame the Freemasons, or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that the system that exists today will be built on more and more over the coming years until it either cannot be sustained economically or is destroyed through war.

I wish I believed that human-kind was smarter than that, but I truly don't.

Respected in Death but Supposedly Shunned in Life?

I have just a quick flame to extinguish tonight. I have read a little about the fact that Osama bin Laden (however the hell it is spelled) was killed and apparently buried at sea. What the hell is “buried at sea” anyway? But more importantly, and somewhat humorously, was the reason given for having done so: “Osama bin Laden was buried at sea from the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier because there was no alternative to bury him on land within the 24 hours required by Islamic law”

What business does the U.S. government have concerning itself with Islamic burial rites, or burial rites in general? What is most critical here is asserting the sovereignty of the United States.

I'm not suggesting that we should have “wrapped him in bacon” or some other such nonsense (as I heard more than once at work today), but I think Muslims, especially those who claim that Osama bin Laden did not speak for them, should be outraged at the simplest thought of venerating the man as if he were a righteous individual.

No, I think that it would be warranted that he be disgraced, especially by the religion with which he claimed to affiliate. A religion he sullied irreparably by that affiliation in the eyes of many Americans.

I'm not going to sugar coat this. Seeing Muslims openly shun Osama bin Laden in his death would have gone a long way towards helping Americans see just how much they supposedly shunned his actions in life. Instead, no such reparation shall be made, and Americans will simply see this as another reason to hate Muslims and those who they think support them.

I'm glad Osama is dead (it is not often I can say that), but, now that I've had the chance to think about it a bit, I do not think anything good will come of it. The cycle of anger and hatred will continue unabated, and this unfortunate fact will lead to more lives lost on both “sides” of this nonsensical conflict.

Oh, My Debt Ceiling!

All this talk about the Federal Debt Ceiling has me thinking a bit. What is the debt ceiling? In effect, it operates as the Federal Government's maximum line of credit, much like a credit card, except that Congress can increase their credit limit any time it wants to.

First and foremost, the debt ceiling that has been in the news so often really has nothing to do with the total unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government, like social security, medicare, and medicaid benefits over the next 30 years, so it is a little misleading. All of those future expenditures will require further increasing the debt ceiling, massively increasing taxes, or insane cuts to future so-called “services.”

Secondly, the debt ceiling has been increased 74 times since 1962, and I don't particularly doubt that they'll raise it again. The past tends to be an excellent predictor of the future, and the alternative is random debt defaults by the Federal Government, which would surely have damaging effects on the economy.

In any event, I can do a little fuzzy math myself, but my scenario still looks reasonable (at least in my opinion.

Hickersonia's current debt ceiling: $1,905. This is approximately 4.6% of our income for 2010, and isn't really “debt” in the classic sense. We don't owe this amount to a bank and pay it back to an account I have set up as the result of a “loan” from my wife's parents that, for whatever reason, they have been reluctant to let us repay.

So, in effect, any time that account has less than $1,905 in it, I treat it as a debt that needs to be repaid.

Right now, Hickersonia's “national debt” is $864.13, factoring out medical debts. What is this debt the result of? Vehicle maintenance. Figures, huh?

In comparison, the Federal Government's debt is currently in the realm of 14 trillion. Actual revenue, on the other hand: 2.16 trillion. How any entity can survive with debts that are around 7 times the value of their income, I will never know, but I sure can't operate that way.

As a little aside, I wanted to post the following YouTube links. They are each part of a five-video series titled “Money as Debt.” While I'm not sure I agree with every conclusion the author comes to near the end, I do believe that the basic concepts of our financial system are well represented, which should really infuriate anyone who has so much as half a brain.

Money as Debt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sanOXoWl0kc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTv1fo6sKmo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qicabStQkc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kpSbkaD4tM

And now I'm off -- to go make some of that money. Ha!

If the Federal Government Shuts Down...

In the even that the Federal Government gets “shut down” by the lack of a budget bill, what will we miss out on?

Schools and colleges will still be open to “educate” us.

Utility companies will continue to provide electricity, water, and trash collection services. Even your cable TV will be unaffected.

The internet will remain online. Your precious porn will not suddenly disappear, nor will you be unable to Tweet to your friends about it.

Hospitals will not start refusing new patients. ER's will not suddenly become overcrowded (no more so than they are now, anyway), overwhelming medical services across the nation.

Banking institutions will continue to handle your credit card transactions and loan applications.

Even unemployment benefits will continue unabated, as these, while mandated by the fed, are paid for by state governments.

I understand that the unfortunate fact is that there ARE things that will indeed be affected by a so-called government shut down, and some of these services are critical to the lives of certain Americans. I'm just trying to quickly illustrate that a great deal of the services we have come to expect have nothing to do with the federal government, and I have a feeling that most Americans could live without them. Maybe that is why there is so much publicity about this – Congress is afraid that we'll realize we don't need them if they disappear for a while?

Hmm... I wonder if congresspeople, and/or the President, still get paid if this “shut down” happens...

Federal Regulations on... Bake Sales?

Alright folks, my wife brought my attention to an article that I want to make sure gets noticed by as many people as possible:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/nation-world-news/hold-the-brownies-bill-could-limit-bake-sales-1020132.html

So, let me get this straight... there are “public health” organizations that believe that the items commonly available at fundraisers such as Bake Sales (among others) are “bad for us, mkay?” Alright, I'll bite – sure, I can't argue for any nutritional benefit to most such foodstuffs, but how does that become an issue for the Federal Government? Why does some random organization, no matter how well financed or intelligent it's members may be, have the right to forcibly interfere with my food choices?

From what language in the Constitution does the Federal Government derive the power to write any such legislation at all? If someone says the “Commerce Clause,” it serves only to illustrate just how ridiculous interpretations of the Constitution have gotten.

If a particular school district wants to enact health rules on fundraisers, by all means, let them, but tell the Fed that their help is neither needed nor desired.

Continued Appeasement of Dictators

Once again, North Korea has committed itself to reprehensible acts and the world is standing around like “wow, I cannna believe they done did that thar.”

I think one thing that we as a species should have figured out by now is that a bully, when left unchecked, will continued to be a bully, especially if he thinks he has a bigger stick with which to beat you. The North Korean regime continues to be a thorn in the side of the so-called “free world,” and after repeated acts of war it would seem that pretty much everyone is content to just let him carry on about his business of murder.

I hate the thought of committing the country to another war, and I do believe that, as it stands right now, we're clearly over our heads financially and probably cannot afford it, but that doesn't seem to be stopping Congress from spending on so many other programs and entitlements... so why not? Things like this are a major reason behind my opinion that a national health care system is unaffordable – it isn't simply that it will increase taxes (which it likely will), but that we need to use the money more on matters of being prepared for crazy people like Kim Jong-il to do evil things... or else we have to keep letting such people do those evil things with impunity.

Also, for the record, it shouldn't always be the United States that is compelled to “do something” about these people. To the rest of the world: What the hell is wrong with you people? Why won't anyone else do something about this bastard? We're kinda busy right now, could someone else stand up and take some of the work off our hands for a change? South Korea only puts up with it because the North does indeed seem to have a bigger stick than they do, and we (nor anyone else) is willing to support them fully.

The world really is a crappy place... if only it were so easy that we didn't have to make choices between letting evil people reign terror on others or putting people in harm's way to stop them.

Related Articles:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/23/skorea-nkorea-fires-artillery-island/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/23/nkorea.skorea.military.fire/index.html?hpt=T1