Just got back from North Yorkshire for a few days jollies with my family, having nearly soiled myself at several points on scarily icy and snowy country roads and, wierdly, even worse town roads once I got back in sunny Leeds.
Both evening and morning services were cancelled as a result of the weather and the scary ride onto the street my church is on so have been seeking my own salvation; here's a little:
Christian or not it is hard to deny the potency of Keith Green's music.
Sadly doing a bit of work for a friend so may be even more sporadic than useful. For now enjoy Keith.
16.2.10
My Prediction For Inflation
Have very little time these days for much of anything with all the jobbing for enough money to keep the bailiffs at bay, so I will leave you loyal readers with the following thought.
Mervyn, the Goblin kings banker, has printed ~£200Bn worth of beer vouchers in a bid to ruin our lives that little bit more before finally being ousted from No.10/first against the wall into the sluice of productive money we call our economy*; give or take a few billion this is roughly £1750Bn BVs.
Now I'm no economic expert but I can comfortably predict that once people stop listening to tinfoil hat wearing, LSE- educated economists and realise that their is more money chasing the same number of resources the producers of said resources will be able to take more BVs for their product. I would go further and predict this figure will rest around a cumulative value of 11%, you know, because that is what the increase in supply is an all (not taking into account the obvious pitfalls of UK sterling depreciation, so likely to be much higher and more painful).
Ultimately that is what inflation is; you increase the size of something beyond what it was before.
State directed inflation is not your friend; putting more BVs into existence when their is more stuff to buy maybe a reasonable time to do this (though not always) but not when it is ultimately a means of bailing out the failed policies of a cretin.
Am I the only one who sees this? Seriously?
*can anyone give me an accurate value for the total amount of sterling in existence? I always thought this would be easy to come by, you know, with money being an important regulator of trade between commodities and all. Ho hum - for anyone who wants a bit more meat on the bone check out the remarkably comprehensive and complex fiscal and monetary policy of the LPUK here. Good stuff.
Mervyn, the Goblin kings banker, has printed ~£200Bn worth of beer vouchers in a bid to ruin our lives that little bit more before finally being ousted from No.10/first against the wall into the sluice of productive money we call our economy*; give or take a few billion this is roughly £1750Bn BVs.
Now I'm no economic expert but I can comfortably predict that once people stop listening to tinfoil hat wearing, LSE- educated economists and realise that their is more money chasing the same number of resources the producers of said resources will be able to take more BVs for their product. I would go further and predict this figure will rest around a cumulative value of 11%, you know, because that is what the increase in supply is an all (not taking into account the obvious pitfalls of UK sterling depreciation, so likely to be much higher and more painful).
Ultimately that is what inflation is; you increase the size of something beyond what it was before.
State directed inflation is not your friend; putting more BVs into existence when their is more stuff to buy maybe a reasonable time to do this (though not always) but not when it is ultimately a means of bailing out the failed policies of a cretin.
Am I the only one who sees this? Seriously?
*can anyone give me an accurate value for the total amount of sterling in existence? I always thought this would be easy to come by, you know, with money being an important regulator of trade between commodities and all. Ho hum - for anyone who wants a bit more meat on the bone check out the remarkably comprehensive and complex fiscal and monetary policy of the LPUK here. Good stuff.
13.2.10
Be Glad Of What You Have
You know it could just be the bottle of wine talking but further to my earlier post i'm decided; I'm the luckiest son of a bitch alive:
Quit Complaining
Today was a fairly rude awakening; having lost my job, finding part time work at a severe drop in salary and quite simply not having enough money have been loaned the money from various family members who are themselves hard up.
This could be a post at my anger at losing my job due to the fact that my old boss's boss performance and bonus was judged on reducing costs; this could a dig at how royally Gordo has screwed this country into penury for the next 50 years and how bad it is (had a letter from the labour PPC at the net Gae today showing the "successes" they'd had for Leeds West; this included not having the forced closure of a polling station close to my home which would have meant a massive journey of 5 extra minutes. on behalf of my shoe leather I thank you).
Instead I want to bring you, heathens and Christians alike, comforting words that I was sent from UCB this morning about the futility of complaining.
We libertarians have already told you what will work in restoring this countries fortune, I will try to adopt a more positive tone from now on in which to help others see this.
The word for today:
This could be a post at my anger at losing my job due to the fact that my old boss's boss performance and bonus was judged on reducing costs; this could a dig at how royally Gordo has screwed this country into penury for the next 50 years and how bad it is (had a letter from the labour PPC at the net Gae today showing the "successes" they'd had for Leeds West; this included not having the forced closure of a polling station close to my home which would have meant a massive journey of 5 extra minutes. on behalf of my shoe leather I thank you).
Instead I want to bring you, heathens and Christians alike, comforting words that I was sent from UCB this morning about the futility of complaining.
We libertarians have already told you what will work in restoring this countries fortune, I will try to adopt a more positive tone from now on in which to help others see this.
The word for today:
13 Feb 2010
Stop Complaining and Start Gaining
Do everything without complaining... Philippians 2:14
Isn't complaining really just about words? No, it's much more than that! First, complaining hands your power over to the people and circumstances you complain about, making you feel like their victim. It diminishes your ability to think of solutions, conditions your mind negatively, and blunts your ability to receive creative ideas from God. Positive outcomes don't grow in negative soil! You can't complain and create simultaneously. 'Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring... can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs?...' (James 3:11-12 NIV). Complaints are verbal expressions of negative beliefs. They cancel positive intentions and confessions, rendering you powerless to reap the gains God offers. Complaining focuses on a past you can't change. It keeps you scavenging in yesterday's debris, searching for evidence about 'who did what' and 'when' and 'why', while your present slips fruitlessly away. Second, complaining is toxic to your relationships: '...Do you not know... a little leaven leavens the whole lump?' (1 Corinthians 5:6 NKJV). Complaining invites others to complain. Injected poison toxifies every part of the body. Subtly, your relationship, your family, your workplace, your church and your environment become polluted. Complaining polarises relationships. People who don't like stress, anxiety and negativity begin to distance themselves from you. 'The tongue has the power of life and death...' (Proverbs 18:21 NIV) - your life and death, and the life and death of others. So pray, 'Set a guard over my mouth, O Lord...' (Psalm 141:3 NIV); help me to avoid complaining.
9.2.10
I Like This Idea...
I like it a lot.
I've had to turn down several job offers from several Hull-based companies as the returns quickly diminished when I factored in the cost of travel and tax making my take-home wage significantly lower than minimum wage; but significantly reduced taxation? That alters things quite a bit.
A future consideration for LPUK policy? I don't want to live off the back of you shandy drinking southerners- I want to compete and reclaim the revolution the collectivists have eroded over the last 3 centuries.
Public spending as a percentage of GDP would obviously fall sharply, and those that depend on public spending would certainly feel the squeeze (although social welfare recipients could be given the option of staying on benefit if they relocated outside the City). But against that, Hull would attract entrepreneurs and private investment on an unprecedented scale - and with its easy European access, much of the inflow would come from overseas. There would soon be jobs for all.
I've had to turn down several job offers from several Hull-based companies as the returns quickly diminished when I factored in the cost of travel and tax making my take-home wage significantly lower than minimum wage; but significantly reduced taxation? That alters things quite a bit.
A future consideration for LPUK policy? I don't want to live off the back of you shandy drinking southerners- I want to compete and reclaim the revolution the collectivists have eroded over the last 3 centuries.
8.2.10
Rome Burning Hasn't Deterred A Dozen Neros
Listening to five live at work I hear about this story.
Seriously is there nothing better for these idiots to do?
I'm all for not attaching prisoners to the ceiling by their testicles, starving them on mouldy bread and not killing them on spurious evidence, but providing them with a right they have in many cases denied others is just silly.
Let's break this down a bit:
1. A right to something is different from a freedom from something; something as fundamental as your freedom to elect individuals to administer a particular socialised problem, so the language used by this reform group and the ECHR is wrong, illustrating their authoritarian mindset.
But...
2. Their is a core set of freedoms noone should infringe upon; failing that and someone is disenfranchised at the hands of another, that persons freedoms are forfeit.
These prisoners have forfeited their freedoms as a result of their criminals actions as per the law as it exists now; if there is a perceived disenfranchisement of prisoners in not allowing them to vote then it should lie at what NuLabour have deemed to be a crime rather than what is a crime.
And considering they've churned out one law per day since coming to power this is probably the case.
Seriously is there nothing better for these idiots to do?
I'm all for not attaching prisoners to the ceiling by their testicles, starving them on mouldy bread and not killing them on spurious evidence, but providing them with a right they have in many cases denied others is just silly.
Let's break this down a bit:
1. A right to something is different from a freedom from something; something as fundamental as your freedom to elect individuals to administer a particular socialised problem, so the language used by this reform group and the ECHR is wrong, illustrating their authoritarian mindset.
But...
2. Their is a core set of freedoms noone should infringe upon; failing that and someone is disenfranchised at the hands of another, that persons freedoms are forfeit.
These prisoners have forfeited their freedoms as a result of their criminals actions as per the law as it exists now; if there is a perceived disenfranchisement of prisoners in not allowing them to vote then it should lie at what NuLabour have deemed to be a crime rather than what is a crime.
And considering they've churned out one law per day since coming to power this is probably the case.
5.2.10
Why Regulation Is Bad From Any Perspective
Via Obnoxio comes this posting on how the MHRA hopes to crack down on the sale of nicotine containing products such as e-cigarettes and the like; Obo making the notable point that Leg-Iron's very likely to explode.
Having worked in an industry responsible for healthcare products up till very recently I've had quite a few run-in's with the MHRA- I'll post on that later more thoroughly when I've collected my thoughts on the subject (along with my views on energy that I promised Oleuanna); one thing I will say: regulation is a bad thing, but one of Maggie's lesser and more insidious enduring legacies (for which as a chemist by training she really should have known better) was for disseminating legislative powers to regulatory bodies, i.e. allowing bodies like the MHRA rule book to become self amending.
I will first be looking into putting my own views together to add to the consultation forum they have to set up (as a pretext) to curbing the sale of these products by pulling them under medicines legislation.
I don't smoke. I used to, but quit when I met my then girlfriend, now wife. Occasionally I enjoy a cigar at a poker game but having lost several smoking relatives to strokes, heart disease and sudden adult death attributable to living high on the hog I do both less so than before. My wife has lost 2 close relatives, one to lung cancer the other to (age and) the beginnings of COPD and thus swears off the vice entirely. Despite all this I will defend the right of those who do indulge to the end; I don't have to like some freedoms to support them, just know that overall outcomes will be better for it.
All that said I do have one thought about regulation; if we are so intent on socialising the costs of welfare, healthcare and (if Gordo has his way) socialcare why are we not as earnest to socialise the costs of regulation to business? Why aren't bigger businesses not paying a larger proportion to the pot based on their ability to pay?
Answers on a postcard to your MP with a quick stop at google to look up Pigou taxation and Adam Smith quotes.
Having worked in an industry responsible for healthcare products up till very recently I've had quite a few run-in's with the MHRA- I'll post on that later more thoroughly when I've collected my thoughts on the subject (along with my views on energy that I promised Oleuanna); one thing I will say: regulation is a bad thing, but one of Maggie's lesser and more insidious enduring legacies (for which as a chemist by training she really should have known better) was for disseminating legislative powers to regulatory bodies, i.e. allowing bodies like the MHRA rule book to become self amending.
I will first be looking into putting my own views together to add to the consultation forum they have to set up (as a pretext) to curbing the sale of these products by pulling them under medicines legislation.
I don't smoke. I used to, but quit when I met my then girlfriend, now wife. Occasionally I enjoy a cigar at a poker game but having lost several smoking relatives to strokes, heart disease and sudden adult death attributable to living high on the hog I do both less so than before. My wife has lost 2 close relatives, one to lung cancer the other to (age and) the beginnings of COPD and thus swears off the vice entirely. Despite all this I will defend the right of those who do indulge to the end; I don't have to like some freedoms to support them, just know that overall outcomes will be better for it.
All that said I do have one thought about regulation; if we are so intent on socialising the costs of welfare, healthcare and (if Gordo has his way) socialcare why are we not as earnest to socialise the costs of regulation to business? Why aren't bigger businesses not paying a larger proportion to the pot based on their ability to pay?
Answers on a postcard to your MP with a quick stop at google to look up Pigou taxation and Adam Smith quotes.
4.2.10
Why Is Anyone Surprised? & The Eureka Effect
Reading through my various tweets on the bus I find Mr Parker-Joseph has posted the following link to am article on how it is looking increasingly likely that GISS and NOA and their data sources have been intentionally undermining the quality of it by ignoring the detectors in colder-lying regions all over the world.
This is seen as a shock by many people- why? If there were a systematic trend bias being consciously perpetrated by one group (say the UEA/CRU hegemony) and not another it would very quickly be subjected to scrutiny, discuss and theories revised.
This leads me to the eureka effect- the moment something is discovered which represents a solution to a particular problem. In this instance the bias was introduced to exagerate the perceived change in climate to make it more dramatic. This is what is know as lying through your teeth and where the real eureka moment for the political class and pop-scientists who suckle it lies; they would have you believe the eureka is bound in their espousal of major curbs in emissions of one type of gas in a chaotic, barely understood system but that is a lie: it I'd a false eureka.
Years ago on my undergraduate studies a lecturer told us that the most important words you'll ever hear in scientific pursuit is not the one word: Eureke, for that can really only be applied to something you had a certain inkling in knowing of it's existence, but in 2 words: "that's funny..."
If climategate has taught us anything it is to be wary of anyone telling you their is any such thing as a settled science or a "consensus" on the subject, especially when it's quickly followed by a demand for your wallet.
This is seen as a shock by many people- why? If there were a systematic trend bias being consciously perpetrated by one group (say the UEA/CRU hegemony) and not another it would very quickly be subjected to scrutiny, discuss and theories revised.
This leads me to the eureka effect- the moment something is discovered which represents a solution to a particular problem. In this instance the bias was introduced to exagerate the perceived change in climate to make it more dramatic. This is what is know as lying through your teeth and where the real eureka moment for the political class and pop-scientists who suckle it lies; they would have you believe the eureka is bound in their espousal of major curbs in emissions of one type of gas in a chaotic, barely understood system but that is a lie: it I'd a false eureka.
Years ago on my undergraduate studies a lecturer told us that the most important words you'll ever hear in scientific pursuit is not the one word: Eureke, for that can really only be applied to something you had a certain inkling in knowing of it's existence, but in 2 words: "that's funny..."
If climategate has taught us anything it is to be wary of anyone telling you their is any such thing as a settled science or a "consensus" on the subject, especially when it's quickly followed by a demand for your wallet.
You Can't Have It Both Ways
Having left my car in the drive for fear of crashing it on my hill (partly because it's an icy death trap, partly because I'm a coward) I read in this mornings Metro that North Yorkshire county council is planning on cranking up their council tax to pay for snow damage (no link yet but the tax payers alliance has one from a few days ago from the Northern Echo.
No.
Presuming other councils are planning similar rises I have to say that with the amount of money they are squirreling away to make up for their own inadequate pension funds and their cowtowing to central govt. diktat this is beyond the pale.
NYCC predict the cost of pothole and road repairs to be £1m; I wonder how much they've spent on climate change advisers and consultations? You know, that thing that was supposed to usher in snow free Christmas' and Winters? Here in the midst of the coldest winter since global warming beganwe find these self serving, meeley mouthed fools again demanding money for a problem they claimed, with the pride of King Cnut, that we would never see again.
Remember as sad as it is your local council is the states representative to it's people; it derives the majority of it's funding directly from central government-fleeced taxpayer money (or, as is the case with our current structural deficit, IOUs in you children and grandchildrens names).
May I humbly suggest to my North Yorkshire colleagues that prior to February 17th (the date the proposals are debates with the full council, if they can get there through the snow) that you let David Cameron's conservatives know anything less than a funding neutral transfer of funds from their global warming shibboleth to road repairs and winter protection will result in them being (r)ejected at the next (local & general) election.
Grips have got to be got; here's a start.
No.
Presuming other councils are planning similar rises I have to say that with the amount of money they are squirreling away to make up for their own inadequate pension funds and their cowtowing to central govt. diktat this is beyond the pale.
NYCC predict the cost of pothole and road repairs to be £1m; I wonder how much they've spent on climate change advisers and consultations? You know, that thing that was supposed to usher in snow free Christmas' and Winters? Here in the midst of the coldest winter since global warming beganwe find these self serving, meeley mouthed fools again demanding money for a problem they claimed, with the pride of King Cnut, that we would never see again.
Remember as sad as it is your local council is the states representative to it's people; it derives the majority of it's funding directly from central government-fleeced taxpayer money (or, as is the case with our current structural deficit, IOUs in you children and grandchildrens names).
May I humbly suggest to my North Yorkshire colleagues that prior to February 17th (the date the proposals are debates with the full council, if they can get there through the snow) that you let David Cameron's conservatives know anything less than a funding neutral transfer of funds from their global warming shibboleth to road repairs and winter protection will result in them being (r)ejected at the next (local & general) election.
Grips have got to be got; here's a start.
3.2.10
By What Right you Chinless Cretins?
Seriously what the hell? This is this man's own property and land so why is this even under discussion?
Don't be taken in by the "nothing to hide" or "legal" loophole laws mentioned here- this dilutes the ultimate issue here; this man's home build didn't infringe on anyone elses life, liberty or property, only a spurious law created to assert control over others.
If I were this guy I would lock myself in this house and tell them where they can cram their planning regulations; they can live with the indignity of having the papers tag them as the turds they are.
Don't be taken in by the "nothing to hide" or "legal" loophole laws mentioned here- this dilutes the ultimate issue here; this man's home build didn't infringe on anyone elses life, liberty or property, only a spurious law created to assert control over others.
If I were this guy I would lock myself in this house and tell them where they can cram their planning regulations; they can live with the indignity of having the papers tag them as the turds they are.
2.2.10
This Is How We Start The Fight Back
Via EU Referendum comes this piece regarding a Pajamas media piece on the WWF, an organisation with a goal so amorphous and pliable it no longer even knows what it's acronym truly stands for anymore, and how it's huge government funding has enabled it to perpetuate the global warming hysteria along whole new memetic lines, Dr North and others themselves observing how even their more hysterical rants have gone on to become citeable sources in the IPCC fourth report (google glaciergate to see examples of this and more).
What is interesting is how both pieces now term the WWF as a para-governmental organisation (PGO) rather than the more benign non-governmental organisation (NGO) they like to describe themselves as.
This highlights perhaps the biggest problem with society today and why freedom is no longer considered as an alternative; the agents and organisations responsible for charity and looking after your fellow man have been corrupted wholesale.
If LPUK want to stand as any credible alterntive this is one sure fire way of setting themselves apart from the rest: A commitment to the abolition of the PGO: no charitable body should receive any taxpayer money unless it's from the taxpayers own hand voluntarily. This would fix what is by far one of the most fundamental problems with society today - who can trust charitable organisations when the majority are hapier to dip their hand in government pockets whilst their fleecing yours?
This seems to be way LPUK is going; of everyone I've spoken to no one wants government funded charities to continue; fearless leader even set up a site to highlight the worse culprits, likely first against the wall.
I've argued that frequently the weapons adopted by the collectivists is their reframing of the arguement and, perhaps more insidiously, the language and meaning of words that enter the mainstream; from now on I'm using the PGO phrase when dealing with these quasi-state agencies from now on- the battle will be fought and won on taking back ownership of our language.
What is interesting is how both pieces now term the WWF as a para-governmental organisation (PGO) rather than the more benign non-governmental organisation (NGO) they like to describe themselves as.
This highlights perhaps the biggest problem with society today and why freedom is no longer considered as an alternative; the agents and organisations responsible for charity and looking after your fellow man have been corrupted wholesale.
If LPUK want to stand as any credible alterntive this is one sure fire way of setting themselves apart from the rest: A commitment to the abolition of the PGO: no charitable body should receive any taxpayer money unless it's from the taxpayers own hand voluntarily. This would fix what is by far one of the most fundamental problems with society today - who can trust charitable organisations when the majority are hapier to dip their hand in government pockets whilst their fleecing yours?
This seems to be way LPUK is going; of everyone I've spoken to no one wants government funded charities to continue; fearless leader even set up a site to highlight the worse culprits, likely first against the wall.
I've argued that frequently the weapons adopted by the collectivists is their reframing of the arguement and, perhaps more insidiously, the language and meaning of words that enter the mainstream; from now on I'm using the PGO phrase when dealing with these quasi-state agencies from now on- the battle will be fought and won on taking back ownership of our language.