Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Another Idea for a Governor: Tax credit for Employing people

I think we are on the cusp of some really large layoffs. We've got employment numbers I consider fake. Things haven't been good for a while, and there's enough automation out there to know it is going to get worse.

From a business perspective, your biggest cost is labor. Your biggest headache is labor. And the government has been making this worse.

Meanwhile, all governments have been behaving badly, borrowing money, but they are either facing or are going to face a contract in their tax revenue.

What they are mostly likely to do is try and further squeeze the citizenry that they've already been mistreating.

What they should do is not only improve the regulatory landscape so that more people open up companies in their state, they should also do as much as they can to reduce or eliminate the burdens the federal government puts on employers.

1.) Create a good reason for people to choose to incorporate in your state versus others. Make it cheaper, and perhaps more protective of assets.
2.) Create a good reason for business owners to have a physical place of business. Brick and mortar stores and/or production facilities- now, I am not talking about these stupid deals governors make with big corporations, but mostly a deregulation.
3.) Especially if you are in a state where there is an income tax, the creation of another full time position means more income tax. So do the math. Give the employers a break, and you make back your money on the employees.

The key is to make the numbers work. I think there is a lot of space to make the numbers work. The machines are just functional. They are not better than good employees, but they are cheaper because they don't require all the benefits. Additionally, the businesses don't have to struggle through hiring and firing substandard employees in order to find the good ones. They don't have to worry about people trying to sue them over some imagined discrimination.

But, from your perspective as a governor in a failed state, likely about to be drowned in debt, you need a sudden influx of small business men trying to make money, and discriminating as much and as often as humanly possible. This is because they aren't discriminating against, they are discriminating for- they are trying to find the good employees, the profitable activities, etc...

And this is what you need to save your ass. You not only need your own people trying out their own wacky ideas, you need people coming in from out of state with whatever savings they have to try their wacky idea, because they can do so more easily in your state than anywhere else.

How To End the Drug War (And Win)

I watched Sicario. This was a movie about the mexican drug wars along the border. It seems like they got fascinated with realism, and then forgot about adhering to feminist doctrine. I'll say it was interesting, but I don't think it is really recommendable.

But, of course, whatever it was they meant to convey- I kept thinking, you can out compete these losers. You can provide a higher quality product, you can provide it cheaper, and you can just go directly to Columbia. Completely skip Mexico, and these armies lose their funding.

And you can do this even if you want to keep it illegal.

It is pretty simple to out compete the Mexicans. It would probably take five to ten years to suck all the energy out of them. Maybe even play the little military games hinted at in that movie- but the real killing punch is taking trade away from them.

Meanwhile, it also takes about ten years for addicts to die. Of course, some don't really do the addict thing, but imagine you've got whatever population you've got now buying the drugs. So, you have your little clandestine agency step in. Go to Columbia and buy as close to farm as possible- if you can get leaf and then process it in a better place, great. You want a better drug. You meet the market demand. With a better, safer version.

And if you are fundamentally against cocaine, well suddenly you are in a position to actually influence its use. After a few years of meeting the market demand, the Mexican supply lines have collapsed. They probably do some desperate fighting here and there, but in five or so years, you are the only place to shop for the stuff. You can reduce the supply. Turn away new customers.

On the other side, with you as the biggest buyer of the raw materials, you set the price of those raw materials. No one else is there, so you start pushing the price down until less is grown. Farmers start planting other things because they need a profit.

I am still convinced that legalizing this stuff would be the most rapid way to a good outcome. I am pretty sure that a government agency, once it found itself with this lucrative source of funds, would not shut it down, and perhaps even encourage its use. Great excuse- or perhaps valid point, I don't know- to sell it more cheaply and more widely: to help shut down meth labs. Though, you'd have to have slightly different product lines, so that the elitist snobs feel they aren't acting like rednecks.

But, even if it were a government agency- provided that this government agency were run by people smarter than the average Mexican gangster- then there would be less violence. Even in clandestine circles, mass graves will look bad on the resume. It isn't just a matter of morals, but enlightened self-interest.

Monday, May 16, 2016

Buttermilk seems to help with gut problems

I listened to Episode 1856 of Super Human Radio. Somewhere in the middle of that episode, Carl Lanore interviews Dr. Angela Zivkovic, who has done some interesting research: Lactosomes: Structural and Compositional Classification of Unique Nanometer-Sized Protein Lipid Particles of Human Milk.
It just so happened I had been trying to improve my gut health with something completely different, something oh so many people say is awesome: fiber.
In fact, two of the fibers I had found papers on- pectin and conjack root. Unfortunately, my gut doesn't read. I also tried eating small amounts of beans during that time. The whole idea here is that you need all these fibers to feed the gut biota, and some of them seem to encourage more mucin. A thicker lining of mucin should then help improve things too.

Well, ouch.

I was hurting badly enough to go straight to the health food store that I knew stocked some buttermilk. I ended up with a cultured buttermilk. It helps tremendously. It does seem to encourage my gut not to go so inflammatory. I like to drink about six ounces right before a meal.

So, suddenly buttermilk is a major part of my diet, but mysteriously- so far at least- none of the acne that I associate with milk. Additionally, despite having some sugars in it, it doesn't seem to be making me gain weight or anything. It alone is pretty filling.

I really should remember to bring some to work as well. I would like to find the root cause of whatever the hell is wrong and fix it, but in the meantime, buttermilk is doing a very fine imitation of a medicine. It is cheap and actually food as well. I may end up saving money on this deal, which is good because I probably need extra money to find competent medical care.


I noticed the buttermilk in the regular store had guar gum and a few other things in it, so it is probably important to find a local or organic brand that doesn't fool with emulsifiers.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Incompetents Cry Racism

I noticed yet another middle aged, bureaucratic woman, Elizabeth Warren, has gotten into the act of calling Trump racist. I am reminded, of course, of school. Certain outcomes, we are told are racist, but when tests show that whatever these women are doing aren't creating the outcomes they actually want, well, then we are told the tests are racist.

I supposed it doesn't occur to these women that they might actually be failing. They appear quite happy with their own assessment of their job performance.

Trump, for instance, cannot possibly be responsible for the poorer outcomes blacks had under Obama than they had under Bush. Trump wasn't in charge. Neither were any self-described racists. These women, however, do figure pretty largely at various points in the past eight years.

Now, this game seems to be taken seriously when in politics, but it would make no sense at a mechanic's shop, for instance. You could, on one side of the street, have the Pantsuit Garage, where short haired, middle age women can't keep your car on the road. Then, on the other side of the road you could have one of the nuttier types of racist- he could go on, for instance, about magical, shape-shifting Jews- but he can fix you car and keep it driving reliably.
Well, guess what? You will go to the racist guy. In many cases, you'll go- even if he is racist against you. You find somebody who actually does a good job, and you'll put up with a lot until you decide to go with someone inferior or do it yourself.

I notice a lot of these so-called concerns about Trump are concerns upper middle class women might have about a working class guy. Oh, he's crude! He called someone fat! He swears! He shouldn't treat so-and-so like that! But the working class guys get stuff done.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

I'm Hoping They Haven't Learned Their Lesson

I feel somewhat certain that there is, generally, a script, but that Trump wasn't a part of it. Some people think he is, mostly because he is doing so well and the insults from the media and the elites seem only to serve his rising popularity. However, if you back at what they said about Ron Paul, you'll see they are basically doing to Trump what they do to anyone not part of the club.

Crazy, Racist, etc... It is all there, just ratcheted up, because Trump is so far ahead. And he is far ahead because of what came before. Ron Paul, or more precisely, the grassroots campaign to get him nominated, was perceived as the threat, so the party elites did everything they could do to shut these people out. So, what they had afterwards is the facade of consolidated power with fewer people than ever willing to actually participate. This isn't just about Ron Paul losing, mind you. This is about shutting people who spent a lot of time and energy following the party rules out. Romney could have treated them well, but he didn't. From what I understand, Romney actually thought he was going to win that election, and I have yet to hear him indicate any understanding of why he didn't.

Now, the thing of it is, what they did then set things up for the Trump ascendancy. They waged a political war against grassroots candidates, and then a billionaire comes along and runs right over them, because he can avoid all the barricades they made. They had no defense.

They still have some power, money, and influence. I am hoping they use it just as badly as they did before. If they try a third party run, well, they need to weaken the two party process. They've been responsible, all these years, for colluding with the Democrats and keeping other parties out. I am hopeful that they will take the bait and trash their own system- and Mitt Romney will probably be involved, just like he was with shutting out the Ron Paul delegates.

I hope they kill the existing two party collusion, since, in their arrogance, they probably think they can put it all back together after this particular 'crisis' has passed. After all, as we have seen, 'Republican' really just means them, and their club, not anyone else.

But if they, for instance, run third party, or engage in any sort of shenanigans meant to temporarily weaken the Republican party, then they very well create conditions via which others can created meaningful and lasting change.

Monday, May 9, 2016

Abstract Liberty Versus Real, Personal Liberty

Among economic schools of thought, the Austrians appear to be the only ones that highlight what could be termed the "ripple effect" of new money into the economic system. Certain institutions benefit greatly by being closest to wherever the fed drops the next dollop of money into the pool. It takes some time for inflation to occur, and as the new money ripples through the economy, those that got it earliest benefit at the expense of those who have saved up.

It occurs to me there is a similar reality with production. The more production of various thing local to you, the more likely you will benefit. The more likely, indeed, that you yourself will produce, since there is already a readily available market of all things production oriented in a town where there is a lot of production. There will, of course, be a difference in direct benefit to yourself depending on what, in particular, is being produced.

But if nothing is being produced, you are probably looking to get the hell out.

Now, obviously, the first reason arguments against Trump based on appeals to liberty don't work is that everybody else is worse. I don't like that he thinks Snowden was a spy for some foreign government; Snowden did us a service at great cost to his personal liberty. But Cruz, Hilary, etc...- also not in the Snowden fan club.

Secondly, Trump is providing the vision of more personal liberty at the expense of abstraction versions of liberty. People intuitive understand if there is more production in their hometown, then they have more opportunities. Opportunities figure far larger in the human mind as meaningful freedom. The abstract versions of liberty work for the intellectual, and perhaps most dismally, for the paid academic, who, since they are often tenured, have conveniently forgotten the sense of stricture the rest of us tend to feel.

This is not to say arguments shouldn't be made for liberty in an abstract sense, but they should be made with some due deference to the realities people face on the ground, not to mention the realities of power. If we want anything done, permanently, then we need power, or those in power, to actually listen to us. Now, in the face of seeing someone genuinely new actually getting close to the reigns of power, shouldn't libertarians consider how they could shape their message for Trump? He doesn't see international trade as it currently exists as free trade. I don't either, since too many games are played by governments, especially ours.

Friday, May 6, 2016

The Quest For The Magical Particle Is Part Of The Collapse

From Grey Enlightenment, Logical Inconsistency of Collapse-ism:

This is one of a handful of topics where some on the ‘alt right’ may be logically inconsistent. They gaze in awe at technology, mathematics, and physics discoveries but then advocate ‘collapse-ism’. But collapse of society would grind this math and science progress to a halt. But you can’t have your collapse and get to keep your innovation too. I imagine in a collapsed society the first proprieties will be rebuilding, not abstract cerebral endeavors.

Of course, his example Is yet another "Hey guys, we are about to discover a new particle again!' story from CERN.

In this case, there need be no inconsistency. I don't know whether or not the arbiters of the alt-rightness would let me in their club, but CERN is one of the examples government funding of science gone wrong. The mythical particle hunt continues to be one of those 'sciency' things that hasn't really amounted to much- except for the billions of dollars spent and fun toys a few folks get to play with.

In other words, I expect it's a little bit like multivariant computer model scams that have brought us the never ending propaganda of 'climate change.' As I have mentioned before, there are a lot of sciency projects, which should be checked against the real world, but since it is cheaper, a lot of folks are using computer models. The signs are that people are doubling down on this, with big data. It will not turn out well.

It seems to me there used to be something smaller than CERN, and that the research from the 'less than CERN' was mostly just used to justify building CERN. They will likely not actually find the magical particle, but their research will support the idea of more funding, and a SuperCERN as soon as possible.

What Grey Enlightenment fashions as the success of the intelligent, I see a mostly the success of the clever- innovation that maximizes existing technology and an understanding of how to exploit human behavior. The geniuses, more often than not, are still marginalized. Climate is a good example- the ideological and fund raising necessities of the current regime means geniuses are going to be pushed out. I don't see too many of them lasting very long in Silicon Valley either, what with the Social Justice Warriors everywhere.

Indeed, they are very likely extremely asocial, perhaps in a cabin somewhere, extremely frustrated that they can't get anyone to listen to them. And since family formation has tanked in this country, they likely don't have their version of Mrs. Einstein to take care of them.