San Diego, day whatever

As often happens in life, and one comes to expect the unexpected, or should, after 50 years of life on this planet, things didn't quite go as planned with the Glock 20 rental. After arriving at the place and looking for the Glock 20 they said was for rent on their website but not finding it in the case, I asked one of the guys behind the counter. He said they used to have a Glock 20 for rent, but they had trouble getting ammunition for it, so they stopped renting it. That sounded a bit bogus to me--why not just keep it on hand until more ammo showed up?-- but I took it in stride. Although they had quite a few other guns for rent, including AR15s, I wasn't really interested, so I left. That was on Monday.

On Tuesday, the family went to Legoland. If you've never been to Legoland, please don't bother. Tickets for adults were $67 each and a kid's ticket was $57. Now, the prices might have been easier to swallow IF the park had something worth seeing, but it didn't, unless you count sculptures made out of Lego parts as worth paying to view. The rides, such as they were, could only possibly appeal to children under the age of 10, and that's being generous.

Man, I feel a dull ache in my nether region.

Today, it's off to Sea World; I feel another drubbing to my wallet coming, but at least Sea World has the potential, from what I've seen, to come close to justifying its ticket price.

Take care.
DAL357

Uh oh!

Call me cynical, but the first thought that muscled its way to the front of the line in my mind wasn't, "How sad that people died and had property destroyed in this storm." No, it was, "I wonder how much money this is going to cost the USA?" Heck, I don't even know if the US government will be sending "aid," a euphemism for tax dollars, but I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if it didn't.

Isn't it awful that a human being can't feel at least a bit of compassion for a disaster without thinking about how much he'll be fleeced for it? But that's the kind of reaction the US government has wrought with its innumerable instances of largess to folks who should be their own government's concern. Thanks, FedGov, for making me so callous.

By the way, notice the term "global warming" used below--this must have been a slip-up. I thought the new term for this is "climate change," since global warming now may or may not be happening. But since adopting the phrase climate change, the totalitarian-at-heart environmentalists can now have all of the bases covered no matter which way the wind blows, or at what temperature. Neat, eh? Also, isn't it frugal of this "reporter" to tie two different things into one news story? By piggybacking the holy grail of the environmentalist movement, global warming/climate change, onto a tragic occurrence, the environmentalist message gets more exposure.

One other thing: the Indian government should be able to afford to help its people, with all of the programming jobs and 1-800 help number jobs that have gone there from the US, their tax base must have risen in recent years, giving them more capital to work with for such contingencies.

*****

Millions displaced by cyclone in India, Bangladesh
By Sujoy Dhar Sujoy Dhar


KOLKATA, India (Reuters) – Cyclone Aila has displaced millions of people in India and Bangladesh, only a fraction of whom have access to food and drinking water, officials said on Wednesday.

The cyclone has killed at least 210 people in the flood-prone region, though officials said the death toll could rise, and rescuers have struggled to reach millions still marooned.

Cyclone Aila hit parts of coastal Bangladesh and eastern India on Monday, triggering tidal surges and floods.

Officials say more than one million people have been displaced in India's Sundarban islands in West Bengal state alone, one of the world's biggest tiger reserves and which is already threatened by global warming.

Heavy rain triggered by the storm raised river levels and burst mud embankments in the Sundarbans delta, destroying hundreds of thousands of houses and causing widespread flooding in the eastern state, and triggered landslides.

Global warming experts say rising sea levels have seen the fragile Sundarbans lose 28 percent of its habitat in the last 40 years.

Nearly 2.3 million people have been displaced and tens of thousands have moved to government shelters in West Bengal, the aid agency Save the Children told AlertNet.

As water levels slowly recede, hundreds of thousands of families who sought refuge in shelters, schools and other buildings are now returning to find their homes either washed away or submerged in water. [Man, that's some crackerjack reporting! What else would one expect from a flood, clean floors and windows?]

*****

Take care.
DAL357

Infinite hubris coupled with economic ignorance

Does it ever end? I suppose it will someday, but for now the attitude of the current idiot administration/party in power, as opposed to the last idiot administration, seems to be "in for a penny, in for a pound." They can't wait to display the depths of their economic illiteracy to the world. Check out the following hyper-moronic plan to stimulate U.S. auto sales.

*****

Obama, lawmakers agree on "cash-for-clunkers" bill
Tue May 5, 3:49 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers reached agreement on Tuesday on a legislative proposal designed to stimulate U.S. auto sales, which have fallen to near 30-year lows.

The one-year plan crafted by members of the U.S. House of Representatives would offer vouchers worth up to $4,500 for owners to replace their less fuel efficient vehicles for models that get better gas mileage.

The goal of the "cash for clunkers" legislation is to sell 1 million vehicles.

"By stimulating consumer demand for new vehicles, this proposal will directly benefit domestic autoworkers and automotive manufacturers, which have arguably been hardest hit by the current economic downturn," said Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and staunch industry ally.

House Majority leader Steny Hoyer has embraced the proposal and said in an interview with Reuters in April that the measure would be acted upon quickly once proposed.

*****

Why only $4500 towards a new car? Why not give the things away to everyone (citizen and illegal alike) and make those factories really hum?

Truthfully, I don't really care anymore. As someone I read recently said, it's all the Democrats' baby now; they can't blame the impending fiscal ka-boom on those worms known as the Republicans, who stand for nothing except a different version of big government. In fact, I implore all idiotic ideas be not only proposed, but adopted, thereby hastening the day of reckoning.

Take care.
DAL357

Damned if you do, taxed if you don't

It seems the average person just can't win:

Motorists' habits spur call for tax increases
WASHINGTON – Motorists are driving less and buying less gasoline, which means fuel taxes aren't raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of road, bridge and transit programs.

A federal commission created by Congress to find a way to make up the growing revenue shortfall in the program that funds highway repairs and construction is talking about increasing federal gas and diesel taxes.

A roughly 50 percent increase in gasoline and diesel fuel taxes is being urged by the commission until the government devises another way for motorists to pay for using public roads.

The 15-member National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing is the second group in a year to call for increasing the current 18.4 cents a gallon federal tax on gasoline and the 24.4 cents a gallon tax on diesel. State fuel taxes vary from state to state.

Of course, this couldn't come at a better time, with the economy in a recession and being stalked by a depression that will pounce should it have a couple of wrong moves foisted upon it (like increasing taxes). Yup, more taxes in tough economic times is definitely the way to go. God forbid that services should ever be cut back to match revenues, that might give the impression that government is not, after all, omniscient and omnipotent, and we can't have that.

Actually, I wouldn't be against this tax if it is really needed to repair rotting infrastructure and, now here's the BIG IF, every penny collected would go towards its intended purpose; I believe those who drive, as opposed to those who walk as their main means of conveyance, should have to pay for the upkeep of the roads. But, having lived and learned enough about the U.S. government and the amnesia a fresh batch of money induces in it, I know this will not happen. A few token, pork barrel projects will get the green light but the overall system will continue to deteriorate and the money will somehow mysteriously vanish into black-hole government coffers.

One thing I wonder about, though, is why did this suddenly dawn upon the powers that be? The infrastructure rot they're talking about doesn't happen overnight. Why wasn't the upkeep maintained when the country was awash in illusionary wealth and guzzling gas like there was no tomorrow? Perhaps because the difference between the money collected and the pittance spent on maintenance was so vast? But with just a little more cash, the PTB assure us, things are going to be hunky dory. That's the same old song politicians and bureaucrats having been whistling for generations. They keep doing it, unfortunately, because it works. It's no wonder they have no respect for the electorate.

Take care.
DAL357

Paulson, Paulson, Paulson

"Paulson pulling more tricks to bolster US economy"

Finally, an honest headline about the parlor games and sleight of hand tricks that are being implemented to maintain the facade of never-ending growth and good times. I saved it, so here are a couple of excerpts I find particularly telling.


"With the economy showing further signs that it is headed into a steep swoon, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is pulling more tricks out of his bag to try bolster the country's battered financial sector."

"To revive the economy, President-elect Barack Obama has said a top priority will be working with Congress to enact a stimulus package with the goal of creating 2.5 million new jobs over the next two years. Analysts believe such an effort will require spending between $500 billion to $700 billion, a figure that would be on top of all the money being spent to stabilize the financial system."


Ah, the old stimulus package, as if the economy somehow just forgot to work and needs to be prodded to get back to business. You know, if it wasn't for the wisdom of governments here and abroad, concepts like an economy just couldn't exist. At least that's apparently the thinking behind the philosophy of government stimulus (aka interference). Oh, and that 2.5 million new jobs should really help alleviate the pain of the 10 million+ jobs that will be lost over the same period.

Will governments ever learn? I doubt it. It's not in their nature to let markets operate independently, only insuring that force or fraud are not present (something they haven't been doing, which is part of the reason we're in our present pickle). If they did that, people would soon see that very little government is needed to live a full, productive life, and where is the advantage for politicians and bureaucrats in that?

The only way the US government will stop (temporarily, at least) is when it has so thoroughly bankrupted and discredited our economy and, by extension, itself, that it has absolutely no more credibility with anyone anywhere in the world, much less its own citizens. Will our present crisis lead to that apocryphal event? I do not know, but it looks to be a good start.

Good luck in the future. I'm not going to let this stuff bother me because, as I've always said, "living well is the best revenge" (on your enemies). With that in mind, I believe I'll steal a few hours and head to the range to try out some new loads I made up (range report to follow, if I go).

Take care.
DAL357

Burning down the house

I know it's cynical of me to say this, but I actually hope that economic conditions continue to worsen. Why? Simply for this reason alone: Every time the fed/congress makes a move that is ineffectual in improving the US economy, which essentially means every move they make, they further expose themselves as the charlatans they are. Eventually, even the thickest US citizen will come to see that those in DC are nothing more than the equivalent of "that man behind the curtain."

*****

No one person, group, or country can evade reality forever. Reality states that consuming more than you produce is, eventually, a one-way ticket to ruin. In fact, the only possible way one can consume more than they produce is by taking it from another who has produced more than they can, or care to, consume. This is the state of our economy today. We, as a nation, are consuming more than we produce. The way we can do this is via foreign investment of around two billion bucks a day in promises to repay with future taxes. Without that daily infusion of money, we wouldn't be able to function in the way we have been conditioned to expect. Take it away and things get ugly fast. Reality will reassert itself and demand to be heard, and its message will be this: Live within your means or perish.

This does not mean that I think credit and borrowing are bad, for under the right circumstance, they are not. The right circumstance means one would use that money in a way that helps to produce more income, such as when a business buys a piece of equipment that makes them more productive. If the loaned money won't help one become more productive, it shouldn't be asked for. Borrowing should not be looked at as another income stream, as it is with the US government, and too many US citizens, today. Using borrowed money to finance consumables that produce nothing but an obligation is irresponsible, immature, and immoral.

It is impossible to get something for nothing in this universe, but that's exactly what the electorate has come to believe, and it shows via the representatives they elect and keep in office. Somewhere along the line, this something-for-nothing fantasy will answer to reality. I believe we are seeing reality's preliminary questioning of the fantasy now, with a full-blown interrogation to follow.

*****

All of the babble we are hearing today about this or that financial shenanigan is merely obfuscation for the undeniable fact that we have violated the key principle of living within our means and not spending more than we make. Until we, as a nation, face our profligate ways soberly, the kindling for the eventual fiscal meltdown will continue to pile higher and higher and make the coming conflagration more and more destructive.

Take care.
DAL357

You want real economic damage?

Here's an excerpt from the Hurricane Ike saga.

*****

Economic damage from Ike may be less than feared

By DAVID KOENIG and ELLEN SIMON, AP Business Writers
Sun Sep 14, 12:34 AM ET

A small change in Hurricane Ike's course just before it crashed into the Texas coast Saturday may have spared the state and the nation from significantly worse economic damage...

*****

Damn! Better luck next time, newshounds. I know you were hoping for catastrophic destruction and a high body count, but they didn't happen. Darn that old Mother Nature! Oh well, we still have plenty of time left in the hurricane season.

In the meantime, reporter-folk, I suggest you put at least as much effort as you did reporting on Ike into reporting on how the American taxpayer is being forced to bail out institutions that, because of stupidity and outright venality, are fiscally and morally bankrupt. Sure, it's not as fun and glamorous as tracking a storm, mainly because it takes what many of you seem to lack, a modicum of intelligence, but its economic damage will be many times what any hurricane can muster. If you really want to report on economic damage so deep and wide that it'll hamstring America for decades, you'll find it there.

Take care.
DAL357

Do you smell that?

I found this blog post too good not to share. Give it a look-see and draw your own conclusions. Not that I'm an expert in any way, shape, or form on most of what he speaks to, but I am aware enough of basic economics and life in general to detect a rotten smell.

Take care.
DAL357

Don't be a dipstick: it's supply and demand

To those woefully ignorant of basic economics, please read the excerpts of the following essay with as open a mind as you can muster. In fact, you should probably read it in its entirety.

*****

Wishful Thinking, Speculation and Oil (May 30, 2008) by Charles Hugh Smith


Everyone and their sister seems to have jumped on the "oil prices are being driven by speculation" bandwagon, but perhaps that is nothing but wishful thinking. From the very beginning of futures trading--back in the 1600s when traders in Antwerp would buy and sell contracts on the cargo coming from the East Indies--the easiest game in town has been to blame speculators for price movements.

If the price of a commodity is rising, then the villains are speculators. If the price is dropping, it's the short sellers' fault.

Speculators are active wherever and whenever speculation is allowed. It's wishful thinking to expect oil will fall from $130/barrel back to $70/barrel if only those darned speculators would leave the market alone.

Note to hand-wringing, finger-pointing pundits: those darned speculators are the market.

*

As for the "solutions" to supply:

1. The Iranians have 20 supertankers filled with oil floating around somewhere. Nice, but it's heavy crude, and the few refineries able to process it are already running flat out. Also, 20 supertankers is a drop in the bucket of global demand.

2. Deep abiotic oil is abundant. The Russian have the technology. If the Russians have the technology, why is their production declining so rapidly? Where are the pipelines from their deep wells?

3. It's all the weak dollar. Once the dollar starts rising, the bubble in oil prices will pop. Then how come oil is rising in all currencies and even when priced in gold?

4. Canada and the U.S. have nearly unlimited supplies of shale oil and tar sands. Great, but real-world production will top out at 2.5 million barrels a day, about 10% of North America's consumption, and the process uses vast quantities of natural gas.

5. If only the tree-huggers would let us drill in the Alaska Wilderness. The U.S. consumes 22 million barrels a day or 8 billion barrels a year. The Alaskan North Slope everyone talks about contains about a billion barrels--a whopping 45 days' supply for the U.S. Whoopie.

In other words--it's all wishful thinking, folks: that it's all the speculators' fault, that new supplies will magically come on line and save us--there is simply no credible evidence for either supposition. It's supply and demand. Prices are set on the margin, and as a result a shortfall of a few percent has an amazing leverage on price.

Go ahead and ban speculation, and see what happens then. Prices will not drop, they will simply become more disorderly/chaotic.

As for demand destruction--let me know when China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, Mexico et al. stop subsidizing the price of fossil fuels for their hundreds of millions of consumers.

And as for supply, let me know when global production of oil from any source exceeds 90 million barrels and day and keeps climbing as producers take advantage of the high prices.

*****

Those same people who believe this is a contrived crisis for the purposes of extracting the maximum amount of moola from the pockets of Americans often are also the ones who simultaneously detest government intervention and yet want government to do something so that they can continue living their cheap-oil lifestyle. One thing to remember is that "Big Oil" companies actually control a relatively small share of the marketplace relative to several decades ago, approx. <20%. The real players in the market are national oil companies where countries own the oil wealth: Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. They don't answer to shareholders, so they can do as they please, even if their actions contradict rational economic principles. Couple this with the apparent fact that there just isn't that much easily-pumped crude to meet demand (that's WORLDWIDE demand, not just American demand, which may see demand destruction due to a faltering economy, but there are a lot of folks in India and China who are becoming first-time car owners and each vehicle will need fuel) and you have a recipe for upward-spiraling prices. Don't look for this to change anytime soon, if ever.

Take care.
DAL357

Gun magazines (not the gun rag type)

Whew! Have you checked the prices for Glock magazines lately? I hadn't for a while, but I just checked only minutes ago and they look like they're headed for the moon, no doubt in speculation on the outcome of the presidential race (though I'm sure the Fed further cheapening the dollar hasn't helped). If you ever thought of getting another full capacity magazine for your Glock, you'd better do it ASAP.

Then again, maybe it won't be that bad. Part of me keeps thinking this is just marketing hype to raise prices. I keep hoping that the pending SCOTUS decision on the Heller case will throw a monkey wrench into the plans of the gun/magazine grabbers and it won't matter who gets into the White House because they'll be hamstrung by the high court's ruling. But only time will tell if that's mere wishful/fanciful thinking.

To paraphrase/co-opt a saying, real Americans already have their magazines. Of course, a few more couldn't hurt, could it? If you really are in need of more full-cap. magazines, be they for a Glock or any other type of firearm, you might want to at least consider springing for them soon. It's better to err on the side of caution than to cry later.

Take care.
DAL357

Free advice!

Let’s revisit some basic driving techniques for getting the best MPG from the ever-more expensive gasoline you buy.


1. Take advantage of gravity by using every hill you crest, whenever practical, to shift into neutral and coast. This assumes, of course, you have a manual transmission--it might work with an automatic, but I’m not sure.

2. Drive no faster than 60 on the highway, at least for trips of less than an hour. I know the road gets monotonous when tooling along at 60 for hours on end, but for relatively short commutes, it really helps mileage.

3. Try to keep your vehicle moving, even if it’s only a couple miles an hour, rather than coming to a complete stop at red lights. This takes a bit of practice, and it’s not always doable, but it is worth your time.

4. Slightly over inflate your tires. I keep my tires inflated to three pounds over the recommended pressure, and I check them every two weeks, although weekly wouldn’t be overkill, especially in cold weather.

5. Accelerate at a moderate pace. If you have a tachometer (I do not), I have heard it should not rise above 2000 RPM when you accelerate to get the best mileage.

6. Get a tune-up. I’ll have to admit this is one I need to do ASAP. I bought some high-performance spark plugs to be installed when I do get the tune-up; we’ll see if they were worth the extra cost.

7. Use synthetic oil, which is supposed to make for slipperier engine-part surfaces and, hence, less internal resistance. According to experts, this will translate into better mileage. I haven’t tried this one yet.

8. Change your air filter regularly. I did notice a tiny bump up in mileage when I changed my air filter.


That’s about all I can think of. If you have anything constructive to add to this list, please post it in the comments section.

Take care.
DAL357

Just another commodity

After ruminating on the subject for quite some time, I've finally reached the point of publicly disseminating my thoughts. And just what subject might that be, DAL357? The employment of illegal aliens/immigrants.

Labor is a commodity, nothing more or less. As with all commodities, its price will--or at least should--fluctuate with the supply of it and the demand for it, and in a free market, it would. A person should be free to sell or proffer his labor to any employer he likes, just as an employer should be able to accept or decline his offer. For example, perhaps an employer is offering a wage too low, in which case the prospective employee decides to look elsewhere. Perhaps the wage the job seeker wants is too high, in which case the prospective employer says no. If no one is coming to work for a company, the employer will eventually figure out that the price he is offering is too low and raise it enough to attract labor. If a job seeker can't find work at the price he demands, it may dawn upon him that the price he demands is too high and adjust it accordingly. Eventually, over time, both prospective employer/employee will reach a wage point on which they can both agree and the deal will be consummated.

The above is the way things should work in an unfettered economic market. It is a beautiful system that works extremely well, but it is wholly dependent upon both parties being free to pick and choose. Problems arise when outside (coercive) forces give either party a bit more weight than the other. The delicate dance of wages offered/accepted between employers/employees is upset when a third party dictates who must dance with whom.

That is the situation faced today by both employers and employees. Why would an employer choose to hire a person who is not in this land legally? Cost, plain and simple. Labor is one component in the production of a given product/service and if an employer can get that component at a lower cost, why would he spend more if he didn't need to? Do you routinely spend more for a product than you need to? If not, why then demand that an employer do so?

American workers, as productive as they may be, carry with them a lot of hidden costs that employers must bear (FICA/income taxes, medical benefits, the attendant bureaucracy needed to administer all of this, etc.). This is true of all labor, be it repetitive/menial or white collar. When we track it back to what is responsible for the high price of American labor, we find government mandates and regulations, of course. But that's too easy an answer to leave it there. Who is responsible for putting the government we have in place? We, the American people, are, via our insistence on wearing economic blinders, living as if life has no limits, and generally eschewing reality. (By the way, unions have done their fair share of elevating the cost of some American labor to ridiculous heights, but they have steadily lost influence over the years and are much less of a factor today, although the inflated-wage damage they've left in their wake is still with us.)

Those with a thorough understanding of libertarian principles (notice the small 'l') should not only understand, but be actually cheering the innovative ways some employers are circumventing the high cost of labor. Just like safe tax shelters/dodges, hiring off-the-book labor is another way of weakening the massive, liberty-consuming, beast government has become.

"But," you ask, "how will I make a living if there are folks willing to work for a lower wage than I?" as if it is an employer's obligation to pay you a wage that meets your needs. Perhaps you will have to adjust your spending to meet your wage. I realize that's anathema to a lot of people conditioned to believe that they're entitled to a certain level of prosperity, but that's the way it is. Who promised you a rose garden? Things change in life and you have to deal with the vagaries life throws in your path. If you want to make more money, make yourself more valuable to an employer than Jose Gonzalez by learning a skill/trade in demand and not relying on the government forcing an employer to hire you at an inflated rate merely because you were born here. Forcing an employer to hire available labor at the highest cost rather than the lowest cost is un-American.

Take care.
DAL357

The conservative function of price

With the price for a gallon of gasoline now over $3, and likely headed towards $4/gallon before too long (of course, nothing is ever for certain with commodities, at least in the short term), no doubt people who own--usually in partnership with their bank--SUVs and large pickup trucks are getting nervous. Who can blame them? There's nothing like filling up with $70+ worth of gasoline every week or two to make one start rethinking his transportation needs.

There was a time when it seemed like practically every second vehicle on the road was large and held a big engine. In my area, it still seems that way, but I think it's just due to past momentum. If what I've noticed at a small, local used car lot is any is any indication (see photo), I think the message may finally be filtering through to folks that the overall trend in gas prices is ever upward and vehicles with cavernous interiors and thirsty power plants drain too much discretionary capital. The idea of the low-mileage big vehicle was supported for years by cheap, abundant (those two words go well together in a [relatively] free market) oil, but it can now no longer support itself, at least by those without deep pockets.

What we are beginning to see today is the first manifestation of a principle in economics known as the conservative function of price. Gas prices are rising, so this catches the public's attention and more effort is made to use gas wisely. People, eventually, tend to act rationally when faced with economic choices which they cannot evade and change their behavior.

This change won't happen overnight, and my small sample of one local, independent car lot does not a national trend make, but for the purposes of this blog post, I am going to extrapolate what little information I have anyway. The photo above does not show very well all of the vehicles on the lot, but I can tell you that about 90% of them are full-size trucks and SUVs. I can also tell you that in the past the ratio was 40% large to 60% small/medium vehicles on that lot. The fact that so many large vehicles with robust energy appetites are available tells me that they are less popular than they used to be. Slowly, the smaller, fuel-efficient car is looking better and better to the average American, especially when faced with the equally distasteful choice of paying a large fuel bill or walking.

Take care.

DAL357