How Warm Is It?

Column for week of December 2, 2013

THOUGHTS, RAMBLINGS and OBSERVATIONS

by

Albert D. McCallum

How Warm Is It?

      The man made global warming enthusiasts live in difficult times. Real temperatures refuse to cooperate with the predictions made with computer models. This shouldn't surprise anyone. Computer models are, and always will be, useless for proving any theory.

     A computer models tells the programmer exactly what he tells it to tell. The basic rule is still “Garbage in, garbage out.” Program the computer to find that your birthday is on Christmas one year and the Fourth of July the next. That is the answer it will give you every time.

     Program the computer to predict temperatures based on increased carbon dioxide causing global warming. The computer will dutifully predict increased temperatures based on the size of the increase in carbon dioxide. Of course, the computer has no more control over real temperatures than it does over the date of your birthday.

     Some of the attempts to explain why temperatures aren't obeying the predictions are humorous. One claim is that the world is rapidly warming. The problem is that it is warming only in those places where there are no thermometers. Does this mean we can prevent global warming by putting thermometers everywhere?

     We are at the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle. To the surprise of some, sunspot activity is the lowest it has been at the peak of a cycle in one hundred years.

     This isn't a surprise to everyone. Five years or so ago I read a prediction that we were headed into a 30 years period of low sunspot activity. The scientist who made the prediction had studied hundreds of years of sunspot data. He had also discovered that world temperatures follow the sunspots. Lower sunspot activity is accompanied by lower temperatures. Based on this he also predicted that the 30 years of low sunspot activity would be cooler.

     None of this is enough to prove that sunspots control the temperature of the world. The odds are great that sunspots are more likely to influence temperatures than are computer models. The fact that the computer models have been consistently and substantially wrong gives more reasons to put your money on the sunspots.

     The so-called scientists who scream about global warming seem to be part of the same crowd that warned that we were experiencing soon to be disastrous global cooling during the 1970s. Having twice tripped on their own predictions, they now prefer to warn about climate change.

      It is all but certain they are riding a winner this time. The one thing certain about climate is that it has endlessly changed for so long as we have any records of climate. Cores from glaciers and from ocean sediments show thousands of years of change. What are the chances that the climate will suddenly stop changing?

      Past changes have gone back and forth, hot and cold, wet and dry. Today's climate change mongers want us to believe that the changes will all be endlessly for the worse. How would they scare anyone into providing endless grants for research by admitting that climate change might be a good thing? The even bigger scare game is to frighten people into accepting draconian government control of their lives in the name of saving us from the climate change bogeyman.

      I don't have space to cover the details of temperature change for the 150 years since temperatures began recovering from the Little Ice Age. Check the record and you will find three periods of warming, all followed by cooling. Also, there is no correlation between warming and increased carbon dioxide. Most of the warming occurred before there was a major increase in carbon dioxide.

      We should look to real climate scientists, not to politicians and talking heads with agendas, for the truth about climate. The people who have so far been nothing but wrong aren't good candidates to be our guides to the future. For information on climate, checkout climatedepot.com

aldmccallum@gmail.com

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2013

Albert D. McCallum

The Dominant Weapon

Column for week of November 25, 2013

THOUGHTS, RAMBLINGS and OBSERVATIONS

by

Albert D. McCallum

       Someone noted “Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.” Those who passionately demand the elimination of firearms should take heed.

      What might a world without firearms be like? Firearms weren't invented until a few hundred years ago. In terms of human existence that is day before yesterday. History might offer a few clues about what life without firearms would be like.

      Before firearms the dominant weapon was the sword. Skilled swordsmen trained and practiced for years. They had to endlessly polish their skills to stay at the top of their game. Clubs also served as weapons.

      In the world of muscle powered weapons, physical strength dominated. It was the world of the thug. Physically weaker people had to rely on the strong for safety and survival. Many lived in the confinement of walled cities and castles.

      Firearms weren't just another new weapon. They were a new kind of weapon. Firearms harnessed the power of chemical reactions to replace muscle power. Early firearms were cumbersome and required some strength to use. Lighter, simpler firearms followed.

      In the world of firearms anyone who who can lift the weapon and pull the trigger commands as much defensive power as the strongest thug. A 90 pound old woman can bring down a 250 pound muscled thug.

      There is a reason why firearms are called “equalizers.” Firearms are perhaps the most egalitarian invention in the history of the human race.

      The leveling effect of firearms, and the gunpowder that powered them, may well have been indispensable to creating the environment that made the industrial revolution possible. A few powerful men in castles could no longer dominate. The security of the castle was destroyed.

      We can't shape the world to fit any fantasy we might dream. We must accept one of the available options dictated by reality.

      Part of that reality is that some people, probably many, are willing and eager to use force to exploit and abuse others. Such individuals will use any available means to injure and kill those who stand in their way. They will use the most effective weapons available. Likewise the victims will use the most effective weapons available for defense.

      When the Japanese made possession of a sword too dangerous to risk, the disarmed people invented marshal arts to defend themselves with hands, feet and common tools. There will always be a superior weapon. The only question is, What will it be?

      Another lesson from the Japanese is that the oppressors who banned others from having swords kept their own swords. Force and violence are the tools of oppressors. History tells us, if we listen, that those who dominate in the realm of force and violence always end up being oppressors, no matter how they started. This is the lesson of George Orwell's “Animal Farm.”

      History is a bit sneaky. It only whispers its lessons until it runs out of patience. Then it swings the club. Those who weren't listening to the whispers are always surprised and shocked, and often dead.

Fantasizing about a world without firearms is a fool's dream. Those who ban an effective weapon always keep that weapon for themselves. While ranting about gun control, nonmilitary agencies of the US government are stockpiling ammunition.

      Let's assume for a moment that firearms can be eliminated. What would life be like in that world for the weak and down trodden? Will the victims of thuggery be better off facing the thugs sword to sword, or knife to knife than gun to gun? Could it be that equalizers aren't such a bad thing?

aldmccallum@gmail.com

                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *

Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

It Isn't Insurance

THOUGHTS, RAMBLINGS and OBSERVATIONS

by

Albert D. McCallum

    Calling a dog a cat doesn't change the dog. Calling a wealth redistribution scheme insurance doesn't change the scheme one bit. Calling the foundation of Obama care “insurance exchanges” doesn't convert the product they are selling into insurance. The only exchange is exchanging what is left of real medical insurance for a government wealth redistribution scheme,

    Real insurance is a device for the sharing of risks. Suppose that statistics show that 10 people in a group of 1,000 will die within one year. No one knows which 10. If each of the 1,000 pays $100 into a pool, the beneficiaries designated by each of the 10 deceased can receive $10,000.

    If it was known in advance which ones would die insurance would be impossible. Only the ones who were going to die would buy the insurance.

    The essence of Obama care is to coerce young, healthy people to pay far more than real insurance would cost in a free market. That money will be used to pay overhead and medical benefit to the unhealthy, mostly older, individuals. This is just one more scheme to force young workers trying to raise families to give money to the oldest, and wealthiest, generation.

    Forcing insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions isn't insurance either. There isn't an unknown risk to spread among people who will never suffer the loss.

    How would fire insurance work if the owner could wait until the fire started to buy insurance? It is impossible to insure against a 100 percent certain risk. Obama care doesn't provide insurance for preexisting conditions. It forces someone else to pay for the conditions.

    Another scam is forcing every policy to cover what the politicians want covered instead of what the insured wants covered. Forcing the insured to have unwanted coverage also forces the insured to pay for the coverage. The added bells and whistles may cost so much that seeker of insurance won't be able to buy any “insurance.”

    The political success of Obama care depends on convincing the majority of voters that someone else is paying for the coverage. Then it doesn't matter how mad those forced to pay may be.

    If young, healthy people refuse to sign up, Obama care will crash and burn with a deficit that will make the city of Detroit and the US Postal Service look prosperous.

    I suspect that Obama care was designed to fail. Then blame private insurance for the government's failure. Politicians will play this into an excuse for forcing everyone into a government run and rationed system where individuals have no voice in the treatment they receive. This is what government has wanted from day one.

    Remember the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules, even if he stole the gold. The rationing that has already begun will grow slowly at first each time the government starts running out of other people's money.

    Based on what is happening now, both here and in other countries, smokers, obese and the elderly will be among the first to be told to go home, suffer and die. It is impossible to provide all the medical treatment and tests that individuals would demand if they didn't have to pay anything.

    Thus, rationing is inevitable. As the waste and inefficiency inevitably grows, so will the rationing. Obama care isn't about providing affordable medical insurance. It is about ending medical insurance and individual choice in medical treatment.

    The politicians and bureaucrats want to control every dollar and every aspect of everyone's life. For them Obama care is a dream come true. Obama care is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In other words, Obama ripped a page out of Karl Marx's play book.

aldmccallum@gmail.com

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2013

Albert D. McCallum

The First Law of Wages

The physical world is governed by many laws of nature. We ignore those laws at our peril. some laws of nature are difficult to ignore. The penalty for ignoring the law of gravity is usually immediate and often severe.

An individual may be exposed to lethal radiation for months, or even years, and not notice any consequences. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences. Consuming small amounts of arsenic may for a while seem to improve health. Then it kills.

Many laws of economics are as ridged and demanding as the laws of the physical world. Some of the laws of economics are merely extensions of the laws of the physical world. One of these basic laws of economic laws is, we can't consume that which hasn't been produced.

The first law of wages is a corollary of not being able to consume that which isn't produced. Total wages can never exceed total production. The use of money obscures this law.

Consider a barter economy where people trade things for other things. Employees are paid with some of what they produce. Part of what the employee produces is used to pay those who produce tools, supplies, etc. for the employee to use. It should be obvious that the total wages paid to the people producing axes can't exceed the total axes produced.

Using money to pay the employees doesn't change reality. Money is only a medium of exchange. The money will buy no more axes than were produced. Printing new money and doubling the employee's wages doesn't make any more axes. If the employee uses his increased wages to buy more axes, or anything else, someone somewhere must settle for less. Printing new money to pay the ax maker is the same as taking some of the axes used to pay other suppliers and giving them to the ax makers.

A frustrated bowler threw his ball out the window of the car onto the road. The ball bounced, hit the windshield of another car, and killed a passenger. As far as gravity was concerned the bowler suffered no consequences from his ignoring the laws of physics. The victim paid the price.

Like the law of gravity, the first law of wages can be ignored, but not violated. Someone will suffer the consequences.

Still, for ages politicians, often at the urging of voters, have ignored the first law of wages. The politicians are rewarded by getting reelected. Some of the voters temporarily benefit from higher pay.

The first law of wages dictates that someone must pay. Often that someone doesn't even realize he paid the bill for someone else's higher wages. Some pay through lower wages or higher prices. Others pay by being unemployed. Some pay through higher taxes. However the payment is disguised, someone always pays the full cost of all artificial wage increases engineered by politicians. The first law of wages forces someone to pay.

Any subsidy to get a business to produce in a way other than the most efficient one hurts someone through either lower pay, higher prices, or higher taxes. This includes all subsidies paid to lure businesses to a particular location, or to induce then to make a product they couldn't otherwise afford to make. The list includes subsidies to makers of movies, windmills, ethanol, electric cars and biofuels. The subsidies result in some workers being paid more than the value of what thy produce. The only question is, Who is paid less?

Union wage increases and minimum wage laws along with restrictions on imports and other government interference with free trade all prompt the first law of wages to force someone to pay. Pursuant to the law of supply and demand artificially high wages always increase unemployment. One of the dumbest things politicians do is increase minimum wages during a recession. Inevitably when anyone gets higher pay without increased production, someone, somewhere gets lower pay, or no pay.

aldmccallum@gmail.com

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2013

Albert D. McCallum

What About the “S” Word?

    For as long as I can remember it was common practice for writers to leave some of the letters out of certain words. This never made much sense to me. If the reader couldn't guess the word from the clue letters, What was the point in including any part of the word? If the reader could guess the word, What did leaving out a few letters accomplish? Are letters so expensive that writers must economize? Are dashes cheaper than letters?

    The next step was chopping off everything except the first letter. Certain words came to be known by their initials. Again, what does this accomplish other than saving letters? For one finger texters this may be important. How much benefit is it to anyone else? If the word is annoying or offensive to someone, Does calling it another name make it smell more like a rose?

    Why do people find one word bothersome while accepting another that means the same thing? It must be the sound that bothers them. Why do some condition their minds to react to some sounds the way they do to finger nails squeaking on a blackboard. Yes, I am so old I actually remember black blackboards.

    Nevertheless, the custom is well entrenched. If you can't lick them, join them. If other people can cut the tails off from words they find annoying, I should have the same right.

    There is one four letter “S” word I find irritating and annoying, especially this time of year. Even in July I am irritated by a mere picture of a mountain covered with S. For my peace of mind everyone must forever cease speaking the cursed “S” word.

    The “W” word that the “S” word commonly hangs out with needs to go too. Another “W” word often used as a prefix to “Christmas” is also skating of rather thin ice. The “I” word isn't my favorite either.

    If some can ban words, everyone should have the same right. Perhaps we should limit banning to one word per customer.

    Some may have noticed that there are many more people than words. They may also have noticed that every imaginable word can be offensive to someone. I recall reading about a man who shot his girlfriend three times because she threatened to say “New Jersey.” Yes, “New Jersey” is two words. Perhaps that makes it twice as offensive. The man was supposedly equally offended by Wisconsin, which is all one word.

    After everyone exercises their right to reduce one word to its first letter most likely all we will have left is first letters. T S M F I C. For those who failed to decipher the last sentence, it was “This should make for interesting conversations. What else could it possibly have been?

    Obviously we will need more letters, one for every word. With all of those letters, no one will ever again have to worry about being asked to recite the alphabet.

    A different letter for every word isn't a revolutionary new idea. It is pretty much what the Chinese do now. If we don't quit reducing words to one letter we are all going to have to learn to speak Chinese. Is catering to people who choose to be upset by certain sounds worth the price of having to learn Chinese?

    I'm willing to sacrifice the right to reduce the “S” word to one letter when everyone else is ready to give up truncation of words.

aldmccallum@gmail.com

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2013

Albert D. McCallum

How to Prevent Bad Laws

 Our society is obsessed with voting and passing laws.  Supposedly voting 
magically makes everything alright.  Whatever the majority wants, everyone 
else must live with.  This is garbage.  How would you like to have to eat the 
one and only breakfast approved by a majority?
 
 Having that one and only majority mandated breakfast, served only at the 
majority mandated time, would lead to endless strife over what to eat and when 
to eat.  It would also generate a black market in other kinds of breakfasts.
 
 A law is an order.  Those passing and enforcing the law say “Do it our 
way, or we will hurt you.”  A law not backed by force and threats of force 
isn't a law, it is a joke.  We can't change the violent nature of laws.  We 
can make it more difficult for lawmakers to invoke the use of force to control 
others.

 Why should a mere 51 percent be allowed to resort to the use of force 
against 49 percent?  Sometimes the use of force is justified.  Murders should 
be forced to stop.  Does anyone believe murder would be legal merely because 
we required a two-thirds majority to pass laws?

 Why shouldn't we require at least a two-thirds majority to pass any law?  
Why shouldn't those who want to resort to the use of force and threats have to 
convince at least two-thirds that such use of force is justified?

 Requiring super majority approval to repeal a law would be a disaster.  We 
need to make it easier to repeal bad laws.  Let the opponents of a law 
petition for reconsideration of any law.  If on reconsideration the law fails 
to gain super majority approval it would cease to be a law.

 This will not end all exploitive and abusive laws.  It will drastically 
cull the herd.  Few laws beyond basic laws against force and violence such as 
murder, robbery, arson, rape, etc. ever had two-thirds support.  Even fewer 
still have such support.

 Consider Obama Care.  It squeaked through by a vote or two.  It never came 
close to having two-thirds support.  Obama Care would be dead and all but 
forgotten if it had needed two-thirds approval.  Even if it had passed it 
would now be repealed by failure to gain approval on reconsideration.

 Most of the special interest strife in this country is over special 
privileges granted, or sought to be granted, by laws that didn't or couldn't 
ever come close to gaining super majority support.  We would have a far more 
peaceful and less divided nation if we eliminated the possibility of a mere 
majority passing any law.

 Deprived of using the political means to exploit their neighbors, 
individuals would have to resort to the only means still available.  They 
would have to use persuasion, rewards and voluntary cooperation to pursue 
their goals.   They would no longer be able to resort to “Do it my way, or I 
will hurt you.” 

 There are only two things that should be subject to voting.  The first is 
laws against all forms of aggression where the law must be enforced with force 
and violence.  The second is matters where circumstances dictate that everyone 
must accept the same choice.  There are very few things that fall into the 
latter class.

 What to eat for breakfasts, which school to attend, and the size of soft 
drinks aren't included on the list.  People get along better and accomplish 
more when they aren't endlessly threatened with “Do it my way, or I will hurt 
you.”

 The federal government alone has enacted about 200,000 pages of “Do it may 
way, or I will hurt you.”  And, you are presumed to know, and are required to 
obey, every one of them.  Requiring at least two-thirds approval to keep these 
laws might shorten your reading list.  You do read and understand all the laws 
you are ordered to obey, don't you?

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                                                  * * * * *
                                                                   * * * *
                                                                    * * *
                                                                     * *
                                                                      *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

What Is the Price of Money?

 Prices of most everything have been going up since long before my time.  I remember $0.12 loaves of bread and quarts of milk.  Some bread cost $0.20 or a bit more.  Nickel ice cream cones and candy bars were the standard.  Big candy bars and double dip ice cream cost a whole dime.
 
Does a multi dollar loaf of bread today cost more than a $0.20 one 60 years ago?  Is certainly costs more money.  Money isn't the real measure of either cost or value.  Money is merely a tool we use to make trading easier.

 The cost of something is the human effort used to make it.  Its value is determined by it usefulness to the person using it.  It requires less time to make a loaf of bread today than it did 60 years ago.  The real cost of bread today is less than it was when bread sold for little more than a dime.  The usefulness of bread hasn't changed much over the past 60 years.

 Labor also costs much more today.  I remember working for less than a dollar an hour.  In my first job as an engineer my pay was a bit less than $3.00 per hour.  Most college graduates started for less.  I lived very well on $3.00 per hour.

 When the real cost of making just about everything is less than it used to be, Why do we pay so much more?  The simple answer is, money is cheaper.  It is common practice to state prices in dollars.  It is unusual to hear someone say “A dollar costs a loaf to bread.”

 In a barter economy two people might exchange a dozen eggs for a loaf of bread.  The eggs cost a loaf of bread.  The bread costs a dozen eggs.  Likewise, if the price of a loaf of bread is one dollar, the price of one dollar is the loaf of bread.

 The price of bread hasn't gone up.  The price of money has gone down.  Sixty years ago a loaf of bread would buy the grocer $0.15 or so.  Today dollars are so cheap the grocer can buy two, three or more dollars with a single loaf of bread.

 Why are dollars now so cheap?  Money is useful only for buying things.  The supply of money has increased far faster than the supply of things to buy with the money.  The only use for that surplus money is to bid up the prices.  Otherwise, the surplus money has to remain unspent.  It is most unlikely that people with money will refuse to spend it merely because spending it requires them to bid up the prices.

 Where does all the new money come from?  Probably most are aware that  government can print all the money it wants to.  That is only one tenth of the story.  Once that money is deposited in a bank, that bank can create $9.00 of credit money for every dollar deposited.   That is the “magic” of 10 percent, fractional reserve banking.

 It is beyond available space to explain how banks get away with loaning out the same dollar nine times.   The government controlled banking system does make it possible, for a while at least.

 Whether the money supply is such that bread cost $0.20, $2.00 or even $200.00 doesn't matter.  What matters is changes in the money supply.  Changes in the money supply change prices and disrupt the economy in many ways.

 Money created out of thin air by banks can quickly evaporate back into thin air causing great economic disruption and triggering recessions.  As long a we have the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banks creating money out of thin air, we will never have a stable economy.  Try as it might government is incapable of preventing fluctuations in the money supply from reeking economic havoc.

 Our ever increasing money supply causes far more serious problems than having to adjust to ever increasing prices.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                          * * * * *
                           * * * *
                            * * *
                             * *
                              *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum