Trains in the Orient vs. America


Posted On: Friday - August 3rd 2018 3:46PM MST
In Topics: 
  California  China  Economics  Geography

Chinese High-Speed Rail:



Note first, that Peak Stupidity gives credit where credit is due. I'm pretty impressed with the new infrastructure being built in China, as discussed here. With the 1st line coming into service not more than ~ 10 years ago, China has a network of high speed trains that have turned formerly 24 hour trips, more recently 10 hour trips, into 4-5 hour trips (all by train). Nope, I don't know the details, but some family members have taken a round trip and had nothing bad to say about it.

Some of the routes below may be just proposed and not completed



Now, to continue on with the discussion of California's $80,000,000,000 (or so) San Fran. - LA high-speed rail boondoggle project from the We all like trains post, I'd like to explain why it's really a boondoggle. Some of the discussion will be based on some good commentary on that Steve Sailer post, but with additional Peak Stupidity insight, err, OK, opinion.

Mr. Sailer himself brought up a very good point a number of times. The value of trains, as compared to air travel, is in the ability of a passenger to quickly GET ON the thing. That'd mean it starts and ends in downtowns, and lots of people live in those downtowns. You can't really go to the suburbs and exurbs where lots of Americans live, as, by definition, they are spread out. No matter how fast it can go, a fast train becomes a slow train, if it has to make lots of stops. If passengers have to take a 20 min to 1 hour car ride to the station, this particular advantage over air travel (as planes CAN'T DO THAT... kinda excepting Chicago Midway and a few others) goes away.

Downtown-to-downtown it's gotta be. That brings up the 2nd part of this point. People MUST LIVE downtown, that's lots of people to have enough to fill up these trains for long-distance travel. 100, even 50 years, ago in America, that was the case - oh, and related to that, there were lots of passenger train lines around too! Ever since the black riots of the 60's - 70's in many of the cities, and industry's relocation out of them, people have tended to live farther and farther away (white flight). The heavy use of autos and the interstate beltways may seem to be part of the reason, but I think they are an effect rather than the cause. Excepting the very big cities, NYC, Washington, FS, Chicago, LA, San Fran, Seattle, etc. most American cities don't have many people who live downtown. In many medium-sized cities, one doesn't even go downtown at night for safety reasons. Sure, there are gentrified areas, but the downtowns must have LOTS of people that make money, keep in mind, to support a long-distance rail line. Just like with airline travel, people don't travel that distance daily.

People in the discussion bring up the terrain in California, which, even on the best route (down the SF peninsula into the San Joaquin, aka central valley, and back up through the Grapevine pass into the LA basin), is tougher than that in the only place where trains in America ARE viable and reliable(?), the "Acela corridor" (named after those particular Amtrak trains). Sure, but you've got $80 BILLION to spend. What would the Chinese be able to build for that? They have rough terrain ALMOST ALL OVER that land, as discussed a bit on a post about blackberry picking. This is just a contrast, again, with China being a CAN-DO nation, while America is not at the present time. We sure were before, say, when the transcontinental railroad was built in the 1860's for cryin' out loud, albeit with some Chinese labor. Even if we were, however, the question is, is this California HS train worth being built.

Look at the map above, or some of Western Europe or Japan. There are many big cities, in which, loads of people DO live in the downtowns*. These cities are are spread out nicely in two dimensions (a bit less so in Japan, I suppose) and, most importantly they are not very far apart, compared to the American scale. It'd be something fairly easy to calculate more accurately, but right now, I can pick a number, somewhere near 250 miles, as a distance between terminals in which HS rail travel could easily beat air travel in time. The extra time spent in the air travel mode will be in the trip to/from the airports vs. walking or taking quick bus or subway rides to the big station, and taxi and approach phases of the airline flight, not involved in rail travel. Note, I'm NOT counting the egregious TSA humility and big waste of time, just due to the expectation that the HS rail will have lots of the same. If the train can keep an average of 125 mph (say, full-speed cruise at 140 mph, which is much less than the proposed CA one), that's ~ 2 hours, vs a block time of ~ 1.25 hours in an airline "short hop" like this (but from big hub to 'nother big hub, right?). The train will be a quicker trip.

Now, when you almost double the mileage, as in 400 miles for the LA-SF proposed route, the air travel time does not change much. All the extra mileage for the airplane is cruise flight time. At 450 mph, that extra 150 miles is 20 min extra for the plane, yet 1 hour more for the train (I LUV round numbers!) Let's consider a route from Los Angeles, CA to Denver, Colorado. That's 860 statute miles in a straight line, while the railway would not have a significantly shorter route than the 1,100 miles on the good roads, call it 1000 miles with some good cut-offs. It's gonna take close to 8 hours by high-speed (125 mph average) train. For the flying, we can count up a 45 minute drive, and 45 min of airport crap in LA (remember I'm not counting TSA, as I'd imagine the rail line would have that too before long), 15 min out of the airport and 45 min home in Denver (yeah, the airport is WAY outta town there!) and 15 min airplane taxi time each end with 15 extra minutes of maneuvering coming in. That's 3 1/2 hours + 2 hours of climb/cruise/descent at high speed to make 5 1/2 hours. The rail trip takes more than 50% longer than air travel, even with all the extra trouble involved in flying.

What we have in America, other than in the Washington, FS to Boston, Mass, Acela corridor, is very long stretches between big, downtown-inhabited cities. Even that corridor in the northeast does not make a network, such at the China rail map above, hence the term "corridor". All the cities are in a line.

CAN'T-DO country not-withstanding, that's why high speed rail, and passenger railroad travel in general is not an efficient mode for travel in America. We were the first in creating air travel, and it's been working damn well ever since the DC-3's were the first to make money without depending on the postal service. Before that time, we had the best passenger rail network for a country this size, of course, also. What a CAN-DO country did back 80 years ago(!) was make > 100 mph streamlined 4,000 hp, locomotives, with names like the Hiawatha**, the Commodore Vanderbilt, and the Rexall Mohawk.

8 decades-ago product of a CAN-DO country:



(That's 80 years ago - how were the Japanese and Chinese getting around back then?). Once the 707's and DC-8's came along, though, it took just over a decade for passenger-rail to get to the state glorified in song by Mr. Arlo Guthrie in that previous post. Yes, it's sad, and yes rail travel is probably more fun for most of us. You want to have things just for fun, you've got to be rich enough to pay for them.

After all that transportation discussion the reader may well be wondering, "Hey, where's the stupidity?" Oh, yeah, that's right, in California, of course. That's how I got started on this topic.




* The Chinese won't change in this respect (maybe Japanese too), as they LUV, LUV, LUV the bright lights, big city thing. The Europeans may somewhat, but with the way the immigration invasion is going there, they may also feel the need to move out of their downtowns.

** No, nobody had a reason to get buttsore about Indian names back then. What for?



No comments - Click here to start thread



Best of Steve Sailer


Posted On: Thursday - August 2nd 2018 9:46AM MST
In Topics: 
  Pundits  Race/Genetics  ctrl-left



The Peak Stupidity blog has fairly successfully morphed over the last 1/2 year or so from somewhat of a stupidity aggregator, if I may, to more of a supplier of original stupidity-eviscerating material. That's a long way of saying we are trying to write mostly our own stuff now, often still based on thoughts brought up elsewhere, vs. "hey, look what I read here", etc. Our "deliverables", per PS-Corporate, are now daily or semi-daily doses of stupidity originalism. We must under-promise and over-deliver to our Peak Stupidity "customers", you the readers. [OK, that's all the CEO will read - you can write whatever you want from here .. Ed.]

Speaking of thoughts brought up elsewhere, though, theiSteve blog, written by Mr. Steve Sailer, and hosted on unz.com (for the last 5 years(?)) is one of my personal favorites for reading for interest and for material to induce a post here or there, really quite often, in fact. This post will revert back to the point-at-an-article-and-comment-a-bit style just due to the fact that, to me, Mr. Sailer's weekly (Wednesdays) article on Takimag was about the best I've ever read by him. The reason is that he included many of his original thoughts, themes, memes (whatever ... does a meme have to look like a poster with some words on it? I dunno) all together in this one.

Therefore, I will neither comment very much on this article, nor excerpt any of it, as it is very enjoyable to read in its entirety. Here you go: A Half Century of Amnesia. The standard Sailer themes that are discussed together include:

A) The "Sailer Strategy" - this is not something that nobody else could have thought of independently, but his thoughts on the Republican Party and the white vote, from back in the contested 2000 presidential election were contrary to all of the pundits, along with the establishment GOP party hacks. I was about to explain more, but, again, read the article (this is the very 1st part).

B) "Flight from White" - due to all the animosity in the Lyin' Press and other institutions directed at white men, especially that done so blatantly in the last year or two, it behooves lots of white individuals to cling to any ethnic/racial group that they may or may not really belong to and that may or may not have been slightly aggrieved in the past. Again, read the article for a real explanation.

C) The Democrat Party "KKKcrazy Glue" - It's funny, huh? The D party is composed of lots of groups with imagined grievances against the perceived "white man's" establishment. It's always difficult for these racial/ethnic/gender-of-some-sort groups to work together as their widely varying interests cause conflict most of the time. (This is called "Intersectionality".) The only thing that can hold this coalition-of-the-agrieved together is what Mr. Sailer calls the KKKcrazy Glue, which is hatred against soley the white men. Hence the drudged-up stories of nooses and white robes and people being called names.

D) (C) brings up another theme, which is really what the title of his article is about. The "establishment" has not consisted mostly of those white men, for a long long time, and the old order has been trashed since the late 1960's, Fifty years ago. It's been all about power. The ctrl-left has had the power for most of that 5 decades, yet they act as though they are still the rebels fighting against THE MAN. I hate to tell you, you Afro-Hispanic-Transgendered nutcases, but yeah, you are THE MAN now ... somehow??



No comments - Click here to start thread



We all like trains.


Posted On: Wednesday - August 1st 2018 12:25PM MST
In Topics: 
  Music  California  Economics  Geography



I LIKE TRAINS!

I still have videos around that are named stuff like “I LIKE TRAINS”. Kids used to watch them. We have books on the old Streamliners, which used to go 90 to over 100 mph with these huge-ass steam locomotives (at first) that had the big cowling for the streamlining and bringing a whole new aesthetic look to the world. That power and speed is impressive even today.

I don’t know how any boy grows up even today NOT liking trains. I think it’s the initially very scary noise and mass, that one can get a thrill from just watching a bunch of hopper, tanker, auto-rack, lumber, and box cars pass from 20 ft away is a blast. We still stay at the crossings and get out of the car to watch.

I have ridden the Amtrak across the country coast-to-coast a few times. It’s a blast, but, hey, don’t plan that trip to meet a business schedule! It’s 3 days minimum, and you have to give the people on the other end an ETA like “in the morning” or “late-afternoon, at least before midnight” vs.” 6:25 PM”. Yes, we did play card games in the club car, not even a penny a point, as I had to teach the girl and her kid brother how to play poker to begin with.

All that said, no matter how much we LIKE trains for various reasons, you don’t spend more of the debt-living taxpayers’ money on something that everyone just LIKES. The Head fruits and Head nuts in California have been working hard to further bankrupt that former Paradise with a train, on train-tracks and all. Yea! No, not "yea", we're talking $80,000,000,000, give or take a coupla dozen billion, for a high-speed rail line from San Francisco to Los Angeles. That monetary amount to build an ~ 400 mile train line is more than the US national budget of 1958!. Steve Sailer appropriately eviscerated this boondoggle in a post a coupla days back. There are many good comments under the article, some writing from knowledge of railways, and others of California geography. I believe I'll continue on with some comparisons with train vs. air travel, along with comparisons and explanations of why HS trains worked out in Japan and China, but not here in America.

That train might get people excited about riding on it. That train might get people excited about watching it or just knowing it's there. Yes, that's why people voted for it. That money will never be recovered though. As a business that train will not pay off. Maybe that doesn't bother people. However, this country, and most people in it, are too broke for this frivolity. It’s not 1965. Hundreds of thousands of people following The Dead around in VW microbuses for the summer while selling weeds and beads was a blast for them, and was not very productive either. However, America and Americans could afford all that back then. America, Americans, and moreso California, and Californicators are in debt up to their ears, California's gonna go broke, and the only reason America won't is that the FED can keep mashing [ctrl] and [P] at the same time, making new dollars, until a dollar won't buy a gumball.

Yes, trains are cool, but in America, jet air travel put the passenger train business mostly out of business, with only Big-Gov supported Amtrak left, to carry one around for nostalgia or fear-of-flying-and-cars reasons. We can't have the stuff just for fun anymore. I will discuss in the subsequent posts the reasons for the end of the American passenger railroad era. Even almost 5 decades back, when Steve Goodman* wrote The City of New Orleans, the passenger lines, including the Illinois Central line of the song, were all but gone away.

Arlo Guthrie does a great job on this bittersweet ode to riding the railroad - he has been featured before on Peak Stupidity with his Alice's Restaurant story/song as related to the post Free Tommy

You've gotta WATCH this one - it's not just the music this time:




* I never have seen Steve Goodman sing and play, but this is the 2nd really good song he's written that I knew from other singers. Peak Stupidity featured Jimmy Buffet's Banana Republics in this post about pundit and nouveau Mexican pundit Fredrico Reed.



No comments - Click here to start thread



Western airlines bow down to China Commies' petty whims.


Posted On: Tuesday - July 31st 2018 3:02PM MST
In Topics: 
  China  Big-Biz Stupidity

"Cleared to land, United 872 Heavy, relcome to to Taipei, China"



See, just when I got done apologizing, they PULL ME BACK IN!. This one can really go under the topic of the western nations' long-term stupidity in giving up economic supremacy to the Orient. Per Financial Lyin' Press branch Bloomberg from a week back, we read that U.S. Airlines to Accept Chinese Demand on Naming Taiwan.

Taiwan, in case don't know the history, is an island 100 or so miles off the coast of E-SE China (off Fujian province) to which the Nationalist Army under Chiang Kai-Shek, along with millions of other Chinese people fled, after the Commies under Mao Zedong took over the country in the civil war ending in October of 1947. Due to the inherent differences between Communism and Capitalism, Taiwan had been way ahead economically, and, in fact was the place that kid's little toys USED TO come from. "Taiwan, R.O.C." meant "Republic Of China" as opposed to the "(some of the well-connected) People's Republic" on the huge mainland. Taipei, the capital, has flights to all over the world, per it's status as still an independent country... uh... well sort of.

Unlike the Neocons, this libertarian does not believe it is America's business, duty, or anything else, at this point in history, to spend taxpayer dollars defending Taiwan from the government of the mainland. This is NOT 1965, and we're not in the Cold War. We are also very damn broke, just as an aside! That's not my problem with the diplomatic confrontation described in the article.

I don't even care about the "losing face" part, as the Chinese government says (supposedly) private big corporations must change their route maps to reflect Big China's position as to the ownership of that island off the coast. Oh, and the article says the maps should show Taiwan in the same color as the mainland. They've got both a point to drive home and some propoganda to put out there. Now, if the US Congress demanded that Chinese airlines show the capital city here as "Washington, Federal Shithole" on all the maps and schedules ... well, that's not something I'd feel I could argue about ... but just imagine if they'd feel they had to comply. The answer would be something unreadable, both due to our hesitation to put it on a family blog like Peak Stupidity, and due to that language fucking sucks!

This is about how much the power in the world has changed. Even 10 years ago, the western airlines would have just ignored the request. Now, China says "change your maps" and American airline companies say "what color, sir?!" The article does state that the Trump administration called the request "Orwellian nonsense", and some Australian officials said similar words, but guess what? The airlines are not fighting it one bit. "Yes sir!" "Changing the maps, boss!" Since the loss of competition from the mergers of 6 major US airlines into 3 (United/Continental, American/US-Air, and Delta/Northwest) those airlines have become even more globalist in nature, especially at the top end. Additionally, all the code-sharing is big business now, so they don't want to do anything to jeopardize those deals. The US major airline executives may have less loyalty to their American customers than to the Chinese government, at this point.

Yes, the phrase "bow down" is used metaphorically in the article, kind of devious there, but made up for by ...

... one last piece of stupidity in the writing of the article itself. Here, see what's really stupid about this:
Last year, airlines made 7.95 million flights between China and the U.S., a 5.8 percent increase.
Look, here at the Peak Stupidity blog, there are more than an average share of typos, homonym-mistakes, and grammar screw-ups. Yes, we have published a few numbers based on rectal extraction. However, look at it - Does it make sense? 7.95 MILLION FLIGHTS? - get TF outta here! (No, not you, please, stay... read some more posts, here's some dumplings.). The writer must have meant revenue-miles, or total passenger-seats, something like that. It can't be 200-odd thousand flights per day. That's a number under 100, and later on, I'll try to speculate more. Come on, Bloomberg, get your act together.



No comments - Click here to start thread



The Social Security Scam, errr, Scheme(?) - Part 2


Posted On: Tuesday - July 31st 2018 11:59AM MST
In Topics: 
  History  Global Financial Stupidity  US Feral Government  The Future  Socialism/Communism

Last Wednesday, Peak Stupidity, in a quick overview, discussed the Social Security Scam. I admitted that it's not that this now-massive program was intended to be a scam from the beginnning, just a typical Socialists' stupid idea. Things change though and even honest promises from people in government mean nothing in the long run. Unfortunately, Social Security is a program that IS meant for the long run, as far as individual lifetimes go. SS has turned into an unsound (to put it nicely) financial plan, due to good and bad changes in demographics, as described in Part 1, so I'll continue on from there.

For the next few paragraphs, the reader is pretty much expected to lay his head on the desk and drool, as a student in Mr. Ben Stein's Ferris Buehler's Day Off econ class. If it helps, by all means do so. ;-}. You, if you have worked on the books a single day in your life, have a Social Security account. Yeah, that's right, this money that the Feral Gov. is forcibly extracting from you and your employer ( ~ 7% EACH party, of your income through over $100K) is said to be in your account. OK, let me stop this laughing before I can't even write ... I'm starting to drool here too.

Let's back up some. Anyone who's not completely naive will know that his money even in a simple bank account or CD is really not exactly sitting in something that people envision as an account. I.E. your 1850 bucks sitting in that checking account is not really in a cubby with your name, "P.S. Reader" written on a sticker. No, there's really no such thing as "your money" at the bank. They have enough cash to give you all of the amount your statement calls "your balance" from their general cash fund (so long as all your friends don't come the same day for theirs too!). Really, your money that is gaining you that wonderful 0.31% (but keep that minimum balance) yearly, is being lent out to people at 4 - 20% in turn - oh, one of those people might just be you! Haha, yeah, I'll have to revisit the FED-controlled interest scam along with inflation soon, as it's sure been a while ... going off the subject ... must ... try ... to get ... grip on the .... [/Econ-Prof. Kirk]

Though your money has never been in a specific place, before the late 1990's the accounting of American's forced retirement savings via the SS program, keyed to you via your NO-IT'S-NOT-AN-ID-NUMBER SS number, was kept separate from the general budget of the US Feral Government. Well beyond those later years of the BJ Clinton administration, the program still ran in the black, due to the baby-boomer bulge in paying workers, as described in Part 1. That was part of the enticement, in fact, to change things. The government continually-expanding deficits could be minimized, even erased (for one year I think it was) on paper by lumping in all SS money with the general budget. It sure made the Clinton administration look like a downright frugal, responsible bunch, not seen since Silent Calvin Coolidge That's how it's been ever since, and of course, the budget deficits, hence total debt (at this point ~ $21,000,000,000,000) has been reaching for the sky, nonetheless. Look under the Global Financial Stupidity topic key for lots more on that. SS being in the black until 2009 or so helped the deficits look better, but not anymore. It's an accounting trick, either way.



"Trust" fund, heh, heh! Sure, that's the ticket. A nice conservative accountant with green eye-shades is taking care of all your money with one of those books with all those lines, and lately has even gotten on the computer using LOTUS 123. It's all right ... uhhh .... there. Don't you remember getting a statement every year, until the Feral Government ran out of money for that ... hey, that's not a good sign, is it?

We can blame the Socialists and the imbeciles who voted for them and anyone else in government we want for the problems coming. Many of us are not responsible for the future of SS, having tried to vote out the irresponsible ones through the years. "I didn't vote for this." "I'd have put my money in better investments if I'd had a choice.", and "I've paid in so much money over they years, so I deserve what's coming to me, anyway." are all decent points. However, one should still be responsible for one's self, and what I'd reply to all that is:

Yes, it's at this point a mandatory Ponzi scheme. Lots of us wanted no part in this. No matter what, though, YOU DON'T TRUST BIG ORANIZATIONS, ESPECIALLY THE GOVERNMENT! You just don't. What I'm getting at is, you should not run your life as if this money will just be there for you as promised. Anyone who COUNTS ON the SS money as supporting his retirement is a being irresponsible. I don't mean hope for, as some extra expected, but not essential, cash. You have every reason to be mad at getting scammed by SS, with a terrible return compared to how you could have invested that money over the years, but still should only blame yourself if you did not prepare otherwise. Over the years, did you not look at this beast of a Feral Gov't, and think, "yeah, I just don't think I can trust it with my future"?

Here's how much people ARE counting on SS



I am not saying that you will just see "CLOSED" signs on the offices, and no checks will come in the near future. It's not going to go down like that. Small cuts will be made in various ways, inflation will be always said to be miniscule by the BLS, and that latter point is important, because it will go down more like this: "Yes, sir, you will get your $1575 monthly just like your statements have always said." It's just that rent will be $1800 for a 500 sq-ft apartment, Big Mac meals cost $27.99, and even cat food prices may make it just as well you can't afford an exterminator for the rats. The insidious tax of inflation always help governments NOMINALLY pay their debts, but sometimes you've got to get that hyper-turbo-inflation to make it work. In the meantime, the BLS government statisticians will present some nice low numbers, so that your checks don't index enough to screw up the plan.

This is just one leg ot the "triad", lets call it, of support for old people living well-off lives. As discussed 2 weeks back here on the Peak Stupidity blog, between the SS scam coming to a bad end, the FED-controlled near-elimination of interest on safe investments, and corporate near-elimination of anything resembling the pensions of old, we have reached "Peak Rich Old People". We all need to get ready for what's coming.



No comments - Click here to start thread



A Peak Stupidity apology to our Chinese readers


Posted On: Monday - July 30th 2018 8:34PM MST
In Topics: 
  China



I've noticed that a number of the more recent posts here that concerned stupidity and China have been fairly negative. This is not an anti-China blog. Peak Stupidity aims to point out stupidity anywhere and everywhere it occurs, and since we are located in the US, most of it is American stupidity, and that discussed regarding other lands may just stand out in comparison. When the posts come out that may possibly be interpreted as being slightly disparaging to the Chinese and their 5,000 year kingdom, the dear Chinese reader must not worry about "losing face", as that is a semi-stupid concept to begin with. Oh, uh, that last one is not officially part of our apology.

Keep in mind, ALL READERS, that the Peak Stupidity blog is an Equal Opportunity Offender, and aims to comply with all statutes, laws, and regulations in all jurisdictions subject to all penumbras and umbras, as set by precedent by the parties of the plaintiff's representation of the ... [ no raise, no workey, we QUIT right here - Peak Stupidity Legal Department ]. If there are faces lost in the process, we take no responsibility.

True, we've badmouthed Chinese people in the areas of unfair trade, out-and-out gall as immigrants to the West, lack of baking skills, money laundering, a ridicurus written language and a whole topic key full of Cheap China-made Crap. On the other hand (that's "OTOH" for you tweeters), we've praised the free-market healthcare system (cont'd here, here, and here), their manufacturing infrastructure and initiative, and their amazing economic comeback from Communism. So, let's call it almost even.

To even it out more, I want to discuss the amazing transportation infrastructure improvements in the country of China. A Steve Sailer post on the California high-speed rail boondoggle from yesterday reminded me of my experience and impression with the large-scale road-building and high-speed rail projects there. I would like to discuss trains in general in a subsequent post, but today I'll just mention the road-building.



I was there. Even in a remote province that was not one of the first-tier Shanghai's, Pekings, or Shenzen/Guangzhou's in which the Chinese may want to show off more than usual, the change to one particular highway (out of perhaps dozens of important roads) was something else. Just a few years back this was no small 2-lane road, but a 6 lane, say 50-60 mph, decent way to get from the capital to this village (meaning ~ 1/2 million people!). It was not limited-access, hence kind of chaotic, yet that was a big improvement from 5 years before that, when it had been a hairy two-lane. There are mountains everywhere, with no straight path. The 6-lane road had straightened out some of the curves and did have one impressive high bridge over a gorge.

The newest road from a couple of years back that I rode on beats all though. In the 150 miles or so, this road had at least 20 tunnels that varied from 1/4 to 1 mile long, most of them on the longer side of that range. There were many long bridges that hung alongside the steep ridges or connected ridge to ridge. All this had been built in just a few years, and it changed the travel time from 3 1/2 hours to under 2. You've got to keep in mind that this was still nowheresville relative to all the "important" parts of China, so there must be many hundreds of projects like this going on or already built.

As I'll repeat again during the post comparing China's and America's rail service, the country of China is just a CAN-DO place at the current time, while America most certainly is not. That can all slowly change again though ...



No comments - Click here to start thread



Climate Changers ... checkin' out the rallies


Posted On: Saturday - July 28th 2018 6:21PM MST
In Topics: 
  Humor  Global Climate Stupidity

While checking out pictures of "Climate Change" rallies for use in the previous post, I got on a roll and saved a bunch. The stupidity on display make these pictures indeed worth a thousand words apiece. I'll throw in a few words anyway, as this has gotten pretty fun. They'll be some different stuff from this Global Climate DisruptionTM stupidity next week, I promise. Stupidity waits for no man!

Yep, we paid you, and by God, you'll get out there and rally, sub-zero weather or not! Chant whatever you want - they'll buy it.




Wait, but, it's not a chemical process. There's no combustion of hydrocarbons or anything else, so Nukes are good, right? Plus we sequester some carbon in the connecting rods. It's a win/w... Hey, I'm here to protest, buddy, I don't need a lecture from some denier. Now, whine, follow, or get out of the way!



See that cutie on the bike. That's the ONLY reason that guy's out there. Could you think of some other way to get into her pants that won't KILL THE ECONOMY?



Let's see, Carbon's got an atomic weight of 12, so we need to take out all the neutrons, and 5 of the 6 protons. The electrons can go to hell. That'll leave us with ionic Hydrogen. What could go wrong? What? I was told to just chant "Hey, ho, hey, ho, molecules of carbon have got to go!" That's the chant, and that's what we're gonna yell!





I don't know about no mutherfucking molecules and shit! Screw the colonial white man. All these rich white bidnessmen. I came out here to get a on TV.





I can't even ....





Who-hoo! My kind of people, these deniers are.



Comments (2)




Who'll Stop the Rain?


Posted On: Friday - July 27th 2018 4:09PM MST
In Topics: 
  Music  Global Climate Stupidity

We've got our math-models DOWN!
Still we wonder, still we wonder, who'll stop the rain?




"Long as I remember, the rain been comin' down.
Clouds of carbon spreading, we hear it from some clown.
Good men through the ages, tryin' to blame the sun.
Still I wonder, still I wonder, who'll stop the rain."

Here, I am with Social Security Stupidity to finish, immigration stupidity happening every day, and lots of discussion on Police-state-spying stupidity to come, and I get sucked into this climate crap again. It's not like the other stupidity is gonna discuss itself! How can one blogger keep up?

Cut to the music, then. Sure, why not more Creedence Clearwater Revival? It seems to be CCR week fortnight here at Peak Stupidity. This one is off of the Cosmo's Factory album from 1970, the 5th album from these musicians.

I don't always like unrelated video with the songs, but the CCR ones seem to have lots of Vietnam war footage - it fits with the era of the music, of course. Not bad, I can never see enough of those Hueys!



"Five-Year Plans and New Deals,
wrapped in golden chains ..."


Hey, this quick comment equivocating the Commies of the USSR/Red China and the American Socialists, cough, FD cough, Roosevelt, cough, cough, was something I hadn't really thought of before. Good on ya', John Fogerty.

**********************************
[Updated 08/01:]
Added last comment, under the video.
**********************************



No comments - Click here to start thread



Tariffs in American history


Posted On: Friday - July 27th 2018 11:43AM MST
In Topics: 
  Trump  Economics  US Feral Government

Is everything you learned in HS economics wrong?



Peak Stupidity leans pretty hard toward liberty and libertarianism, and here are 70 posts to prove it. The free trade concept that Libertarians seem to LUV, LUV, LUV is one with which we may need to agree to disagree on. Under that very same "Liberty/Libertarianism" topic key linked-to above, many of the posts are more Constitutionally oriented than anything. The sets of Constitutionalists and Libertarians should have a yuuuge [OK, enough, Ed.] overlap, you'd figure, since our Founders believed strongly in liberty. I don't know anymore...

I have yuuuge respect for the Founders of the United States, I'm sure the smartest men to have ever started a country. Sure, not many get a chance to, kinda from scratch like that, but you're not likely to see the likes of intellects like Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams.... ever again. The thing is, our country, for most of it's existence, HAS had tariffs in place, and, in fact, they were the main source of US Fed-Gov. income, back before Amendment XVI allowed taxes on individuals. It worked pretty damn well, as it seemed to be enough, but small enough not to allow for the beast of a Feral Gov. that we have now to exist. Pat Buchanan's columns* have seemed kind of out-of-date lately, but I really liked his latest, Did Tariffs Make America Great?, which is a short history of tariffs during the lifetime of this country ... well, right up to where Ben Stein above, pictured in our favorite movie, Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Since it's sequencial and there's not that much of a summary, please read the whole thing.

For America over the last 2-3 decades, the problem has not really been just free trade, but it's been very unfair trade with lots of countries, one mentioned just yesterday, in fact. The bigger question, besides just getting a fair deal, it that of protectionism via tariffs. The two sides are simply:

Pro Free Trade - If you protect industries, consumers will miss out on better deals, like all the cheap China-made crap, but also American industry will find parts and raw materials from abroad more expensive. With the overseas competition stifled, there is definitely an incentive for American manufacturers to make junkier stuff (think US auto industry pre-1980).

Pro Protectionism - American consumers can't buy a whole lot when they don't have good jobs to begin with. As Mr. Buchanan quotes many of the Founders and historic American icons of industry saying, along with what I've been saying for years, the wealth of a country is very related to how much manufacturing it does (vs. service industries, including F.I.R.E. "). They've We've also said, just based on the country's security, that essentials for the country's existence and prosperity should be made here.

OK, you can read these arguments written much better elsewhere, so I'll quit there. However, the reason this important issue is finally being discussed is President Trump's pushing for tariffs and a better deal for our trade with China. President Trump brings up MANY issues that should have been brought up long ago. That's one great benefit of having this man in office, whatever frustration the Peak Stupidity blog has had with some of his tweets, but more importantly his choices for whose advice he listens to. President Trump's bully pulpet may be disorganized as all hell, but he says things that nobody would have the guts, smarts, or more likely, integrity, to talk about before.

In addition, on the tariff and unfair-trade issue, this stuff is indeed up in Trump's wheelhouse. Some of the rest of his leadership method has failed because it's NOT all about making deals - one needs principles and principled people around. This stuff IS about making deals, so it's nice to have this guy in place.

On this issue, I've leaned heavily for a while toward the protectionist side. Pat Buchanan's short history on tariffs has helped my decision some more. Between the trans-nationalist Libertarians and the Founders of America, this is a no brainer - I'm gonna go with the latter. Come on, Libertarians, tell me: $10/hr coffee barista jobs, and big money, Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Education help the economy by .... anyone ... anyone ...



* The column linked-to in that post was very interesting. However, Mr. Buchanan, as much as I agree with his principles, seems to write as if it's still the 1980's as far as civility in politics goes. I'll write another short post on this.



No comments - Click here to start thread



CCR - "Wrote a song for Everyone"


Posted On: Thursday - July 26th 2018 6:08PM MST
In Topics: 
  Music

From a band who made the most great music in only 4 years together that I've ever heard, this one is a ballad. If you are not specifically a Credence Clearwater Revival fan, you may not know this one. It is off of an album called Creedence Country, a compilation released way later than the band's time, in 1981, which really has only 3-4 country tunes out fo the 12 songs. They are Lodi (the only well-known one), Cotton Fields, Lookin' for a Reason, and aguably Cross-tie Walker, the last one featured on Peak Stupidity.

Anyway though it's a ballad, it's still got the great John Fogerty rock voice, and the great guitar. The guitar and bass still sound out during the singing, and, of course, nothing against Doug Clifford on the drums. There's something about this song that just says "1960's turmoil" even though I wasn't there, and it's not real specific in the lyrics. Those guitars have got that great tube-amp sound, and maybe that's the evocative part. I listen to this, and out of nowhere, can just picture a world in which nothing was certain and things were going to change for good or bad soon. It's the situation we are in today, but WHERE IS OUR GREAT MUSIC LIKE THIS?!

"... somebody said it's different now. Look, it's just the same."



Comments (2)




CONSENSUS!


Posted On: Thursday - July 26th 2018 5:48PM MST
In Topics: 
  Global Climate Stupidity  Science



No, wait, SCIENCE! It's a real shame Peak Stupidity has featured the Thomas Dolby song Blinded Me with Science already on our post about the recent solar eclipse. The biggest piece of stupidity associated with the Global Climate DisruptionTM scam that I have been sucked back into writing about lately is the use of the belief (there's that belief again) in CONSENSUS as a part of the scientific method... well, at least when it comes to a specific topic in Climatology. No, having a consensus of the theoretical experts in a field to close the book on a theory is wrong. Science does not work like that.

Scientists and research engineers publish the descriptions of their observations, experiments, and theories in "papers" in the appropriate journals for their fields. These papers are formatted in generally the same way, with a quick Intro., or "abstract", math that describes the theory in question, descriptions of the experimental or observational set-up, presentation of results, conclusions, and then a quick summary. We've written before in this and this post, both descriptions of how science/math-illiterate journalists, and subsequently politicians, make use of nothing but the summary, the only part of a paper they can read, if that. They don't get the assumptions involved, the still-needed work, and the limitations and uncertainty in the results. That's most of the reason that the climatology topic in question has gotten to be so altered and distorted from the real science.

Now, the scientific/engineering papers number in the thousands that come out in various fields weekly, and the sum total for a field is called "the literature" (yeah, it's an unusual use of that word). The literature in a field is an on-going narrative of what people have been thinking, doing, and discovering. People in any specific field are supposed to, if not reading all the papers in their specific field, at least keep up with what the journals have in them, and thoroughly study the papers that relate specifically to their areas of research. OK, got all that? Let me get to the point finally.

As an example, you've got a bunch of papers coming out on, let's say stress analysis of reinforced concrete, a subset of stress analysis (a big area) and also of concrete construction techniques (also a big area). One of them says, that a certain new type of analysis results in these basic technical formulae that will work for this type of design. If an engineer who's got something to do with that specific area sees a problem with ANY part of the experiments, analysis, or results, he will speak up during peer-review, or at least have to write something to correct it and publish that. Everyone is in this field together, and you can't have erroneous information out there. At last resort, someone else uses this paper to continue the work in some way, and realizes that the basics are wrong.

If there are 20 papers on this new technique, and variations thereof, that have been published, then THEY HAVE TO AGREE! It's science, or engineering. If any of them do not agree, than there must be reasons why they don't, engineers have to figure out why, and the erroneous stuff must be removed from "the literature" or corrections issued. There can be no such thing as "well, 17 of the 20 papers on the new method reinforced-concrete stress analysis say it works, and only 3 say it doesn't. That's good, 85 %!". It could be determined that those 3 papers all had problems with the experimental or observational methods, the same or different problems. OK, fine. However, if even ONE paper that doesn't agree can't be rebutted, then there is a real problem. We can't trust any of it, YET, until some smart guy gets to the bottom of it.

You may think "hey, this guy is arguing FOR consensus", come to think of it, but that's not the meaning of the word as used by these climate guys. They use the term to describe how most of the pre-eminent scientists say this or that, but leave out the fact that the "deniers" have NOT BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY REFUTED. How can they be, in a subject that purports to understand how the earth's climate will change in the future, when THERE! IS! NO! WORKING! MATHEMATICAL! MODEL! OF! IT!, DAMMIT!? Their consensus means that these scientists speak up at big conferences and to the press with small factoids of their results and tell everyone that there is no need to understand anyone else on the topic - case closed. If they spent the time to scientifically refute all the science that does not agree, then they wouldn't have time for the fancy press conferences, as that's a bunch of work, as it must leave the "denying" scientists satisfied, that "yes, indeed we see the errors you have pointed out." That's how science SHOULD work.

Consensus is for politics, and even then it's usually a crock.


Comments (3)




The Chinese are not happy with their > 20 year-long unfair! trade deal with America


Posted On: Thursday - July 26th 2018 6:46AM MST
In Topics: 
  Trump  Global Financial Stupidity  China  Americans

OMG! We can't lose McD's and KFC!



Zerohedge articles, even if they are not really that intelligently written, are always good for the comments, provided the topic is ripe for them. 5 days back (yes, I know... no, we don't care) ZH posted:"Worst Case Scenario" Looms As Chinese Overwhelmingly Ready To Boycott US Goods In Trade War. At least they put "worst case scenario" in quotes, because that's a humdinger.

Man, since Bill Clinton sold out American manufacturing in the mid-1990's for some bling from the poontang dynasty, or something undisclosed, the Chinese have been getting one hell of a favorable deal on trade between our countries! I don't say that just due to what the HUGE deficit with them is and has been, but if you know something about the import/export business, you know that it's not at all fair, favoring China greatly. Someone thought it would be good to lift them more quickly out of their hole dug by hard-core Communism. Hey, they would have been OK in the long run, as long as there were no other Maos and Misses Maos, but our policy just eviscerated American manufacturing, that was on a much more slight decline, as it was before this move.

Peak Stupidity has never had that much admiration for President Trump as a "deal-maker". That's not all that is needed to even try to MAGA. However, he does know a bad deal when he sees one. He also probably realizes that, corporate political posturing aside, we have lots more to gain than lose by adding tariffs and tying to make our trade with China more fair. We appreciate his effort on this matter, as it is one in which we need a deal-maker not a sucker on behalf on Americans.

The Zerohedge writer seems to worried about the Chinese being upset about the matter. I don't see a problem. What are they going to boycott, for cryin' out loud? KFC? McDonalds? It's just as well - they don't know how to cook that shit right to begin with over there - too much soy and vinegar doesn't make a Big Mac taste like "2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun" - yeah it's that "special sauce" - ancient Chinese secret, huh? Seriously though, America does have manufacturing, but most of it is NOT consumer goods headed to China. (Yes, our industrial shipments include, of course, those Boeing aircraft, which the Chinese are trying their damndest to copy, and will not need Boeing soon enough.)

Most of what we ship over there is commodities. Lots comes over not on container ships but in the holds of bulk cargo ships. I've seen those big grain elevators in Seattle that hold the crops from E. Washington and the Idaho Snake River valley transported via hopper cars, then loaded with a huge-ass hose into the holds. Maybe the Chinese CAN produce more of their own soybeans, wheat, pork, and (in 50 years, when it can all grow back some) lumber to make furniture to ship to us. However, the price will be much higher. They can replace those imports with stuff out of S. America, Canada, etc., but these are commodities, so without our exports, again, the price will be higher.

So go ahead, pissed-off Chinapeople, do your worst boycotting and buycotting (see also Part 2, and Part 3). Throw those firecrackers, if you still know how to throw after playing soccer, ping-pong, and bad-freakin'-minton all your lives. You all have had one hell of an unfair advantage for more than 2 decades. You have no reason for the indignation other than ignorance and stupidity.

I am not in 100% agreement, but here is a typical on-the-mark comment on ZH, this one by one "Harry Lighting" of parts unknown:
Harry Lightning, Mon, 07/23/2018 - 00:17

You hit the nail on the head. The Chinese people still need to eat, and if they stop importing US food, they will have to buy the same food from a middle man country that buys the American food, marks up the price, and sells it to the Chinese. Result : rampant food inflation in China.

On top of that, a country that is starved for capital because of all the debt it has piled on while accumulating trade surpluses would see half a billion dollars a year of capital drained from its vaults as its trade surplus turns negative.

The difference in all this is that the Americans can produce internally everything they import from China, but China cannot do the same. Food is at the top of that list. So while Americans would see an increase in the cost of the goods they now import from China, that would be offset by the huge savings of capital by reducing their trade deficit, along with the multiplier effect of the money spent domestically staying within the boundaries of the US. Wages would rise and then consumption would follow suit, providing a strong impetus to their economic growth.

China on the other hand would lose capital as they would see their trade surpluses reverse into deficits, and would have an inflationary spike not offset by rising wages. Consumption would plummet and production would follow suit.

Frankly I am surprised at the economic ignorance being displayed by whatever Chinese government officials who are providing source information for articles such as these. The Chinese should be shutting the fuck up, accepting the initial round of tariffs without saying a word, and going on to enjoy a continued substantial trade surplus with the Americans albeit at a lower level of profit.

Instead, these officials are letting their nationalistic egos get in the way of more intelligent responses, which in the end will destroy their economy.

I chalk this foolishness off to inexperience on China's part with respect to trade differences. In the twenty five years that they have become an exporting power, they never had to deal with difficulties between themselves and the clients to whom they export. They have been treated with kid gloves, basically being allowed to sell anything they wanted into America without any obstacles. So now that they have to adapt their trade policies to a more difficult situation that challenges their unfettered access into American markets, they are caught like deer in the headlamps., not knowing how to respond. It is in such times that emotion takes the place of wisdom honed by experience, and truly catastrophic mistakes are made. That is what is developing in China today, as evidenced by the report in the article above.

What surprises me also is that the Chinese nationalistic fervor, fueled by a desperate urge to be seen as a world leader in trade who can dictate the rules of transaction, is being allowed to get in the way of what many of the younger Chinese government bureaucrats were trained in American and European universities to know is the wrong response to tariff imposition. It just shows that China remains ruled by the elders, one generation removed from the revolutionaries, who feel more comfortable relying on their revolutionary reactionisms than on classical economics that were taught to their sons and daughters.

This is typical of young dynasties, they always make some critical growing pain mistakes as they develop a history. How they recover from such mistakes will determine the prognosis of their governance. The Soviet Union approached such a crossroads in the 1950s when Stalin passed, and they adapted to a new paradigm that differed sharply from the Bolshevik structure that Stalin had enforced. In so doing it allowed their dynasty to continue, only to make a lethal error some 30 years later when they faced their second major test and failed.

Many of the countries that embraced communism in the post war era ha d similar challenges and failed them. Castro's Cuba and today's Venezuela are classic examples. Depending on whether the Chinese come to their senses before it is too late, they may be the next developing dynasty to implode over a critical error. The next few months will reveal that outcome.
A beyond-broke country like America can't keep working within an unfair trade environment with the 2nd, soon to be 1st, biggest economy in the world. What can't go on, won't go on.



No comments - Click here to start thread



Global Climate DisruptionTM Left/Right Divide


Posted On: Wednesday - July 25th 2018 6:56PM MST
In Topics: 
  Global Climate Stupidity  ctrl-left  Bible/Religion



Look at yourselves! You don't even belong on Planet A, and no, you don't have a Plan-B, but your ctrl-left Commie leaders have one - it doesn't involve you.


Some comments made under that that Steve Sailer post on Global Climate DisruptionTM, actually written by one of the commenter on another thread, bring up this short(er) post on the subject. Basically, I read that conservatives (that means, I guess, real ones, not GOP, Conservative, Inc., etc.) are stubbornly sticking to the wrong side and the left is on the smart side of this "issue". The line, in the otherwise decent short post, was:
It does drive me crazy how doctrinaire conservatives are about climate change.
Doctrinaire, my ass, it's the left that treats this hoax like a freakin' religion. Is there, in general, a conservative/left-wing divide on the issue of how the earth's climate changes, and why?

The political aspects of this GCD business have been detailed specifically in this 5-part series - separate from the math-modeling stuff - way back in the beginning of 2017 --- Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5. Additionally, the entire thing is highly political, so most of the rest Peak Stupidity blog's articles on the topic are political in nature.

Why does a scientific question have to be political? Yeah, lots of science questions get religious, and beliefs tends toward the conservatives. However, this is ostensibly about the climate of the Earth. There's not much religion involved, that I can think of. Do we see big discussions on CNN and in Congress about the temperature and consistency of the earth's mantle? How about the rings of Saturn? Do we all get bent out of shape discussing quasars, quarks and black holes, even those of us who DO know what the heck those are? What about material science? I haven't seen any protests out in the street about creep in reinforced plastics. Why not, dammit?

This adjective "doctrinaire", coming from "doctrine", is used to describe conservatives only from some memories of 50-100 years ago or more, I guess, because otherwise it doesn't apply. If you go back to atheism vs. religion or more specifically evolution vs. creationism, yeah, the conservatives were the ones believing in the doctrine, the Bible, while the left wanted nothing to do with it. The ctrl-left, however, has painted the conservatives with this doctrinaire brush unfairly for many years, right up through 2000. I can remember them still talking about the conservatives wanted to make the US into a Theocracy during the G.W. Bush election, when the only Theocracy coming will likely be that of Islam, if we don't nip that in the bud.

Conservatives' religious beliefs don't lead to very conservative political beliefs, at least at the Church level, nowadays, anyway, as the Conservatives really just would rather be left alone by the ctrl-left and governments. The problem really is that, though they don't want to be involved in the political world, the political world wants to be involved with them.

Nowadays, as described in yesterday's post (linked-to above, and I may need to add more to that yesterday's one), it's the left who have chosen Global Climate DisruptionTM as their religion. Their beliefs in whatever scientists, journalists, and politicians spout out about the matter are pretty damn doctrinaire, the doctrine being the sacred hockey-stick temperature graphs, the barely-understood conclusions of climatology papers (maybe they should have a priest who can read graphs and calculus for them!), oh, and that one tree ring from some forest somewhere. The issue may be breaking left/right in a reverse manner of the long-ago religious arguments and conflicts. That is one part that causes the divide.

I suspect another reason brought up by my questions above regarding why the other science questions have not been politicized. On this GCD issue, is it possibly the fact that, if one can make use of (dissipation of) energy via combustion something that must be controlled, then one may control a whole lot of the economies of the world? Hmmm, maybe that's it ... more control of the world. What leftist wouldn't want that? The conservatives have seen the massive amount of politicking on the issue, and are smart enough to wonder why the ctrl-left is on about this stuff so vehemently. That puts the left and right at odds on the once-staid field of climatology.

Finally, the 3rd reason for the divide is simply that the conservatives in general are just plain not as stupid as the left, so GCD politics break on a left/right divide on stupidity levels ... as in high/medium.

Yeah, there's a divide alright. I don't think you can settle this one with a little reasonable scientific logical discussion anymore. It's gotten to be a religion for the left, and they freak out and cry when our karma runs over their dogma (I kinda always liked that bumper sticker).



No comments - Click here to start thread



The Social Security Scam, errr, Scheme(?) - Part 1


Posted On: Wednesday - July 25th 2018 9:28AM MST
In Topics: 
  History  Global Financial Stupidity  US Feral Government  The Future  Healthcare Stupidity  Socialism/Communism

Per Peak Stupidity's post on "Peak Rich Old People last week, there should be some follow up on this, one of the biggest of Big-Gov's schemes to "help the people".

A Man of the People, seen before he "gave us" the SS scam:



That's Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of the biggest instigators of the American welfare state - was he just the Franklin-the-Baptist to Lyndon B. Johnson in that respect? (oops, that would make LBJ into Jesus, and I don't want to think about that ...) Social Security was put into law more than 8 decades ago, in the mid-1930's. This man, as President, did not make the laws, as we should all know. However, he was one of the more powerful presidents, arguably* the most since the Founding, excepting Lincoln, and none have been more since then. This man presided as administrator of the executive branch (supposedly, that was all) during Great Depression 1.0**, and most of WWII. It was > 12 years going on 16 when he died - I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure we were better off with Harry Truman.

Because of the terrible state of the economy during the bulk of the 1930's, Roosevelt could push lots of welfare schemes on an easy-do-dupe population. The causes of the depression can be discussed (see there's ANOTHER post) later, and whether this man had anything at all to do with ending it or postponing the end of it, also. There were real problems and people in very bad shape, and this one was going to be, if anything, a "no-cost" (hahahaa) deal for the government, aka, the tax-payers. There's no reason that private "social insurance" plans could not have been implemented, but it's one area, due to the long-term trust required for a business to work, that people felt Big-Gov should do the job. Yeah, more on this trust a bit later.

Now, a long-term reader would probably know that this blogger is/was (lots more in the past before the site formatting/scripting started to suck) a big reader of ZeroHedge.com. Just about ANY kind of financial scheme, Big-Gov or Big-Biz, is called a Ponzi scheme on ZH. They do go a bit overboard in that sense, as a true Ponzi scheme is planned from the beginning to be (there's that word again!) unsustainable. That means that only those getting in at the beginning come out ahead financially, as there's no wealth generation, or not enough, to cover those suckers joining later on. I don't give any of the Socialists much credit, but for SS, I don't think the plan was for it not to keep running - Big-Gov shuts down NOTHING (look under Start, Head). The problem is that the unseen future changes to the demographics of the American population would eventually turn it into not just a Ponzi scheme, but a mandatory Ponzi scheme. Nobody has to join AmWay, right, or (one of my favorites) the un-youtube-able classic scene from The Office about a pyramid scheme? If you work, officially, not as an illegal alien, you are put into this plan from DOLLAR ONE.

Back in the 1930's life expectancy was not as high as nowadays. This is due to smart guys and scientific advances and is IN NO WAY an effect of Big-Gov, which has a major NEGATIVE effect financially and otherwise. People died on average at 65 years of age. Therefore, even with plenty of old (usually) ladies living to 80 and collecting a decent sum, there were a number of others to match that were forced to pay in, yet died before collecting a penny. That situation has changed drastically, not a bad thing at all! It's just not good for this plan of retirement at 65 with a reliance on the US Gov't with a nice account with your name on it.



That brought up just a short aside, about SS, but not the monetary aspect. The politicians of that day promised that "No, this SS NUMBER will not be any kind of national ID number." See, we were a more free country back then, as a) privacy was still an understood concept and respected, and b) the politicians at least gave lip service to the idea of no "Papers, please!" (Part 2 and Part 3) totalitarian government, yet nowadays nobody blinks an eye at giving his life story to The State. See, promises from some of those individuals may have meant something to them, but an individual doesn't run this scheme. It's a few million gov't muck-mucks and bureaucrats that may have told you something 20 years ago, but that means nothing to anyone now. Your SS card is appropriately named, and sure enough is the most basic form, YET, of a national ID number. If any number is gonna' be tattooed on your forehead or set into a chip, the 9-digit SS # will be first. In a way this does relate pretty well to the post, in that again: more about promises and trust in a bit.

The baby boom generation was a big boon to the SS scheme, as the large numbers of young people entering the work force in the mid-'60's through early '80's, and not retiring for 40-odd years after, paid in lots of money for all those years. In case you don't get a paycheck, it's 7% off of the 1st buck through over $100,000 now, and your employer (which might be you) pays an equal amount in. Keep in mind, your employer's payment may as well be yours, as he could have given you that amount in pay otherwise. Yeah, so things went swimmingly for a good while there, even with the longer lifespans of people retiring then and already retired, but now we've got loads of people wanting to collect some of "their" money.

Here's a graph of the ratio of payers to payees over the years. Yeah, it's all projected from ~ '15 on, so you can't trust more than 10 years of that. Demographic data is pretty good, but I don't think America, much less social security, will be around then in the same form.



The next part of this discussion will cover more of the big-time accounting on the SS mandatory-scam, one big trick in budgeting in 1998 or 9, and the problem with trusting the government to "be there to help you."


* Hey, that's what the comments section is for - arguments.

** There's that gloom and doom that we all love.



No comments - Click here to start thread



Global Climate Stupidity revisited - is it a religion now?


Posted On: Tuesday - July 24th 2018 8:22AM MST
In Topics: 
  Global Climate Stupidity  Bible/Religion

You want EMISSIONS, buddy, here's your emissions - this is ACTUAL POLLUTION:



The Peak Stupidity blog has plenty to write about, but got distracted via some discussion time on that old pillar of stupidity, the Global Climate DisruptionTM hoax, (2nd time we've fallen for that this millenium! /Maxwell Smart] ) In addition, I did want to clarify our views of another scam, not as egregiious, but just wide-reaching, and that's the scheme known as Social Security - I got ready for that one, but I was boring even myself thinking about it, so STAY TUNED for that one later in the week.

It's this Steve Sailer post that started more discussion and brought to mind that there are still intelligent people that have just been so drawn into this constant LP/Elite/Government brainwashing that it's almost a religion to them. BTW, my argument is only with the part of Sailer's article that takes the GCD seriously, not his overall point that immigration invasion proponents are in complete cognitive dissonance about environmental effects due to increasing population (see, Toward Sustainable Stupidity). I've got otherwise perfectly rational people who've been so sucked in by the GCD predictions, the erroneous terminology, and the worship of scientists as some sort of gods, arguing with anyone who has seen through the bullshit over the years, or never bought into it in the first place (ahem, yours truly).

Peak Stupidity has 40 (as of this writing) posts with the Global Climate Stupidity topic key, but it's the 1st 15 or so, written more than a year ago, that tried to explain the problems of modeling the entire earth's climate, the political involvment in this business, and the massive amounts of stupidity in the dissemination of the science by idiotic reporters. The reader is hereby referred to those posts, and I don't have the heart and time to do it all again now. Let me just harp here on the use of bogus terminology and how this affects the people who "buy-in" to this scam.

It's the use of "carbon neutral", "carbon footprint", the inert gas carbon dioxide as a "pollutant", and "emissions" that are the worst of it. I've been told that CO2 is a pollutant because everything is bad in big doses. Uh, huh, but not water. Yes drowning in it causes death. Once can drink too much in one sitting and die. Does that not make everything on earth a pollutant, in fact? I brought up water, though, because H2, one of the only 2 PRODUCTS (not byproducts) of combustion is EMITTED every time something is burned. It also blocks certain wavelengths of space-bound radiative energy off the earth. But, YOU! DO! NOT! TALK! ABOUT! THE! WATER! VAPOR! (that's the 1st rule of Climate Club - 2nd rule - AL! GORE!).

No, whatever the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is, the stuff doesn't directly kill anyone, in amounts 10 or 100 X what is in the air now. It is not a POLLUTANT and generation of the gas by whatever mean being called EMISSIONS is another way of pushing the "we're all gonna die" business (true, we are, but ...). Why not call House BILL R-XXXX a pollutant because it happens to let YYY company trash out the ZZZ river? Carbon Dioxide levels indeed have an effect on ONE PROCESS in 100's that would need to be part of any seriously-predictive model of changes of the earth's climate. The stuff is in no way hurting us, that's all there is to it.

That's the scare that 30 years now of this stuff (oh, ~ 30, since they switched it from cooling) has put into many bright people ... and otherwise. Once you've got it into your mind that "Carbon [sic] is bad .. mmmkaaay", it becomes like a religion: "Don't burn that - you're KILLING THE PLANET!". "Mother Earth doesn't like those big SUVs!" Also, if it's gonna be a global religion, as most try to be, and indeed, by definition world climate modeling IS global, then why don't you people care that we've just shopped all that emitting and polluting over to China, India, and Bangladesh? I noticed that the Paris Accords (thank you, the Donald!) didn't put ANY limits on the economies of China and India - that's like the Moslems saying you can't drink and women can't drink and/or drive, unless you do it in America (oops, well, yeah ...)

Exempt from the proposed Paris Accords. This REAL pollution (particulates, S and N Oxides, etc.) can't travel through the atmosphere, can it!? Close the borders!



As I've written to people about this subject, I've got nothing at all against good science, including in the field of Climatology. Advancing the field by studying cloud cover formation/albedos of clouds, ocean current changes, CO2 level changes in the oceans, humidity levels vs, types of ground cover, radiation spectra of various ground covers, upper-level wind effects on the concentration of atmospheric gases .., etc. * is a good thing. People who are somewhat nerdy could discuss these topics at cocktail parties, with some relation to the real world: "Yeah, we think that'd raise temperatures near the eastern coastlines a degree C or so ...", "That would mean there should be more hurricane activity, but there's a whole lot more to understand ..." - just calmly, without the whole unnecessary "sky is falling" part, because, that's just it, we don't really know. How do we know we don't know (besides reading those > 1 dozen PS articles)? We've already had those BS predictions made by Lyin' Press and globalist elites, telling us 15 years back how there'd be no more snow in the US within 10 years, telling us 12 years back hurricane seasons were going to be viscous (reverse-spoiler-alert - we had 10 years of benign tropical-stormage in the Atlantic.), etc. We know it's bullshit because we have memories.

"Oh, but the models are getting better." "We have reached a CONSENSUS." (That'll be a whole nother post, there). Back to the scientists, the field of Climatology has been polluted with the emissions of the grant-mongerers and lovers of the limelight. Why does one want to make small money teaching class, work on the computer all day, read the heavy math, and go to a few conferences that no one ever hears of,, as an honest job, when one could be employed in SAVING THE PLANET? (Yes, it's the same job, but done with an added emphasis, a core competency in hyperbole and dishonesty). Think of how proud Mom and Dad will be of their son who is not just some adjunct at Rhode Island E-Northeast Tech, but is SAVING THE PLANET. The couple down the street too, is even more proud of their daughter, who is both getting her Masters's in SAVING THE PLANET, and getting married soon (he promises) to her Professor, coincidentally!

Want to see some REAL pollution?:






* Are you getting the impression that the topic is very damn complex?!


Comments (2)