I'd love to devote all my time to go into great detail all those things that interest me. But there isn't enough time for that. With the factor of time pressing upon the matter, I have to find ways to address these things as best I can.
As I mentioned in the morning summary, I am paying closer attention than ever to this next presidential election. With that in mind, it is going to be necessary to start looking carefully at all the probable candidates for the Republican nomination. It doesn't make sense to talk about the Democrats. Unless something really unexpected happens, Obama will be the nominee. At the moment, I am looking at bit at Newt Gingrich. There are other candidates, such as Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and others. I've mentioned Trump before, but he isn't a Republican in my book.
Since the list is rather long, going through all these candidates can become a really huge chore. As I mentioned, time is short. What should I do about this? Decide now on who I will cover, or keep it spread around, and watch developments? I have to decide upon that, and decide upon other things as things move forward.
So, I will be thinking about this as the day goes on. As it unfolds, I will write a bit here about the candidates. Perhaps as an introduction based upon what I can find that's easily available. But anybody can do that. Ok, but how many do? I can do that for now. Let it serve as a time saver for anybody who may be interested.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Morn sum, 5/9/11
Every day seems to be different. I wake up and I wonder, what will I do today? It seems that I've covered politics fairly heavily in the last few days. This morning, I woke up with that on my mind. It seems like this next election is going to be very important. But, I suppose they all are. But this time, I am paying closer attention.
I have written about markets and the other topics covered on this blog too. Like fusion, space, and videos that I've made and others have made. I've tried to integrate all that into a whole package. For example, fusion and space fit in with the Kardeshevian aspirations, which are to be mastered so that civilization can rise to the next level. Videos show the points I'm trying to make by using the old saying " a picture is worth a thousand words." Markets and politics are related because a sick political system can have a bad effect upon markets. To pull it all together, I try to orient towards the future. The future should be Kardeshevian, if we can keep our political order in good shape.
Hence, the interest in politics. I may tend toward that end in future writings. At the moment, it interests me, so I guess you can say that you can expect that going forward.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Eve wrap, 5/8
Busy day posting. This is the 12th post. For a long time, I averaged just 3 a day. Here's the list of posts.
Looking back on the day, it began as a political day, but ended as a space day. By the way, while I was thinking up my next post, I read about Quicklaunch, better known for the Cannon to the Planets idea by John Hunter. I was wondering how all that turned out.
Anyway, it's time to shut down for another day. I'll put in a video for your amusement. Thanks for coming by.
Anyway, it's time to shut down for another day. I'll put in a video for your amusement. Thanks for coming by.
Peter Diamandis: Our Moral Imperative to Explore
There's a need to show this video in order to answer the question of why go to space with all the problems on the ground. Space seems like a sideshow to most people. Something you do to entertain people. Like bread and circuses for the masses.
I think that this is an unfortunate consequence of the failure of the government to make space accessible. Making space accessible was the mission of the Shuttle, but, as we have seen, the Shuttle failed that mission.
Consequently, nobody believes that it can be done more cheaply than what it is done now. Furthermore, since the Shuttle was limited to low earth orbit, the idea began to set in that the capability to do more was beyond us.
That's another thing that's wrong. Once you get into orbit, you are "halfway to anywhere". The idea that it is beyond our capabilities is turning into a myth that needs to be busted.
here is more
I think that this is an unfortunate consequence of the failure of the government to make space accessible. Making space accessible was the mission of the Shuttle, but, as we have seen, the Shuttle failed that mission.
Consequently, nobody believes that it can be done more cheaply than what it is done now. Furthermore, since the Shuttle was limited to low earth orbit, the idea began to set in that the capability to do more was beyond us.
That's another thing that's wrong. Once you get into orbit, you are "halfway to anywhere". The idea that it is beyond our capabilities is turning into a myth that needs to be busted.
here is more
Newsletter - Edition 264 - 08 May 2011 By Christopher Laird
Lots of market news this week from Chris. As usual, I am posting the topics in this week's newsletter, and once again I remind you that this is a subscription based service. The link is in the Products page.
Quite a week in commodities, metals and the USD and CRB
Euro
CHAOS
Yen *
Yen ‘Death Star’
China and India interest rates
USD/Yen USD/Yuan USD/Euro
My gold and silver targets this week
Metals and general commodities here
Our alerts
Renewals
Quite a week in commodities, metals and the USD and CRB
Euro
CHAOS
Yen *
Yen ‘Death Star’
China and India interest rates
USD/Yen USD/Yuan USD/Euro
My gold and silver targets this week
Metals and general commodities here
Our alerts
Renewals
Interesting chart
Got a copy of this from Greg Mankiw's Blog. I went to his blog after reading another one of Krugman's opinions, which, in this case, relates to the lack of inflation pressure in wages. The chart below shows what Krugman is pointing to:
The chart has a aura of plausibility about it. But I am not convinced. The reason I'm not is that I concluded that during the Bush administration, the admininstration was taking a weak dollar policy. This is what Krugman referred to in an earlier article I discussed yesterday. In that article, Krugman appears to advocate a weak dollar because it will make US goods more competitive overseas. But the other side of that would make imported goods more expensive here. Now the thing is this, a great deal of our trade deficit is with China, who pegs their currency to the dollar. A weak dollar will not have any effect on that. It is fair to conclude that a weak dollar policy is now in effect, simply because this administration is doing the same thing the Bush administration was doing and what Krugman himself has advocated.
Not only will China protect its export markets, so will the rest of our trading partners. There will be a "race to the bottom" in the currency wars. All of this has transpired before and appears to be repeating itself.
The inflation did not appear in the Bush administration until the end of his second term. A sharp and deep downturn occurred at the same time. In order to extricate the country from this, the current administration is simply copycatting the Bush strategy. Guess who is advocating that, but Krugman himself.
While it may well be true that wages are not increasing very fast at the present, I am not convinced that inflation won't show up. It did during the Bush term, mainly in the form of high energy prices. The chart above does not reflect the higher inflation rate in 2008, when wages weren't increasing all that fast then either. I don't think Krugman's model takes that into consideration. Energy counts for an awful lot in our economy. In fact in any advanced economy. It is not wise to allow energy prices to get out of hand, like what is happening now.
Update:
Historical inflation data here: month by month numbers below (2008) :
Update:
The Blogger editor won't cooperate. The numbers keep moving around every time I do an edit. There's a solution, but I'm not working on the right machine for that at the moment. (Fixed!)
A scan through those charts from prior years is interesting in itself. When Krugman talks about a weaker dollar in the Reagan years, it came after a stringent policy of tight monetary policy which whipped inflation of the seventies. Most likely at the time, the dollar was a lot stronger than what it is now. I could check it, but why bother? The dollar is already at all time lows today. If you go much lower, you will be going into uncharted waters. But Krugman isn't worried about that.
The chart has a aura of plausibility about it. But I am not convinced. The reason I'm not is that I concluded that during the Bush administration, the admininstration was taking a weak dollar policy. This is what Krugman referred to in an earlier article I discussed yesterday. In that article, Krugman appears to advocate a weak dollar because it will make US goods more competitive overseas. But the other side of that would make imported goods more expensive here. Now the thing is this, a great deal of our trade deficit is with China, who pegs their currency to the dollar. A weak dollar will not have any effect on that. It is fair to conclude that a weak dollar policy is now in effect, simply because this administration is doing the same thing the Bush administration was doing and what Krugman himself has advocated.
Not only will China protect its export markets, so will the rest of our trading partners. There will be a "race to the bottom" in the currency wars. All of this has transpired before and appears to be repeating itself.
The inflation did not appear in the Bush administration until the end of his second term. A sharp and deep downturn occurred at the same time. In order to extricate the country from this, the current administration is simply copycatting the Bush strategy. Guess who is advocating that, but Krugman himself.
While it may well be true that wages are not increasing very fast at the present, I am not convinced that inflation won't show up. It did during the Bush term, mainly in the form of high energy prices. The chart above does not reflect the higher inflation rate in 2008, when wages weren't increasing all that fast then either. I don't think Krugman's model takes that into consideration. Energy counts for an awful lot in our economy. In fact in any advanced economy. It is not wise to allow energy prices to get out of hand, like what is happening now.
Update:
Historical inflation data here: month by month numbers below (2008) :
Update:
The Blogger editor won't cooperate. The numbers keep moving around every time I do an edit. There's a solution, but I'm not working on the right machine for that at the moment. (Fixed!)
A scan through those charts from prior years is interesting in itself. When Krugman talks about a weaker dollar in the Reagan years, it came after a stringent policy of tight monetary policy which whipped inflation of the seventies. Most likely at the time, the dollar was a lot stronger than what it is now. I could check it, but why bother? The dollar is already at all time lows today. If you go much lower, you will be going into uncharted waters. But Krugman isn't worried about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)