I often quote Friedrich August von Hayek, “If socialist understood economics they wouldn’t be socialist.”

I do not quote that to be pejorative (though I am sure many take it that way) but as an observation of the truth. Let us be frank, socialist are not the only people wandering the landscape with no understanding of what they profess but they are the most vocal in advocating for destruction – and the culture the socialist have embraced and propagate entails the shunning of those who may logically point out what socialism requires and the inevitable outcome. Making truth, data and facts into the enemy and convincing the gullible that truth, data and facts are the enemy is the only method by which socialism continues to survive rather than having been relegated to the trash bin of history long ago.

Socialism is a dumpster fire writ large. Socialism inevitably fails for a number of reasons – but the most significant reason is that it requires a change in human nature. For a hundred years now socialist have been willing to use absolute unrestrained unmitigated force and terror in order to instigate that change in human nature. They have failed – 100% of the time. Socialism in all of its’ forms is at odds with both the reality of what human beings are and with math. For whatever reason those who buy into socialism are typically unwilling to bend to this truth – and when the program inevitably causes misery, poverty and death the adherents of socialism also inevitably believe they have not used sufficient force for socialism to work. Make no mistake – socialism is force. That is all it is. Socialist inevitably come to believe that there are ‘traitors’ in the midst who have sabotaged their socialism rather than that socialism is a truly terrible idea. They seemingly can never accept that socialism is simply a terrible system. This denial of reality inevitably leads to witch hunts, denouncements, punishment, prisons and executions.


No one who is an adherent of socialism – at the start of the program – buys into or believes it will result in unrestrained unmitigated force and terror in order to instigate that change in human nature. No adherents believe at the start of the program that they will inevitably come to believe that there are ‘traitors’ in their midst who have sabotaged their socialism and they do not believe that they will institute witch hunts, denouncements, prisons and executions.

Yet this is almost inevitably the result. The greatest horrors in the history of mankind have been brought about via socialism. Nothing else is even close.

The root cause is that the adherents of socialism do not believe that ‘their’ implementation of socialism will ever lead to misery, poverty and death – though that is the inevitable outcome. When it does lead to misery, poverty and death then they ‘chose the wrong leaders’ or ‘it was sabotaged’ or any number of other excuses – anything other than it is a terrible idea. That it is a terrible idea is as clear as day to everyone – other than the socialists.

“If socialist understood economics they wouldn’t be socialist.”

Yearning For Feudalism

1. Fact: Modern “Progressives” barely know there is such a thing as ‘Monetary Policy’ and they have no idea what it is or how it works.

2. Fact: The overwhelming majority of wealth transfers to the rich occur via monetary policy – about $15 trillion in net wealth transferred from the bottom 93% to the top 7% during the Obama years.

3. Fact: Modern “Progressives” constantly and even violently argue for policies that are simply wealth transfers to the very rich with a facade of compassion placed around it – the reason why is #1 on this post.

4. Fact: Long time Progressives such as Charles Hugh Smith, who actually understand monetary policy, point out that modern ‘Progressives’ are yearning for, fighting for and demanding a 21st century version of feudalism without the first clue that this is what they are actually doing. As a result Progressives that indeed understand monetary policy are shunned, belittled and attacked – for merely pointing out the fact that modern ‘Progressives’ are yearning for, fighting for and demanding a 21st century version of feudalism because of #1 on this post.

This is not pejorative – just facts. That modern “Progressives” have adopted a cultural motif that anyone who does not agree with them is evil and to be disregarded and the enemy makes it almost impossible for them to come to realize the truth of #1.

Hence – they will continue to argue, even engaging in violence, for continued massive wealth transfers to the 1% while sincerely believing that they are doing just the opposite.

Climate Change And You

Nothing – not even economics – is so viciously argued with as much actual ignorance among the general public as the topic ‘climate change.’

Let us start with some simple facts – how many people in North America actually holistically understand this topic? A few hundred. That is it. Not thousands. Not tens of thousands.

Next fact – you are not among that few hundred. Just the truth.

What is the attitude of these few hundred toward the effects that man has on climate change? Ambivalence. Not certainly, not “we are all gonna die!” but ambivalence. What is more – these folks are even more ambivalent that anything can be done about it without killing billions of people.

This is where it gets interesting – what people argue about is what someone else told them. Again, just the truth. Almost exclusively those who are proponents of man made climate change also propose solutions that will make the wealthy ever more wealthy! Let us review – you do not have an understanding of the topic (neither do I), you are arguing over what is effectively gossip, and that gossip includes proposed solutions that will enrich and empower the very wealthy. Where do you think the gossip started?

That is where we are as society.

“But but but Miami will be underwater!”

Few to none of the actual few hundred people who actually understand this topic are claiming that – but those who spread such nonsense do not care.

Furthermore if all the fear-mongering were to be true – buying solar panels and a Prius won’t change the outcome. Beyond that – the people who are fear-mongering are fear-mongering about how the petroleum industry is the source of ‘climate change’ while typing on the their PC or iPhone.

Yes it is that absurd. Almost as absurd as Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore flying on private jets followed by taking limousines to a presser in order to tell everyone who much danger you are in and how you (but not them!) must reduce your carbon footprint so the planet can be saved – and oh by the way you can reduce your carbon footprint by purchasing the products they are invested in. if you are a proponent of man caused climate change and you believe it must be dealt with – advocating for solutions that inevitably are nothing more than wealth transfers to the 1% is not helping your position.

Absurd does not begin to define the situation.

I suppose that ‘saving the planet’ – even if you are ‘saving’ it from a fictional problem – provides meaning to lives. Among a certain sub-culture demonstrating your commitment to combat ‘climate change’ is a required check-box to remain part of the group and to question the basic premise – and the actual few hundred scientist who actually holistically study this topic happen to question the social media premise severely – means you are no longer a decent human being and you must be shunned.

Yeah, that shows a commitment to science…

Inviting You To The Denver American Indian Festival

In my post space today I am going to talk about and encourage you to come out to the Denver American Indian Festival.

Here are the basics

Saturday, September 30, 2017

10 AM To 6 PM

Sunday, October 1, 2017

Noon To 6 PM

Rain or shine

3960 E. 128th Avenue

Thornton, CO 80241

The festival is on the south side of 128th half a block west of Colorado. The festival is easy to find and easy to get to with abundant parking.

We will have singing, dancing, storytelling, traditional craft making, vendors, food, a Kids Zone where your children can make age-appropriate crafts, all sorts of activities. We have entertainment performing at the top of each hour. At 11 AM Saturday and noon on Sunday the veterans guard will present the colors – try to be there for that.

The Denver American Indian Festival is free. No admission, no cover charge, nothing like that. Free, family and child friendly and a great vibe. We do not want anyone to feel they cannot attend because of cost – everyone is welcome and invited. Everyone.

Why do we do this? We do this to bring people together. We do this because Indians are your neighbors, co-workers, the people you ride the bus with…

Yet at the same time people tend to treat Indians as something other than neighbors, co-workers, the people you ride the bus with…

People sometimes treat Indians as mascots or make us into some sort of New Age icons.

We are your neighbors and the sub-title for the festival is “Bridges to Respect.” Our culture is different and what differentiates the Denver American Indian Festival from a typical Pow Wow is that we allow citizens and enrolled members many different Indian nations a venue to express their culture. This can be through art, story telling, singing, dancing, drumming, food, or crafts. The Denver American Indian Festival has citizens and enrolled members of over fifty Indian nations who participate in the festival.

Additionally the Denver American Indian Festival supports a charity. The 2017 Charity Outreach for the Denver American Indian Festival is One Nation Walking Together.

For the second year in a row One Nation Walking Together (ONWT) will be the charity outreach for the DAIF. They have been a most excellent partner and they service the needs of ALL tribes. The U.S. Army Recruiters will again help collect these items at the festival. ONWT has requested Christmas items for teens. These would include puzzles, robes/slippers, board games, basketballs, soccer balls, footballs, camping gear bikes, card games, Nerf guns, wood burning kits, gift cards, beading kits, dolls, actions figures, craft kits, paint/brushes /paper. They also would like hygiene items, hair dryers, nonperishable food, blankets, towels, sheets, lamps, space heater, fans and household items like pots, pans, dishes, silverware, and appliances. There is no need to wrap these as ONWT will do that. Seeing what they could use feel free to add anything else you believe would help like winter clothing. Your individual gift of generosity will make a big difference in the life of a Native American youth. For more information about ONWT visit their website at or contact them at 719/329-0251 or

if you can bring an item to contribute you can make a difference in someone’s life.

If you are in the Denver area I would invite you all to the Denver American Indian Festival. It is a nonpolitical event simply celebrating culture and allowing neighbors to know neighbors.

Please come out and bring your children or your grandchildren. Look for me and come say hi!

Hillary’s Postmortem is Producing Autopsy Comic Gold

 The left-leaning Guardian newspaper has a story out titled “Why Hillary Clinton was right about white women – and their husbands.” The article cites a new study purporting to prove Clinton’s explanation for her shocking defeat was right on the money.

Recall that in an interview with NPR, Hillary blamed her lackluster support from women voters on the little ladies being under intense pressure from their fathers, husbands, boyfriends, and bosses not to vote for her. Men pressured women and boom! America chose Trump. Conservative and mainstream outlets began chortling that Hillary claimed women “caved” to pressure from the men in their lives.


That stone hit the water and splashed waves of comic relief. First, Hillary’s strange punditry supplied her critics with schadenfreude and her supporters with chagrin. Second, the corrupt fact-checking racket leaped to throw its body in front of Hillary, bravely trying to deflect her deserved soaking. And third, leftist academics, but that’s redundant and repetitive, are riding to the rescue to breathe life into Hillary’s limp theory.
To set the stage, consider Hillary’s words in context. At an NPR interview on her No Mea Culpa tour, she recounted a somber conversation with writer Sheryl Sandberg about the sexism that would hold her back:
Sheryl ended this really sobering conversation by saying that women will have no empathy for you, because they will be under tremendous pressure — and I’m talking principally about white women — they will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for “the girl.”
So, on Hillary’s list of public enemies, to Bernie Sanders and James Comey, add women cowed by men. Even centrist and liberal outlets took umbrage to this characterization. Hillary’s explanation is sexist declared Newsweek. She thinks women voted against her because of men sniffed Glamour. And of course center and right media piled on about Hillary’s women who caved.
The specter of fingers pointing from both right and left at the Bad Candidate obviously embarrassed establishment Democrats and the Left. But, again I’m being redundant, again. Something had to be done. And fact checkers were just the ones to do it. Snopes stepped up to the vault, performed a double twisting somersault, and declared the charge that Hillary blamed her defeat on women who caved to men “mostly false.” Snopes’s reasoning was that Hillary had not actually used the word “caved” and, anyway, the words were not her own, but Sheryl Sandberg’s.
 This is idiotic. Clinton obviously endorsed Sandberg’s words. She treasured them verbatim in her mind. She repeated them from her own mouth on a national interview to explain “What Happened.” Now, a careful reading shows she did not actually use any verb to capture the capitulation of her alleged wanted-to-be supporters. She just said they would be under tremendous pressure…tremendous pressure. Twice. In the same sentence. (She was being redundant).
Tremendous pressure usually precedes a cave-in. A thorough writer who wanted to assign a verb to the process of people being forced to cave in might well deploy “yielded” or “succumbed” or “gave into” but there is nothing extravagant or distortive about the vivid verb “caved.” The widely repeated phrase was substantially true, not mostly false. But sure enough, derivative “rebuttals” sprang up, dismissing the accusation as a “misquote.”
So the score until last week was Hillary had embarrassed herself and her supporters, then liberal fact checkers handed off their beer so they could one-up her. But now, academics and a liberal newspaper have decided not to let Hillary’s embarrassment die without a fight.
Author Lucia Graves sets the stage mournfully: “Given the opportunity to make history by electing the first female president, women didn’t take it. And ironically, the women who bore the most resemblance to Clinton – white, heterosexual and married – were less likely to vote for her.” Graves rehearses Clinton’s theory of tremendous manpressuring and concedes “people might scoff at the idea that women vote based on what husbands and fathers tell them to do.” But, she assures us, “Social science backs up Clinton’s anecdotal hunch.”
Graves hands the microphone over to Kelsy Kretschmer, an assistant professor of public policy at Oregon State University. Kretschmer coauthored a study on women’s voting patterns. The study confirms the long observed fact that married women tend to vote more conservatively than single women. So far so good, but here, the pressure hypotheses—and any support for Clinton—falls apart.
The elephant in the room is women’s perception of their own interests. “’Just being married makes women more conservative in their vote choice,’” Kretchmer explains.“Individually speaking, such voting behavior is more rational than it may sound,” Graves concedes. Then she starts warming up her humor. “The key distinction, according to Kretschmer’s research, is that single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, while women married to men vote on behalf of their husbands and families.”
Got that? Single women vote for womenkind. Married women vote for husbands and kids. The first thing to observe is that there’s no suggestion of “tremendous pressure” from anyone, just different women’s priorities in voting. The second thing to observe is that Graves and Kretchner conflate a handful of liberal issues–expansive abortion, equal pay (which has been the law of the land for decades), more aggressive employment litigation—with women’s interest as a whole, and dismiss other concerns that are perfectly rational motivations for women voters.
Their anecdotal coup de grace is telling:
A college-educated woman identifying as a liberal Democrat confided to Kretschmer – not wanting to be identified, as a Trump voter – that she had voted for him over Clinton because her husband’s job depends on the coal industry; she saw Trump as the candidate that would protect it, and by extension her family’s economic interests. Kretschmer called her story “the clearest, most heartbreaking validation of our article that I had ever heard.”
Again, there was no reported pressure or arm twisting. There was simply a self-described liberal woman voting for the candidate who promised to protect her family’s livelihood over the candidate who cackled she was “going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
 It would be more accurate to say Kretschmer’s study indicates married women are more likely to vote for policies that support strong economic opportunity and family security, than they are to vote for the Hubby State envisioned by President Obama’s animated Julia character. Recall Julia is an apparently single mother who credits her life successes from childhood to old age to a series of government programs. Married women vote more conservative. Single women vote more liberal.
Sorry, but Hillary’s self-serving theory is still hanging out there looking stupid.

Some People Will Say I Am Being Unfair About This

Mish Shedlock recently posted an article stating the obvious – ‘living wage’ and ‘guaranteed income’ schemes cannot work. That this is not obvious to a significant percentage of the population is pretty scary.

Damn education system again!

Let us quickly review why that cannot work. The simple answer is because there is not enough money – but due to political dishonesty that obvious answer becomes convoluted and many people will dissemble on this topic for their own selfish reasons. The method by which those who wish to obfuscate will claim it can work is via more debt. Simple truth. To review, the United States Federal government official ‘on the books’ debt is $20 trillion. The unofficial ‘off the books’ but actual debt is north of $210 trillion. The advocates of guaranteed income wish to add trillions more to this debt, even though no rational person believes we can pay what we already owe. How would the United States manage to fund this program? In the short term via the Federal Reserve issuing more credit. More credit equals more debt and in order to pay the debt with interest it requires ever more grotesque market distortions that will result in ever less employment and even more wealth inequality that will result in ever more people needing assistance that will result in ever more government programs that will result in ever more Federal debt.

Wash rinse repeat.

Many of the people who support these types of programs see them as a cure to economic ills and injustice. Some people are patently dishonest on the matter but most people just believe they are being compassionate. The initial problem here is that the people that are simply trying to be compassionate generally have no idea how any of it is funded and beyond that have no idea how the current monetary regime operates. Consequently they have no idea that what they are proposing will generate poverty and misery and wealth inequality. The second problem is a cultural phenomena has taken hold on the political and social Left that effectively claims that anyone who bothers to point out the obvious effect of these policies – that the net result is simply a massive wealth transfer to the 1% – is a tool of Wall Street and the corporations and such and that they are to be hated and denounced.

I understand that the topic of monetary policy makes peoples eyes roll and that understanding monetary policy appears to be the most boring way that someone could spend their time. I understand most people have little interest in understanding monetary policy, and that because it appears complicated, convoluted and boring makes it the perfect mechanism for wealth transfers to the 1%. That the wealth transfers to the 1% can be covered in a facade of compassion makes it ideal. The very wealthiest fund these social program theories because they make the 1% wealthier and nearly everyone else poorer. The truth.

That socialism and wealth transfer programs enrich the few at the expense of the many has always been true in each and every situation where it has been put into practice. Even in the earliest days of the Soviet Union the politburo members travelled in Rolls-Royce’s while millions starved in the Ukraine. Now people scoff and say “But the Soviets were evil!” Ok, how about Cuba where the overwhelming majority exist on less than $100 a month but those at the top party on yachts and indulge every material luxury imaginable? Cuba, where those at the top travel to Europe for medical care while bragging on how effective the ‘free’ Cuban healthcare system delivers healthcare? Still not convinced? How about Venezuela where items as basic as toilet paper differentiate the masses from the elite? We will not even talk about the Sandinista genocide of the Miskito Indians and Bernie Sanders rationalization of why that was necessary to advance Nicaraguan socialism.

The latest absurdity that socialist point to is Denmark – a country that itself claims it is not socialist and beyond that is a monarchy! Even in the ‘successful’ example of Denmark wealth inequality exceeds that of the United States. Oh by the way – Denmark recently announced they will be slashing their social spending by more than half – so there is that as well.

In other words – there are no successful happy examples socialism.


I understand that some people will say I am being unfair about this – but all I am doing is pointing out what Bernie Sanders has claimed were the ‘successful’ examples of socialism over the past fifty years.

Due to temporary monetary and fiscal gimmicks we allow ourselves to continue the fantasies that the debt does not matter. The corollary fantasies are that we can adopt programs that will balloon the debt ever farther beyond what we already owe and will someday default on.

Sometimes societies just collectively go insane.

Page 3 of 3212345...102030...Last »