The rich get richer

Date: 26 Dec 14
By: Frank Gue, B.c., MBA, P.Eng.,
2252 Joyce St.,
Burlington, ON L7R 2B5
905 634 9538
Date: 26 Dec 14
By: Frank Gue, B.c., MBA, P.Eng.,
2252 Joyce St.,
Burlington, ON L7R 2B5
905 634 9538
For: Editors, The Economist, London, UK

Dear Editors:

Consider your chart on P. 73, showing a remarkable six-fold spike in China’s stock market index.

Let some imaginary economy hold $200 of real goods in inventory. There are two investors, Ching and Chung, each with $100 to invest. Let wealthy, cunning financier Ching, with good, high-priced advice per Piketty, invest $100 on Jan. 1, 2006, and cash-out for $600 in July of 2007. The less prescient Chung, obeying instead the Lemming Law, invests his $100 in July, 2007 just when Ching is selling his, and sells it with the other lemmings for $20 in October of 2008. At the end of this scenario, Ching has enjoyed a 500% increase but poor, unfortunate lemming Chung has suffered an 80% loss. Ching now has a $600 claim on current production, while Chung has only a $20 claim, neither having exchanged one penny’s worth of actual, real goods, but only digital dots somewhere in the Cloud. Clearly, the six-fold spike in the index had nothing whatever to do with anything in the real economy; yet Ching now enjoys a $600 claim on it while Chung can claim only $20, a total between them of $620.

Now, if Ching and Chung decide to exercise their claims on the same day by buying up the $200 of real goods in inventory, Ching would be able to buy 600/620 = 96% of it or $194, while Chung could buy only 20/620 = $6 of it. What a dramatic change from $100 each! And what an impact on inflation!

This useful reductio ad absurdum may, despite its oversimplification and despite its ignoring endless confounding factors, point out one important reason why “the rich get richer” etc.

Barter may well be a hopelessly ineffective exchange mechanism; but its successor, money, acting merely as an accessory to inequitization, has grave shortcomings not yet fully recognized or provided for in our economies.

Cheers,

F.

Advertisements

Discrimination in immigration

Dec. 12, 2014

Messrs Stephen Harper, Prime Minister
Mike Wallace, MPP

GA, Mike and Stephen.

If, as you are being criticized for, you are discriminating for certain religious minorities and against others, good for you. Everyday life runs on discrimination. We discriminate all the way from buying groceries to marrying a spouse.

Never forget the public statement by the principal of a Madrassa (Muslim school) in Montreal, who said on CBC TV, “Assimilate? We’re not here to assimilate. We’re here to take over. The laws of Canada are not the laws of God.”

What could be clearer?

Western democracies carefully, and for excellent reasons, separate church and state. In Muslim countries, by contrast, the church IS the state. One of the Muslims’ declared methods of “taking over” our Canadian state is to infiltrate our own democratic institutions such as elected representation (parliaments etc.) until they can control them by sheer arithmetic. That arithmetic is driven in no small measure by immigration/propagation, i.e. “the revenge of the cradle” as Pierre Trudeau once put it. Quebec discriminates this way successfully: the RoC should take due note.

We rightly favor millwrights, carpenters and other hands-on, productive trades in our immigration policies. So let us disfavor disruptive and counter-democratic elements who are here to “take over”, violently when necessary, as has been their stated objective for over 1,300 years.

Best,

Frank.

Geoengineering Dec. 14

From: Frank Gue
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: The Weather

I watched the Geoengineering video again.

The massiveness of the global conspiracy needed to account for this geoengineering process leaves one gasping.

And yet, and yet.

The well documented, well proven global suppression by the Main Stream Media of climate change skeptics leaves one quite sure that, once a mass hysteria has taken hold, no amount of contrary opinion will come to the surface. Remember the 1700s Tulip Bubble? The South Sea Island bubble? The Dot-Com bubble? The subprime mortgage bubble? (I was one of the lone voices warning about this last one, which I did and got published in 2007, a year before 2008 hit.) In each of these episodes, a few simple questions (such as: How could a single tulip bulb be worth thousands of dollars as apparently some were in 1750 or-whenever-it-was?) would have burst the bubble before it got dangerous.

I want to see a scientific, quantified, documented inquiry by someone like the AAS published in a reputable journal like the AMA or the CDC, framed as a proper experiment (you know, the question, the apparatus, the procedure, etc.) that gets a credible answer to an unambiguous question – not a long series of flat statements such as in this video, persuasive as it is.

Example of one reason for my skepticism on all of these fire alarms is this: CO2 is not a noxious gas. It is a vital component of all life, including ours. We all live on plant matter or derivatives of plant matter, such as meat. All plant matter lives by converting CO2, water, micronutrients and sunlight to available nutrients like sugar, C12H22O11. We don’t know how it is done with such incredible efficiency.

The Earth has gone thru any number of warm-cold cycles. During one of them, a warm high-CO2 cycle that lasted hundreds of millions of years, there grew the biggest by far land animals that ever existed: the dinosaurs. Has anyone done a nutritional cycle budget that asks: How many of these huge animals were there? What was their calorific demand upon the Earth? How was that demand met? How did it compare with today’s calorific demands? Was there a correlation between it and global temperature and/or CO2 concentration?

For that matter, Ontario has gone through at least six changes from warm-to-cool-to-warm in the last 5,000 years. There is about 20 ft of overburden above slate here at this location. The first five feet are displayed in any excavation that leaves a sheer, undisturbed vertical exposure. This exposure is clearly in strata that vary from pebbles (fairly fast moving melt water) to silt (dammed cold water not moving at all, i.e. under a quiet lake). See the picture below. Extrapolating heroically, I suggest that my five feet represents one quarter of the 20,000 years since the ice retreated, and that there may have been 24 warm-cool cycles here during that time. Ergo, the historical warm-cool cycles (such as the “Little Ice Age” that ended in the 1890s, or the “Medieval Warm Spell” that gave rise to centuries of human productivity that enabled the construction of massive cathedrals and Viking farming in Greenland) were and are perfectly natural and predictable phenomena.

Climate change? You bet. The climate is changing because the climate is always changing. CO2 has yet to be proven the culprit, much less our blame for it. I remain a conscientious scientific skeptic. After all, Gary, we are Bachelors of Science, aren’t we?

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/hiding-the-crimes-of-the-weathermakers/

Solving government fiscal mismanagement

Filename:      SpecDec9ReTaxes  (Lexar)

Date:             9 Dec 14

By:                 Frank Gue, B.Sc., MBA, P;Eng.,

22152 Joyce St.,

Burlington, ON L7R 2B5

905 634 9538

For:                Editor: The Spectator

Re:                 “Clock is ticking … “  today’s Spec   249 words

GA, Lee.

One reads “5 ways out of the’ ’there is no money box’” with growing unease.  Using the writers’ logic, any fiscal problem can be solved by raising taxes.  But Ontario is now one of the highest tax jurisdictions in the world.  We are accumulating debt at a rate several times the Canadian average.  Canada in general, and Ontario in particular, has passed the optimum tax “take” from the economy, which is about 35-40 percent, or about 15 percentage points lower than ours.

Governments in general, and Ontario’s in particular, are poor fiscal managers.  Think of Ehealth, or the Ontario Hydro mess, or the Green Energy boondoggle.  Most governments could not manage their way out of a wet paper bag.  And we are going to give them MORE money?

As the saying goes, if one finds himself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.  Here’s one of many ways to do that.  Boards, Crown corporations, commissions use enormous amounts of our tax money.  Use Dr. Pirie’s rule about each one: Sell it if you can; if you can’t sell it, give it away; if you can’t give it away, close it down.

It wouldn’t be hard to find other places where fiscal problems can be solved by applying ordinary sound household budgeting principles.  We and our kids and grand-kids are going to have to do this anyway to pay for our governments’ profligacy; it’s past time we asked the same of those governments themselves.

Cheers,

F.