The Creepy Statism of Utah’s Defense of Traditional Marriage

Gay marriage will result in kids born without faces!Attorneys for the state of Utah
have filed their
initial argument
, readable here (pdf), at the
federal appeals court in order to defend the state’s ban on
recognizing gay marriages. The 100-page opus can simply be
summarized as “It’s for the children!”

At the National Review Online’s
blog
, Michael T. Worley summarizes the 15 consequences
presented by the Utah to justify the state’s involvement in
deciding who can and cannot get married. The summary is extremely
useful in seeing exactly how certain types of conservatives are
just as statist as progressives. In fact many of the arguments have
absolutely nothing to do with gay people at all and are all about
the state making sure heterosexual people don’t get confused or
silly ideas about how to have a family if the government doesn’t
tell them how to do it.

Consider the main thrusts of their fears:

1. “First, as many commentators have observed, because
procreation is an inherently gendered affair, redefining marriage
in genderless terms would break the critical conceptual link
between marriage and procreation. . . . Given the manifest ills of
fatherless parenting, the State has a compelling interest in
sending a powerful message to women that, whenever possible,
marriage to the fathers of their children is very important to the
welfare of those children and to society itself.”

2. “Second, for similar reasons, the loss of the State’s clear
message in favor of biological mother-father parenting within
marriage would likely result in a higher percentage of couples
conceiving children without the stability that marriage would
otherwise bring.”

3. “Third, replacing the child-centric or ‘conjugal’ view
of marriage with a more adult-centric view would undermine the
existing social norm that often leads parents in acceptable but not
ideal marriages to make self-sacrifices and remain married to the
parents of their children.”

4. “Fourth, by shifting the understanding of marriage to a more
adult-centric view, the redefinition ordered by the district court
would also undermine the current social norm (weakened though it
may be) that those who wish to have children—or to engage in
conduct that could lead to children—should get married.”

Yes, the main arguments against recognizing gay marriages is
that it will somehow result in fewer marriages. Because
heterosexual women will get confused somehow about what marriage is
or whether they want one because they aren’t getting clear messages
from “the state” about what “the state” wants them to do and not
because they do or do not want to be married. (And isn’t it creepy
that it’s the women who need the messages about marriage and not
the men?)

It gets even creepier:

“Fifth, and most obviously, a genderless definition of marriage
would likely increase the number of children being raised by
same-sex parents. That could happen because the couple decides to
raise together an existing child of one of the partners. Or it
could result from the conception of a new child through surrogacy
or sperm-donation. Either way, such children will not benefit from
the State’s preferred mother-father parenting model; often they
will have no way of knowing even the identity of both biological
parents. And recent evidence on same-sex parenting, while not
conclusive, indicates that same-sex parenting arrangements are less
effective than married biological mothers and fathers in producing
positive outcomes in the lives of their children.”

“The State’s preferred mother-father parenting model” sounds
borderline socialist. Whether or not a child knows his or her
biological parents is also not the state’s business — are they
going to outlaw adoption, too? Really, the state is mostly just
asserting that it needs to play a role.

And yes, the widely discredited Mark Regnerus study is
referenced. That’s the study that compared a wide variety of
different kinds of gay familes, whether they were partnered,
single, divorced, or what have you, only to stable, married
heterosexual families. I wrote about the
awfulness of the study’s “science”
back in 2012.

Also, one of the fears listed as a potential bad consequence of
recognizing gay marriage? It’s the perpetuation of libertarian
views about privatizing marriage! Horrors!

11. “To the extent a genderless marriage definition encourages
the further abandonment—or privatization—of marriage, it
would  almost certainly reduce birthrates. Studies have shown
that cohabiting couples tend to produce fewer children on average
than married couples do—perhaps because the resulting instability
makes the participants less willing to bring children into the mix.
Thus, if overall marriage rates decline further, birthrates would
likely decline as well.”

The weirdest argument spread throughout is fear that the
government needs to make sure birthrates and fertility stay up. The
drop in birthrates in Western countries (and even non-Western
countries!) is a function of improving economic security and
safety. It is not a cause for concern (other than for our
poorly-thought-out entitlement systems) and is evidence of the
world becoming a better place, not a worse place. Neither Utah, nor
America, is in any danger of running out of people. Also, worrying
about families having children outside the state-favored marital
arrangements and then pivoting to worrying about families
not having children outside the state-favored marital
arrangements doesn’t exactly make a coherent case.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1kUPRhy
via IFTTT

The Rand Paul/Ron Paul Disconnect on Drugs

One of Ron Paul’s defining moments–vivid proof that this is a
very different kind of character we are dealing with here, in a
great way–was when, at the first 2012 cycle Republican
presidential candidate debate in May 2011
, he mocked the idea
that legalizing heroin was a terrible idea that would lead everyone
to do heroin.

“It’s amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a
spiritual way but not when it comes to our personal habits,” he
said, and advocating leaving drug policy to the states: “up until
this past century they were legal….How many people here would use
heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would!….’Oh yeah, I need
the government to take care of me, I don’t want to use heroin so I
need these laws.”

That boldness actually was a big applause line. It was a sea
change in what was possible in American politics, even if no one
has been bold enough to try to occupy the space Ron Paul
cleared.

The Washington Post
writes yesterday
that Paul’s son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul,
while making decent noises in a libertarian direction on drug
policy, isn’t bold enough to be a legalizer:

The younger Paul has long distanced himself from his father’s
pro-legalization stances. While campaigning for his father, Rand
defended the states-rights positions, but he has since made a point
to note that he does not personally favor the legalization of drugs
such as heroin and cocaine. He spent much of last
year assuring
conservatives
 — who will be crucial in Iowa, New
Hampshire and much of the heartland in 2016 — that, when it came
to drugs, he was on their side.

But much of the Paul brand is built on the backs of the
Libertarian-leaning voters who buoyed his father’s presidential
bids, and Paul’s refusals in the past to voice support for
state-level legalization has earned him some
chiding
 from them. He
has, however, charted out a fairly libertarian — some might even
argue, liberal — position on drug sentencing reform, calling for
the walk-back of federal mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent
drug offenses.

As 2016 inches closer, Paul may find himself increasingly tugged
in two directions. Thus far, Paul has toed the line —
supporting sentencing reform that is considered by many essential
to undoing the societal damage done by the war on drugs while
deliberately staying far away from his father’s states’ rights
crusades with regard to drugs.

I got the sense when
interviewing Paul last week and bringing up the topic
, even
about pot, that he’d rather not be pressed on what he really might
philosophically believe deep down in a perfect world on this topic,
but just wants to talk about the specific policies he’s actually
advocating as a legislator to ameliorate some of the worst effects
of the drug war, especially when it comes to sentencing and
industrial hemp. This certainly isn’t satisfying to full
legalizers, as Mike Riggs has written about for us
here
and
here
.

I’m not even sure, as Rand Paul seems to be, that avoiding
legalization head on will make him a more effective change agent
around the edges of the drug war, moving the goalposts of the
politically acceptable in a way that might make politician Rand
Paul of 2018 feel free to say some more interesting things about
the legality of drugs–just as Barack Obama has felt politically
freed to at least say sensible things about pot.

In the meantime, those who need a national politician who is
willing to mock heroin’s illegality can know that Rand Paul is not,
right now, their man.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1kUPQdu
via IFTTT

What you can learn from the founders of Hong Kong

Hong Kong 150x150 What you can learn from the founders of Hong Kong

February 5, 2014
Panguipulli, Chile

As you may know, I’m an avid reader. I devour especially historical accounts of any kind, because I consider lessons of history to be invaluable. As the Latin proverb says: Historia magistra vitae est—history is life’s teacher.

One of my all-time favorite books is a novel by James Clavell, Tai-pan. It’s the second book in his series of six novels known as The Asian Saga—a fictional account of historical facts.

Tai-Pan tells the story of Western, and especially British, traders at the time of the Opium Wars with China. The story starts right after the British have defeated the Chinese Empire in the First Opium War and claimed a barren island in the Pearl River delta as a British possession—Hong Kong.

Tai-Pan is actually a Cantonese term that literally means “big shot”, and was reserved strictly for top foreign businessmen and traders operating in the Chinese realm.

In the story, right after the ceremonial claim of Hong Kong, the eponymous Tai-Pan, a Scottish merchant Dirk Struan, who dominates the trade in tea, silk, and opium, receives letters and dispatches from his son Culum who has just arrived to the Orient from Scotland:

“Finally he broke the seal on his banker’s letter. He read it and exploded with rage.

“What is it?” Culum asked, frightened.

“Just an old pain. Nothing. It’s nothing.” Struan pretended to read the next dispatch while raging inwardly over the contents of the letter. Good sweet Christ!

“We regret to inform you that, inadvertently and momentarily, credit was overextended and there was a run on the bank, started by malicious rivals. Therefore we can no longer keep our doors open. The board of directors has advised we can pay sixpence on the pound. I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant…”

And we hold close to a million sterling of their paper. Twenty-five thousand sterling for a million, and our debts close to a million pounds. We’re bankrupt.

Great God, I warned Robb not to put all the money in one bank. Na with all the speculating that was going on in England, na when a bank could issue paper in any amount that it liked.”

Chillingly familiar, right?

A million pounds was an ENORMOUS amount of money in the 1840s. And here the biggest merchant in the Orient fell into the same trap as many people do today. He failed to recognize the risks and diversify accordingly.

He was obviously aware of the threats, but didn’t act when he had the time and opportunity to do so.

The world is not that different today.

Just last week we talked about how HSBC in the UK is restricting its customers’ access to their own money. As revolting as it seems, this is what banks with capital shortfalls and liquidity crunches do.

Another thing from Europe which has gone completely unnoticed was a hearing in the European Parliament on banking, during which the new German board member of the European Central Bank, Sabine Lautenschlaeger said that it should be possible to wind down failing eurozone banks over a weekend “before markets open in Japan on Monday.”

The threats and warning signs are there for everyone to see even today.

The question is, will you have the foresight to act and mitigate your risks beforehand, or will you end up regretting your inaction, just like the Tai-Pan?

from SOVErEIGN MAN http://ift.tt/1kUNgEc
via IFTTT

How Really to Debate Creationists: Bill Nye versus Ken Ham

Jesus on a DinosaurYesterday, Ken Ham, nutty founder of Answers in
Genesis and the Creation Museum in Kentucky debated Bill Nye, the
Science Guy on the evidence for Young Earth Creationism versus that
for Evolutionary Science. A lot of media outlets, e.g., the

DailyBeast
and
Slate
, are tut-tutting Nye for participating in a debate
that provided Ham a platform from which to spread his nonsense.
Sadly, it is true that rank demagoguery has a much easier time
being entertaining than does a careful exposition of science. But
there is a way to beat Creationists at their own game – mockery.
More on that in a moment.

I got to know Ken Ham when I reported on the 2005 Creation
Mega-Conference at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. I noted in
my reports from the conference, “Creation
Summer Camp
” and “The
Myth of Millions of Years
,” that the Ham was the author a
lavishly illustrated children’s book, The Dinosaurs of
Eden
. In that book, children garbed in biblically appropriate
duds frolic with pet dinosaurs and their parents saddle some up to
ride and carry cargo.

At the Mega-Conference, I learned that Noah’s ark carried at
least 1,000 different species of dinosaurs and (paradoxically) all
dinosaur fossils were all created from being buried by Noah’s
flood. In addition, starlight appearing to travel millions of light
years (more than 6,000 years since Creation) can be explained by
the fact that God created a “mature” universe. The Young Earth
creationists also decried the Intelligent Design creationists for
being too namby pamby. Ham asserted that the Big Bang must be
rejected as inaccurate because Genesis explains that God created
the Earth and the waters on the third day and THEN the
sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day.

So how to beat back this kind of nonsense? I humbly suggest the
approach I took when Michael Shermer and I debated Discovery
Institute intelligent designers Stephen Meyer and George Gilder
back at the 2008 Freedomfest. See the YouTube of my ten minutes of
opening remarks, “Intelligent Design by Purple Space Squids,” as
nicely illustrated by Memosphere below:

Of course, my Purple Space Squid disquisition was aimed at the
claims of intelligent design proponents who pretend to be
interested in scientific investigations. My talk clearly did not
persaude Meyer and Gilder, but by show of hands Shermer and I did
win the debate at Freedomfest. So don’t try to knock down each
individual assertion of mountebanks like Ham during such a
“debate,” but instead concentrate on the goal of explaining by
entertaining with a bit of mockery thrown in. You will gratify your
intellectual friends; annoy your enemies; and perhaps persuade some
of the confused to take a deeper look into the scads of evidence
for biological evolution.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1kUxsBy
via IFTTT

Argentine Banking System Archives Destroyed By Deadly Fire

While we are sure it is a very sad coincidence, on the day when Argentina decrees limits on the FX positions banks can hold and the Argentine Central Bank's reserves accounting is questioned publically, a massive fire – killing 9 people – has destroyed a warehouse archiving banking system documents. As The Washington Post reports, the fire at the Iron Mountain warehouse (which purportedly had multiple protections against fire, including advanced systems that can detect and quench flames without damaging important documents) took hours to control and the sprawling building appeared to be ruined. The cause of the fire wasn’t immediately clear – though we suggest smelling Fernandez' hands…

 

 

We noted yesterday that there are major questions over Argentina's reserve honesty

While first print is preliminary and subject to revision, the size of recent discrepancies have no precedent. This suggest that the government may be attempting to manage expectations by temporarily fudging the "estimate " of reserve numbers (first print) while not compromising "actual" final reported numbers. If this is so, it is a dangerous game to play and one likely to back-fire.

 

During a balance of payments crisis – as Argentina is undergoing – such manipulation of official statistics (and one so critical for market sentiment) is detrimental to the needed confidence building around the transition in the FX regime.

And today the government decrees limits on FX holdings for the banks

Argentina’s central bank published resolution late yday on website limiting fx position for banks to 30% of assets.

 

Banks will have to limit fx futures contracts to 10% of assets: resolution

 

Banks must comply with resolution by April 30

And then this happens…

Via WaPo,

Nine first-responders were killed, seven others injured and two were missing as they battled a fire of unknown origin that destroyed an archive of bank documents in Argentina’s capital on Wednesday.

 

The fire at the Iron Mountain warehouse took hours to control…

 

The destroyed archives included documents stored for Argentina’s banking industry, said Buenos Aires security minister Guillermo Montenegro.

 

The cause of the fire wasn’t immediately clear.

 

Boston-based Iron Mountain manages, stores and protects information for more than 156,000 companies and organizations in 36 countries. Its Argentina subsidiary advertises that its facilities have multiple protections against fire, including advanced systems that can detect and quench flames without damaging important documents.

 

 

“There are cameras in the area, and these videos will be added to the judicial investigation, to clear up the motive of the fire and collapse,” Montenegro told the Diarios y Noticias agency.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/N3qWwW Tyler Durden

US Unveils "Climate Hubs" In War Against Climate Change

Just when you thought the “creativity” of this country’s central planners couldn’t get any greater, here comes the US Department of Agriculture with a brilliant plan to “mitigate the impact of a changing climate” – Climate Hubs. No really: Ag Sec Tom Vilsack announced today the creation of the first ever Regional Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change at seven locations around the country. “Climate Hubs” will address increasing risks such as fires, invasive pests, devastating floods, and crippling droughts on a regional basis, aiming to translate science and research into information to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners on ways to adapt and adjust their resource management. Why is this being announced? “Today’s announcement is part of the President’s Climate Action Plan to responsibly cut carbon pollution, slow the effects of climate change and put America on track to a cleaner environment.”

From the USDA

Secretary Vilsack Announces Regional Hubs to Help Agriculture, Forestry Mitigate the Impacts of a Changing Climate

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced today the creation of the first ever Regional Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change at seven locations around the country. “Climate Hubs” will address increasing risks such as fires, invasive pests, devastating floods, and crippling droughts on a regional basis, aiming to translate science and research into information to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners on ways to adapt and adjust their resource management. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama pledged that his Administration will continue to do everything in its power to act on climate change. Today’s announcement is part of the President’s Climate Action Plan to responsibly cut carbon pollution, slow the effects of climate change and put America on track to a cleaner environment.

“For generations, America’s farmers, ranchers and forest landowners have innovated and adapted to challenges. Today, they face a new and more complex threat in the form of a changing and shifting climate, which impacts both our nation’s forests and our farmers’ bottom lines,” said Vilsack. “USDA’s Climate Hubs are part of our broad commitment to developing the next generation of climate solutions, so that our agricultural leaders have the modern technologies and tools they need to adapt and succeed in the face of a changing climate.”

The Secretary first announced his intention to create the Hubs last summer. The Hubs will provide outreach and information to producers on ways to mitigate risks; public education about the risks climate change poses to agriculture, ranchlands and forests; regional climate risk and vulnerability assessments; and centers of climate forecast data and information. They will also link a broad network of partners participating in climate risk adaptation and mitigation, including universities; non-governmental organizations; federal agencies such as the Department of Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Native Nations and organizations; state departments of environment and agriculture; research centers; farm groups and more.

Across the country, farmers, ranchers and forest landowners are seeing an increase in risks to their operations due to fires, increases in invasive pests, droughts, and floods. For example, in the Midwest, growing seasons have lengthened by almost two weeks since 1950. The fire season is now 60 days longer than it was 30 years ago, and forests will become increasingly threatened by insect outbreaks, fire, drought and storms over the next 50 years. These events threaten our food supply and are costly for producers and rural economies. Drought alone was estimated to cost the U.S. $50 billion from 2011 to 2013. Such risks have implications not only for agricultural producers, but for all Americans.

The Hubs were chosen through a competitive process among USDA facilities. In addition to the seven Hubs, USDA is designating three Subsidiary Hubs (“Sub Hubs”) that will function within the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. The Sub Hubs will support the Hub within their region and focus on a narrow and unique set of issues relative to what will be going on in the rest of the Hub. The Southwest Sub Hub, located in Davis, California, will focus on specialty crops and Southwest forests, the Southeast Sub Hub will address issues important to the Caribbean, and the Midwest Sub Hub will address climate change and Lake State forests.

The following locations have been selected to serve as their region’s center of climate change information and outreach to mitigate risks to the agricultural sector:

  • Midwest: National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment, Agricultural Research Service, Ames, Iowa
    • Sub-Hub in Houghton, Mich.
  • Northeast: Northern Research Station, Forest Service, Durham, N.H.
  • Southeast: Southern Research Station, Forest Service, Raleigh, N.C.
    • Sub-Hub in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
  • Northern Plains: National Resources Center, Agricultural Research Service, Fort Collins, Colo.
  • Southern Plains: Grazinglands Research Lab, Agricultural Research Service, El Reno, Okla.
  • Pacific Northwest: Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Service, Corvallis, Ore.
  • Southwest: Rangeland Management Unit/Jornada Experimental Range, Agricultural Research Service, Las Cruces, N.M.
    • Sub-hub in Davis, Calif.

“This is the next step in USDA’s decades of work alongside farmers, ranchers and forest landowners to keep up production in the face of challenges,” Vilsack said. “If we are to be effective in managing the risks from a shifting climate, we’ll need to ensure that our managers in the field and our stakeholders have the information they need to succeed. That’s why we’re bringing all of that information together on a regionally-appropriate basis.”

The Climate Hubs will build on the capacity within USDA to deliver science-based knowledge and practical information to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners to support decision-making related to climate change across the country.

* * *

Once again, one is left speechless.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/N3qWgk Tyler Durden

US Unveils “Climate Hubs” In War Against Climate Change

Just when you thought the “creativity” of this country’s central planners couldn’t get any greater, here comes the US Department of Agriculture with a brilliant plan to “mitigate the impact of a changing climate” – Climate Hubs. No really: Ag Sec Tom Vilsack announced today the creation of the first ever Regional Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change at seven locations around the country. “Climate Hubs” will address increasing risks such as fires, invasive pests, devastating floods, and crippling droughts on a regional basis, aiming to translate science and research into information to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners on ways to adapt and adjust their resource management. Why is this being announced? “Today’s announcement is part of the President’s Climate Action Plan to responsibly cut carbon pollution, slow the effects of climate change and put America on track to a cleaner environment.”

From the USDA

Secretary Vilsack Announces Regional Hubs to Help Agriculture, Forestry Mitigate the Impacts of a Changing Climate

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced today the creation of the first ever Regional Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change at seven locations around the country. “Climate Hubs” will address increasing risks such as fires, invasive pests, devastating floods, and crippling droughts on a regional basis, aiming to translate science and research into information to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners on ways to adapt and adjust their resource management. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama pledged that his Administration will continue to do everything in its power to act on climate change. Today’s announcement is part of the President’s Climate Action Plan to responsibly cut carbon pollution, slow the effects of climate change and put America on track to a cleaner environment.

“For generations, America’s farmers, ranchers and forest landowners have innovated and adapted to challenges. Today, they face a new and more complex threat in the form of a changing and shifting climate, which impacts both our nation’s forests and our farmers’ bottom lines,” said Vilsack. “USDA’s Climate Hubs are part of our broad commitment to developing the next generation of climate solutions, so that our agricultural leaders have the modern technologies and tools they need to adapt and succeed in the face of a changing climate.”

The Secretary first announced his intention to create the Hubs last summer. The Hubs will provide outreach and information to producers on ways to mitigate risks; public education about the risks climate change poses to agriculture, ranchlands and forests; regional climate risk and vulnerability assessments; and centers of climate forecast data and information. They will also link a broad network of partners participating in climate risk adaptation and mitigation, including universities; non-governmental organizations; federal agencies such as the Department of Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Native Nations and organizations; state departments of environment and agriculture; research centers; farm groups and more.

Across the country, farmers, ranchers and forest landowners are seeing an increase in risks to their operations due to fires, increases in invasive pests, droughts, and floods. For example, in the Midwest, growing seasons have lengthened by almost two weeks since 1950. The fire season is now 60 days longer than it was 30 years ago, and forests will become increasingly threatened by insect outbreaks, fire, drought and storms over the next 50 years. These events threaten our food supply and are costly for producers and rural economies. Drought alone was estimated to cost the U.S. $50 billion from 2011 to 2013. Such risks have implications not only for agricultural producers, but for all Americans.

The Hubs were chosen through a competitive process among USDA facilities. In addition to the seven Hubs, USDA is designating three Subsidiary Hubs (“Sub Hubs”) that will function within the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. The Sub Hubs will support the Hub within their region and focus on a narrow and unique set of issues relative to what will be going on in the rest of the Hub. The Southwest Sub Hub, located in Davis, California, will focus on specialty crops and Southwest forests, the Southeast Sub Hub will address issues important to the Caribbean, and the Midwest Sub Hub will address climate change and Lake State forests.

The following locations have been selected to serve as their region’s center of climate change information and outreach to mitigate risks to the agricultural sector:

  • Midwest: National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment, Agricultural Research Service, Ames, Iowa
    • Sub-Hub in Houghton, Mich.
  • Northeast: Northern Research Station, Forest Service, Durham, N.H.
  • Southeast: Southern Research Station, Forest Service, Raleigh, N.C.
    • Sub-Hub in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
  • Northern Plains: National Resources Center, Agricultural Research Service, Fort Collins, Colo.
  • Southern Plains: Grazinglands Research Lab, Agricultural Research Service, El Reno, Okla.
  • Pacific Northwest: Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Service, Corvallis, Ore.
  • Southwest: Rangeland Management Unit/Jornada Experimental Range, Agricultural Research Service, Las Cruces, N.M.
    • Sub-hub in Davis, Calif.

“This is the next step in USDA’s decades of work alongside farmers, ranchers and forest landowners to keep up production in the face of challenges,” Vilsack said. “If we are to be effective in managing the risks from a shifting climate, we’ll need to ensure that our managers in the field and our stakeholders have the information they need to succeed. That’s why we’re bringing all of that information together on a regionally-appropriate basis.”

The Climate Hubs will build on the capacity within USDA to deliver science-based knowledge and practical information to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners to support decision-making related to climate change across the country.

* * *

Once again, one is left speechless.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/N3qWgk Tyler Durden

The Tiny Numbers Behind the 'Heroin Epidemic'

The other day, I
noted
that, despite the talk of “soaring” and “skyrocketing” heroin use
in the wake of Philip Seymour Hoffman’s death, the percentage of
the population consuming the drug remains very low. In 2012, the
most recent year for which data are available from the National Survey on Drug Use
and Health
, 0.3 percent of respondents reported that they had
used heroin in the previous year, up from 0.2 percent in 2011. One
commonly heard explanation for the increase is that a crackdown on
nonmedical use of prescription painkillers made them more expensive
and harder to get, driving users of drugs like OxyContin to heroin.
Here is how NPR puts it in a
story
that aired yesterday:

When you talk to people who use heroin today, almost all of them
will tell you that their opioid addiction began with exposure to
painkillers, says Dr. Andrew Kolodny, chief medical officer for the
Phoenix House Foundation and president of Physicians for
Responsible Opioid Prescribing.

“The main reason they switched to heroin is because heroin is
either easier to access or less expensive than buying painkillers
on the black market,” he says….

As patients became addicted, doctors began cutting back their
prescriptions, drug companies agreed to make the pills less
snortable, and states created registries of patients who
doctor-shopped for prescriptions.

Experts say that’s when heroin suppliers stepped in to fill the
void.

The NSDUH data (below) provide some support for that theory.
Between 2011 and 2012, the share of respondents reporting
past-month use of OxyContin fell by 50 percent, while the share
reporting past-year use of heroin rose by 50 percent. Then again,
the rate for past-year use of OxyContin remained steady, while
past-year and past-month use of all prescription opioids rose. The
last time past-year heroin use rose—between 2007 and 2008, when it
doubled from 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent—painkiller use did fall,
but past-month OxyContin use rose, while past-year OxyContin use
remained steady.

If you look at raw numbers, the evidence looks similarly mixed.
The number of past-month heroin users rose from
281,000 to 335,000 between 2011 and 2012, while the number of
past-month OxyContin users fell from 434,000 to 358,000, which is
consistent with the hypothesis that some people switched from
OxyContin to heroin. Between 2007 and 2008, however, the number of
past-month heroin users rose from
153,000 to 213,000, while the number of past-month OxyContin users
also rose, from 369,000 to 435,000. 

Assuming that heroin is substituting for opioids like OxyContin,
that is probably not a desirable development, since a black-market
product is
much less predictable
and therefore more dangerous than a
legal, pharmaceutical-quality drug. Yet Kolodny, who says increased
restrictions on painkillers are driving up heroin use, argues that
the solution is…more restrictions on painkillers. That’s a bad
idea not just because of potentially dangerous substitution effects
but because attempts to prevent nonmedical users from obtaining
opioids inevitably
hurt
 patients who need the drugs to relieve pain.

Notice, by the way, that past-month heroin use—a necessary but
not sufficient requirement for addiction—has held steady at 0.1
percent for a decade. The raw numbers have increased (from 166,000
in
2002
to 335,000 in
2012
), but not enough to kick the rate up a tenth of a
percentage point. That fact helps put into perspective the numbers
behind what NPR describes as a “heroin epidemic.” 

[Thanks to Robert Woolley for the NPR link.]

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1bv9IBg
via IFTTT

The Tiny Numbers Behind the ‘Heroin Epidemic’

The other day, I
noted
that, despite the talk of “soaring” and “skyrocketing” heroin use
in the wake of Philip Seymour Hoffman’s death, the percentage of
the population consuming the drug remains very low. In 2012, the
most recent year for which data are available from the National Survey on Drug Use
and Health
, 0.3 percent of respondents reported that they had
used heroin in the previous year, up from 0.2 percent in 2011. One
commonly heard explanation for the increase is that a crackdown on
nonmedical use of prescription painkillers made them more expensive
and harder to get, driving users of drugs like OxyContin to heroin.
Here is how NPR puts it in a
story
that aired yesterday:

When you talk to people who use heroin today, almost all of them
will tell you that their opioid addiction began with exposure to
painkillers, says Dr. Andrew Kolodny, chief medical officer for the
Phoenix House Foundation and president of Physicians for
Responsible Opioid Prescribing.

“The main reason they switched to heroin is because heroin is
either easier to access or less expensive than buying painkillers
on the black market,” he says….

As patients became addicted, doctors began cutting back their
prescriptions, drug companies agreed to make the pills less
snortable, and states created registries of patients who
doctor-shopped for prescriptions.

Experts say that’s when heroin suppliers stepped in to fill the
void.

The NSDUH data (below) provide some support for that theory.
Between 2011 and 2012, the share of respondents reporting
past-month use of OxyContin fell by 50 percent, while the share
reporting past-year use of heroin rose by 50 percent. Then again,
the rate for past-year use of OxyContin remained steady, while
past-year and past-month use of all prescription opioids rose. The
last time past-year heroin use rose—between 2007 and 2008, when it
doubled from 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent—painkiller use did fall,
but past-month OxyContin use rose, while past-year OxyContin use
remained steady.

If you look at raw numbers, the evidence looks similarly mixed.
The number of past-month heroin users rose from
281,000 to 335,000 between 2011 and 2012, while the number of
past-month OxyContin users fell from 434,000 to 358,000, which is
consistent with the hypothesis that some people switched from
OxyContin to heroin. Between 2007 and 2008, however, the number of
past-month heroin users rose from
153,000 to 213,000, while the number of past-month OxyContin users
also rose, from 369,000 to 435,000. 

Assuming that heroin is substituting for opioids like OxyContin,
that is probably not a desirable development, since a black-market
product is
much less predictable
and therefore more dangerous than a
legal, pharmaceutical-quality drug. Yet Kolodny, who says increased
restrictions on painkillers are driving up heroin use, argues that
the solution is…more restrictions on painkillers. That’s a bad
idea not just because of potentially dangerous substitution effects
but because attempts to prevent nonmedical users from obtaining
opioids inevitably
hurt
 patients who need the drugs to relieve pain.

Notice, by the way, that past-month heroin use—a necessary but
not sufficient requirement for addiction—has held steady at 0.1
percent for a decade. The raw numbers have increased (from 166,000
in
2002
to 335,000 in
2012
), but not enough to kick the rate up a tenth of a
percentage point. That fact helps put into perspective the numbers
behind what NPR describes as a “heroin epidemic.” 

[Thanks to Robert Woolley for the NPR link.]

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1bv9IBg
via IFTTT

An "Austrian" Bill Gross Warns: "The Days Of Getting Rich Quickly Are Over… Getting Rich Slowly May Be As Well"

If readers ignore the rest from the latest monthly insight from Bill Gross of PIMCO, they should at least read the following insight which we agree with wholeheartedly: “our PIMCO word of the month is to be “careful.” Bull markets are either caused by or accompanied by credit expansion. With credit growth slowing due in part to lower government deficits, and QE now tapering which will slow velocity, the U.S. and other similarly credit-based economies may find that future growth is not as robust as the IMF and other model-driven forecasters might assume. Perhaps the whisper word of “deflation” at Davos these past few weeks was a reflection of that…. don’t be a pig in today’s or any day’s future asset markets. The days of getting rich quickly are over, and the days of getting rich slowly may be as well. Most medieval, perhaps.” Where have we read this recently? Why in An “Austrian View” Approach To Equity Prices in particular and the bulk of Austrian economics in general. Which means that following the TBAC, i.e. the committee that really runs the US, none other than the manager of the world’s largest bond fund has now moved over to the Austrian side. Welcome.

From PIMCO

Most ‘Medieval’

In days of old
when knights were bold
and ladies most beholden
straw seemed like silk
and water, milk
and silver almost golden

Not so sure about that limerick – it was probably a cruel world – those days of old. Yet much of it was fascinating and in some cases surreal. The relationship of “man” and God, for instance. Or better yet … “man,” animals and God. Unlike today, when most believe that animals were put on this Earth for humanity’s pleasure or utility, most people in the Middle Ages believed that God granted free will to Adam, Eve and all of His creatures. Animals were responsible in some strange way for their own actions and therefore should be held accountable for them.

Accountable? Well yes, animals were actually put on trial for their misdeeds. They might actually be considered “evil.” Beetles that munched on church pews, pigs that dined off of late evening drunkards, locusts that ravaged harvest wheat – all were viewed in a similar fashion much like their human counterparts – thieves, adulterers and murderers alike. Sometimes the animal would be brought before an actual court, sometimes (as with insects) tried in absentia. In the case of ravaging pigs, for instance, there might be a full judicial hearing with a prosecutor, defense and a robed judge who could order a range of punishments, including probation or even excommunication. No bad little piggies went to heaven, it seems. Often, there would be an actual execution with a hog being hanged by the neck until it was dead. The pork chops followed shortly thereafter, I assume. There was no Humane Society in 1500. Somehow I thought those “medieval” times needed a more reality-based ditty than the one cited above, so here’s a modern-day “Chaucer’s” attempt:

In days of old when pigs were bold
and people very prayerful
a locust might be canonized
and drunkards had to be careful.

Now on to the world of investing, me Lords and Ladies, which by the way is full of little piggies feeding at the trough, scaredy “cats” afraid of their own shadow, and ostriches sticking their heads in the sand. And too, history will record that capitalism and its markets are a dog-eat-dog world. If so, we’ve currently got a menagerie to rival anything in those “days of old.” But let’s stick with the piggies for the following Investment Outlook. Hopefully the prose will be better than the previous poetry.

I find it fascinating the number of ways that investors approach the “value” of securities and other investments such as commercial real estate or homes. Many of them are legitimate and form a solid foundation in academic research or even common sense. “Natural” interest rates, P/E ratios, cap rates, risk and liquidity premiums, and even real estate’s “location, location, location” are ways to fundamentally price an asset. Add to that the emotional influence of human nature and you have a pretty good idea as to why prices go up and down; not necessarily a pretty good idea as to when they will go up and down, but at least the why part is partially visible.

But lost in this rather complex maze of why is the function of credit and credit expansion in a modern, financial-based economy that it dominates. Asset prices are dependent on credit expansion or in some cases credit contraction, and as credit goes, so go the markets, one might legitimately say, and I do most emphatically say that! What exactly do I mean by “credit?” Well, money in all its multiple forms. Cash is a form of credit in my definition because you can use it to buy things. Bonds are credit. Stocks are credit. Houses and real estate can be considered credit when they are securitized and sold to investors in mortgage pools. In our modern financial economy, credit is anything that can be transferred on a wire or a computer from one account to another and ultimately be used as the basis for spending money on things such as groceries or airplane tickets.

And so when an investor tries to think about “prices” for these various forms of credit, it is necessary to get behind the winds of credit itself, to see what causes credit to behave like a mild South Seas breeze or a destructive typhoon in the China Sea. Credit creation or credit destruction is really the fundamental force that changes P/Es, risk premiums, natural interest rates, etc. For most investors that may be hard to understand, but that is where the little piggies come in.

Imagine you are on that South Sea island with only two people. Each of you owns half of the island, grows your own food and has four little piggies for bacon and chops and all of the good stuff that people like to eat. Things are copasetic; the local “economy” is doing fine, but one day your other buddy figures out a way to make a new crop that you don’t have. She’s the island’s entrepreneur, so to speak. Well, being jealous and perhaps a tad greedy, your previous buddy refuses to share the secret. But she will offer you a future share of her harvest for one of your little pigs – there being no money, credit or anything of the sort on the island. You love that bacon, but the lady is living higher on the hog, so to speak, with that new “crop,” so you agree on a deal – one pig for one year’s harvest of her future “crop.” Despite the lack of a “stock market,” “crops” are now trading at a P/E of 1 X pigs. One pig equals one future year’s worth of your ex-buddy’s bountiful harvest. Well the months roll by and one thing leads to another, and for some reason you want some more of your neighbor’s “crop.” Maybe it’s marijuana and the island has just legalized it for medicinal purposes. Let’s just say. And let’s say you’re willing to part with another pig for another share of medicinal “weed.” Neighbor, sensing enthusiasm, says, “No, it’ll cost you three pigs,” which is all you have, but you’re feeling high and certainly very hungry s
o you say OK. This funny smelling “grass” now sells at 3 X pigs, or a pigs-to-“grass” P/E ratio of 3/1 and everybody’s happy. Until … well … to get back to the real world, those piggies have really been credit or cash substitutes all along, and now in order to keep this system going you need more pigs or more credit in order to continue. But you’re out of pigs. A funny thing now happens in this capitalistic South Sea island and mainly to the price of marijuana. It traded last year at 3 pigs to 1, but since you’re out of pigs and credit, the price collapses. Grass goes to zero because there is no more credit; you have no more pigs to pay for it.

So for those of you who don’t live in Washington State or Colorado or others who are a little miffed at this example, let’s just put it this way. P/Es of 3 or P/Es of 15 or P/Es of 0 are intimately connected to the amount of available credit. So are interest rates. If there was only one dollar to lend and someone was desperate to have it, the interest rate would be usurious. If there was one trillion dollars of credit and no one was eager to borrow for some reason or another, then the rate would be .01% like it is today and for the past five years in my personal money market account. The amount of credit and its growth rate are critical to asset prices, and of course asset prices in our modern economy are critical to growth and job creation and future prospects for investment. We have a fiat/credit/debt-based economy that depends on the continuous creation of more and more credit in order to thrive and some would say – even survive. We need those pigs and more of them. And they need to circulate and be traded – what some would call “velocity” – in order to keep the economy growing. Our South Sea island economy never did change until the new crop was discovered, but concurrently, not until the pigs started to be traded for it.

And so? Well, to use the U.S. as an example, we officially have 57 trillion dollars’ worth of credit (stocks not being part of the Fed’s official definition) and probably 20 trillion more in what has come to be known as the “shadow” system. But call it 57 trillion because the Fed and Chart 1 do.

 

It used to grow pre-Lehman at 8–10% a year, but now it only grows at 3–4%. Part of that growth is due to the government itself with recent deficit spending. A deficit of one trillion dollars in 2009–2010 equaled a 2% growth rate of credit by itself. But despite that, other borrowers such as households/businesses/local and foreign governments/financial institutions have been less than eager to pick up the slack. With the deficit now down to $600 billion or so, the Treasury is fading as a source of credit growth. Many consider that as a good thing but short term, the ability of the economy to expand and P/Es to grow is actually negatively impacted, unless the private sector steps up to the plate to borrow/invest/buy new houses, etc. Credit over the past 12 months has grown at a snail’s 3.5% pace, barely enough to sustain nominal GDP growth of the same amount.

Is there a one-for-one relationship between credit growth and GDP? Certainly not. That is where velocity complicates the picture and velocity is influenced by interest rates and the price of credit. But with QE beginning its taper, and interest/mortgage rates 150 basis points higher than they were in July of 2012, velocity may now negatively impact the equation. MV=PT or money X velocity = GDP is how economists explain it in old model textbooks. Actually the new model should read CV=PT or credit X velocity = GDP but most economists are classically trained to the Friedman model, which viewed money in a much narrower sense.

So our PIMCO word of the month is to be “careful.” Bull markets are either caused by or accompanied by credit expansion. With credit growth slowing due in part to lower government deficits, and QE now tapering which will slow velocity, the U.S. and other similarly credit-based economies may find that future growth is not as robust as the IMF and other model-driven forecasters might assume. Perhaps the whisper word of “deflation” at Davos these past few weeks was a reflection of that. If so, high quality bonds will continue to be well bid and risk assets may lose some luster. In any case, don’t be a pig in today’s or any day’s future asset markets. The days of getting rich quickly are over, and the days of getting rich slowly may be as well. Most medieval, perhaps.

And too, stick with PIMCO. Believe me when I say, we are a better team at this moment than we were before. I/we take the future challenge faced by all asset managers with close to a sacred trust. Not the one that the ancients granted to animals, but a more modern one embraced by the relationship of client/fiduciary and the need to be held accountable, sort of like the pigs and locusts in days of old when knights were bold.

Most ‘Medieval’ Speed Read

1) Asset prices depend on credit creation and expansion.

2) The U.S. and other countries create less credit from the public standpoint as their deficits decline.

3) 3–4% credit expansion in the U.S. may not be enough to maintain
3% growth, especially if asset prices go down and velocity is affected.

4) Don’t be a pig in a highly levered global marketplace.

There is risk out there.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1c4eFhg Tyler Durden