another site
3 months later and it appears hope has reverted (once again) to its new normal reality. “Just one more quarter,” we are sure, will be the clarion call from all asunder…
(it seems the hatchet has been taken to Q4 – one-off of course, due to the shutdown – which incidentally had no effect whatsoever on any survey or soft-data macro or the stock market)
(h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer)
     |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/QkM0mV8tGk0/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Submitted by Simon Black via Sovereign Man blog,
Just over 400-years ago today, a group of 13 conspirators were caught trying to assassinate King James I of England and blow up the House of Lords in what became known as the Gunpowder Treason.
If you’ve ever seen the movie V for Vendetta, you know the story. Guy Fawkes was found underneath the House of Lords with three dozen barrels of gunpowder… and to this day, his effigy is still burned annually in commemoration of the event.
Fundamentally, the Gunpowder Treason was about freedom. The English monarchy at the time was controlling nearly every aspect of the economy and their subjects’ lives– from what they could wear to how they could worship.
“Sumptuary laws” which regulated private behavior were commonplace. Elizabeth I, for example, re-introduced a beard tax on all facial hair grown in excess of two weeks.
She also published long lists, categorized by social class, dictating precisely what color and type of garment her subjects were required to wear.
It turns out these sumptuary laws were just an early form of state-sponsored corporate welfare; the English textile industry had paid Elizabeth huge sums of money in exchange for royal decrees about knitted caps and woolen socks.
As a consequence, a great deal of English labor and disposable income was misallocated towards silly garments instead of being put to more productive uses… and the country was in an almost perpetual state of stagnation.
Not to mention, English finances deteriorated under Elizabeth. By 1600, state expenditures were 23% greater than tax revenue, which would be the equivalent of a $550 billion budget deficit in the US today. Not exactly a trivial figure.
James I, Elizabeth’s successor, continued to spend extravagantly and indebt the English economy, often showering taxpayer funds on a handful of favored nobles.
By the time James’s successor Charles I came to power, the monarchy’s credit was running so thin that Charles had to force people to loan him money; those who refused were imprisoned and had their property confiscated.
Unsurprisingly, civil war broke out in 1642. Charles I was executed in 1649, and the genocidal dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell dominated England for the next decade.
When you think about it, this collapse was inevitable.
For decades prior, the entire English economy was under the control of a single individual who massively indebted the state, impeded growth, and reduced people’s individual freedoms. Not exactly a recipe for long-term success.
The Gunpowder Treason of November 5, 1605 may have been a failure for the conspirators, but given enough time, a system so screwed up, so unsustainable, was destined to collapse on itself.
We’re not so different in the west today.
We have our own sumptuary laws, regulating everything from tobacco consumption to what foods we can/cannot eat. We have our own state-sponsored corporate welfare. We’re comically indebted.
And just like the English monarchs, we have a tiny elite that controls absolutely everything about our economy– taxation, regulation, and the supply of money.
Needless to say, this is also unsustainable. And history shows that these types of unsustainable systems will always collapse under their own weight.
Is it wise to think that this time is any different?
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/82DJ3JBDgvI/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Submitted by Simon Black via Sovereign Man blog,
Just over 400-years ago today, a group of 13 conspirators were caught trying to assassinate King James I of England and blow up the House of Lords in what became known as the Gunpowder Treason.
If you’ve ever seen the movie V for Vendetta, you know the story. Guy Fawkes was found underneath the House of Lords with three dozen barrels of gunpowder… and to this day, his effigy is still burned annually in commemoration of the event.
Fundamentally, the Gunpowder Treason was about freedom. The English monarchy at the time was controlling nearly every aspect of the economy and their subjects’ lives– from what they could wear to how they could worship.
“Sumptuary laws” which regulated private behavior were commonplace. Elizabeth I, for example, re-introduced a beard tax on all facial hair grown in excess of two weeks.
She also published long lists, categorized by social class, dictating precisely what color and type of garment her subjects were required to wear.
It turns out these sumptuary laws were just an early form of state-sponsored corporate welfare; the English textile industry had paid Elizabeth huge sums of money in exchange for royal decrees about knitted caps and woolen socks.
As a consequence, a great deal of English labor and disposable income was misallocated towards silly garments instead of being put to more productive uses… and the country was in an almost perpetual state of stagnation.
Not to mention, English finances deteriorated under Elizabeth. By 1600, state expenditures were 23% greater than tax revenue, which would be the equivalent of a $550 billion budget deficit in the US today. Not exactly a trivial figure.
James I, Elizabeth’s successor, continued to spend extravagantly and indebt the English economy, often showering taxpayer funds on a handful of favored nobles.
By the time James’s successor Charles I came to power, the monarchy’s credit was running so thin that Charles had to force people to loan him money; those who refused were imprisoned and had their property confiscated.
Unsurprisingly, civil war broke out in 1642. Charles I was executed in 1649, and the genocidal dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell dominated England for the next decade.
When you think about it, this collapse was inevitable.
For decades prior, the entire English economy was under the control of a single individual who massively indebted the state, impeded growth, and reduced people’s individual freedoms. Not exactly a recipe for long-term success.
The Gunpowder Treason of November 5, 1605 may have been a failure for the conspirators, but given enough time, a system so screwed up, so unsustainable, was destined to collapse on itself.
We’re not so different in the west today.
We have our own sumptuary laws, regulating everything from tobacco consumption to what foods we can/cannot eat. We have our own state-sponsored corporate welfare. We’re comically indebted.
And just like the English monarchs, we have a tiny elite that controls absolutely everything about our economy– taxation, regulation, and the supply of money.
Needless to say, this is also unsustainable. And history shows that these types of unsustainable systems will always collapse under their own weight.
Is it wise to think that this time is any different?
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/82DJ3JBDgvI/story01.htm Tyler Durden
No one would accuse climate researchers
James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira, and Tom Wigley of
moderation when it comes to banging the climate crisis drum. The
four have now issued an open
letter challenging the broad environmental movement to stop
fighting nuclear power and embrace it as a crucial technology for
averting the possibility of a climate catastrophe by supplying
zero-carbon energy. From the letter:
As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate
change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and
deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your
organization’s concern about global warming, and your advocacy of
renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power
threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.We call on your organization to support the development and
deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of
addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is
growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of
developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce
greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only
increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas
emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere
as a waste dump.Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play
roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot
scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the
scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically
possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the
real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that
does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.
Well, yes. Just last week, I argued that solar and wind power
are “Not
Ready For Prime Time Renewable Energy Technologies.”
The whole letter makes interesting reading.
Back in 2009, I pointed out “The
Cultural Contradictions of Anti-Nuke Environmentalists,” in
which they were proud of the fact that they had killed off the
nuclear power industry. Had the industry developed as projected,
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions that they worry about would already
be at least one-third lower than they are now.
One other observation: Using current technologies, nuclear
socialism is more likely to result in adequate energy supplies than
is solar socialism.
For more background, see Reason contributor John
McClaughry’s
review of Superfuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the
Future.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/climate-change-alarmists-for-nuclear-pow
via IFTTT
No one would accuse climate researchers
James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira, and Tom Wigley of
moderation when it comes to banging the climate crisis drum. The
four have now issued an open
letter challenging the broad environmental movement to stop
fighting nuclear power and embrace it as a crucial technology for
averting the possibility of a climate catastrophe by supplying
zero-carbon energy. From the letter:
As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate
change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and
deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your
organization’s concern about global warming, and your advocacy of
renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power
threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.We call on your organization to support the development and
deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of
addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is
growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of
developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce
greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only
increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas
emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere
as a waste dump.Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play
roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot
scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the
scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically
possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the
real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that
does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.
Well, yes. Just last week, I argued that solar and wind power
are “Not
Ready For Prime Time Renewable Energy Technologies.”
The whole letter makes interesting reading.
Back in 2009, I pointed out “The
Cultural Contradictions of Anti-Nuke Environmentalists,” in
which they were proud of the fact that they had killed off the
nuclear power industry. Had the industry developed as projected,
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions that they worry about would already
be at least one-third lower than they are now.
One other observation: Using current technologies, nuclear
socialism is more likely to result in adequate energy supplies than
is solar socialism.
For more background, see Reason contributor John
McClaughry’s
review of Superfuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the
Future.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/climate-change-alarmists-for-nuclear-pow
via IFTTT
Condé Nast, the globally renowned media publisher
that produces magazines like Glamour, The New Yorker, and
Wired, announced late last month that it
will no
longer offer its internship program. The decision comes in
response to a lawsuit filed by two former interns, Lauren Ballinger
and Matthew Leib; in June, the interns
sued Condé Nast for months of backpay, alleging that the
publisher violated federal and state labor laws.
The Wall Street Journal
reports:
Mr. Leib alleged that the New Yorker paid him well below minimum
wage—in stipends of $300 to $500—for each of the two summers he had
worked at the prestigious weekly, where he reviewed and proofread
articles. Ms. Ballinger alleged in the complaint that she was paid
$12 a day for shifts of 12 hours or more at the fashion
magazine.
The case is still pending, but Condé Nast’s decision has been
made. The current crop of interns will not be affected – they will
just be the program’s final participants.
The details of what Condé Nast will do moving forward are
unclear though. Will they replace the internships with more
competitive paid positions? Or will the publisher simply reshuffle
their existing workforce? The company has been silent since the
announcement.
Reactions have so far been mixed. Numerous former Condé Nast
interns have lamented that the elimination will mean lost
opportunities for future students. “It’s disappointing and kind of
ridiculous that it had to come to this,” Rachel Rowlands, a senior
at the University of Michigan who interned at Glamour
Magazine this summer,
told USA Today. “I had an amazing experience at
Condé Nast, and I honestly feel bad that other college students
won’t be able to have the same experience that I did.”
Dylan Byer, a media reporter at Politico who completed
internships at The New Yorker,
told the New York Times that he valued his experience
and disagrees with the lawsuits. For people to accept the terms of
an internship and then turn around and retroactively sue their
employer seems “disingenuous,” he said.
Yet another former intern told Buzzfeed that her
internship prepared her for the reality that the
print media industry doesn’t pay very well, even for full-time
employees:
“A few years [after completing my Condé internship], I
interviewed for a job as a features assistant
at Vogue… an editor asked me what my parents
did before telling me how much money I’d make: $25,000 a year.”
Indeed, a brief perusal of Condé Nast’s average salaries shows
that Editorial Assistants
don’t even crack $30,000 per year.
Even those advocating against unpaid internships expressed their
frustration and apparent surprise at the news.
The
Fair Pay Campaign, a student-run organization with the rallying
cry “No-one should have their dreams denied because they can’t
afford to work for free,”
tweeted:
SHAME on Condé Nast for ending their internship program, instead
of paying a living wage.#payyourinterns
Likewise, the lead attorney representing Leib and Ballinger,
told the Wall Street Journal:
Our goal isn’t to end internship programs. Our goal is to…make
sure they’re legal, either by paying minimum wage or making sure
they meet the criteria the Department of Labor has spelled out.
Condé Nast is the first major firm to eliminate its internship
program since the
flurry of unpaid intern lawsuits sprung up this summer.
However, lawyers and
employers are predicting that many firms may start to cut
their programs – or offer just a few paid positions instead of many
unpaid ones. So despite advocates’ desire to open doors for
struggling students, it seems the
“Great Unpaid-Intern Uprising” may result in employers
closing off opportunities altogether.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/in-unintended-but-totally-expected-conse
via IFTTT
Shooting you in the face is one
of the few awful things the Transportation Security
Administration’s employees can’t do to you.
But one guy loses his mind (maybe) and kills one and obviously
the next thing that’s going to happen is a fearmongering response
designed to create more jobs and give the most intrusive, invasive
government agency we’ve created (because at least the National
Security Agency can’t physically fondle you) more power.
Politico notes the TSA union’s response:
The fatal shooting of Gerardo Hernandez and the ensuing gunfight
at LAX called attention to a long-running debate over the powers of
TSA, whose screeners aren’t considered law enforcement officers
even though many of them wear badges. The 39-year-old Hernandez was
the first TSA officer killed in the line of duty in the agency’s
history.Federal prosecutors have filed homicide and other charges
against 23-year-old Los Angeles resident Paul Ciancia, whom
authorities have suggested was specifically targeting TSA
employees.Both lawmakers and the Obama administration have called for
reviewing airport security procedures after the shooting spree. But
union officials are already offering a concrete proposal: create a
new category of TSA agent in addition to the 45,000 existing
screeners. People in the new positions would be law enforcement
officers, who could carry handcuffs and firearms as well as make
arrests.Union leaders say the enhanced status would help protect an
unfairly demonized workforce, as well as security checkpoints like
the one where Friday’s mayhem began.
One person’s “unfairly demonized workforce” is another person’s
stolen
iPads and
parking passes, brutal
humiliation, ignorance-based
ethnic discrimination and nearly
10,000 complaints of misconduct over two years.
It doesn’t seem likely that this rather extreme response is
going to get much of anywhere. CNN reports
objections from Congress members, police unions protecting
their turf, and even former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge thinks it’s not
a good idea:
Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge called the idea of
arming officers a “a big mistake.”“You have literally hundreds and hundreds of armed police
officers roaming every major airport in America. And I don’t think
arming another 40 or 50 or 60 thousand people … would have
prevented this incident from happening,” he said.
During CNN’s rather terrible coverage of the shooting on Friday,
some talking head (possibly with the union or TSA, but I missed the
identification) complained that TSA agents are “sitting ducks” in a
live-shooter scenario. Funny, so are the rest of us, by government
diktat.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/tsa-union-calls-for-guns-everybody-with
via IFTTT
Seems like everybody has a cell phone, or a smart phone, or a blue tooth. I don’t know how we got along without them. I still think it’s strange when I’m in a store and round the corner and someone is carrying on a conversation … by themselves. Or at least they appear to be talking to themselves.
via The Citizen http://www.thecitizen.com/blogs/dr-david-l-chancey/11-05-2013/how-did-we-ever-make-it-without-cell-phones
Holly Grove AME Church invites the community to its “Weekend Extravaganza” starting this Saturday morning, Nov. 9.
The annual Fish Fry will be held from 11:30 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. featuring the church’s famous fish dinners, along with other finger licking treats.
Orders may be placed in advance with Sister Jo Ann, 470-214-8982, for pickup or delivery (minimum of 2 orders please) within a five mile radius of the church. Or, better yet ,drop by, pick it up yourself and visit a while.
via The Citizen http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/11-05-2013/holly-grove%E2%80%99s-weekend-extravaganza-starts-saturday
Volunteers for the Real Life Center’s apple team show off apples they’ve picked from the Harvest for Real Life Orchard located on Dogwood Church property in Tyrone. In the first first year of harvest, volunteers have picked over 3,350 lbs. of fresh produce to distribute for families in need. The fruit is distributed through the Real Life Center at 220 Parkade Cte in Peachtree City. For more information on how to get involved, visit the website, www.reallifecenter.org or call 770-631-9334. Photo/Special.
via The Citizen http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/11-05-2013/first-year%E2%80%99s-apple-harvest