Ideas about treating hypothyroidism

I was hypothyroid for years, but managed to slowly reverse it, and at this stage I no longer need the meds (although I may well need them again at some stage).

If you're facing this too, here are few tidbits that might help:

• Your thyroid gland adjusts its output of thyroid hormone in response to how much hormone it senses in your blood. That can make you feel terrible after starting on a big dose of Synthroid all at once. It's better to add a little at a time, and work your way up over one or even two months.


• Increased fatigue when you first start with hormone supplements isn't unusual. It normally goes away in a month or two.

[[MORE]]

• Synthroid is synthetic T4. It has the advantage of providing a very exact dose compared to other brands such as Levoxyl, which some people claim is helpful. I found it wasn't that helpful for me, and I much preferred Armour Thyroid, which comes from an animal source. Armour also includes some T3, which is the active form of the hormone. Some people have a hard time making T3 from T4. There are specific lab tests that can help narrow this down (Free T3, Free T4, etc), but many docs don't seem to understand them.


• Try monitoring your body temperature before you get out of bed. It can be a good indicator of your body's response to the hormone supplements. A temperature of less than 97.6 to 98.0 generally means you should increase your dose slightly.


• Iodine supplements can be very helpful, since thyroid hormone is composed primarily of iodine.


• You might also want to look into the Wilson program, which involves adjusting T3 dose only, in a cyclical way. It has cured hypothyroidism in some people (I went through it myself; it helped, but didn't cure me).


• Check your environment at home and at work for toxic chemicals. Some chemicals can compete with thyroid hormone for hormone receptors, which decreases its effectiveness in your body. They can also impair the thryoid gland's ability to produce. Even small amounts of things like formaldehyde, paint fumes, bug sprays, etc, can be damaging.


• The thyroid gland is known to be very sensitive to toxins.  I suspect that as people lose weight on a Paleo-type diet, and as the toxins the body naturally sequesters in fat are released into the blood (a well-documented phenomenon), that it might eventually be thyro-toxic or suppressive in some people.  If so, it suggests possible treatment or nutritional support (increasing glutathione, etc) while you’re losing weight could be a good idea.

Home mortgage modifications from Fannie & Freddie

Fannie & Freddie have started to offer mortgage loan modifications. As of the moment, the loan mod is voluntary.  Accepting this ’solution’ means you:

* Acknowledge the full debt regardless of the value of the home
* Waive all rights to fraudulent or predatory lending claims in the future
* Turn your loan into a full recourse loan that could follow you for life even if you choose foreclosure down the road
[[MORE]]* Remain underwater, full-leveraged, renter for the rest of your life (in most cases)
* Will save no money at 38% housing debt-to-income ratio plus all other debts
* May not discharge any of this mortgage debt through any bankruptcy even after foreclosure

If widely accepted by home owners, this will ruin the American consumer and make housing a dead asset class for decades. If you are in a serious negative equity position when signing these forms, as most are, remember that you will:

* Never be able to sell your home
* Never be able to buy a new home
* Never be able to rent your home due to owner occupant provisions
* Be responsible for the full loan amount even if the value of your home keeps dropping for the next 10-years.

The 38% debt-to-income ratio on top of all of your other debt means you will save no money and live hand to mouth to keep this underwater roof over your head.

From: http://mrmortgage.ml-implode.com/2008/12/17/fanniefreddie-come-get-your-loan-mod-pay-for-life/

New Zealand energy and telecom investments

Here's an update on New Zealand from an energy and telecom-oriented investment perspective:

-- Broadband Internet is widely available in NZ. Fiber roll-outs are starting. Speeds of 3 Mbps are common in cities; higher in areas where cable is available. Hotspots aren't perhaps as widely available yet, and when they are, they tend to be outrageously expensive. NZ ISPs charge for data transfer, which does add to the costs. Vodafone and Telecom are perhaps the two largest, but they are by no means the only ones.
-- Electricity is relatively cheap in NZ because most of it comes from hydro power, esp. on the south island
-- NZ gets much of their own natural gas from the offshore Maui fields. Much more exploration and development has been going on over the last few years.
[[MORE]]-- One advantage of using gas canisters instead of piped-in gas is that you are much more independent that way. I have two canisters that I use only for cooking, and haven't had to recharge either one after 18 months.
-- Most NZ homes north of Canterbury (the region around Christchurch) and outside of the mountain regions don't have central heat. It's just not needed. A few electric space heaters work just fine for most people, and at a fraction of the cost. In older homes, insulation is relatively uncommon. (Kiwis are a fairly hardy bunch).
-- There are plenty of industry and investment opportunities in NZ. Check out PRC (Pike River Coal) and NZR (New Zealand Refining) on the NZ Exchange, for examples.
-- NZ has some interesting tax advantages: no taxes on capital gains (for anything from the sale of a house to the sale of stocks, etc), no inheritance taxes and very, very low property taxes. The government ran a surplus this year.
-- The NZ central bank runs independently of government, and has a mandate to fight inflation. That's why interest rates are high (over 8%), and why home prices have been declining.
-- The country is entering what looks like a gentle recession. Unemployment is up, but only modestly. It's still very low by global standards.
-- NZ has a no-nuclear policy. They are proud of their "clean and green" image; rightfully so, I think. They won't even allow US warships to dock here because of the US policy of not saying which of their ships carry nuclear materials.
-- NZ has a lot of farmers, millions of sheep, and a big and powerful dairy industry. It's also fairly rich in other commodities -- lumber, coal, etc. In a SHTF scenario, that could be considered a good thing.

How the Free Software movement has damaged the industry

Some advocates of Free Software attack the concept of intellectual property. They claim that the work of others should be made available to the world because it's the "right thing to do." Some developers buy into it in the hope of gaining exposure that could help them later in their careers and because they believe they are doing something beneficial for the world. I believe that, in the long run, both groups hold a terribly distorted view. In fact, after participating in the industry for 34 years now, I believe the Free Software movement has irreparably damaged the industry.

[[MORE]]

Software development is an almost purely intellectual task. In that sense, it's similar to writing a book, designing a building, writing a play, composing a song or painting a picture. As with those skills, writing good software is supremely difficult. In the same way that anyone can write a short story or draw a picture, anyone can write a simple program. But modern, full-featured software is full of complexity, depth and richness that exceeds most other human endeavors.

The logic of many users and advocates of Free Software is flawed. For example, they often encourage studying the source code. In addition to benefiting from the use of the software, they also benefit from the creativity, education and programming skills of the original developers. Their employers are penalized by having to pay their staff to learn about and possibly maintain the code. While that's a potential necessity in some businesses, for most it amounts to significant added cost. The advocates distort the truth to their employers by emphasizing the fact that the software is free, while failing to acknowledge the significantly higher labor costs.

Users of Free Software also often claim that ownership of intellectual property doesn't make any sense. They say things like "how can you own an idea?" or "making a copy doesn't cost the developer anything extra" or "knowledge belongs to everyone." What they're really saying is that they want the benefits from the hard work of others, but without paying for it. They are rejecting the concept of private property at its core. If a person can't own the things they create with their own mind then what can they own? One result of this is that a lot of Free Software contains multiple patent licensing violations, which are ignored by the users as "not important."

From the developer's perspective, giving their work away for free encourages the concept that software has no real value. Rather than increasing the value of their future labor by gaining exposure in the community, the value of that future work is in fact minimized. If developers don't value their work enough to charge for it, then why should potential future employers feel compelled to pay? If all software is free, then the people who create it must not be worth very much, if anything. Competing against free software is a continual challenge. If no one is willing to pay for software, then how will companies pay the salary of those developers?

Imagine a band that gave away all of their music, then suddenly published a new recording that they wanted to charge for. They've created a market barrier for themselves. Actors have this problem, too. After being on TV for a while, their value is diminished for movies; movie-only actors can charge much more per film, as a result of audience expectations. In a similar way, software developers are denying themselves the possibility of future ownership and profits.

Let's say a developer comes up with a wonderful application that could benefit the lives of millions. They have given away all of their previous work. But now this idea is so special that they want to own it and charge people for it. How would the market respond? Rather than suddenly recognizing value in the new work, which I believe is the common self-deception, the market will instead reject the new application in favor of additional Free applications, in spite of the difference in quality or character of the new app, because they have been conditioned to expect that developer's code to be free. The developer has inadvertently shot themselves in the foot.

Personally, I use as much commercial software as I can. I do so because it's to my benefit. I am helping to support the value of my time as a developer, and I'm minimizing my support and maintenance costs by being able to call for support when I need it. Even so, I do use some free software when better alternatives aren't available (such as WordPress) – but I do so without adopting the mantra of many advocates that "all software should be free." Property rights are the cornerstone of Liberty, and must be defended at every opportunity.

Food Shortages

There are more and more reports in the news about food shortages. Riots have even started in some places, like Haiti. And of course, when their citizens start to feel threatened, governments feel compelled to respond. Unfortunately, that always makes things worse. What many don't understand yet is that the reason for the shortages in the first place is entirely because of government "controls" or various other forms of intervention.

[[MORE]]

Look at Britain, for example. A while back, the government mandated that pig farmers reform the way they raise pigs to make the process more "humane". As a (totally predictable) result, raising pigs became more expensive. The farmers were unable to pass the costs along to the public, who, presumably, wanted the changes in the first place. So a lot of farmers stopped raising pigs. Their breeding herd is now about 425,000, or roughly half the size it was in 1990. Combine that with the recent run-up in grain prices, and presto! Now there's a crisis with pigs.

No government ever seems to ask "who will pay for this?" or "what will the effects be?" Unfortunately, even if they did ask such questions, their answers would usually be wrong. The economy is just too hard to predict. That's one reason why free markets are the only viable long-term answer. In the case of pigs, if people wanted farmers to treat pigs more humanely, they could have boycotted farmers who didn't, and expressed their willingness to pay a higher price for better animal conditions (analogous to organic produce). The market would have communicated the message. No shortages would have developed.

Now the same kind of thing is happening with other foods. The government says "if you grow corn for biofuel, we'll give you a subsidy." After all, biofuels will help reduce our dependency on oil, and that's a good thing, right? So farmers replaced wheat with corn. Now there's a wheat shortage. Oh, and it turns out that corn-derived ethanol isn't an economically viable substitute for oil after all. So now we're screwed three ways: not enough wheat, ethanol that takes more energy to produce than it delivers, and more government debt / inflation. Again, this just wouldn't have happened in a free market.

What about food aid to developing countries? Those people are hungry, and they deserve our help, right? We're richer than they are, and we can afford it, so it has to be a good thing, right? Wrong. Food aid actually does MUCH more harm than good. For one thing, the money never goes to the people who it would really help the most. Let's say the money is used to buy food on the open market and deliver it to poor, downtrodden communities. First, the extra demand for food drives prices higher for everyone else, so the people who aren't receiving aid suffer as a result. Second, how can a local farmer compete with free food? When continued over a long period, farmers are driven out of business. As Jim Rogers explains in his book Adventure Capitalist, there used to be a lot of farmers in Ethiopia. It has rich, fertile land. Lots of free food over the years has driven the farmers out of business – there are probably few people there now who even remember how to farm. So now if there's a global food shortage, where the food programs are no longer able to afford to buy food in the open market, guess who suffers? The people in those countries you thought you were helping will starve, because they've become dependent and can no longer support themselves. Yeah, food "aid" – another collectivist crime against humanity.

So what's the cure for food shortages? Stop subsidies. Stop interventions. Abolish tariffs and other restrictions on free trade. Repeal or minimize government restrictions on farmers (like legislating how pigs are treated). Let the free market work!

Producer vs. Consumer Jobs

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' in the US recently published numbers for how many people are employed in various areas of the economy can break this down slightly differently than how they do it, according to producers (those who are creating things of value) and those who are either consumers or whose jobs directly depend on the producers (accountants, lawyers, etc). Using their numbers:

[[MORE]]

Producers
13,643,000 Manufacturing
  3,010,000 Information (it might be a stretch to include all of these jobs...)
     751,000 Mining and logging
------------------
17,404,000

Consumers
22,387,000 Government
13,682,000 Leisure and hospitality
21,467,000 Wholesale and retail
18,036,000 Professional and business services
18,699,000 Education and health
  8,228,000 Financial
  4,532,000 Transportation
  7,338,000 Construction
  5,516,000 Other services
------------------
119,885,000

Total workers = 137,289,000

Which means that the ENTIRE ECONOMY is being carried by only about 13% of the total population (or about 1 out of every 8 people).

Just to be totally clear: if those producer jobs were to go away, the rest of the economy would collapse, even under the best of economic conditions.

Imagine an economy with just a handful of people: a farmer, an accountant, a store clerk and a government worker. The farmer is the only one producing anything. If the farmer goes away, what's left to sell at the store? With no sales, who needs an accountant? With nothing left to tax, there's no way to pay the government worker. The ripple effect is catastrophic -- and importing more stuff from overseas than we sell there just compounds the problem.

What did I learn in school?

I went to public school in the US for K through 12, and then to a public university (UC Santa Barbara).  I skipped a few years and finally graduated with a BA in Math in 1978, just after I turned 19, so I spent about 14 years in the public school system.

What did I learn in school?

1. How to take tests
2. How to memorize and regurgitate
3. How to conform and get along

[[MORE]]4. How to not conform and not get caught
5. Teachers often know less than their students
6. Real education happens with your peers, not in the classroom
7. Most people are jerks

The most valuable lesson:

Society doesn't care about truth, honesty or the ability to think critically. What's important are rules, conformity and political correctness.

The purpose of American schools is not to teach reasoning skills, or how to get and hold a job, or anything along those lines. The schools are there as babysitters so both parents can work, and to teach the values of the state and obedience to the state.

If you think I'm exaggerating, just look at modern history books as an example: horribly distorted and full of outright lies. It's a joke.

Uneducated minds are then more susceptible to propaganda from the mass media and religion. Throw in some new-age stuff about how feelings can be used to discover things about the world around us, and you end up with a society that's so confused it becomes self-destructive -- and government schools are at the root of it.

Interest rate manipulation

The problem with central banks like the Fed is that they distort the markets by setting interest rates at artificial levels. That sends incorrect signals to investors and businesses. For example, low interest rates cause business valuations to rise, so stocks go up. Or apparently cheap money might allow a business to justify a loan or an expansion that wouldn't be possible if rates were higher. That's the boom phase. What happens next is that when the economy gets "overheated" (high inflation), the central banks raise rates. Things then start to unwind: company valuations drop, new loans are no longer affordable, etc. That's the contraction (recession) phase.

[[MORE]]
On a gold standard with full-reserve banking, interest rates are always set at free-market levels -- so businesses and individuals are receiving correct, undistorted information about the economy. Rates also tend to be more consistent. Longer-term planning becomes possible; 99 yr loans again become feasible, for example. The business cycle also goes away: no more booms and busts, because the assumptions underlying investments and other spending don't suddenly turn out to be untrue.

Bush Economic Doublespeak

In the article below, President Bush uses a lot of doublespeak, which I've attempted to translate here:

• "the country is not recession-bound" --> "the country is already in a recession"


• "concern about slowing economic growth" --> "concern that the election won't go the way I want and the next president might not carry on my policies"


• "rejected for now any additional stimulus efforts" --> "planning to hand out more cash right before the election"


• "We acted robustly" --> "we didn't know what else to do"


• "We'll see the effects of this pro-growth package" --> "everyone likes more money, so this has to help"


• "Why don't we let stimulus package 1, which seemed like a good idea at the time, have a chance to kick in?" --> "We have to number the cash hand-out programs now, because there will eventually be so many that you won't know which one we're talking about otherwise"

[[MORE]]

• "I don't think we're headed to recession." --> "We've changed the definition of a recession so that they only happen when the Democrats are in office"


• "But no question, we're in a slowdown." --> "you ain't seen nothin' yet!"


• "So we're still for a strong dollar." --> "a strong dollar means that there are a whole lot of them, right? I read that on the Internet somewhere, so it has to be true, right?"


• "We'll make it through this period just like we made it through other periods of uncertainty during my presidency" --> "yet another unmitigated disaster"

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Thursday the country is not recession-bound and, despite expressing concern about slowing economic growth, rejected for now any additional stimulus efforts. "We acted robustly," he said.

"We'll see the effects of this pro-growth package," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference, acknowledging that some lawmakers already are talking about a second stimulus package. "Why don't we let stimulus package 1, which seemed like a good idea at the time, have a chance to kick in?"

Bush's view of the economy was decidedly rosier than that of many economists, who say the country is nearing recession territory or may already be there. "I'm concerned about the economy," he said. "I don't think we're headed to recession. But no question, we're in a slowdown."

The centerpiece of government efforts to brace the wobbly economy is a package Congress passed and Bush signed last month. It will rush rebates ranging from $300 to $1,200 to millions of people and give tax incentives to businesses.

On one issue particularly worrisome to American consumers, there are indications that paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline is not out of the question once the summer driving season arrives. Asked about that, Bush said "That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. ... I know it's high now."

Bush: 'We’re in a slowdown'
Feb. 28: President Bush says, "I don’t think we’re headed to recession. But no question, we’re in a slowdown,” at a news conference at the White House.

Bush also telegraphed optimism about the U.S. dollar, which has been declining in value.

"I believe that our economy has got the fundamentals in place for us to ... grow and continue growing, more robustly hopefully than we're growing now," he said. "So we're still for a strong dollar."

Bush also used his news conference to press Congress to give telecommunications companies legal immunity for helping the government eavesdrop after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Bush criticized the Democratic presidential candidates over their attempts to disassociate themselves from the North American Free Trade Agreement, a free-trade pact between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Bush said the deal is contributing to more and better-paying jobs for Americans.

Following his news conference, Bush traveled to the Labor Department to meet with his economic advisers.

Afterward, he expressed confidence in the nation's ability to weather the economic downturn.

"We'll make it through this period just like we made it through other periods of uncertainty during my presidency," Bush said.

Path to Hyperinflation

I was reading the Wikipedia article on Hyperinflation, and noticed that they have a list of the ways that governments have historically hidden the true rate of inflation, which helps pave the road to eventual hyperinflation. In case you were wondering what might lay ahead:

[[MORE]]
1. Outright lying as to official statistics such as money supply, inflation or reserves.

Current government statistics are awash in lies. Everything from unemployment statistics to the CPI and the GDP are badly distorted. See http://www.shadowstats.com/ for details.

2. Suppression of publication of money supply statistics, or inflation indices.

The M3 money supply stats are no longer published by the Fed.

3. Price and wage controls.

This hasn't happened recently. However, inflation was only around 4% when Nixon tried it back in the early 1970's. Inflation is now about three times that level, when calculated in the same way as it was back then.

4. Forced savings schemes, designed to suck up excess liquidity. These savings schemes may be described as pension schemes, emergency funds, war funds, or similar.

This sounds like Obama's "automatic workplace pensions".

5. Adjusting the components of the Consumer Price Index, to remove those items whose prices are rising the fastest.

Food and energy are not included in the CPI. They also make "hedonic" adjustments to remove other items from the index whose prices are rising fast, resulting in further distortions.

Is the US Economy Healthy?

If you're still having second thoughts about whether the US economy is healthy, here are few things to consider:

• Over the last two years, the dollar has lost 20% of its international purchasing power


• The impacts of a weaker dollar include more expensive imported goods, including oil


• Look at the prices of all commodities over the last few years (or even over the past few months), especially gold, silver, platinum, wheat, corn, oil, etc.


• The price of wheat about a year ago was around $5/bushel. Within just the last week it went up by more then $5/bushel to an all-time high of around $30.


• Think about the prices of things you buy on a regular basis. How much have they gone up over the last year? Do those increases match-up well with the government's claim of 4% inflation?

[[MORE]]

• In 1964, while the US was still using silver coins, the average price for a gallon of gas was $0.30. Today, a 1964 silver quarter (now worth about $3.50) will buy a gallon of gas. So priced in silver, gas is actually cheaper today than it was 44 yrs ago. Or, to put it another way, the dollar is only worth 7% of what it was worth back then (a $100 bill today can buy what $7 could in 1964).


• Have a look at the charts at http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...e/ChartLibrary The one showing consumer debt as % of GDP is particularly disturbing.


• Think about how much you're really paying in taxes. In the 35% federal tax bracket for people in California, it totals up to more than 60% (FICA, sales tax, medicare, state tax, etc).

Presidents Can't Manage the Economy

In John Stossel's recent article: Presidents Can't Manage the Economy, he says:

Manufacturing jobs are no better for America than other jobs. Some argue that they are worse. How many parents want their children to work in factories rather than offices? Increasing service jobs in medical, financial and computer sectors while importing manufactured goods doesn't hurt America. It helps America.

This is a common misconception in the US, and regardless of what parents might want, I strongly disagree.

[[MORE]]
Service-based jobs depend on the existence of producers. Without that industrial base, those jobs go away. Producers are, in general, manufacturers.

A service-based economy (like the current situation in the US) is fragile. Production is wealth; money flows toward producers (provided they're producing something that is also consumed). That's why the US has such a huge trade deficit and China has such a huge trade credit. It's also why the world's largest creditor nation has always ended up dominating the world's economy.

How much of your income do you pay in taxes?

Here's a breakdown of just a few of the taxes that people in California pay:

Federal income tax: 35%
Sales tax in northern California: 8.25%
CA State income tax: 9.3%
FICA (social security): 6.2%
E-FICA: 6.2% (paid by your employer on your behalf)
Medicare: 1.45%

Total = 66.4% (60.2% not including E-FICA)
[[MORE]]
That doesn't include property taxes (direct or indirect through your landlord), DMV fees, CPUC taxes on phone charges, electricity/utility taxes or embedded taxes like those on fuel, so the effective rate is even higher.

Throw some inflation into the mix, and you start to get a sense of how much the government is really taking from us.

Video: How Money is Created and Destroyed

I made a short video that summarizes the mysteries and magic behind the process of money creation and destruction.

Please have a look, and let me know what you think.

Bank Non-borrowed Reserves

There was a recent opinion piece by Carolyn Baum on Bloomberg: How Non-Borrowed Reserves Became a Sexy Subject.  While I agree with the basic facts presented by the author, I also think she leaves out a couple of important points, including why the TAF was created in the first place.

[[MORE]]

In reference to the fact that non-borrowed reserves for US banks have recently gone negative, she said:

Reserves can be borrowed (from the Fed's discount window) or non-borrowed (supplied via the Fed's daily open market operations). It matters not one whit to the Fed where the banks acquire the reserves they require. If they borrow directly from the Fed, they don't need to tap the interbank, or fed funds, market.

Right. The Fed Funds market and the Discount Window both count as borrowed reserves. Non-borrowed reserves come from open market operations, where the purchase of treasury securities in the open market injects cash into the economy, which, when deposited into banks becomes reserves, since it's backed by government debt rather than commercial debt.

When the proceeds from open market operations are deposited into the banking system, they don't have a choice about whether to call those funds reserves. That's what they are, period. So the first thing that's interesting here is that banks needed to borrow more of their reserves than they have received through open market operations. Why would that happen?

The answer comes with a statement near the end of the article:

Some of the concern is justified, he said, given banks' massive losses and writedowns on subprime loans.

Exactly. Those losses destroy reserves. The only option banks have to replace the lost reserves is to borrow them. But other banks weren't lending much through Fed Funds, and the Discount Windows requires short-term, high-quality (AAA) assets, which were in short supply. So the TAF was created to fill the gap.

Open market operations probably could have been used to ultimately achieve the same effect, but the effect isn't instant, and the Fed has no control over which banks the resulting funds are deposited in. The fact that some banks have bigger problems than others was, I'm sure, another contributor to the creation of the TAF.

Taxation of inflated pseudo-profits

In the US, the financial unit of account is the US dollar. The right to money vests with the government; you have no right to a store of value, and government can pillage what value you might think you have at will, and without representation or due process.

26 U.S.C. § 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gains from dealings in property" as one type of income. The word "gain" means a gain in the established financial unit of account, not a material gain (an increase in purchasing power).

[[MORE]]Let's say I buy stock (a form of property) for $100 and sell it a year later for $105, but inflation was 10% for that year. I'm taxed on the $10 nominal "gain," even though I've actually lost $5 worth of purchasing power.

The situation gets worse as inflation rates rise. Imagine that inflation is 100% per year. You buy a stock for $100 and sell it a year later for $150. You've lost $50 in purchasing power, but the government would tax the $50 pseudo-profit, thereby increasing your loss.

Eliminating the tax on capital gains would help to mitigate the damage here, although inflation and forcing the dollar as the unit of account are the also a big part of the problem.

Deep Liberty

Schools in western democracies teach that the main way we can cause social change is by voting. What schools don't tell you is that there's more than one way to vote. Every economic action you take is another form of voting -- and those votes are probably more important than the ones you cast at the ballot box.

[[MORE]]

For example, if you're against the war but work in the defense industry, then you are actually "voting" to continue the war through your efforts. This concept can be applied deeply in your life. The idea is that if everyone acted according to their true desires and best interests, that the world would be a much better place.

Another way to think of it is to imagine everyone in the world making the same decision as you. If everyone worked in the defense industry, would the world be a better or a worse place?

With this idea in mind, I would like to propose the concept of something that might be called "Deep Liberty": changes you can make in your everyday life that reflect the values of individualism:

• Make sure your job reflects your core values. Not just what you do on a day-to-day basis, but how the fruits of your labor are applied in society. For example, refuse to work for the government, defense contractors, transportation companies that are involved with troop movement, companies that sell products to the government or the military, etc.


• Minimize your debt, and thereby minimize interest paid to banks. If necessary, sell your house and move into a rental.


• Move some of your money into foreign currencies or stocks


• Educate your kids at home and not in government schools


• If you live in a city full of corruption, like New York, then move to someplace honest, where your tax dollars and the other fruits of your labor support a healthy system, rather than a corrupt one


• Reduce your consumption and increase your savings


• Buy gold


• Minimize your taxes within legal limits, and don't let yourself be driven by the fear of an audit (or, worse yet, feel that you need to pay "extra")


• Consider moving to a state that doesn't have a state income tax


• For stocks, favor buy-and-hold instead trading (no tax due until you sell)


• Barter for things when you can


• Be conscious of the companies you buy products from. How will they use the money you spend? Who do they buy from? Where do their profits go? (boycotting companies that advertise on Fox is an example of this)


• If you ever serve on a jury, apply individualist values to the case


• Cancel most or all of your credit cards. If you really need a card, try switching to a debit card


• Refuse to accept social security payments, unemployment compensation, food stamps and other forms of welfare


• Minimize your use of oil: get a high-mileage car, drive less, work from home, etc


• Academia is the source of many of today's "diseases" of the mind, including new flavors of socialism, distorted models of the economy, etc. When choosing a college for yourself or your child, be careful that its values reflect your values

The cause of the Great Depression

In the years after WW I and before the stock market crash of 1929, the Fed was used to help bring England out of a depression. The approach taken was to transfer American wealth to England by establishing artificially low interest rates and inflating the money supply, weakening the dollar relative to the pound. That caused investors, businesses and individuals to move resources, including gold deposits, from the low-interest-paying US to the higher-interest-paying UK.

[[MORE]]
Artificially low interest rates encouraged stock market speculation. However, as a result of the movement of wealth out of the country, industry wasn't as strong as people thought, so it eventually collapsed, and the Great Depression began.

Notice any similarities to what's going on today? Artificially low interest rates? Yep. Inflating the money supply? Yep. Weakened dollar? Yep. Stock market speculation? Yep. The net effect is a transfer of wealth out of the US, only on a much larger scale than before.

I'm not saying the current actions will lead to another Great Depression, but they will certainly be damaging to the economy and the country.

Executive Order 11110

There is a rumor that's been circulated in several videos and books that JFK was assassinated because he signed Executive Order 11110, which supposedly stripped the Federal Reserve of its power to loan money to the Treasury at interest.
[[MORE]]
The truth is that Executive Order 11110 authorized the printing of $4B in silver certificates, should the occasion arise -- it had nothing to do with stripping anything from the Fed, and it wasn't even an instruction to actually do the printing, only an authorization to do so. A similar order had been written in 1957, just six years before.

JFK did nothing that threatened the Federal Reserve in the slightest. He was a life-long socialist and globalist; he helped devalue the dollar and transfer American wealth to foreign countries.

Executive Order 11110 was later rescinded by Reagan with Executive Order 12608 in 1987, well past the time when silver certificates were withdrawn from circulation and when the US went completely off of the silver and gold standards after Nixon backed out of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971.

Is the US approaching fascism?

A few thoughts:

-- Habeas corpus has been suspended
-- The President has claimed the right to suspend the Constitution (and elections) in a time of crisis, without even a clear definition of a crisis
-- People are being arrested and/or beaten for stupid reasons: not trimming their lawn to the right height, etc
-- Insane amounts of security involved with anything related to travel
-- Travel forbidden to people who are on certain "lists"
[[MORE]]-- The US has a Department of Homeland Security
-- Secret prisons
-- Torture is sanctioned by the government
-- The US started wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, the same crime the Nazis were tried for at Nuremberg
-- More than one million people have now been murdered in Iraq as a result of the US occupation
-- Ralph Nader claimed (see youtube) that a Congressman told him that Congress was afraid to start impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney because they had threatened to nuke Iran and suspend elections if they did
-- The abomination called the Patriot Act, which now allows self-written search warrants, among other insanity
-- The US now has more people in prison per capita than any country in the world (more than 2M total, with more than 5M more in jail, on parole or on probation). With 5% of the world's population, the US has 25% of the world's incarcerated.
-- The press in the US are corrupt, with control of nearly all media resting in the hands of just 5 large corporations
-- The political parties are corrupt, offering voters a faux choice between candidates who only differ with regard to superficial issues
-- Congress is corrupt, driven by the power of lobbyists and large corporations, and have passed one unconstitutional law after another
-- New passports already have ID chips
-- Gradual but continuous erosion of 2nd amendment rights

Oh, and for those who are contemplating refusing to get a Real ID -- if the UK experience teaches us anything, it's that you better also be prepared to live completely off the grid if you do that. Doing any kind of banking, having a job, traveling, etc, will all likely require you to have ID.

The Science of Manipulation

Interesting video, "Deceiving Images, the Science of Manipulation": http://www.nypl.org/audiovideo/deceiving-images-science-manipulation

One of the key take-aways for me from the video is that all words, regardless of the speaker's intent, invoke a frame or context, which is then used as part of the listener's evaluation process.

[[MORE]]
I don't see use of this knowledge so much as manipulation, as its title says.  Rather, this sort of understanding of communication is key when you're trying to get something across to a large audience.

The point they made is that in order to communicate your message to the masses, it needs to be properly framed. The particular words that are used has a huge impact. The words can (should) still be genuine and true, but they should also be carefully chosen to have maximum impact -- particularly in advertising.

What are some ways that a potentially controversial political message could be polished by invoking the right frames?

For example, instead of "Abolish the Federal Reserve," it could be:

--> Stop the government from stealing your savings
--> Eliminate the hidden tax of inflation

Here's a few more politically oriented ideas along these lines:

End the occupation of Iraq. Bring our troops home.

Your paycheck is worth less every week because boat-loads of money are being printed to pay for the occupation in Iraq, which dilutes the value of your money

The amount you are being paid in social security is being reduced every year -- not by giving you fewer dollars, but by making those dollars able to buy less by printing so many of them

Guess who benefits first when the government prints lots of new money? Wall Street. Guess who gets hurt most? The middle class and the poor.

When the government prints new money, it is robbing from the poor and giving to the rich.

You are being taxed without your consent, by a hidden tax called inflation.

Guess how health insurance companies make more money? Not by providing more service, but by declining claims. Do you really want all health care in this country to be controlled by insurance companies?

When illegal immigrants get free health care, they are stealing from the American Taxpayer.

Illegal immigrants don't pay taxes.
A few short ones:

Privacy is your Right

End the Iraq Occupation

Stop the Theft

Inflation is Theft

Original US central banks

Here's a quick summary of the original US central banks:

Bank of North America (formed before the Constitution was written) -- did not have its charter renewed by Congress, and closed in 1783

Bank of the United States, formed in 1791 (encouraged by Hamilton) -- fought by Jefferson, its charter was not renewed by Congress in 1811

Second Bank of the United States, formed in 1816 -- fought by Jackson, its charter expired in 1836
Jefferson's portrait is now on US $2 bills.
Hamilton is now on US $10 bills.
Jackson is now on US $20 bills.

What have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost so far?

In addition to the more than one million Iraqi lives that have been lost in the war, so far, what has the financial cost been?

"The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion through the next decade, or nearly $8,000 per man, woman and child in the country, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate scheduled for release Wednesday. ... In the months before the March 2003 Iraq invasion, the Bush administration estimated the Iraq war would cost no more than $50 billion."

[[MORE]]

See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-10-23-wacosts_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Here are a few other ways to think about it:

-- More than $120,000 for every person in the state of New York.
-- Almost two and a half times the entire financial output of the state of New York in one year (gross state product)
-- About twice the total amount received from Federal income taxes in one year
-- Four times the cost of the entire social security program for one year
-- Close to the entire amount of income received by the Federal government in one year, from all sources (taxes, duties, social security, etc)

Why I like New Zealand

-- Very against the Iraq war (even use of an Air NZ jet to just ferry Australian troops to Saudi Arabia caused a huge flap in parliament)
-- Anti-nuclear (they don't allow US warships to dock anywhere in NZ, since the US Navy refuses to certify that don't carry nukes)
-- Simpler tax system (income tax form is like 4 pages long, no death taxes, no capital gains taxes on the sale of your home, extremely low property taxes)
-- A sane legal system that doesn't grant obscene financial awards
[[MORE]]-- The country isn't run by lawyers (the contract paperwork to buy a house is like 4 pages long)
-- Of course it's beautiful
-- Only 4M people in a country that's about two-thirds the size of California (only 1M people on the entire south island)
-- English-speaking
-- Low levels of violent crime
-- Gun ownership is legal (although they do have a strict safety-focused licensing system) and there are lots of hunters in the country
-- They understand and appreciate personal liberty, and have been known to demonstrate or riot when the government tries to pass laws that might undermine those rights
-- They have one of the strongest currencies in the world (it's a commodity-oriented currency, like the Australian and Canadian dollars)
-- Their politicians have a reputation of being among the most honest and least corrupt in the world
-- They have run a tax SURPLUS for the last few years
-- No one hates NZ; they're not quite as neutral as Switzerland, but close
-- People here know how to fix things and keep them for a long time; it's not a throw-away consumer society

One way to look at emigration is to think about what our forefathers did. When the government in England got messed up, they left and found someplace better. When Germany and the rest of Europe went crazy during the World Wars, lots of people left there to come to the US. It's really just the natural flow -- why stay and support a system that's crumbling and that you don't really believe in?

The smell of fear

Fear is a driving emotion for many people. The fear-mongering is everywhere: TV, newspapers, schools, work, travel, etc. The interesting thing is, once you start to listen carefully, that the fear provocations are always followed by some statement about what someone is going to do for us (to us) to "help".
[[MORE]]
And yet, the things that they are making people afraid of are largely nonsense. How many people in the US have been killed by Islamic terrorists? Compare that that to serious issues like heart disease or even the flu (which kills 40,000 people per year), and you can start to see some of the absurdity. Yet people accept it, and are somehow convinced that it's OK to spend trillions of dollars on a war and to kill more than a million people. For what? How can anyone possibly feel more secure after taking actions like those?

The same is true for the war on drugs: the US now has the largest number of people in prison of any country on the planet. The descent into fascism is what should be scary....

Why a declining dollar matters

When interest rates are not set by market forces, the result is mis-directed investment. The Fed is currently holding interest rates artificially low. In recent years, this has resulted in booms in the stock market and in housing. Low interest rates also impact the value of the dollar, since holders of dollars would be motivated to sell them and buy currencies where they can invest at higher interest rates.

[[MORE]]

In addition to provoking booms (and the inevitable busts that follow), a less visible, but equally important effect of artificially low interest rates is a massive transfer of wealth from the US to countries with stronger currencies. This happens in several ways. Capital flight for interest / yield reasons, as described above. Imported goods become more expensive, transferring wealth from US consumers to those companies in the form of increased cash flow. And the sale of US-based dollar-denominated assets at artificially low prices -- which is the reason why so much US infrastructure is now owned by overseas investors (refineries are owned by the Arabs, much of Los Angeles downtown is owned by the Japanese, etc). Those transactions are transfers of wealth because they are happening at below-market prices.

The interesting thing is that this is exactly what happened in the years before the Great Depression in 1929. The Fed artificially lowered interest rates in an intentional move to prop up the British economy. Massive amounts of wealth were transferred to England. The low rates triggered stock market speculation with a resulting boom & bust. The economy couldn't recover quickly after the stock market crash because the foundational strength was gone. The difference today is that the amount of wealth being moved out of the country is much greater -- which leads one to believe that the ultimate result has the potential of being much worse....