Posted by: graemebird | November 4, 2009

The Development Of Binary Star Systems.

One day if it doesn’t blow up first, Jupiter will become a star and its moons will progress to planets. During this time of course it would, if I am right, face the prospect of being culled by galactic centre explosions which would touch of supernovae and planetary explosions all throughout the galaxy. Where the shockwaves don’t cause problems this large they will lead to coronal explosions and volcanic activity.

So the moons of planet Jupiter, in this story, would become the planets of the star Jupiter. And Jupiter, if not pruned, would find for itself its own solar system.

That means our Sun was once a planet revolving, with other planets, around another star. And its likely that this planet, that became our sun, was a fellow planet to Alpha Centauri, and perhaps even the stars of the Sirius system.

Eventually each star gets its own solar system. OR DOES IT? As time has gone on the astronomers have found out that most of the stars come in pairs or multi-star systems. You can see how this would happen. Because if Saturn goes on to be a star, and Jupiter also survives to be a star, well its easy to understand that if they break free from our sun particularly,they could wind up revolving around eachother.

Now suspicions have arisen that we ourselves may be part of a binary star system. If this is the case we would spend long periods of time with a tranquil solar system. But when the two stars got close and subsequently revolved around each-other there would be much chance for catastrophe and disaster, as the planets of the other star got entangled with our own.

The binary star idea has got some wings. And if it is true one of the upshots may have been that Venus was once part of the other solar system. Venus doesn’t have a great deal of business being where it is. My view of the situation would be that Venus could not have grown to its current size under the conditions and in the position we see it in today. Other people for other reasons, see Venus as an interloper. I’ll have to find out WHY they think this. But its a common idea.

Just a word on my methodology here. I’m sussing out different paradigms, trashing some in total. Finding what parts of others I can be very sure off. Locking those tent-pegs in, and speculating, whilst keeping in mind those things which almost cannot be wrong.

So I’ve got part of Gaede’s system that almost cannot be wrong. Part of what Neal Adams is saying that almost cannot possibly be wrong. But not necessarily accepting every last thing they are saying. Note there is no time for the mainstream in any of this. I’ve also started listening to Paul Laviolette. I think everything he says is worth listening to.

This preliminary evaluation would imply of course that virtually all star systems will be binary or multiple star systems. In the same way that gas giants have many moons and solar systems have many planets. Where this is not the case we expect that:

1. A planet that has not yet developed to become a star will one day become that second star.

2. It was a multiple star system until one or other of the stars exploded.

3. Somehow the star managed to cut loose from its brother star and legitimately form its own solar system. I would think this last to be fairly uncommon.

I’ll write more if I find convincing evidence that we may be part of a binary system.



  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Thats not a proper bankruptcy Cambria. Does your stupidity never end. They are supposed to go out of existence. Not keep lending. Not keep paying huge salaries to their manifestly failed executives. And not continue to be subject to subsidy by the rest of society. You are such a welfare queen Cambria. Now you are calling a resucitation and government subsidy a bankruptcy.

    If these guys are banks, they will now be getting paid directly by the Fed for deposits held with the Fed. They will now have access to cheap credit.

    Bankruptcy means that they are not doing business hardly at all. That they are firing people every day and selling off their assets to pay their debt. Not that people like you are getting subsidised and that bondholders become equity-holders.

    You bankers are such leeches on society you don’t even comprehend that bankruptcy means that we are free of you and you have to get proper jobs. Since when does a bankrupt start making billions of dollars of new loans???? Hey I’ll tell you what. I’ll declare bankruptcy and then start making billions of dollars of new loans. Thats not a bankruptcy Cambria you dolt. Thats a ripoff. Its a bailout.

    I want everyone to consider just how unhealthy this constant subsidy to the banking industry is. This belligerent oaf Cambria sees nothing wrong with his mates being bailed out, and in fact can see no difference between a bailout and a bankruptcy. He is filled to the brim with admiration at the profits Goldman Sachs is now making after raiding the treasury and bribing the Congress. This is what the toadying to bankers by our economists, and the subsidising bankers by our government has done to this dope.

    “The idea that bankers caused the financial crisis is only credible with politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats……”

    Why quote people who don’t have a clue what they are talking about? Of course the bankers caused this crisis. It wasn’t the non-bankers. The bankers caused this crisis. Especially the American bankers who were involved in one scam after another, essentially relying on government backing. Cambria’s own bank had, according to Cambria, 5 trillion in derivatives that they could not possibly honour if their counter-parties came unstuck. The market spoke and it ought to have wiped out as much as 80% of the banking industry. the governments only task being to maintain business spending.

    Definitely all those banks who had large derivative portfolios ought to have died a fast and clean death. And now all their buildings would be sold off and we be free of these incredible leeches. Instead Goldman Sachs had their people make sure that none of the big derivative providers went under.

    4 Nov 09 at 8:09 am

  2. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Financial Services Authority chief Adair Turner has finally stopped attacking bankers for their paychecks and started talking about the real issue—what to do about the banks deemed too-big-to-fail. Unfortunately, he’s still worrying too much about how to prevent failure and not enough about how to facilitate it.”

    Exactly. We’ve got to put these people out on the street. So no more discount rate. No more central banking. Just kill kill kill. Only monetary policy is to either retire debt to flush in cash, or to increase the reserve asset ratio. Remove any subsidy to these rent-seekers. And measure success by how many bigshots have to retrain as plumbers or some other productive undertaking.

    I now realise that it is these capering baboons in the finance industry that have been hobbling my act every step of the way. They are a menace. From Fyodor, to Reynolds to Cambria. The faster we can get these bludgers in the short pants jobs the better.

  3. No birdy, under chapter 11 bankruptcy can mean the process of reorganisation so that the business can continue whilst paying off the debt

    4 Nov 09 at 2:30 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    No thats silly. No serious bankruptcy means that people get to make billions of dollars of new loans. Thats not a bankruptcy. Its a bailout. Its another example of special treatment of bankers. This crowd as we speak will be accessing all sorts of subsidies.

    4 Nov 09 at 2:34 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “From memory the plan was to resuscitate the banks and then the banks would resuscitate the economy. The method chosen was to transfer taxpayers money to the banks, which pleases bankers only.”

    But thats exactly what is going on in the Claytons bankruptcy above. The taxpayer loses his money and the bank still keeps on lending. Some call this bankruptcy. But its not bankruptcy its a bailout. They want to emerge from bankruptcy. But companies aren’t supposed to emerge from bankruptcy, their assets are supposed to be sold.

    We don’t need to pretend that A is B here. This is just the bankers ripping everyone else off. Individuals are supposed to rob banks. Not the other way around.

    4 Nov 09 at 2:41 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    How quickly you people are able to rationalise abnormal and essentially criminal behaviour. You see that its happening. You assume that it must be all normal and according to Hoyles.

    “Looks like the US government lost their ‘investment’. Let that be a lesson to them.”

    Dude. They are handing money to what would appear now to be their senior partners. They are stealing money off the public and giving it to the banks, in all cases, not just in one case. Thats the whole idea of the plan. If this is not the case, then how is it that the banks get the lions share of the gains from new money creation and not the government?

    4 Nov 09 at 2:46 pm

  4. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    No. Because there is no evidence that CO2-emissions hurt the biosphere in any way. Its evidence that counts rog. And the CO2-hysterics have none. None at all. Yet I just recently posted the totally convincing evidence that supernova explosions are somewhat overdue and will lead to massive natural disasters.

    You are letting these hippies bugger your use of the English Language.

    “Birdy, if we start preparing for the unforeseen we will have to allow for climate change, que?”

    What on earth could you possibly mean by “climate change.” Speak English. Do you even know what you mean anymore?

    I’ll tell you what you mean. What you mean is “carbon emissions.” And clearly it is idiotic to be forced into the preparation for carbon emissions. Once you speak English then your normally fairly sound logic can act in a fairly sound manner. But if its all NBN this, and “climate change” (when you don’t mean climate change) that, then your logic will be no good.

    In my original post I made it quite clear what my preferences were. But the post didn’t get through. So I had to shorten it and try again. But what I said that did get through wasn’t anything to do with supporting public works programs. I explained that fully.

    It was to do with acknowledging that we might be lucky this one time. The Labour party must go with perversity in policy. But given the way their ignorance dovetails with their perversity, it is possible for us to be lucky with policy once in awhile.

    We WILL lose all our satellites if there is another supernova. All of them. We will be facing massive disasters that will affect tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of people to our North. We will face bombing and the elimination of our satellites if we get in a dustup with China. And it appears the glide-path is either satrapy towards China or we will need to be able to expel them with brute force.

    My prediction is all of the above by the end of the century. I would say by mid-century but one wishes to be conservative in ones soothsaying.

  5. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Birdy, if we start preparing for the unforeseen we will have to allow for climate change, que?”

    What do you mean “unforeseen”. I’m not arguing that public works is the ideal way to go. Though it is better than public-private-partnership. I would do things quite differently. But every time I try to talk about infrastructure Cambria and Mark go into obstruction mode and everyone else goes into insulin shock.

    But what is this “unforeseen” business. I’m not talking about anything that isn’t entirely forewarned and foreseen. Just so long as you go with the evidence rog. People on Catallaxy accept evidence that isn’t there and are in contempt of actual evidence. So no I don’t think you prepare for the unforeseen. I think you prepare for the predictable.

    When it comes to government spending you avoid it if you can. But nobody is lining up to ask me how it is you would set up meaningful private infrastructural investment.

  6. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Here is the evidence for the frequency of galactic shockwaves, setting up supernova. To whit. The years in which supernova have been observed and recorded.

    185, 1006, 1054, 1181, 1572, 1604

    The 900+ year gap might imply that we are not overdue at all. But I think thats misleading. The human race was likely in too poor a shape to record too much of what happened in that gap.

    The three supernova of 1006, 1054 and 1181 may all be associated with the same shock-wave. Though to test the likelihood of the above speculation, we would need someone with a firm visual grasp of where everything is in the galaxy.

    4 Nov 09 at 5:33 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    No they couldn’t Winchester. But what they could do is prepare for the inevitable and then take advantage of the consequences when we are unprepared. You see China having all these massive underground facilities and inland development. They are even preparing a deep underwater submarine facility I think. Whereas most of our assets are on the Coast. And we would be in bad shape after the disaster hit.

    Whereas if we were prepared for nuclear war and supernova attack, then the disaster would actually be a great leveller for us. And we could then expel any pretension to our nation with relative ease, oriental or otherwise.

    4 Nov 09 at 5:40 pm
    Leave a Reply

  7. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Perdo – yes. I think the failure en masse is due to the collapse in confidence and not the viability of the institutions themselves.”

    This is simply untenable. Look at any other industry. They don’t all fall to pieces because of mental waves bustling through the population. You don’t get the worlds car industry on the brink because of public skittishness.

    The banks face ubiquitous collapse because they pyramid on cash. As well they reverse the natural order of things by borrowing short and lending long. So when viewed like any other industry, in accordance to the normal ratios that other industries are tested against, they are all without exception; unviable and in a state of technical insolvency. All of them. They are kept alive through government action.

    This is just a fact. Even before the crisis, whenever you would have skittishness and a bit of a crunch under way, new cash would be released to the banks in billions of dollars to prevent them crashing. The interest rate subsidy would fall through the floor.

    Part of the origin of the latest crash is in Greenspan and Bernanke using the second technique for a bailout-lite and not the first.

    There is no bank known currently who can make a profit if new money creation is taken out of their hands. If this is done they will have to wind their costs right back. No more high salaries.

  8. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “How is the existence of supernovae evidence that they are created by galactic shockwaves?”

    Well I haven’t yet presented evidence for that. But if you wanted to check that side out of it yourself it would be Paul LaViolette that is your man. I will just give you a brief theoretical background to why I think this is the case.

    The reasons for opposing the conventional views, arrived at by the hubristic method of the serial monogamy of paradigms is very clear. The idea of a star exploding since its fuel is exhausted is bogus. Stars don’t shine on the basis of fusion. Stars are electrical phenomenon, fueled by Birkeland currents. The currents I believe are driven from the “pull” point of view from ongoing matter creation which leads to an electron shortage. The electrons charge not being able to be felt if it is compressed within the inner nucleus.

    Can you explain what is observed by any alternative paradigm? I don’t THINKso?

    And yet in my view a star is really just an extension of a gas giant, which is an extension of an earth-like planet.

    So in its centre the sun will have a planet like setup. With heavy elements. Iron and Nickel and all the rest of it. Otherwise it would not have a magnetic field.

    The importance of a shock-wave to blowing up both stars and planets is that you have compression and gravity in fine balance. So if you loosen gravity enough BANG. You can get a huge explosion. If you loosen it less then that you would have coronal ejections in stars and volcanic explosions on planets.

    They say its a black hole in the centre of the galaxy. The cosmology I’m talking about would not see it that way. But certainly we are talking about a long dark rift which normally speaking, only shockwaves and gamma rays would whave enough energy to get out of.

    Its a bit difficult to come up with direct evidence. Since we have only been tracking gamma ray bursts recently. Most of them coming from other galaxies. So its a matter of ruthlessly tossing out paradigms which don’t work. Which do not explain all the phenomenon that we know of, and building it up from there.

    For example you have seen how supernova and out-sized volcanic activity go together. What paradigm explains how that could be????? Certainly mine does. So if you have a paradigm that cannot explain that, well you ought to send it to the fires/

  9. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Its not a revolution. Its just the witdrawal of subsidy to you welfare queens.

    There is no justification whatsoever for us to be subsidising you guys. None at all. The opposite of setting up people as rich welfare queens is not Pol Pot. The opposite is simply requiring you guys to make an honest living by removing all subsidies, subtle and otherwise.

    Now we know how to do this WITHOUT disturbing the level of business-to-business spending. Its simply the combination of cash injection through debt retirement and the lifting of the reserve asset ratio.

    Then we would have you off our backs and in the wealth-creating, rather then wealth-destroying sector of the economy. You know. Changing street-light bulbs, Contract lawn-mowing. Brickees labourer. You are parasites and thats no a good thing. Thats why you are so callous and arrogant. Its because of your parasitism.

    Having people CREATE WEALTH in order to get wealthy themselves has nothing to do with Pol Pot but is exactly the extreme opposite of that.

    4 Nov 09 at 7:12 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Here the stupid Cambria creates a spectrum with Pol Pot on one side and rampant cronyism on the other side. Cronyism and business welfare on one wing. Pol Pot on the other. You can see from this mummified bullshit-artist just how the history of our more conventional political spectrum was formed after World War II. Just from conmen like Cambria putting themselves on the opposite spectrum to the German Socialists.

    4 Nov 09 at 7:15 pm
    Leave a Reply

  10. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Its not a revolution. Its just the witdrawal of subsidy to you welfare queens.

    There is no justification whatsoever for us to be subsidising you guys. None at all. The opposite of setting up people as rich welfare queens is not Pol Pot. The opposite is simply requiring you guys to make an honest living by removing all subsidies, subtle and otherwise.

    Now we know how to do this WITHOUT disturbing the level of business-to-business spending. Its simply the combination of cash injection through debt retirement and the lifting of the reserve asset ratio.

    Then we would have you off our backs and in the wealth-creating, rather then wealth-destroying sector of the economy. You know. Changing street-light bulbs, Contract lawn-mowing. Brickees labourer. You are parasites and thats no a good thing. Thats why you are so callous and arrogant. Its because of your parasitism.

    Having people CREATE WEALTH in order to get wealthy themselves has nothing to do with Pol Pot but is exactly the extreme opposite of that.

    4 Nov 09 at 7:12 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Here the stupid Cambria creates a spectrum with Pol Pot on one side and rampant cronyism on the other side. Cronyism and business welfare on one wing. Pol Pot on the other. You can see from this mummified bullshit-artist just how the history of our more conventional political spectrum was formed after World War II. Just from conmen like Cambria putting themselves on the opposite spectrum to the German Socialists.

    4 Nov 09 at 7:15 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “…depth of the financial market.”

    See how you’ve gone out on a the leaves of a twig of one branch here Mark. Because I don’t think you can define the above.

    rog….. What you are claiming may be so to some extent. But you are tripping if you don’t see special and exploitive treatment here. When you go into bankruptcy you are supposed to pay off debt and not take on more debt. What is happening is just ridiculous.

    Cambria. I’m going to be after you from here on in to justify your new political spectrum. You know the one. Pol Pot on one side and all you crony’s and welfare queens on the other. Where is capitalism in this story. You hate capitalism you fake. You are a fraud Cambria. By starting up with this bogus political spectrum you have proven your hatred of liberty in economic life.

    4 Nov 09

  11. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    What I’m saying here is that:

    1. I was surprised to find that the natural sciences have been horribly wrong in the twentieth century, where not connected with commercial activity.

    2. After surveying what is out there and ranking and reranking I try and show the more likely science of matters.

    3. Since the methodology of the stolen money sciences was wrong from the start…. ie the serial monogamy of paradigms …… I ought not be so surprised.

    4. More to the point people will view me as being hubristic. But in fact it is the academy being hubristic. Since their methodology has been more science-sociology then science.

    I really thought it was just the economists and sociologists who were subject to this error. But thats only because economics was my specialty.

    “Bird, I’m a bit concerned that your opposition to what you call “the serial monogamy of paradigms” indicates that you’re veering towards abandoning the reality and attainability of objective truth.

    Where the raw material is more long-standing and is available to all and sundry, like in just war doctrine, there I have no reason to believe that these people have it all wrong. In fact quite the opposite. I’m always wondering why people don’t rely more heavily on the body of ethical reasoning that has been built up by people who appear to be smarter than almost anyone alive today.

    In the specific case of just war theory the idea of an IMMINENT threat needs to be looked at and thought about a bit more. But I think that the rest all holds up rather well. I don’t see any paradigm in parallel that is going to overturn it anytime soon.

    So I’m pretty horrified with people who were in favour of Dresden, bombing cities and so forth. And this evaluation of the nuclear bombings from a myopic point of view of just several months is also a bit irritating though I do understand the specifics of Truman’s decision. A better strategy would have ruled it out from an earlier perspective.

    I’m really talking about 20th century non-commercial science. Its all wrong. This has come as a great shock. And I have to have a phrase to explain why I’m not being delusional about it.

    They say “you think you are better than Einstein”. But the whole problem here is that people are doing science on the basis of the cult of personality. I think science was actually sounder in the late Christian era. Not knocking Darwin. But I’m supposing science was more sound prior to him.

  12. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Horatio (Homer). says there’s too much competition in the US. That ought to show up in gross interest margin earned which is a very popular metric to figure out how banks are actually doing.

    Bank of America has earned around 2.65% so far this year before charge offs.

    NAB has earned a net interest margin of around 2.15%.”

    Margins on their own aren’t an indication of competition where pyramiding is a feature. For example gold-sellers could be issuing unbacked certificates, selling largely thin air, and they would be able to undercut honest sellers with lower margins. Since its cheaper to sell fresh air then gold.

    Come up with a better indication.

    Reform would mean a more competitive industry. But it would mean wider margins for a very long time.

  13. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) — The productivity of U.S. workers surged in the third quarter at the fastest pace in six years as companies squeezed more from remaining staff to boost profits.”

    As I explained to you very clearly, even breaking it down for any sundry dumb wop, this is not true.

    Now justify the figures or stop bullshitting people. Its already been explained to you.

    1. The deficit artificially boosts GDP (The Numerator)

    2. GDP is a useless measure for quarter to quarter comparisons.

    3. The same deficit reduces employment (The Denominator)

    4. The concept totally ignores the fact that the workforce is producing PRODUCER GOODS and not just CONSUMERS GOODS.

    5. American consumer goods inflation is notoriously understated…. (so therefore “real” GDP growth is overstated)

    This is a systematic negation of the figures you stupid wop. Do you understand it NOW. You don’t have a clue Cambria. Stop misleading people you stupid wop.

  14. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “On the basis of present information we may assert that aliens would possess qualities a,b,c, … but “present information” is so parlous that one must consider whether having any opinion on the matter is a valid logical exercise(cue Wittie?).”

    We have economic science leftie. And supposing you’ve got a race of squids with IQ’s of 400, if they cannot get it together to even so much as carve a few runes on some stone tablets they are just as likely to be eaten by a race of sharks with an IQ of 20.

    If you cannot have writing, coinage, durable capital goods, a legal system leading to these durable capital goods gaining technological advancement with each update…

    .. then you are not going to harness the nucleus of atoms, then you are a species with a small future in the business of inter-stella parlays.

    And if you lack the conceptual ability to throw off your fractional reservist oppressors, you can have all of the above, but you will always be a creature forever bound to the one planet and hostage to that planets fortunes.

  15. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I’ve told you more than once you asshole. I have no aspirations to be a parasite like you and the people you look up to. Matter of fact its time to get retrospective on you punks. The arrogance of the thieves has just gotten too much to let you unrepentant thieves walk.

    5 Nov 09 at 9:49 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Well you are an envious turd.”

    No you are a fucking liar Cambria. And I can prove it.

    Lets see you distance yourself from Goldman Sachs and their behaviour. You cannot do it you dog. Thats your theory down the fucking tubes. The rest of you have to see this. We’ve got to get these people off our backs. There are many rent-seekers and rigged markets out there. But the bankers are the most arrogant. The most disgusting. The most pernicious and the most dishonest.

    5 Nov 09 at 9:54 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “You have no understanding of economics ….”

    No mate I’ve got an economics degree and you are a thief. And I have explain stuff to you, simple stuff, and you cannot grasp it, because you are a dumb thief.

    This asshole was bailed out in 82, 91, 98, 2001 and now. And subsidised during that whole time with measures laughably known as “monetary policy.”

    What an arrogant bastard. A thief who when objections are raised says….. ” You are just jealous of my stealing”

    I’d like to sell up your house and assets and use the funds to increase the tax free threshold. How would you feel about that you asswipe. Where the thieves get that arrogant. That repellent. Thats gotta justify retrospectivity.

  16. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “2. If you have higher unemployment, a recession, and increasing labour productivity, this is the first sign of recovery. J”

    You don’t have increasing labour productivity and you are wrong. If you have falling unemployment thats a recovery. No matter what these Keynesians say.

    “Yes Graeme GDP can be used for labour productivity but there are other measures.”

    You can use it. If you want meaningless quarter to quarter comparisons. So why would you?

    6 Nov 09 at 2:44 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    No Cambria. I did explain why they were useless figures. I explained it clearly. And if you don’t understand them, this just underscores my correct estimate of you as a complete fucking dummy.

    The explanation is all there. You seperate the numerator and the denominator. You analyse what the deficit does to each. You determine the question “are the in fact measuring productivity changes or are they not”

    The answer is that they are not. They are measuring GDP, using a bogus CPI to correct for real GDP which overstates GDP growth. They are ignoring the production of capital goods, but including individuals who exclusively produce capital goods in the denominator.

    And it is the case that therefore we will get these high productivity figures that will be entirely bogus. Since we know for a fact that the deficit spending will reduce employment and increase nominal GDP.

    So you are just being an idiot. Retract you idiot.

    See this moron, because he’s got money, when he’s wrong it doesn’t matter. As long as someone is picking up the bills and paying for him he’s just happy. And being wrong is being right in his book.

    He’s a fucking dummy.

    Does anyone, other then Mark and Cambria NOT understand why the productivity figures are completely wrong?

    6 Nov 09 at 2:53 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Get rid of this asshole Sinclair. He’s an idiot. He understands nothing. He doesn’t want to learn anything. He’s fucking overhead. And worst of all him and Pablo abused Philomena away. Or thats what I’m supposing.

    And some of the things those two said ought to have been blocked.

    Tell him to make good on his use of those figures or just block. He’s a constant menace. It was such a blessing the time this moron didn’t show up until the late afternoon and the conversation suddenly improved without this thickhead obstructing the pursuit of knowledge every step of the way.

    He’s no good. He shouldn’t be here. This is essentially a blog about economics. If you get some shithead like Cambria who knows nothing, is always wrong, and has not ability to see when he’s wrong, its just going to be like pulling teeth minute in minute out when it comes to educating the public.

    6 Nov 09 at 2:58 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    See Mark. If you just are going to be irrational then what I can I do? In all cases the only answer is just to repeat what I said.

    Let me give you an example.

    I SEZ:

    The concept totally ignores the fact that the workforce is producing PRODUCER GOODS and not just CONSUMERS GOODS.’


    Worker productivity measures it all. There is nothing wrong with consumption, forcing people to do either is a bad idea ethically and economically.


    And there is simply no answer to it but to repeat what I said.

    “The concept totally ignores the fact that the workforce is producing PRODUCER GOODS and not just CONSUMERS GOODS.’”

    Do you understand it this time Mark. Well read it again.

    “The concept totally ignores the fact that the workforce is producing PRODUCER GOODS and not just CONSUMERS GOODS.”

    Do you understand now? You cannot pretend to be measuring changes in productivity on the basis of the production of only consumer goods. Because they aren’t producing only consumer goods. They are also producing producer goods.

    See your answer just ignored what I had written.

    “The concept totally ignores the fact that the workforce is producing PRODUCER GOODS and not just CONSUMERS GOODS.”

    Did you read it this time? Or are you just going to keep on ignoring it.

    First you ignored it and lied that I was against measuring productivity. Then you ignored the explanation AGAIN and request that I explain over.

    And then you went and got the explanation but ignored it by writing stuff, as if you hadn’t read what I had written.

    If you want to measure productivity you’ve got to measure production and divide it by worker hours. If you just measure SOME production that won’t help you get out of recession, but that the government has artificially stimulated, well thats work for the taxeaters. But its no measure of productivity.

    “Its not a recovery its a coverup” as the artificial production of and promotion of these figures shows.

    If they want to have good productivity figures, they have to measure productivity. And the most important production, when discussing a recovery, is the production of exports and producer goods. Not consumer goods and government services.

  17. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Nowhere do we see a justification for the bogus American productivity figures.

    “Let me put it another two ways:

    1. GDP and inflation (usually the GDP deflator, not CPI) have been measured the same way pre and post crisis. Also note that the GDP deflator varies from CPI and is generally used to give real GDP figures.

    2. If you have higher unemployment, a recession, and increasing labour productivity, this is the first sign of recovery. Jobs in unsustainable sectors have been wiped out and as long as capital is freely available to be transferred (i.e ease of liquidation and purchase of distressed assets at lower prices) then the unemployed should be reallocated to more sustainable employment.

    3. Clearly I was referring to output or gross value, and giving context to rising production as opposed to national income, as an example given by Steve Kates before. Yes Graeme GDP can be used for labour productivity but there are other measures.”

    So where is your justification for the bogus productivity figures?

    I showed why they were wrong. Why they would predictably give us bogus productivity growth. And you just ignored that, and the above contains no justification for these figures.

    If you cannot do the job Mark, then you are wasting everyone’s time. Either justify the figures, or admit that they will be predictably showing productivity growth now, whether or not there is productivity growth in reality.

  18. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Yes they are co-conspirators. We on the conservative-libertarian side are used to reflexively blaming the government. The problem with that attitude is that once you have public-private-partnerships in general and fractional reserve particularly, the businesses BECOME the government.

    So bankers are into government like nobody’s business in America. Congressmen testify that they can get hold of more information on what the CIA is doing then what the Federal Reserve is up to. Though we ought not have a central bank, we as a nation can thank our lucky stars that we don’t have a privately owned central bank like the Americans do.

    We think private good/public bad. This is a habit we have. But the main thing is that public and private are separated. Business and Government must be split asunder and we cannot have them colluding. Right now the Americans are a banana Republic. The central bank was always a mess but now they have idiots from Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan infiltrated into all the key positions in both the Fed and the Treasury. All of these people are without exception morons, but they are masterful political animals and the greatest rent-seekers the world has yet seen.

    We don’t need nationalised banks when we can have 100% backing. But it is far better to have naionalisation of one or two areas then to ever sit still for public private partnership. The economics right will lose that argument to the promoters of bank nationalisation. Since there argument is weaker and we can never let things deteriorate to the American situation.

    As we watch, all of Cambria’s heroes are scuttling the country with such effectiveness that the traitor Soetoro, was on a completely smooth glide-path from the trajectory that Hank Paulson created for him. This is an incredible act of vandalism on a scale never before seen.

    As bad as government is, corporations getting together with government creates a far worse multiheaded beast and one that we have no chance of taming once it gets to the American level. The Americans will find that they cannot tame that beast and must cut it to pieces. Which they will do, hopefully by temporary secession. But otherwise there will be killing.

    Thankfully we haven’t let the banks take over and our bankers are not quite the racketeers that the American shysters are. But they still get the lions share of the benefit of new money creation.

    This fact is as astonishing as it is dangerous. This already makes it appear like they have wangled the senior partner status in the story of two uneasy conspirators. The government must take that benefit off the banks. And then later let that benefit go to the extraction industries. But most importantly take it off the banks.

    This is a matter that goes deeper then libertarian ideology. It goes deeper than economics and must be seen in the context of the nature of government and in the traditional view of the study of political-economy and not merely technical-economics.

    6 Nov 09 at 4:11 am
    Leave a Reply

  19. Note that the complete idiot Paul Norton and the moronic banker Fyodor, can find no reason to say that I’m wrong about the above.

    Both of them presumably believe in the creation myth of the big bang.

    Dagget is doing a heroic job against these house niggers who still cannot explain the tell-tale heart that is the molten iron in all three basements.

  20. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    In practice you are going to need 100% backing to run an appropriate monetary policy. Since to do anything less is to have admitted to yourself that its ok for money and banking to be all about subsidising morons like Cambria.

    Bankers are subsidised at every turn. Either you going to allow a certain class of people this special benefit or you are not. JC talks about easy money. But the bankers give themselves easy money in America.

    Paulson lead a coterie in 2004 to the Fed to enable them to change the regulations to a situation where they could then leverage to a factor of 40 rather than a factor of 12. This was as CEO of Goldman Sachs. A job that he did not get via promotion, but rather via a rent-seeking coup. He then inserted himself into the treasury secretary position and lead another coterie to bribe, right in front of all of us, a bunch of Congressman.

    What happened is this. The Congressman were getting letters 100-to-1 against them going in for the Paulson heist. Blissfully it was defeated. Normally when you try something on like this and its defeated thats the end of the story. But what do these lunatics do? They hold a second vote, after massively bribing the Congress. And this time the vote wins.

    SOON, under the influence of Bernanke’s disease described this as a triumph of democracy. Actually one day we will judge it as the end of the Republic.

    So now Cambria says it was all about hubris and easy money. But the bankers were the ones with the arrogance the callousness and the hubris and they were the ones who created the easy money. They manisfestly ran, what can only be called a series of rackets, then they raided the treasury, and all their mob globally ran interference worldwide to a stupefied public.

    Cambria came out of the closet with an essay at thoughts on freedom called “In Support Of The Bank Bailout”

    Nowhere in this idiocy could he come up with any justification for the bailout taking the form it did. I asked him to make an actual argument for the bailout. He ignored me and when he finally said anything it was “it could work”. So to subsidise these people is to create a race of callous and arrogant hustlers, who see absolutely nothing wrong with plundering people and whose values are inverted so that they admire people to the extent of their successful plundering.

    But the fact is without the bailout, or with any sensible lawful bailout, Cambria’s crowd would have been wiped out by counter-party risk. Thats just a fact. Where the models claimed that they were liable to only 200 million losses this was based on the idea that all bets would be honoured. But once the other side of those bets failed, by Cambria’s own admission, the losses would go up to 5 trillion. And there was no question at all that these bets were set to fail.

    How can Cambria imply its just a one-off case of hubris? When they are subsidised daily and the hubris keeps coming back? They are bailed out every time the American Fed tightens monetary policy. The Fed tightens until something breaks, then the bailout begins anew. In fact they aren’t even tightening. They are simply reducing the interest rate subsidy. They reduce the interest rate subsidy, things start to collapse, then the bailout starts. This happens all the time. So its not any case of one-off hubris. And in all other areas the cost of hubris is death and destruction. So why haven’t we killed these goons off in the business sense?

    Whether its the S&L crisis. Some foreign banking crisis. The Volcker recession, the 9/11 blowback recession… always these guys are there with there hand out, then they all can lend money when the market is most distressed, get that loan money at bargain basement interest, and make a killing, then be paying themselves huge bonuses, even before the blood has been mopped from the streets.

    The incompetence of Cambria’s crowd is stunning. Since none of us could hope to go broke, no matter how we tried, were we receiving this sort of subsidy.

    The 100% backing then becomes absolutely necessary. Don’t be an idiot THR. You’ve just got to stop being an idiot and either learn monetary economics or stop pretending you’ve already learnt it. Getting rid of fractional reserve is no mere hobby-horse. Its a line in the sand and its the beginning of sanity and liberty.

    Once you let these criminals lock in their criminal behaviour you have voted for a coterie of con-artists and morons to be manipulating policy to fill up their pockets, or for the loss of national sovereignty and anything approaching a decent monetary policy. For their next trick this coterie will set up an international currency. This is the plan they have on the books.

    Paulson was always flying to China to deal with his creditors. The one chance the Americans had to get rid of a lot of their debts was to bankrupt all the organisations who held this foreign debt and then slash government spending. Paulson saw to it that they did exactly the opposite. You see they had these banking quislings in all the key jobs. So this will have to wait. And instead, rather than bankruptcy bringing the debt levels down, galloping inflation will kick that can down the road.

    There is no sensible monetary policy without 100% backing. Because if you don’t have 100% backing Cambria and his crony’s will be around to make sure there is no sensible monetary policy.

  21. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Conmen are much more subtle than to be working the blogs as necessarily part of their office duties. Conmen are pack-animals and don’t need anything so formal to act cohesively the way they do. That is why we have to break this racket like they did the Cosa Nostra. Since the gangsterism will become overt, with teeth, once we move against these people and one ought not fool oneself about it.

    We can see in retrospect, that this blog has had bankers running interference on it all the time I have been here trying to teach people monetary-economics 101. The support for banking executive subsidy becomes general as economists and people who want to scramble to be in with the in crowd, run under the bankers cover. SOON decided that he’d forgotten all he was ever taught about monetary economics and unilaterally promoted really moronic banking executives to the position of the new authorities on this subject.

    So for three years bankers have run this interference on people ever learning even the most basic notions of money and banking. First it was Fyodor who the job fell to, with Cambria as his loyal opposition. Next it was Reynolds. Now its Cambria. All of them pretending that me as a former 19 year old graduate knew nothing about the subject.

    And all of them are still for the cause around the clock as we speak. Here is Fyodor yesterday over at Prodeo:

    “Mind you, Birdy and Daggy might be even closer than you think. For one thing, both are economically illiterate LaDoucheites with a penchant for half-baked conspiracy theories. ”

    Here he is lying that I’m a Lyndon Larouche supporter and running the Cambria mantra that I don’t understand economics. He is also running in favour of a half-baked conspiracy theory that cannot explain molten iron in all three basements. So its the same old leftist projection with this banking moron, who used to go in for these massive filibusters creating what came to be known as threads of doom.

    These people will continue to work around the clock against sensible monetary policy just so long as we allow them a subsidy. Thats just a fact. They are obsessive about it. Reynolds went to work on this interference daily, four months straight, based on a wordgame. Its was an incredible act of obsessive blocking of anyone learning monetary basics.

    They don’t even have to work alone. Because people like Mark, wanting to stay with the in crowd, just assume they are right and know what they are talking about, and then start rabbiting on without ever reading or thinking.

    This dovetails with mysticism in money as displayed by people like Humphreys. Wherein Humphreys has decided that bank-cash-pyramiding actually creates new investment resources. He is a real dummy this Humphreys.

    6 Nov 09 at 2:24 pm
    Leave a Reply

  22. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Guys. Either justify the productivity figures, or admit that they are bogus, and will at this time be giving us synthetic productivity growth whether or not real productivity growth is going on.

    Either do the job or give it away. But don’t turn around tomorrow and lie and claim you know that the Americans have had productivity growth. When you have no evidence for this. When I’ve already explained why the figures are in principle wrong. The two of you have got to stop subjecting people to this constant filibuster and idiocy.

    Don’t pretend that you can do the job when you cannot.

    Here are my two explanations so far. This time read them before you make another false claim about productivity figures.


    Productivity improvement would imply the application of a great deal more captial accumulation, leading to those people still in work, to be producing more per capita. There is simply no reason to believe that this has happened.

    To analyse these figures for their veracity, we would break down the fraction and look at the denominator and the numerator and suss out whether the way they go about calculating this will give us a valid indication of productivity changes, GIVEN RECENT HISTORY.

    Clearly when we look at these figures we see that they do not. Nominal GDP is never a good quarter to quarter metric for comparison. I don’t know how many times I have gone over this.

    The Americans have reduced (I sez reduced!) employment via deficit spending. And the deficit spending has also artificially boosted profits and consumption.

    Since GDP = C+I+G+X-M we can see that three of these have been artificially increased due to deficit spending. This has been achieved completely independent of authentic productivity growth, based on capital accumulation. And as I said employment has been reduced by deficit spending. C has been increased via the “stimulus” package. G has been increased due to the splurging.

    (I) has been increased since Government spending is business revenue that doesn’t wind up as cost of goods sold. So profits are artificially increased. At the same time, during hard times, firms may pay less dividends. So there is two reasons right there why (I) is artificially stimulated, although long-term durable capital spending may be completely in the tank.

    So we can see that these productivity figures. Under the chain of events of the recent past. Are simply meaningless.


    1. The deficit artificially boosts GDP (The Numerator)

    2. GDP is a useless measure for quarter to quarter comparisons.

    3. The same deficit reduces employment (The Denominator)

    4. The concept totally ignores the fact that the workforce is producing PRODUCER GOODS and not just CONSUMERS GOODS.

    5. American consumer goods inflation is notoriously understated…. (so therefore “real” GDP growth is overstated)

    This is a systematic negation of the figures.

    SO THIS IS WHERE THE MATTER STANDS. The productivity FIGURES (not productivity per se) could have been predicted to have shown growth (without real productivity growth) in advance AND as the recession deepened. The recovery of the banks and Wall Street is in no way a recovery as is normally thought. This is merely the propaganda of the parasites talking.

    We will know the real recovery only by the reduction in unemployment. We could have a better idea then that but the figures simply are not compiled. Despite popular myth employment is no lagging indicator, or not as much of one as is commonly thought, and less of a lagging indicator in the States then here. It is their employment figures that are telling the real story over in America. Because we do not have the figures that would tell this story more clearly.

    Although one of the feds now publishes intermediate output. If you were to compile that figure over labour hours you would at least get a better idea of where real productivity was going.

    You up to doing that Mark? It won’t be a perfect figure of labour productivity. But on the other hand it will be a very good figure. And quite a good indication as to when they are authentically on the mend.

    Skousen mentioned where these figures can be found. I assume you have the computer packages to do the job. Labour hours ought to be retrievable from the Department of Labour. Get that plot happening and then we’ll have a much better idea of labout productivity growth or decline then the American Department of Labour could ever give us.

    6 Nov 09 at 4:01 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    …explain how naked short selling is different from writing calls or buying puts, from an economic welfare or contingent liabilities viewpoint”

    Thats easy. They are in no way the same. If you don’t understand what each is Mark, then you won’t understand the difference. That you don’t understand the difference means that you don’t know what each is and the effects of each. Which means that you don’t know what you are talking about as usual.

    Briefly: One of these two is straight gambling, wherein the house takes less of a margin then does the casino. The effects of making a win in gambling are pretty neutral. This must be judged as honest gambling. But not by the derivatives provider. Its true that the provider is involved in dishonest gambling. Whereas Nassim was involved in honest gambling.

    The other is lending what you don’t have and therefore creating a phantom supply of shares OUT OF THIN AIR. This is a massive attack on the price system and destructive of the financing of business. Particularly small listed companies and those companies not in a position to pay dividends. In other words its totally destructive of the role the capital markets are supposed to play. And a full frontal attack on the pricing system and the workings of the capital market. It is also known as watering down the stock. Or bank share pyramiding. A great crime against capitalism. One of the really great crimes of the century.

    We have been over and over and over this so many times Mark. And you didn’t get it the first ten times so I don’t suppose you are going to get it the next ten times either.

    6 Nov 09 at 4:11 pm

  23. 7.5 kilometres per second 8.5 light-years away

    8.5 light-years/7.5 kilometres per second times one year

    1 light-year = 9.4605284 × 10 to the 12 kilometers

    or 9,460,528,400,000 kilmeters

    seconds in a year. 60*60*365.25*24= 31,557,600

    At 7.5 kilometres per second we will travel towards Sirius B at a rate of

    7.5*31,557,600= 236,682,000 per year getting closer.

    9,460,528,400,000/236,682,000= 39 971 years.

    In other words if we were to continue at the current rate we would be ready for the suns to scream in and revolve around eachother in 40 000 years time. Although if this story is true we and they might accelerate and cut that time period down a good bit. Maybe down to 30 000 years? 20 000 years? Doesn’t sound too pretty.

    (11,712 years ago)

  24. I was just looking at your The Development Of Binary Star Systems. | A Better World: Graeme Bird For High Office site and see that your site has the potential to get a lot of visitors. I just want to tell you, In case you didn’t already know… There is a website service which already has more than 16 million users, and the majority of the users are interested in topics like yours. By getting your website on this service you have a chance to get your site more popular than you can imagine. It is free to sign up and you can read more about it here: – Now, let me ask you… Do you need your site to be successful to maintain your way of life? Do you need targeted visitors who are interested in the services and products you offer? Are looking for exposure, to increase sales, and to quickly develop awareness for your website? If your answer is YES, you can achieve these things only if you get your website on the network I am talking about. This traffic service advertises you to thousands, while also giving you a chance to test the service before paying anything at all. All the popular websites are using this network to boost their traffic and ad revenue! Why aren’t you? And what is better than traffic? It’s recurring traffic! That’s how running a successful site works… Here’s to your success! Find out more here:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: