Posted by: graemebird | July 21, 2011

Comet Conditions And New Planet Fission.

Many bad things will come out of the US experience,  if deficit spending continues until such time as cannibalism is rampant (and beyond.)  But one good thing about the US collapsing due to deficit spending, would be that this collapse,  might take NASA and the science maffia with it.  Once that crowd is gone we can get to the business of building or rebuilding a civilisation, unhindered by their bullshitartistry.

People don’t understand to what extent they are being programmed.  But hopefully some people might twig to this, now that the attempts at manipulation have become so “out there” hubristic, and over the top.

Take comets for example.  Did you ever find yourself thinking that a comet was a snowball? A comet is not a snowball, and no evidence has ever surfaced to attest to the stupid notion that a comet was a snowball.  But you are supposed to believe this, and if you want a phd in astronomy you WILL believe this and in fact you will learn to fucking love the idea of it.

So what are comets?  Well to find out this we need to know what a “capacitor” is.  We need to find out how to increase capacitance.  How to discharge the capacitor. And all the different properties associated with capacitance and the discharging of a capacitor.

And for you to visualize all of this we are going to have to attempt a few thought experiments.  Starting with the thought experiment of you being 100 metres tall and capable of levitation.  I’m going to teach you about comets, so you understand how they, and the solar system, work with eachother. And once you know about comets, you will know also that we have an unlimited supply of electrical energy that we can tap into …. no problem at all.  This is all thanks to James McCanney and some notable others.   I cannot teach you about these theories in great detail. But I can give you enough information to prove that they are right in broad thrust, and that they cannot be wrong.

So there you are all 100m tall of you and you are out there chasing a thundercloud.

 

 

More Later

Advertisements

Responses

  1. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080918170408.htm

  2. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13418263.900-science-earths-water-did-not-come-from-comets-.html

  3. http://www.space.com/3258-space-probe-brought-real-stardust-earth.html

  4. http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20061119014904data_trunc_sys.shtml

  5. Mr Bird

    Your munificent magnificence is noted at the Club.

    http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/07/20/to-fisk-and-to-monckton/#comment-436550

  6. Good stuff. As long as the kids are talking about you its good. Doesn’t matter whether what they say is good or bad, just so long as they are talking about you. And I was very pleased that it was noted that I am a fan of Rafe. He’s got the wrong idea about epistemology in theory, but he’s got the right stuff in practice. His practical epistemology appears to be more Hutt than Popper. And Hutt is truly excellent. Though most people would misunderstand Hutt in the current climate.

    • Never heard of Hutt before. But after looking him up, his ideas on trade unions are ludicrous and anti-libertarian.

      Workers not only have the right to combine if they so wish to press their case vis-a-vis their employers who are inherently more powerful than they, they should as a matter of ethical principle, i.e. the principle of the need to defend the individual and the weak against the powerful, exploitative (by definition) and the stronger.

      • The problem with the law-of-the jungle ethos of the Austrian school is that not only doesn’t it work in the long run, i.e. its empires and adherents eventually get torn down, self-combust and/or fail, it flies in the face of so much else about human beings and their societies, the best and most important part which is shown over and over again. And that is the impulse towards even selfless co-operation and combination which will, in the end, be the key, the pre-requisite to our survival if that is to occur.

      • The main problem is that we are awash in bad money and cronyism, leading to, among other things, greater than natural corporate concentration and bigshot advantage. We can never tell under the circumstances to what extent less bargaining power on the part of workers will simply be swallowed up by higher bigshot salaries. Hutt would acknowledge this if he were around. In fact he does acknowledge a concept close to this.

        Under a starting point of well-functioning free enterprise, a union can only grab higher wages for its members, but not for workers as a whole. To say otherwise would be to imply that the businesses have a lot of fat on them. Are inefficient. Well the thing about today is that they are fat an inefficient. Hutt goes through all the angles. He said that if it were the case that the firms were fat and inefficient then this would be where the focus ought to be. There is no doubt really that more bargaining power will lead to higher unemployment and lower wages of those not protected by a strong union. But where you have a crap business environment you don’t know how the split up of the loot will turn out. Under capitalism (well administered) falling nominal wage rates come with higher real wages. Everyone taking a pay cut is more than made up for with falling prices. But you need a proper monetary situation for that, and not merely an industrial law situation which favors downward flexibility in wages.

        The best thing we can set out to do is to try and improve after-tax wages at the bottom end, at the same time as encouraging downward flexibility. But you say this and you know that the situation would be abused. In the same way as I want congestion charging but expect that pushing for it would wind up just leading to more stealing.

        Even the hated reforms that Howard made just before he was voted out of office were surpassingly effective from an employment point of view. Unemployment fell and employment kept growing under the tightest monetary conditions in two decades. Or at least the early 2008 monetary crunch perpetrated by Stevens, while leading to nasty conditions for business, did not lead to any blowout in unemployment that anyone noticed.

        So that work-whats-its name program that they had in was effective. But the deal is that they are only expecting one class (the working poor) to take the entirety of the heat for unemployment.

        ONLY THE WORKING POOR HAVE TO PAY TO GET RID OF UNEMPLOYMENT in the current rightist way of thinking.

        But the same gains could be made if an organic way was found to alter matters so that there were

        1. less dividends paid.
        2. Less drawings from smaller business and more reinvestment of profits.
        3. Less government spending.
        4. Or lower salaries up the chain of the organisation. Not just the lower paid workers.

        5. Or less licenses, the ownership of which lead to high earnings.

        You see we ought to be looking for ways to reduce the high earnings of a large cross-section of the population whose incomes are mightily supported by current policy for no good reasons.

        So while on a technical level I must and have to, and have no choice but to, agree with the things Peter Reith has been saying lately, it all looks a “little bit rich” as it were.

        I, and people like me, have to take falling real pay to employ more people …….. in this view ….. WHICH WILL WORK ….. but no-one else has to take the hit.

        There is no doubt that Hutt would understand and agree with all of the above. But its like this giant mental block at the moment. Everyone at the IPC, the CIS, and Catallaxy would say that lower wages for the working poor would apriori help employ more people AND THEY ARE RIGHT. But the focus is solidly on reducing wages for the working poor. Whereas employment would be helped if a whole string of earnings all the way up the chain were reduced.

        I don’t know quite what to make of this one-eyed economics approach. I try to talk about it and I get a deathly silence. Just one big yawn.

  7. La producción en masa conduce a la reducción de costos. Y con nuestra “estrategia de Ebay Para la compra de armas” debemos ser capaces de comprar todos los barcos LCS con un descuento.

    Always good to see that one of my articles has been translated.

    The above Spanish is translated from:

    “Mass production leads to cost reduction. And with our “Ebay Approach To Weapons Purchases” we ought to be able to buy every LCS boat at a discount.”

  8. “The main problem is that we are awash in bad money and cronyism, leading to, among other things, greater than natural corporate concentration and bigshot advantage.”

    You start by merely noting a symptom, not delineating the problem at all.

  9. “We can never tell under the circumstances to what extent less bargaining power on the part of workers will simply be swallowed up by higher bigshot salaries.”

    Wrong. Data all over the place shows that clearly today:historically low and lowered wages and highest ever corporate/executive salaries.

  10. “Under a starting point of well-functioning free enterprise, a union can only grab higher wages for its members, but not for workers as a whole.”

    Under a starting point of “free” enterprise, one does not, or should not differentiate between individuals as workers.

    • Well yes. But if things are working well, all unionism can do, is help a few over the many. Still things aren’t working so well. So its not a clear picture. Except insofar as the specific matter of employment is concerned.

  11. “There is no doubt really that more bargaining power will lead to higher unemployment and lower wages of those not protected by a strong union.”

    But it’s not the higher bargaining power and its offsets that causes this, is it. Rather, such a process tells you much about the rapacity and inequality of the system that produces such outcomes.

    • Yes yes yes. But you cannot conflate things. Its a technical fact of reality that these measures which hurt worker bargaining power help employment. Its not about fairness or a pox on the system, or anything at all. Just a technical fact of reality.

      Maybe its not right. Maybe its not good. But thats the way it is.

      Its like me having to back away from congestion taxes in practice, even if I say that technically they are an excellent thing. Because right at this moment people will abuse them.

      Or its like me wanting to identify as someone who is pretty extreme about sustainability …. but wanting to run a mile from the crazies who have taken that tag. Or its like the fact that you ought to back away from CO2-emissions restrictions, even though you are full-blown green. These problems are usually dirtied-up and confused. I don’t want to have lower nominal wages. I don’t want to take a pay cut or not get a pay rise in the face of inflation. I don’t think morally I deserve lower wages.

      But the fact is that taking away the ability to push wages up, outside voting with ones feet, will, without any doubt at all, improve employment over what otherwise would have prevailed. Its not something to take an emotional stand on. Its like a hard-wired physical law.

  12. “Under capitalism (well administered) falling nominal wage rates come with higher real wages.”

    Can you give an example of this assertion in all of human history?

    • Yes many. This is an 1000 year history. Falling prices go hand in hand with growing real wages. The post-war period up until the early 70’s was a time when inflation and growing real wages were the norm. It is this period that we seem to reference to. Yet it is this period which tends to be exceptional. Where growing unionism, more or less full employment, government extravagance and growing real wages were a reality. But thats only about a 25 year stretch we are talking about. This is not the reality of the last 1000 years.

      We can split up deflation into three categories.

      1. Money-destruction deflation.

      2. Cash-building deflation.

      3. Growth deflation.

      This last is the only worthy monetary condition that there is. Where business revenues keep growing slowly, but prices are falling. The problem is that people have mixed up these three conditions. In condition 1 nearly everyone is hurting. Condition 3 is the circumstance where we can reliably expect continual real wage increases.

  13. “Even the hated reforms that Howard made just before he was voted out of office were surpassingly effective from an employment point of view. Unemployment fell and employment kept growing under the tightest monetary conditions in two decades.”

    Unemployment figures are skewed, deliberately so. And Howard’s IR policies had nil effect on employment creation.

  14. No they were really effective at reducing unemployment. I was reading the financial review at the time, in the last Howard year and the first Rudd year, and the commentators did not know what to make of our good employment record of that time. Money supply actually fell between December 2007 until late 2008. Which is outrageous. It would normally have lead to a great chunk of the population out of work.

    No matter how my own personal hourly rate has stagnated thanks to these reforms there is no denying their effectiveness as an employment strategy.

  15. The best reference for falling prices being associated with growing real wages would be this one:

    http://www.amazon.com/Great-Wave-Revolutions-Rhythm-History/dp/019512121X

  16. We just want to say keep up the good work. You have a lot of support here.

  17. Sadly I cannot spend more time at it and do it right.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: