Odd Ball

US Debt

June 23rd, 2011 by The Fashionable Philosopher



So many people seem to be ignoring the debt that the US and many countries have. In the US, it’s so bad the US has to take loans to pay it’s loans. That would be like you being so deep in debt that you mortgage your house to pay on your debt. Most of us today know this is unsustainable. Eventually the money you borrowed will run out, you will have no more collateral and you will have to default. Well the US has no collateral, but people still trust they will pay the money back. So they don’t have to worry about defaulting. In theory at least.

Today the us debt is over 14 trillion, that over 45 grand for every American. Half of Americans don’t make enough money to pay taxes so that’s almost 100 grand for every tax payer in the US. People say “well we can borrow a lot more, after all we haven’t reach 100% of GDP yet.” The problem with the GDP calculations is they include government spending (excluding debt). Also GDP doesn’t really tell you how much people are earning just how much money is going through the economy. In my opinion the National Net Income is a better number to compare debt to. It measures all the money earned in a country, including government. The National Net Income of the US is about 9.7 trillion. That means if all the money earned by every person, every business and government in the US was used to pay the debt, it would take over a year to pay it off.

This wouldn’t be a large deal if our population was increasing at a high rate allowing us to make more income to cover the new debt. However the population growth in the US is just slightly above replacement. Which means we are piling even more debt on the same number of people. At the end of the day we can’t borrow forever. On the current path there are two solutions. You could do what was done in the past by some governments and just print our way out of debt. Essentially making your money worthless so your debt is very small. Or we can pay it off some how. If this isn’t done default will eventually happen. On top of which, option number one is essentially default, not only does it steal from every american making our money worth less, but it steals from the people who lent us the money as well. I don’t think it takes a genius to figure out which one the US government will eventually choose.

Hypocritic conflict

June 17th, 2011 by The Fashionable Philosopher



So this whole Libyan war/kinetic operation or what ever you want to call it. It seems to me there is a bit of hypocrisy going on here with the Democrats. They howled when Bush was fighting a legal war, OKed by congress. Now some ten odd years later we have this Libyan, non-war, conflict thing… no support from congress yet, the Democrats are all jumping to Obama’s defense. I think this is another example of the “our guy can do no wrong” kind of attitude a lot of people seem to have for Obama. They hold a double standard. They must think to themselves that “well he’s Obama, I trust him, he must know what he’s doing.” When it was Bush they looked for a conspiracy under every cow patty.

Now I’m not a big fan of Bush either, I don’t like war in generally and only believe it should be used in defense. Bush’s idea of preemptive defense is ridicules. You should never attack another country unless you know they are attacking you or are in the process. I just find lying and hypocrisy to be very detestable. If they were picketing about Bush’s wars they should be doing the same with Obama’s.

Now this doesn’t only apply to the Democrats, it applies to the Republicans too. Usually the Republicans come out saying the war powers resolution is unconstitutional, but now when it’s Obama getting us into a war they say “we’ll yeah maybe it’s unconstitutional, but he should follow it anyway.” Why the sudden flip-flop hmmm?

These rediculas dishonest political games really irritate me. Why can we have people who are actually honest and want to do the right thing running the government? Oh yeah sorry I forgot, disingenuous lier seems to be a prerequisite for public office.

So Romney Won the Debate?

June 15th, 2011 by The Fashionable Philosopher

1 Comment


Like I mentioned and it seems others agree, Romney came out on top of the debate by default.

Polls show it too, however the poll also covered who people thought lost. The two people who did the best in that respect (had the fewest number of votes for “did the worst”) were Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul. The fact that Michelle Bachman came in second in the who won poll and tied for last with Ron Paul for who did the worst, that makes her the most electable in my opinion. I also saw a focus group done by Frank Luntz for Foxnews that was 50/50 Reps and Dems that indicates if she ran she could beat Obama.

I think the next major reason why Romney won the debate in most people’s minds is because all the candidates were very civil, and no one pointed out his flaws, and how Romneycare was the basis for Obamacare. It was nice to see that everything was so professional, but if everyone avoids pointing out each other’s flaws, then we may get some unpleasant surprises after the election. I can’t understand what people like about Romney beyond the perception that he may be able to beat Obama. People forget that a Republican in Massachusetts is a Democrat in any other state. I think if Romney became president it would be four more years of Obama, just with an R next to his name. That’s not to say Romney is quite as bad as Obama. At least the political machinery that would surround him would lean towards freedom, and Obama’s certainly doesn’t. When push comes to shove in the general election I would vote for Romney over Obama, but in the primary he can count me out.

Republican Presidential Debate

June 14th, 2011 by The Fashionable Philosopher

1 Comment


So who won the presidential debate. Well I think no one lost and no one won. The candidates spent most of the time trying to define themselves instead of attacking each other. Most of the attacking was against Obama, and his policies.

I think the main stay candidates, like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich didn’t do as well. Although Mitt Romney didn’t step in it, so I think he’ll still come out at the top of the pack from this debate. I think Ron Paul got a lot more attention than he ever has before, but they may be due to the fact that New Hampshire is the Free State. Michelle Bachman’s announcement that she officially filed to run for president, seemed a little bit of a low ball grand stand to me, but over all I think she did well. She is already a tea-party darling.

I’m a Constitutionalist so I definitely liked what Ron Paul had to say. However I think Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty would make OK presidents as well. I think gingrich is probably dead in the water at this point and Hermain Cain got beat up pretty bad because he couldn’t answer the questions succinctly. It seems to me that Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are political spinsters. They weren’t up front and instead danced around the questions, or didn’t answer them at all.

A Monetary Unit

June 11th, 2011 by The Fashionable Philosopher



Today we measure almost everything with absolutely defined units of time and space. While I was thinking about my “Interstellar Units.” I started to think of a unit of worth, a monetary unit. What we normally know as money. I noticed there is no Planck unit for money. Worth is rather hard to define, the measuring sticks we use (Dollars, Euros, Yens) are constantly changing. What they were worth one day the aren’t the next. What they are worth in one region they won’t be in another.

This make actually comparing them to anything solid extremely hard to do. It also enables our governments and banks to hoodwink us about it’s value. So I decided to try and come up with a solid, constant monetary unit.

When we consider how much something is worth many, many things come in to our minds. Like how hard is it to get the item, how hard was it to make, how much do we need the item, is it consumable or is it durable? If we want to upgrade in the future how hard will it be to sell the old one? There are many more factors. So to come up with a solid unit we could measure everything by I decided to do what Max Planck did with physical units. Reduce it to it’s real world values.

So I came up with a very simple idea. What if everyone in the world had one dollar and there were no impediments for people to spend the dollar (the dollar is perfectly liquid)? How much would it be worth, or how much would everything else be worth in these new units? This seemed like the perfect unit, but even so actually figuring out how much something is worth can be difficult.

The basic problem is, that worth is subjective, this new unit allows us to precisely quantify worth by comparing it to something you can imagine, but unfortunately figure out how much something is worth is still up to us. I was able to figure out that there are currently around $2500 current us dollars to each monetary unit. It’s still hard to measure though since there isn’t enough information on the dollar. To really put everything into a measurable perspective we need to compare it to something we know all the variables of in the real world. I have yet to find something like this. If any of you have any suggestions let me know.

You would think it would be easy as dividing the number of dollars by the number of people. Well it’s not nearly that simple. People hoard money. How many people are actually using the currency? How much of the currency is there? How much of it is real vs how much is originated from bank loans? Some of these numbers are somewhat known, like how much money there is and how much is real. However other’s like how much is being hoarded and how many people are using it is much harder to figure out.