Unmistakable Evidence of Economic Slowdown

There are unmistakable evidences of an economic slowdown as Shawn is happy to point out.  The unemployment figure remained at 5.0% but only with a net loss of jobs.  More people left the work force than new jobs that were added.  These were only 160,000 down from about 240,000 or something, which has become expected.  The Republicans have been saying that we ought to be adding at least 350,000 for a really robust recovery.  The fact people are still trying to call it a “recovery” after eight years only testifies to the overall weakness of the economy.  Manufacturing and sales and all those statistics are down.  And I wrote additional material on this the other day. The four big expenditures of the average household just keeping their head above water are rent, food, energy, and medical expenses – in that order.  All four of these are consistently higher than the government’s stated rate of inflation and it’s been this way for some time.  This is why the average household is from five to twenty percent poorer over these past years.  Of particular note is the red line on the chart of velocity of money, which has literally dropped off the charts.  Employment (according to the government) is in an ongoing state of - - slight- - improvement after a drastic drop in the great recession of 2008 to 2010.   Both candidates Hillary and Donald Trump will have to contend with the realities on this Washington’s blog chart.

It is generally believed a bad economy will tend to hurt Hillary rather than Bernie.  For his part, Bernie is stressing that he is the only serious candidate about global warming and Hillary has in the past approved of fracking.  People are still coming up with these bogus numbers still claiming that Hillary and Bernie are in agreement on 95% of the issues.  I'm wondering whether Hillary will have newfound support from the right now that Trump is her opponent.  There is this growing list of Republicans which say that they will not support Trump.  It's inconceivable that they have a third party movement in mind, so why then are they really supporting?  Will Jebbers and George W decide to come out an endorse Hillary?  What about all these military and defense companies?  Does Hillary really get more donations from them than any Republican?  If for no other reason than the Global Warming issue itself- - people should vote for Bernie because we get no second chances once that threshold is passed and Global Warming and polar ice melting goes into a positive feedback loop.  Barry Goldwater once said when it comes to defense we should err on the side of security.  Actually I agree with that.  But I believe when it comes to Global Warming if we're going to err I'd rather err on the side of caution.  In other words I'd rather be safe than sorry. 

This Alberta forest fire in the Canadian Rockies has become really big news.  They said there were 240,000 acres on fire.  That sounds like a huge figure.  Isn’t that around four hundred square miles if my math is right?  Every time you watch the news the fire has grown by leaps and bounds.  Of course we’ve heard for years that the Rockies is one area where they get less rain and also there is less snow run-off in the spring, which compounds the problem.  This is in stark contrast to the lower Mississippi valley like Texas and Louisiana where they seem to have almost perpetual rains and major flooding and tornadoes.  The jet stream is taking odd twists and turns it didn’t use to take before.  Of course Alberta is one area that is already laid waste by the tar sands development and trees are lost because of that.  The whole situation is a mess.  

I’m forced to agree with Donald Trump as far as “Taking the nuclear option off the table” because it’s as simple as the saying of “If you are packing a gun you better be prepared to use it”, or perhaps “If you draw your weapon you better be prepared to use it”.  Negotiators don’t “take things off the table” unless there is some prior agreement (itself arrived it through prior extensive negotiation) because this what President Obama did with the Republican congress.  He “took things off the table”.  I believe in using the whole hundred yards of the playing field.  I think it was General Patton who said “The enemy doesn’t need to know how far I would go; only I need to know that”.   If we have Nukes- - and have invested a lot of time in developing them at great expense- - then we’re obviously saving them for SOMETHING.   Some people like me- - don’t believe in packing heat because I believe your odds of getting shot increase if you are packing a weapon.  But other people see things differently.  The pentagon obviously sees nuclear weapons as an option that can be used at some point, though I’m not exactly sure how and when.

There are truly gray areas when it comes to regulation of industry.  For instance these investment counselors are now said to have a “fiduciary duty to their client to do things in their best interest”.   I have another doctrine which goes “If you engage in any sort of business commerce there is a presumption that you know what you’re doing”.  It’s like a chess championship you can’t say when you lose a match “Well my opponent used a maneuver that wasn’t in the chess book I studied”.   There are things we should do as Christians in terms of being thy brother’s keeper.  I don’t think it’s Christian to cheat an old lady out of her life savings and steer into a financial decision that’s bad for her and to not inform her that there are better and safer options.  Then there is the matter of CEO’s and their “Golden parachutes”.   I don’t see how they can be rewarded for taking reckless chances with some short term gain that in the end will only leave the corporation in ruins.  We don’t need any Carley Feurina’s or Mitt Romneys out there.  These things are BAD and should not be done by a professing Christian.  How strange it is that it’s now the choice of the “Christian” right- - to reward recklessness and sheer greed that turns out for everybody- - the employees- - the business- - after they have escaped in their golden parachutes.  But should the government step in and regulate this behavior.  I guess my problem is “Why is it even necessary to legislate against sheer stupidity?  Why don’t the stock holders discover this on their own and put a stop to it”.  I consider these gray areas in terms of the government stepping in.  Another gray area is this whole thing about high fructose corn syrup.  I think their introduction over thirty years ago is BAD and nutritionalists are always saying how bad this high fructose corn syrup is for you.  I can tell the difference between “Coke Classic” and the way Coke was before 1985.  “Classic” definitely has a heavier taste.  Now the only way to get sucrose sugar Coke is in Tijuana where they still use cane sugar.  Should the government then ban the use of high fructose corn syrup?  I am sorely tempted to say “Yes”.  But I’m not sure.  Perhaps what we need is an extensive education process and eventually the offending substance will be eased out of our foods by the free market.  Obviously the whole hydrogenated oils thing sure caught on.  All the government had to do was go “Boo!” and they all jumped.

The Wikkipedia article on Event Horizons agrees me, as least my second entry of the week that yes, event horizons do exist.  The Wikkipedia article goes farther than I would connecting event horizons with Black Holes, which I don’t.  Just to repeat in case you are missing the point- - if the addition of velocities formula is to be held absolute, it means that there is not a thing in the Universe that we can’t see with a powerful enough telescope.  Which means if there are any fast traveling UFO space crafts out there they should show up in the Hubble telescope photographs since that telescope has exhaustively mapped out the universe blowing up the tiniest images with impressive magnification.  Again you’d think, as with that Star Trek episode just ordinary “surveillance photographs taken at random would reveal this or that spacecraft.  This is because at no time would it hypothetically be out of our “event horizon” so everything would be visible, and if it isn’t visible then we could safely conclude that they weren’t there no matter how fast they “think” they are traveling.  Course corrections can be done with small thrusters using trig functions.  If you combine inverse functions, arc functions and hyperbolic trig functions you come up with a total of eighteen (not 24) total functions.  This is because hyperbolic trig doesn’t come in degrees so you don’t have those arc functions.  But even if there were to be an absolute space speed limit it would not preclude “God” or some other form of suspending the natural laws, or any alien culture which would know how to do that.  But if you believe in the Event Horizon as scientists do (a la the Wikkipedia) then there IS a “whole other world out there”- which is kind of layered- - kind of line an underground parking lot that is slanted and you kind of ease into one level to another without realizing you’d gone up or down.