However, any exchange where a coercive entity dictates a winner and a looser is evil. But to imply from this that all profits are evil is wrong. Free exchange benefits all and is therefore a good thing.
Friday, September 27, 2019
Fallacy - Profits are Evil
When we profit from something, we are better off than we were. That's all it means, and there is nothing evil in this. Nor is a free exchange of goods and services ever evil, because a free exchange cannot happen unless both sides are better off. If one side of a proposed trade does not profit from the exchange, it simply does not happen.
However, any exchange where a coercive entity dictates a winner and a looser is evil. But to imply from this that all profits are evil is wrong. Free exchange benefits all and is therefore a good thing.
However, any exchange where a coercive entity dictates a winner and a looser is evil. But to imply from this that all profits are evil is wrong. Free exchange benefits all and is therefore a good thing.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Fallacy - Healthcare is a Right
The difference between a right and a privilege is that a right requires no-one to provide labor or resources without compensation, while a privilege does. Our right to privacy requires nothing of anybody else. Our rights to self-defense, property and free trade are equally non-demanding on others.
However, the word right is often used to mean a privilege received in return for loyalty, and it is in this context that the concept of human rights has its origin. Human rights are constructs of the state, enumerating the sort of privileges that loyal subjects are entitled to. Most, if not all the provisions enumerated under the concept of human rights require someone to provide labor or resources without compensation.
When people claim that health care is a human right, they're implying that this type of service should be provided free of charge to the recipient. However. health care is not free. Someone has to pay. Someone has to give up labor and/or resources in order to provide the service. Since the state itself is nothing but a bureaucracy, it cannot provide the service itself. Hence, it must tax someone.
The argument that health care is a right is in other words a variation on the argument that water should be free. It is simply not true nor possible. If health care is provided to someone free of charge, that someone is a privileged individual, receiving something at the expense of somebody else.
However, the word right is often used to mean a privilege received in return for loyalty, and it is in this context that the concept of human rights has its origin. Human rights are constructs of the state, enumerating the sort of privileges that loyal subjects are entitled to. Most, if not all the provisions enumerated under the concept of human rights require someone to provide labor or resources without compensation.
When people claim that health care is a human right, they're implying that this type of service should be provided free of charge to the recipient. However. health care is not free. Someone has to pay. Someone has to give up labor and/or resources in order to provide the service. Since the state itself is nothing but a bureaucracy, it cannot provide the service itself. Hence, it must tax someone.
The argument that health care is a right is in other words a variation on the argument that water should be free. It is simply not true nor possible. If health care is provided to someone free of charge, that someone is a privileged individual, receiving something at the expense of somebody else.
By Robert Kaufmann - This image is from the FEMA Photo Library., Public Domain, Link
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Fallacy - Water Should be Free
There is water everywhere, and some conclude from this that water should be free. However, there is a great difference between clean water and untreated water.
Untreated water is everywhere, and is in most cases free for all. No-one prevents us from taking as much sea-water as we please. Unless we plan to irrigate an entire field with lake or river water, no-one stops us from taking that either. It is only clean water that demands a price, and the reason for this is that clean water requires filtration and transportation. There is a cost associated with clean water, and somebody somewhere has to pay that cost.
Clean water is not free. Wishing it so does not alter this fact. The only question is whether clean water should be paid for through taxation or through voluntary agreements. Either way, someone has to pay.
Untreated water is everywhere, and is in most cases free for all. No-one prevents us from taking as much sea-water as we please. Unless we plan to irrigate an entire field with lake or river water, no-one stops us from taking that either. It is only clean water that demands a price, and the reason for this is that clean water requires filtration and transportation. There is a cost associated with clean water, and somebody somewhere has to pay that cost.
Clean water is not free. Wishing it so does not alter this fact. The only question is whether clean water should be paid for through taxation or through voluntary agreements. Either way, someone has to pay.
Monday, September 23, 2019
Fallacy - The State is Us
The state is not us, at least not in an all-inclusive way. Rather, it is a subset of us.
This can be easily demonstrated by first considering society at large, which is us, and then consider the state. For society at large to stop existing, we would have to remove all people who are willing to cooperate in their daily lives. However, for the state to stop existing, we only need to remove the state apparatus, commonly referred to as the bureaucracy.
If the bureaucracy of the stat was removed from society, society as such would continue to exist. The only difference would be that tax-funded services would have to be paid directly. Public schools would go private. The same would happen to state run hospitals and homes for the elderly. The police and the army would have to find private sponsors. Law enforcement would have to be done privately, and tax collectors would have to find other things to do.
Conversely, we can see that the state will continue to exist as long as its bureaucracy exists. The state can divest everything but its bureaucracy and still exist. However, the moment the bureaucracy is terminated, the state disappears with it.
This means that the state and its bureaucracy are in fact one and the same. Whatever the state has usurped beyond its bureaucracy is merely captive elements of the state. Public schools and hospitals are not the state, nor is any other service provided by the state. Anything that can be done privately is not the state itself, but extensions that can be removed without the state being terminated.
Furthermore, the state is not owned by us. Very few of us have any real control of the state. The fact that we are allowed to vote does not alter this. The most obvious reason being that we never have the option to terminate the state. True ownership would imply an option to terminate it, but this option is never given. Hence, we are not the owners of the state. Rather, the state is owned by a group of private individuals in cooperation with a few elected officials.
The state is not us. It is a bureaucracy, owned by a small political elite.
This can be easily demonstrated by first considering society at large, which is us, and then consider the state. For society at large to stop existing, we would have to remove all people who are willing to cooperate in their daily lives. However, for the state to stop existing, we only need to remove the state apparatus, commonly referred to as the bureaucracy.
If the bureaucracy of the stat was removed from society, society as such would continue to exist. The only difference would be that tax-funded services would have to be paid directly. Public schools would go private. The same would happen to state run hospitals and homes for the elderly. The police and the army would have to find private sponsors. Law enforcement would have to be done privately, and tax collectors would have to find other things to do.
Conversely, we can see that the state will continue to exist as long as its bureaucracy exists. The state can divest everything but its bureaucracy and still exist. However, the moment the bureaucracy is terminated, the state disappears with it.
This means that the state and its bureaucracy are in fact one and the same. Whatever the state has usurped beyond its bureaucracy is merely captive elements of the state. Public schools and hospitals are not the state, nor is any other service provided by the state. Anything that can be done privately is not the state itself, but extensions that can be removed without the state being terminated.
Furthermore, the state is not owned by us. Very few of us have any real control of the state. The fact that we are allowed to vote does not alter this. The most obvious reason being that we never have the option to terminate the state. True ownership would imply an option to terminate it, but this option is never given. Hence, we are not the owners of the state. Rather, the state is owned by a group of private individuals in cooperation with a few elected officials.
The state is not us. It is a bureaucracy, owned by a small political elite.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
Fallacy - No-one Can Own Land
Earth has existed for about 4 billion years, while humankind have existed for no more than a few hundred thousand years. From this it may seem strange that land can be owned by people. How can anyone claim ownership of something that preexists themselves by billion of years?
Many have concluded from this that land simply cannot be owned. However, a quick analysis of this position reveals it to be logically flawed.
Let's take our uncle Joe, the potato farmer, as an example. He has spent his whole life tilling the earth. He has provided potatoes to people for decades. He has invested countless hours of hard work into taking care of the land, yet he does not own it? How can this be?
Uncle Joe owns the potatoes that he grows, but not the land he maintained to do so. The land, according to the above logic, is owned by nobody.
Does this mean that anyone can take uncle Joe's fields and use them for their own purpose? Not really. That would simply transfer ownership from uncle Joe to somebody else. The land would still be owned, just not by Joe.
On the other hand, if uncle Joe is allowed to continue growing potatoes in the fields, he would by definition be the custodian of the land. He would still own it.
Thirdly, we may conclude that no-one can grow potatoes in uncle Joe's fields. However, such a rule can only be enforced by somebody with a higher claim to the land than uncle Joe. That somebody would presumably be a government bureaucrat, a flesh and blood person like everybody else.
One way or another, someone must be in charge of the land. There is no way that land in use can have no custodian. The custodian is either the one working the land, or somebody else.
Unused land, on the other hand, needs no custody. Claiming ownership of such lands is legally dubious. But this does nothing to save the original position. All we can say for sure is that land in use must have a custodian of some sort. It must be controlled by somebody. It is only unused land that can be logically deemed impossible to own.
Many have concluded from this that land simply cannot be owned. However, a quick analysis of this position reveals it to be logically flawed.
Let's take our uncle Joe, the potato farmer, as an example. He has spent his whole life tilling the earth. He has provided potatoes to people for decades. He has invested countless hours of hard work into taking care of the land, yet he does not own it? How can this be?
Uncle Joe owns the potatoes that he grows, but not the land he maintained to do so. The land, according to the above logic, is owned by nobody.
Does this mean that anyone can take uncle Joe's fields and use them for their own purpose? Not really. That would simply transfer ownership from uncle Joe to somebody else. The land would still be owned, just not by Joe.
On the other hand, if uncle Joe is allowed to continue growing potatoes in the fields, he would by definition be the custodian of the land. He would still own it.
Thirdly, we may conclude that no-one can grow potatoes in uncle Joe's fields. However, such a rule can only be enforced by somebody with a higher claim to the land than uncle Joe. That somebody would presumably be a government bureaucrat, a flesh and blood person like everybody else.
One way or another, someone must be in charge of the land. There is no way that land in use can have no custodian. The custodian is either the one working the land, or somebody else.
Unused land, on the other hand, needs no custody. Claiming ownership of such lands is legally dubious. But this does nothing to save the original position. All we can say for sure is that land in use must have a custodian of some sort. It must be controlled by somebody. It is only unused land that can be logically deemed impossible to own.
Saturday, September 21, 2019
Fallacy - Only Government Keeps the Environment Clean
Capitalism may not be inherently wasteful, but whatever waste is produced is often dumped into rivers, lakes and marshland. Big government is therefore needed in order to protect the environment. So goes the argument of a typical left leaning environmentalist. To back up their claims, they will show before and after pictures of rivers, lakes and city air. Clearly, things have gotten better after the introduction of environmental laws and agencies.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it fails to say anything about why certain areas got polluted in the first place. What is omitted is the fact that the polluted areas were all publicly owned. No one was dumping trash in uncle Joe's potato field, or on people's doorsteps. That would have been illegal. But, for some reason, land, rivers and air under political stewardship were free for all to dump their trash.
What this illustrates is that politicians are terrible stewards of the environment, and that it is not before things get terribly out of hand that anything gets done. Politicians will then pass a bunch of laws, establish a bureaucracy, and generally grow the government in order to fix the situation. However, had the land and air in question been privately owned, things would not have gotten out of hand in the first place. The rivers, lakes and land would have been as clean as uncle Joe's farm, and the air would have been substantially less polluted.
Anyone trying to dump waste into such privately owned properties would at the very least have had to pay a hefty fee. This would have produced an incentive for all polluters to clean up their acts. Without anywhere to dump their waste for free, polluters would have had to think about waste and waste-management.
This logic holds for air pollution as well. Large polluters would soon have been sued for damages by people living in affected neighborhoods. Owners of roads and factories would have had to pay damages, or clean up. Road owners would have demanded a certain minimum standard from cars driving on their roads. Factory owners would have installed equipment to reduce pollution.
The only reason this did not happen was that government prohibited such class action lawsuits from happening, claiming that the air was publicly owned and therefore exempt from private property laws.
The history of pollution is just as much about government mismanagement of public property as it is a story of government saving the environment by growing larger. Had private property been better protected, a great deal of pollution would never have happened.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it fails to say anything about why certain areas got polluted in the first place. What is omitted is the fact that the polluted areas were all publicly owned. No one was dumping trash in uncle Joe's potato field, or on people's doorsteps. That would have been illegal. But, for some reason, land, rivers and air under political stewardship were free for all to dump their trash.
What this illustrates is that politicians are terrible stewards of the environment, and that it is not before things get terribly out of hand that anything gets done. Politicians will then pass a bunch of laws, establish a bureaucracy, and generally grow the government in order to fix the situation. However, had the land and air in question been privately owned, things would not have gotten out of hand in the first place. The rivers, lakes and land would have been as clean as uncle Joe's farm, and the air would have been substantially less polluted.
Anyone trying to dump waste into such privately owned properties would at the very least have had to pay a hefty fee. This would have produced an incentive for all polluters to clean up their acts. Without anywhere to dump their waste for free, polluters would have had to think about waste and waste-management.
This logic holds for air pollution as well. Large polluters would soon have been sued for damages by people living in affected neighborhoods. Owners of roads and factories would have had to pay damages, or clean up. Road owners would have demanded a certain minimum standard from cars driving on their roads. Factory owners would have installed equipment to reduce pollution.
The only reason this did not happen was that government prohibited such class action lawsuits from happening, claiming that the air was publicly owned and therefore exempt from private property laws.
The history of pollution is just as much about government mismanagement of public property as it is a story of government saving the environment by growing larger. Had private property been better protected, a great deal of pollution would never have happened.
By Frank J. (Frank John) Aleksandrowicz, 1921-, Photographer (NARA record: 8452210) - U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Public Domain, Link
Friday, September 20, 2019
Fallacy - Capitalism is Inherently Wasteful
The abundance of choice and offer available in capitalist societies has some people conclude that capitalism is wasteful. From this they go on to suggest that choice and offer should be reduce in order to save the planet from waste, making everyone better off in the process.
However, any waste that there may be cannot possibly come from capitalism. Giving bureaucrats the power to regulate it will therefore do nothing to reduce waste.
This is self evident from the fact that capitalists seek profit in all that they do. Producing a lot of stuff simply to dump it in a landfill makes no-one richer, and is therefore not the action of a capitalist. This will not happen unless some external entity provides a perverse incentive to do so.
Under free market capitalism, every entrepreneur will seek to reduce their waste as much as possible. The only external entity that could possibly convince the capitalist to produce stuff for no other purpose than to bury it is the state.
However, any waste that there may be cannot possibly come from capitalism. Giving bureaucrats the power to regulate it will therefore do nothing to reduce waste.
This is self evident from the fact that capitalists seek profit in all that they do. Producing a lot of stuff simply to dump it in a landfill makes no-one richer, and is therefore not the action of a capitalist. This will not happen unless some external entity provides a perverse incentive to do so.
Under free market capitalism, every entrepreneur will seek to reduce their waste as much as possible. The only external entity that could possibly convince the capitalist to produce stuff for no other purpose than to bury it is the state.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
A Brutal Lesson in Supply and Demand
The sudden spike in interest rates that has ripped through the currency markets over the last couple of days has been due to a dollar shortage. This may sound strange at first, but can easily be understood in terms of supply and demand.
The current financial system uses credit as currency. This is created out of thin air through a process called fractional reserve banking. What we think of as money circulating in the economy is in fact credit notes, conjured into existence through the issuing of loans. When someone takes up a loan in a bank, currency is created. When people pay down on their loans, currency is destroyed.
This means that there must be a steady demand for credit for the system to operate correctly. There must also be a steady supply of credit. The supply and demand for credit must balance. However, this has not been the case lately. The Federal Reserve has lowered its interest rate while at the same time reducing the currency supply, which is equivalent to a storehouse simultaneously lowering prices and supply.
What the Fed has done goes contrary to the law of supply and demand. It has increased demand for credit by lowering interest rates, while at the same time reducing the supply by retiring credit. The rather predictable outcome of this is that there is suddenly a shortage of credit notes. Since dollars are credit notes in circulation, there is a shortage of dollars. People go to banks expecting to get cheap credit. But the banks are stretched to their limits. They cannot extend more credit. Desperate for credit, people start offering higher rates. What ensues is a spike in interest rates.
Making this all the worse is the fact that people are so used to cheap credit that the economy cannot function without it. A large segment of the economy relies entirely on cheap credit to function. Some of the largest companies in the economy make no money themselves. They pay their expenses by taking up loans. People investing in these companies are similarly leveraged.
All of these people depend on cheap credit. Without a steady supply of cheap dollars, the whole system implodes. However, people's appetite for credit is waning. Not only has the Fed been retiring debt over the past year or so, so has a lot of individuals. People are deleveraging, meaning that they are returning currency to banks. Instead of issuing currency through credit expansion, banks are now retiring currency through credit reduction.
With interest rates spiking, it is now suddenly clear to a lot of people that they may be too deep in debt. The impulse to deleverage is becoming stronger. Unless the Fed regains control of the situation rather soon, there will be a rush to pay back debt. This will dry up the supply of dollars even more, sending interest rates higher still. A lot of people will find themselves trapped, unable to service their debt. Prices of real-estate, stocks and bonds will come crashing down as these people are forced to sell into a market void of cash.
The only way to avoid this is for the Fed to soak the market with cheap credit. For every penny returned through deleverage, the Fed must conjure up a penny of its own. The Fed must start buying what everyone else is selling, meaning that just about everything will be owned by the Fed, and the handful of people controlling it. The ultimate outcome of this will be a massive wealth divide, where the bankers own just about everything, and the average guy in the street owns nothing.
The current financial system uses credit as currency. This is created out of thin air through a process called fractional reserve banking. What we think of as money circulating in the economy is in fact credit notes, conjured into existence through the issuing of loans. When someone takes up a loan in a bank, currency is created. When people pay down on their loans, currency is destroyed.
This means that there must be a steady demand for credit for the system to operate correctly. There must also be a steady supply of credit. The supply and demand for credit must balance. However, this has not been the case lately. The Federal Reserve has lowered its interest rate while at the same time reducing the currency supply, which is equivalent to a storehouse simultaneously lowering prices and supply.
What the Fed has done goes contrary to the law of supply and demand. It has increased demand for credit by lowering interest rates, while at the same time reducing the supply by retiring credit. The rather predictable outcome of this is that there is suddenly a shortage of credit notes. Since dollars are credit notes in circulation, there is a shortage of dollars. People go to banks expecting to get cheap credit. But the banks are stretched to their limits. They cannot extend more credit. Desperate for credit, people start offering higher rates. What ensues is a spike in interest rates.
Making this all the worse is the fact that people are so used to cheap credit that the economy cannot function without it. A large segment of the economy relies entirely on cheap credit to function. Some of the largest companies in the economy make no money themselves. They pay their expenses by taking up loans. People investing in these companies are similarly leveraged.
All of these people depend on cheap credit. Without a steady supply of cheap dollars, the whole system implodes. However, people's appetite for credit is waning. Not only has the Fed been retiring debt over the past year or so, so has a lot of individuals. People are deleveraging, meaning that they are returning currency to banks. Instead of issuing currency through credit expansion, banks are now retiring currency through credit reduction.
With interest rates spiking, it is now suddenly clear to a lot of people that they may be too deep in debt. The impulse to deleverage is becoming stronger. Unless the Fed regains control of the situation rather soon, there will be a rush to pay back debt. This will dry up the supply of dollars even more, sending interest rates higher still. A lot of people will find themselves trapped, unable to service their debt. Prices of real-estate, stocks and bonds will come crashing down as these people are forced to sell into a market void of cash.
The only way to avoid this is for the Fed to soak the market with cheap credit. For every penny returned through deleverage, the Fed must conjure up a penny of its own. The Fed must start buying what everyone else is selling, meaning that just about everything will be owned by the Fed, and the handful of people controlling it. The ultimate outcome of this will be a massive wealth divide, where the bankers own just about everything, and the average guy in the street owns nothing.
By U.S. Government - Extracted from PDF version of the Federal Reserve's Purposes & Functions document (direct PDF URL [1])., Public Domain, Link
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
A Spike in Interest Rates
There was a spike in the Repo rate two days ago, and another spike yesterday. The rate which is supposed to be around 2.25%, went as high as 10% before the Fed managed to force it down to about 2.50% by flooding the Repo market with 53 billion dollars of fresh cash.
It remains to be seen if yesterday's action by the Fed is sufficient to regain control of the Repo rate. This is important, because a failure to control it will lead to some serious pain. The spike in interest rates will spread throughout the banking sector and into the broader economy.
The Repo rate is the base rate for all banking investments, which means that all bank loans are at some premium to this rate. Needless to say, a 10% base rate is way higher than what most borrowers can afford, so it can simply not be allowed to go this high. It must be kept lower.
Today will be extra interesting in this respect, because the Fed is set to lower their target rate from 2.25% to 2.00%. But this will be a meaningless gesture if the Repo rate is substantially higher. What good is a Fed target of 2.00% if the actual rate is consistently trading above 2.50%?
To remain credible, the Fed needs to bring the Repo rate down to its target rate. If they set their target to 2.00%, the Repo rate must be no higher than 2.25% or thereabouts. However, the only way to keep the Repo rate lower in times of stress is through massive injection of cash, which opens up for all sorts of other problems, including the possibility of a hyper-inflationary collapse. But such problems will emerge later, rather than sooner. Monetary injection will therefore be chosen, despite its dangers.
My guess is that the Fed chairman will announce a reduction of their target rate to 2.00%, and make some kind of statement regarding the resumption of their QE program. This should send the Repo rate down to about 2.25%. If not, a complete meltdown of the credit market may be at hand, with rates going up regardless of Fed words and actions.
It remains to be seen if yesterday's action by the Fed is sufficient to regain control of the Repo rate. This is important, because a failure to control it will lead to some serious pain. The spike in interest rates will spread throughout the banking sector and into the broader economy.
The Repo rate is the base rate for all banking investments, which means that all bank loans are at some premium to this rate. Needless to say, a 10% base rate is way higher than what most borrowers can afford, so it can simply not be allowed to go this high. It must be kept lower.
Today will be extra interesting in this respect, because the Fed is set to lower their target rate from 2.25% to 2.00%. But this will be a meaningless gesture if the Repo rate is substantially higher. What good is a Fed target of 2.00% if the actual rate is consistently trading above 2.50%?
To remain credible, the Fed needs to bring the Repo rate down to its target rate. If they set their target to 2.00%, the Repo rate must be no higher than 2.25% or thereabouts. However, the only way to keep the Repo rate lower in times of stress is through massive injection of cash, which opens up for all sorts of other problems, including the possibility of a hyper-inflationary collapse. But such problems will emerge later, rather than sooner. Monetary injection will therefore be chosen, despite its dangers.
My guess is that the Fed chairman will announce a reduction of their target rate to 2.00%, and make some kind of statement regarding the resumption of their QE program. This should send the Repo rate down to about 2.25%. If not, a complete meltdown of the credit market may be at hand, with rates going up regardless of Fed words and actions.
Monday, September 16, 2019
Old Foz is Back
Foz is the oldest and most traditional of Porto's seaside suburbs. This was where the gentry went for fresh air and a dip in the sea back in the 19th century. The affluent and rich found their way to this village, which has since become an integrated part of Porto. Foreigners, especially Englishmen, found their way to this place too. It was popular with the ex-pats.
Foz's heydays coincided with a period of relative prosperity and liberty in Portugal, so I see it as a good sign that Foz is currently having a revival. The rich and affluent are back, and foreigners are everywhere.
Foz's heydays coincided with a period of relative prosperity and liberty in Portugal, so I see it as a good sign that Foz is currently having a revival. The rich and affluent are back, and foreigners are everywhere.
Saturday, September 14, 2019
Full Socialism Ahead
I have sensed this for a long time, and the feeling that I'm correct has only grown over the years. The West is headed for full socialism. The propaganda for this system is deafening. The way this system is presented, nothing but socialism will save us from climate change, and nothing but socialism can bring about wealth and prosperity for all.
This is all nonsense, of course. Socialism is a road to totalitarian misery. But this fact does not matter as long as the majority of people believe otherwise. As responsible adults, we must therefore prepare. We must get out of assets that are easy to tax, and into assets that are hard to tax. We must also make sure that we are mobile. We must be able to get out of dodge when the rioting and looting starts.
Gold is for this reason an excellent place to park our wealth. It can easily be hidden and easily transported. Real-estate and shares on the other hand are terrible investments. They are easy to confiscate. Cash is also a bad option. If held in a bank, it can be confiscated. If it is held outside of a bank, it can be eroded through inflation.
As more and more people wake up to what's going on, gold will be evermore sought after. It will rise in value relative to all other assets. This will not go unnoticed by the political elite. They will almost certainly ban it. We must therefore pay careful attention to what the elite is up to. We must know where to go in order to exchange our gold for goods. We must know when things get so bad that we need to move. We must know where gold remains welcome, because that's where freedom will remain. It is only where gold is welcome that our prosperity can be ensured.
This is all nonsense, of course. Socialism is a road to totalitarian misery. But this fact does not matter as long as the majority of people believe otherwise. As responsible adults, we must therefore prepare. We must get out of assets that are easy to tax, and into assets that are hard to tax. We must also make sure that we are mobile. We must be able to get out of dodge when the rioting and looting starts.
Gold is for this reason an excellent place to park our wealth. It can easily be hidden and easily transported. Real-estate and shares on the other hand are terrible investments. They are easy to confiscate. Cash is also a bad option. If held in a bank, it can be confiscated. If it is held outside of a bank, it can be eroded through inflation.
As more and more people wake up to what's going on, gold will be evermore sought after. It will rise in value relative to all other assets. This will not go unnoticed by the political elite. They will almost certainly ban it. We must therefore pay careful attention to what the elite is up to. We must know where to go in order to exchange our gold for goods. We must know when things get so bad that we need to move. We must know where gold remains welcome, because that's where freedom will remain. It is only where gold is welcome that our prosperity can be ensured.
Public Domain, Link
Friday, September 13, 2019
The 5th Empire - Avansa AS
Avansa AS is a registered IT company, owned and operated by a friend of mine, a fellow Norwegian whom I met in May of this year. He is a friend of a friend of a friend of my wife, and I must thank Facebook for having met him. Without it, I would never have met him, and Avansa AS would never have come about, which proves once again that social networks like Facebook are a force for good much more than they are a threat to humanity.
It soon became clear to me and my friend that the two of us would make a great team. I have sufficient experience with IT to act as a sales engineer, and he knows his way around rules and regulations. I have indirect access to software engineers here in Porto, and my friend has business contacts who could use these engineers. The plan is to act as facilitators, and make some money from the price difference in wages between Portugal and Norway.
Avansa AS has yet to make any money, but the business model is easy to understand, and a great way to start conversations a little more substantial than the weather and the kids when out socializing. People open up to the possibilities inherent in the business model. One thing leads to another, and pretty soon, all sorts of things are discussed.
Being a tax evader makes it impossible for me to accept a regular job in a corporate setting, and I had for this reason come to the conclusion that my working career was over. However, it now looks like I'm about to embark on a new and substantially more enjoyable career path than the one I've abandoned. I'm now a sales engineer for a small IT company. That's way better than a programmer inside a large corporate structure.
My friend and I are not drawing any salaries from the company. We will instead split any profit that may come between ourselves. That will in practice mean that it will be my wife that finally sends an invoice to Avansa AS. I will never be credited directly. Everything will go via my wife.
This again shows that I've made no real sacrifice in severing my ties to the state. I was fed up with my professional life in the corporate sphere, so being unable to return to corporate employment was not all that much of a threat. What I gained by not paying taxes has way outweighed the minor inconvenience that followed. Adding to this that I can now pursue a more interesting career outside the corporate world, precisely because I have put aside money saved by not paying taxes, it is clear that I really did make the right decision. Life is far better now than it would have been if I had remained in corporate employment.
It soon became clear to me and my friend that the two of us would make a great team. I have sufficient experience with IT to act as a sales engineer, and he knows his way around rules and regulations. I have indirect access to software engineers here in Porto, and my friend has business contacts who could use these engineers. The plan is to act as facilitators, and make some money from the price difference in wages between Portugal and Norway.
Avansa AS has yet to make any money, but the business model is easy to understand, and a great way to start conversations a little more substantial than the weather and the kids when out socializing. People open up to the possibilities inherent in the business model. One thing leads to another, and pretty soon, all sorts of things are discussed.
Being a tax evader makes it impossible for me to accept a regular job in a corporate setting, and I had for this reason come to the conclusion that my working career was over. However, it now looks like I'm about to embark on a new and substantially more enjoyable career path than the one I've abandoned. I'm now a sales engineer for a small IT company. That's way better than a programmer inside a large corporate structure.
My friend and I are not drawing any salaries from the company. We will instead split any profit that may come between ourselves. That will in practice mean that it will be my wife that finally sends an invoice to Avansa AS. I will never be credited directly. Everything will go via my wife.
This again shows that I've made no real sacrifice in severing my ties to the state. I was fed up with my professional life in the corporate sphere, so being unable to return to corporate employment was not all that much of a threat. What I gained by not paying taxes has way outweighed the minor inconvenience that followed. Adding to this that I can now pursue a more interesting career outside the corporate world, precisely because I have put aside money saved by not paying taxes, it is clear that I really did make the right decision. Life is far better now than it would have been if I had remained in corporate employment.
Endless possibilities
Thursday, September 12, 2019
The 5th Empire - Family Arrangements
Once I realized that I had to take some drastic measures back in 2016, it was also clear that I would have to trust my immediate network. The alternative would be to pay the state an exorbitant tax on the sale of my house.
I took my chances, and proved myself right in the process. My children can be trusted to do as instructed. Having given them all my income-generating capital with no official strings attached, they could have conspired against me, but this did not happen. They followed my instruction to send half their capital income to my wife who acts as my proxy here in Portugal. Nowhere am I officially involved in any of this. It is based solely on trust and informal instructions passed around in e-mails.
Key to this success is the fact that everybody benefits. I am not abusing my authority, nor am I the only one reaping an early harvest from all of this. My children in Norway get to do whatever they please with their share of the income. There is also a psychological benefit to this in that they have to act responsibly in order to ensure that they keep their side of the deal. They do not have a rich father that they can go to for help. They have a poor father that they have to take care of. It is they who are rich, at least on paper.
This is the sort of arrangement that promotes responsible and mature behavior in the younger generation, and is for this reason alone something that I think more people should do. Everyone benefits from this, not least the children who become more mature than they otherwise would have been. This gives them an edge in society. They are more likely to land a good job, and find a mature and reliable spouse.
While I have always known that trust is an important part of any successful arrangement, it wasn't before my divorce from my first wife back in 2003 that the true scope of this became fully apparent.
I made a point of not involving any lawyers into the divorce procedures. I knew intuitively that the introduction of lawyers would do nothing good. It would cost a small fortune, and the result would be a nasty mess. Instead, I sketched out an agreement on paper, that we both signed. It was so generous towards my ex that it was self evident that a lawyer could not have come up with a better deal.
The benefit to me in this was that I saved myself a lot of up front expenses. I also proved that I was far more reasonable than my ex had made me out to be. In a broader perspective, it was also clear that whatever I was over-paying to my ex would to a large extent benefit my three children. She was not going to spend everything selfishly on herself. The over-paying was in a way an early inheritance.
Having seen that trust could be found, even in my ex, it was not hard to trust my children to behave loyally towards me some 13 years later. The fact that I never used a lawyer against my ex may similarly have given my children reason to trust me. The positive consequence of my actions in the past are in this way blessing me in the present. As I sit here, thinking back, I'm glad I did nothing to squander trust within the family, because it is without doubt my biggest asset.
I took my chances, and proved myself right in the process. My children can be trusted to do as instructed. Having given them all my income-generating capital with no official strings attached, they could have conspired against me, but this did not happen. They followed my instruction to send half their capital income to my wife who acts as my proxy here in Portugal. Nowhere am I officially involved in any of this. It is based solely on trust and informal instructions passed around in e-mails.
Key to this success is the fact that everybody benefits. I am not abusing my authority, nor am I the only one reaping an early harvest from all of this. My children in Norway get to do whatever they please with their share of the income. There is also a psychological benefit to this in that they have to act responsibly in order to ensure that they keep their side of the deal. They do not have a rich father that they can go to for help. They have a poor father that they have to take care of. It is they who are rich, at least on paper.
This is the sort of arrangement that promotes responsible and mature behavior in the younger generation, and is for this reason alone something that I think more people should do. Everyone benefits from this, not least the children who become more mature than they otherwise would have been. This gives them an edge in society. They are more likely to land a good job, and find a mature and reliable spouse.
While I have always known that trust is an important part of any successful arrangement, it wasn't before my divorce from my first wife back in 2003 that the true scope of this became fully apparent.
I made a point of not involving any lawyers into the divorce procedures. I knew intuitively that the introduction of lawyers would do nothing good. It would cost a small fortune, and the result would be a nasty mess. Instead, I sketched out an agreement on paper, that we both signed. It was so generous towards my ex that it was self evident that a lawyer could not have come up with a better deal.
The benefit to me in this was that I saved myself a lot of up front expenses. I also proved that I was far more reasonable than my ex had made me out to be. In a broader perspective, it was also clear that whatever I was over-paying to my ex would to a large extent benefit my three children. She was not going to spend everything selfishly on herself. The over-paying was in a way an early inheritance.
Having seen that trust could be found, even in my ex, it was not hard to trust my children to behave loyally towards me some 13 years later. The fact that I never used a lawyer against my ex may similarly have given my children reason to trust me. The positive consequence of my actions in the past are in this way blessing me in the present. As I sit here, thinking back, I'm glad I did nothing to squander trust within the family, because it is without doubt my biggest asset.
Trust
By Gustav Adolph Hennig - scan of painting, Public Domain, Link
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
The 5th Empire - The Allotment
My wife started renting an allotment back in the spring of 2018. It is a six meter by five meter piece of land. One of about 120 such allotments, laid out in a large square arrangement at the back of a hospital for the mentally ill. To get to the allotment, I enter through the main gate of the hospital. I pass a large parking lot, next to the two main buildings. A wide avenue leads down to the allotments at the back. It is lined with tall trees. There are also a number of smaller buildings and sheds, all quite picturesque in their somewhat shabby and warn down condition.
Being regularly at the allotment, I've come to know a few of the patients who idle away their time on park benches along the avenue. Curious about the foreigner, they sometimes strike up little conversations. They ask where I'm from and what I think of Portugal. Many of them have a long career as beggars. Unable to kick their professional habit, they ask for a coin, but that would be against the rules of the hospital. Giving money to the patients is not permitted. It's a house rule that I have no intention to break.
The allotment has turned out to be an excellent distraction. Being quite far from where I live, it takes me about 40 minutes to get there by foot. Once there, I spend up to two hours before returning home. A typical round trip takes me about three hours. This gives me plenty of time to relax, run through thoughts and idea, and find my zen. Things fall into place. Any impulse to do something rash is subdued. Decision making becomes easier, creativity improves, and a general sense of well being and harmony ensues.
Having this place where I can easily find my zen has been immensely valuable, especially during the spring of 2018, when the taxman and their associated collection agencies were constantly calling me, sending me threatening letters, and generally behaving like the thugs that they are. To deal with this, I developed the habit of leaving my phone at home. I never picked up the phone unless I knew the caller. If the number was unknown to me, I looked it up, but never did it happen that I returned the call. None of the unknown numbers turned out to be relevant.
After the brief barrage of calls, things calmed down considerably. However, I've retained my habit of hardly ever carrying my phone with me. It is quite liberating to be offline. Missed calls can always be made later. There is less of a rush to do anything, which adds to my zen.
Having an allotment and being offline for at least a few hours a day is a great way to deal with stressful situations. The zen achieved helps putting things into perspective. Decision making becomes easier, less impulse driven. Combined with my investment strategy that focuses on mega-cycles, rather than daily movements, it is possible to relax completely. I can focus all my energy into meaningful activities so that I can live my life to its fullest.
Being regularly at the allotment, I've come to know a few of the patients who idle away their time on park benches along the avenue. Curious about the foreigner, they sometimes strike up little conversations. They ask where I'm from and what I think of Portugal. Many of them have a long career as beggars. Unable to kick their professional habit, they ask for a coin, but that would be against the rules of the hospital. Giving money to the patients is not permitted. It's a house rule that I have no intention to break.
The allotment has turned out to be an excellent distraction. Being quite far from where I live, it takes me about 40 minutes to get there by foot. Once there, I spend up to two hours before returning home. A typical round trip takes me about three hours. This gives me plenty of time to relax, run through thoughts and idea, and find my zen. Things fall into place. Any impulse to do something rash is subdued. Decision making becomes easier, creativity improves, and a general sense of well being and harmony ensues.
Having this place where I can easily find my zen has been immensely valuable, especially during the spring of 2018, when the taxman and their associated collection agencies were constantly calling me, sending me threatening letters, and generally behaving like the thugs that they are. To deal with this, I developed the habit of leaving my phone at home. I never picked up the phone unless I knew the caller. If the number was unknown to me, I looked it up, but never did it happen that I returned the call. None of the unknown numbers turned out to be relevant.
After the brief barrage of calls, things calmed down considerably. However, I've retained my habit of hardly ever carrying my phone with me. It is quite liberating to be offline. Missed calls can always be made later. There is less of a rush to do anything, which adds to my zen.
Having an allotment and being offline for at least a few hours a day is a great way to deal with stressful situations. The zen achieved helps putting things into perspective. Decision making becomes easier, less impulse driven. Combined with my investment strategy that focuses on mega-cycles, rather than daily movements, it is possible to relax completely. I can focus all my energy into meaningful activities so that I can live my life to its fullest.
.jpg#/media/File:September_5,_2011_(II).jpg)
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
The 5th Empire - Understanding the Enemy
The election results are in, and we can once again establish that everything is as it always has been. There are some superficial changes. However, the political landscape in Norway is unchanged. There is a large progressive block commanding a little over one third of all votes, there is a conservative block commanding almost exactly one third of the votes, and then there is a reactionary block commanding a little under one third. The progressive and conservative voters are located in and around the cities, while the reactionary ones are situated out in the provinces.
This division has been present from the very start of modern Norwegian democracy. It reflects the heart and sole of Norwegian culture, with its eternal conflicts between cities and provinces, and between conservative and progressive values. Nowhere in all of this is there much room for liberty. To expect liberty to come to us through the ballot box is simply delusional. Those seeking liberty will have to go out and get it for themselves, and to do this successfully, we need to understand the culture of the land.
Norwegians are in general very conform and loyal to whatever system is in place. People do what they are told, and very little actual coercion is employed to achieve this. This in turn has resulted in a culture in which everyone can afford to be nice to everybody else. Norwegian bureaucrats are polite and helpful, and very reluctant to engage in any real conflict. They rely heavily on the conformist mindset of their subjects, which explains why I keep getting letters from the taxman, but no real threat to me as a person.
Even if they do apprehend me one day, they will continue to be polite. There is a pretty cushy jail cell waiting for me, and the jail term will be relatively short. The Norwegian culture is all about being nice and reasonable, and I am very happy that this is the nature of the Norwegian beast. Bureaucrats in other countries are not nearly as easy to deal with.
The US has a violent and abrasive culture, with terrible prisons and a truly nasty bureaucracy. Germany has a strict rule based culture, with very little flexibility. Portugal has a somewhat chaotic and petty minded culture in which small fry get the heavy end of the stick while the big fishes swim free.
With each culture having its own characteristics, everyone has to find out for themselves what their best strategy might be. Mindlessly copying someone else's strategy is unlikely to work. The liberty minded among us must all do our own research, weigh up the pros and cons, and embark on our own unique journey into the 5th empire.
This division has been present from the very start of modern Norwegian democracy. It reflects the heart and sole of Norwegian culture, with its eternal conflicts between cities and provinces, and between conservative and progressive values. Nowhere in all of this is there much room for liberty. To expect liberty to come to us through the ballot box is simply delusional. Those seeking liberty will have to go out and get it for themselves, and to do this successfully, we need to understand the culture of the land.
Norwegians are in general very conform and loyal to whatever system is in place. People do what they are told, and very little actual coercion is employed to achieve this. This in turn has resulted in a culture in which everyone can afford to be nice to everybody else. Norwegian bureaucrats are polite and helpful, and very reluctant to engage in any real conflict. They rely heavily on the conformist mindset of their subjects, which explains why I keep getting letters from the taxman, but no real threat to me as a person.
Even if they do apprehend me one day, they will continue to be polite. There is a pretty cushy jail cell waiting for me, and the jail term will be relatively short. The Norwegian culture is all about being nice and reasonable, and I am very happy that this is the nature of the Norwegian beast. Bureaucrats in other countries are not nearly as easy to deal with.
The US has a violent and abrasive culture, with terrible prisons and a truly nasty bureaucracy. Germany has a strict rule based culture, with very little flexibility. Portugal has a somewhat chaotic and petty minded culture in which small fry get the heavy end of the stick while the big fishes swim free.
With each culture having its own characteristics, everyone has to find out for themselves what their best strategy might be. Mindlessly copying someone else's strategy is unlikely to work. The liberty minded among us must all do our own research, weigh up the pros and cons, and embark on our own unique journey into the 5th empire.
Liberty half dollar
By Brandon Grossardt for the image; Adolph A. Weinman for the coin design. - Actual coin, Public Domain, Link
Monday, September 9, 2019
The 5th Empire - Local Elections
I was surprised to learn that I am eligible to vote in today's local elections in Norway. Having left Norway more than ten years ago, with no intention of going back, I can still take part in a decision process that will influence the lives of people in Norway. This makes no logical sense. I have no business making such decisions over others while risking absolute nothing for myself. I have therefore decided not to vote. Besides, I could not be bothered to go down to the consulate here in Porto, stand in line, identify myself, and then go through the ritual of selecting a party candidate.
Being only one vote in many thousands, my influence would be microscopic anyway. This is of course true for all voters. It is not of any importance what we ourselves vote for. What matters is what everybody else vote for, and herein lies the secret to successful navigation of a democratic society.
Elections reflect the general mood of the population. They tell us what we can expect, allowing us time to place our bets accordingly. Putting a ballot in the ballot box is of very little consequence relative to what we can achieve by reading correctly the mood of everybody else. When anti-capitalist sentiments gain strength, we should reduce our exposure to real-estate and shares. We should also be wary of cash. Wealth needs to be hidden away, out of reach from the public. Gold is a good investment during such times.
When the public becomes tired of oppression and micro-management, they will demand freedom. Deregulation can then be expected, with gains for both real-estate and shares. This is the time to increase exposure to these asset classes.
By fully realizing the true significance of elections, it is possible to make money under any regime. Even Marxism allows for this. However, only to those who get physically out of dodge. It may also take a generation or two for such experiments to fully run their course. This means that we have to be prepared to leave our homeland for the foreseeable future in the event that our fellow nationals become totalitarians.
Being only one vote in many thousands, my influence would be microscopic anyway. This is of course true for all voters. It is not of any importance what we ourselves vote for. What matters is what everybody else vote for, and herein lies the secret to successful navigation of a democratic society.
Elections reflect the general mood of the population. They tell us what we can expect, allowing us time to place our bets accordingly. Putting a ballot in the ballot box is of very little consequence relative to what we can achieve by reading correctly the mood of everybody else. When anti-capitalist sentiments gain strength, we should reduce our exposure to real-estate and shares. We should also be wary of cash. Wealth needs to be hidden away, out of reach from the public. Gold is a good investment during such times.
When the public becomes tired of oppression and micro-management, they will demand freedom. Deregulation can then be expected, with gains for both real-estate and shares. This is the time to increase exposure to these asset classes.
By fully realizing the true significance of elections, it is possible to make money under any regime. Even Marxism allows for this. However, only to those who get physically out of dodge. It may also take a generation or two for such experiments to fully run their course. This means that we have to be prepared to leave our homeland for the foreseeable future in the event that our fellow nationals become totalitarians.
Sunday, September 8, 2019
The 5th Empire - Universe of Particles
It was some time around 2011 that I was made aware of the fact that Earth appears to be expanding. A Facebook-friend mentioned it as a curious aside in one of his posts on a political group I was following. His point was that we do not know half as much as we tend to believe. There are a lot of unanswered questions out there, so it is delusional to think we can construct a perfect society based on our current knowledge. There must be room for alternative views and experimentation.
A quick search on YouTube came up with some very convincing animations, illustrating that Earth does in fact appear to be expanding. The visual evidence was undeniable. But how could this be? The idea of an expanding Earth violates a whole host of established facts related to gravity and geology.
The only somewhat reasonable explanation I could find was by a certain Peter Woodehad, who suggested that Earth is hollow, and therefore able to expand without any added matter. But this again, violated laws related to gravity. An expanding Earth would have gravity at surface level decrease, yet evidence in the fossil records indicate that the opposite has happened. Gravity has increased by quite a lot. Dinosaurs were as big as they were in their time because gravity was less.
Trying to figure out how Earth could be expanding, with gravity at the same time increasing, became something of an obsession with me. I wrote all sorts of essays on the topic, which in the end culminated in my book, "Universe of Particles".
The final break through came in the months after I sold by house in early 2017. Measurements made by NASA's space probe Juno suggested that Jupiter is hollow. I was made aware of a theory by a renowned astronomer, Halton Arp, suggesting that cosmic radiation makes matter more massive over time. I had also come across a very simple model of the atom, presented by the successful radar engineer Morton Spears back in the 1990s.
Putting all these elements together, I ended up with a complete physical model, only slightly different from conventional quantum physics, capable of explaining all sorts of phenomena, as well as how and why our planet can expand with gravity increasing.
What is interesting to note in all of this is that it would never even have occurred to me to look into this had it not been for Facebook. Most of the leads in this story came from Facebook, with the rest coming from YouTube and Google. Far from being sinister and dangerous, these online resources have been of immense help. They may be up to all sorts of unsavory snooping and manipulation, but when all is said and done, the net effect of these content providers has been for the better.
Similarly, when it comes to my political views, Facebook has been a great resource. The 5th empire, as sketched out in my book on the voluntary society, is little more than a summary of unorthodox political ideas picked up from the Mises Institute and other libertarian sites.
Social media has been the driving mechanism behind the spread of unorthodox ideas, and I suspect they will continue to function this way. They may want to direct and censor ideas, but they will not be able to put the genie back into its bottle. There's just too much going on to centrally manage.
However, as explained in "The 5th Empire - A voluntary society", most people are coming to a radically different conclusion than what I have reached. They want increased government powers. Totalitarian ideas are growing more popular and widespread by the day.
Having long since given up on the idea that people will see the light and turn libertarian in their attitudes, I have taken practical steps to protect myself and my family. If things get nasty, with wars and social unrest, I have the resources to get myself and my family out of dodge. I also have a pretty fair idea of where the best places to hide might be.
This does not mean that I'm completely silent in my opposition to totalitarian ideas. I share my thoughts freely with those who care to listen. But it is a waste of time to try to convince those who are set on totalitarianism that their ideas will lead to war, strife, misery and death. They may not even realize their mistake once reality catches up with them. They are lost, and cannot be saved.
However, I will pursue my interests undeterred. I will keep my physics blog up to date. I will keep an eye on the public space. I will take care of myself and my nearest. Whenever appropriate, I will highlight something baffling that goes contrary to "settled science". I will plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of the totalitarian crowd. Very few will get it. But those who do may still find a way to escape the totalitarian apocalypse that they mistakenly believe to be utopia.
The underlying message in much of my writing is that if current thinking related to such phenomena as the dinosaurs and the size of Earth turns out to be wrong, imagine how many other ideas may be wrong as well. In this respect, "Universe of Particles" is a highly subversive book. It suggests that things are not what most people believe them to be. The high priests of science do not know nearly as much as they pretend to know.
As things stand, "Universe of Particles" is seeing a steadily increasing interest. I may even become semi-famous one day. This will in turn add to my sense of success. Making this all the more enjoyable is the fact that such a success is wealth of a non-material kind. It is impossible to tax and therefore completely out of reach for the taxman.
A quick search on YouTube came up with some very convincing animations, illustrating that Earth does in fact appear to be expanding. The visual evidence was undeniable. But how could this be? The idea of an expanding Earth violates a whole host of established facts related to gravity and geology.
The only somewhat reasonable explanation I could find was by a certain Peter Woodehad, who suggested that Earth is hollow, and therefore able to expand without any added matter. But this again, violated laws related to gravity. An expanding Earth would have gravity at surface level decrease, yet evidence in the fossil records indicate that the opposite has happened. Gravity has increased by quite a lot. Dinosaurs were as big as they were in their time because gravity was less.
Trying to figure out how Earth could be expanding, with gravity at the same time increasing, became something of an obsession with me. I wrote all sorts of essays on the topic, which in the end culminated in my book, "Universe of Particles".
The final break through came in the months after I sold by house in early 2017. Measurements made by NASA's space probe Juno suggested that Jupiter is hollow. I was made aware of a theory by a renowned astronomer, Halton Arp, suggesting that cosmic radiation makes matter more massive over time. I had also come across a very simple model of the atom, presented by the successful radar engineer Morton Spears back in the 1990s.
Putting all these elements together, I ended up with a complete physical model, only slightly different from conventional quantum physics, capable of explaining all sorts of phenomena, as well as how and why our planet can expand with gravity increasing.
What is interesting to note in all of this is that it would never even have occurred to me to look into this had it not been for Facebook. Most of the leads in this story came from Facebook, with the rest coming from YouTube and Google. Far from being sinister and dangerous, these online resources have been of immense help. They may be up to all sorts of unsavory snooping and manipulation, but when all is said and done, the net effect of these content providers has been for the better.
Similarly, when it comes to my political views, Facebook has been a great resource. The 5th empire, as sketched out in my book on the voluntary society, is little more than a summary of unorthodox political ideas picked up from the Mises Institute and other libertarian sites.
Social media has been the driving mechanism behind the spread of unorthodox ideas, and I suspect they will continue to function this way. They may want to direct and censor ideas, but they will not be able to put the genie back into its bottle. There's just too much going on to centrally manage.
However, as explained in "The 5th Empire - A voluntary society", most people are coming to a radically different conclusion than what I have reached. They want increased government powers. Totalitarian ideas are growing more popular and widespread by the day.
Having long since given up on the idea that people will see the light and turn libertarian in their attitudes, I have taken practical steps to protect myself and my family. If things get nasty, with wars and social unrest, I have the resources to get myself and my family out of dodge. I also have a pretty fair idea of where the best places to hide might be.
This does not mean that I'm completely silent in my opposition to totalitarian ideas. I share my thoughts freely with those who care to listen. But it is a waste of time to try to convince those who are set on totalitarianism that their ideas will lead to war, strife, misery and death. They may not even realize their mistake once reality catches up with them. They are lost, and cannot be saved.
However, I will pursue my interests undeterred. I will keep my physics blog up to date. I will keep an eye on the public space. I will take care of myself and my nearest. Whenever appropriate, I will highlight something baffling that goes contrary to "settled science". I will plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of the totalitarian crowd. Very few will get it. But those who do may still find a way to escape the totalitarian apocalypse that they mistakenly believe to be utopia.
The underlying message in much of my writing is that if current thinking related to such phenomena as the dinosaurs and the size of Earth turns out to be wrong, imagine how many other ideas may be wrong as well. In this respect, "Universe of Particles" is a highly subversive book. It suggests that things are not what most people believe them to be. The high priests of science do not know nearly as much as they pretend to know.
As things stand, "Universe of Particles" is seeing a steadily increasing interest. I may even become semi-famous one day. This will in turn add to my sense of success. Making this all the more enjoyable is the fact that such a success is wealth of a non-material kind. It is impossible to tax and therefore completely out of reach for the taxman.
Woke totalitarians
Saturday, September 7, 2019
The 5th Empire - Recovering from Depression
Once the tax evasion scheme I had built up over years started crumbling, it was evident that things were much more precarious than I had lulled myself into believing. Even without direct taxation on my wealth and income, my house in Norway cost me a lot every year in the form of indirect taxation. All sorts of fees had to be paid. The mortgage, although small relative to the value of the house, was also a considerable drain. Now that direct taxation was added, with the very real threat of confiscation if not paid, I realized that I was trapped. The window of opportunity was closing. Without radical changes, everything would be lost.
I was hit by a terrible mix of angst and depression. I even became suicidal, something completely foreign to my character. But I managed nevertheless to orchestrate a refurbishing of my house, and a successful sale.
In all of this, it dawned on me that I was doing this just as much for my children as for myself. I was not really all that worried about my life or liberty. I was worried first and foremost about my wealth. I did not want to see it lost, confiscated by bureaucrats. Fully realizing this, I transferred all my registered wealth into the hands of the younger generation. I made clear that I would still claim some of the capital income. I would still be in charge. However, I made a point of not making this legally binding in the conventional sense. I did not sketch out any contract. Nobody signed anything. The scheme is based solely on trust.
My children are free to scheme against me. They can keep all capital income to themselves, and I will have no legal recourse. However, I am confident that I have brought my children up sufficiently well for this not to happen. As long as I remain reasonable in my claims, they will pay. They know that the scheme is benefiting themselves just as much as me. They also know that the person risking a jail term is me, and I'm doing this to save us all a heavy tax that would ultimately impoverish us all. There is also the issue of pride. I have tree children in Norway. If one of them refuses to pay, there will be pressure, not only from me, but from the two other children as well. All in all, no legally binding contract is needed. Pride and trust is more than enough when dealing with well mannered family members.
Once the scheme was fully implemented, I experienced a great sense of relief. The state could still put me in jail, but they could no longer take away my wealth. All was now in the hands of others. All sorts of benefits related to this scheme was also becoming apparent. There were no more fixed expenses related to the house. The overall taxation related to my shares was lower now that they were divided among my children.
With my estate fully divided, there was no longer the need for a will. In the event of my death, everyone would simply take full control of their part. The moment I'm gone, there are no more claims from me. Everyone will be 100 % free from my meddling. This in turn, greatly reduces the chances of any quarrels between siblings. The division has been made. There is nothing more to fight over.
Once completely free from the state, I felt liberated and invigorated. Having seen with my own eyes how things can be organized around truly anarchist principles, I wrote down my findings. I started with a practical guide to investing. It outlines my thinking related to the proceeds from the sale of my house, and how to get a good and secure return on these savings. I wrote it in general terms so that anyone can read it and use it for themselves. I titled it "Gold Oriented Investing".
Then I wrote a short outline of the economy, with emphasis on the sort of arrangement that I've made for myself and my family. I titled it "An Anarchist's Guide to the Economy". As a follow up to this I wrote a general summary of anarchist philosophy, titled "The 5th Empire - A voluntary society".
With my mind fully open to alternative ways of seeing things, I came across some interesting thoughts related to a physics problem that had intrigued me for several years. It was suddenly clear to me that a slightly different perspective on what's going on at the subatomic level can open up for a solution to some of the most baffling facts encountered in natural sciences. This resulted in me writing "Universe of Particles", and setting up a website with that same name.
As it turned out, my investment strategy has given above average returns, and my theory of physics is getting positive attention. Long gone are the days of my angst and depression.
I was hit by a terrible mix of angst and depression. I even became suicidal, something completely foreign to my character. But I managed nevertheless to orchestrate a refurbishing of my house, and a successful sale.
In all of this, it dawned on me that I was doing this just as much for my children as for myself. I was not really all that worried about my life or liberty. I was worried first and foremost about my wealth. I did not want to see it lost, confiscated by bureaucrats. Fully realizing this, I transferred all my registered wealth into the hands of the younger generation. I made clear that I would still claim some of the capital income. I would still be in charge. However, I made a point of not making this legally binding in the conventional sense. I did not sketch out any contract. Nobody signed anything. The scheme is based solely on trust.
My children are free to scheme against me. They can keep all capital income to themselves, and I will have no legal recourse. However, I am confident that I have brought my children up sufficiently well for this not to happen. As long as I remain reasonable in my claims, they will pay. They know that the scheme is benefiting themselves just as much as me. They also know that the person risking a jail term is me, and I'm doing this to save us all a heavy tax that would ultimately impoverish us all. There is also the issue of pride. I have tree children in Norway. If one of them refuses to pay, there will be pressure, not only from me, but from the two other children as well. All in all, no legally binding contract is needed. Pride and trust is more than enough when dealing with well mannered family members.
Once the scheme was fully implemented, I experienced a great sense of relief. The state could still put me in jail, but they could no longer take away my wealth. All was now in the hands of others. All sorts of benefits related to this scheme was also becoming apparent. There were no more fixed expenses related to the house. The overall taxation related to my shares was lower now that they were divided among my children.
With my estate fully divided, there was no longer the need for a will. In the event of my death, everyone would simply take full control of their part. The moment I'm gone, there are no more claims from me. Everyone will be 100 % free from my meddling. This in turn, greatly reduces the chances of any quarrels between siblings. The division has been made. There is nothing more to fight over.
Once completely free from the state, I felt liberated and invigorated. Having seen with my own eyes how things can be organized around truly anarchist principles, I wrote down my findings. I started with a practical guide to investing. It outlines my thinking related to the proceeds from the sale of my house, and how to get a good and secure return on these savings. I wrote it in general terms so that anyone can read it and use it for themselves. I titled it "Gold Oriented Investing".
Then I wrote a short outline of the economy, with emphasis on the sort of arrangement that I've made for myself and my family. I titled it "An Anarchist's Guide to the Economy". As a follow up to this I wrote a general summary of anarchist philosophy, titled "The 5th Empire - A voluntary society".
With my mind fully open to alternative ways of seeing things, I came across some interesting thoughts related to a physics problem that had intrigued me for several years. It was suddenly clear to me that a slightly different perspective on what's going on at the subatomic level can open up for a solution to some of the most baffling facts encountered in natural sciences. This resulted in me writing "Universe of Particles", and setting up a website with that same name.
As it turned out, my investment strategy has given above average returns, and my theory of physics is getting positive attention. Long gone are the days of my angst and depression.
A baffling fact: Earth appears to be expanding
Friday, September 6, 2019
The 5th Empire - Lying to the Taxman
It all started with me realizing that the taxman doesn't really know anything about anybody. Small errors and omissions in my favor would therefore go undetected. If by chance, such errors would be detected, I could always claim ignorance, which is a reasonable defense for a layman like me. Adding up the pros and cons, it seemed reasonable to me to follow this strategy.
Not reporting changes in my private life was part of this strategy. The last thing I ever informed the taxman about was my move from Norway to Portugal back in 2006. I did not report my marriage in 2011, nor the birth of my youngest son later that same year. But I did up the lying by quite a bit. I constructed an elaborate story in which all sorts of expenses and loans ate up all my income and net worth. With zero net worth and zero income, I was no longer paying taxes.
However, the taxman kept increasing the rates. By 2015, I was forced to up my lying once again, and this turned out to be the drop that made the cup overflow. I got my first stern warning from the taxman in 2016, asking me to document my loans and expenses or pay my full due of taxes. I sent a reply, but it did not convince the taxman. They wanted more documentation.
At this point, I would have had to go all in on my story, which would have been both risky and tedious. I had no appetite for this, so I made a drastic change of plans. Instead of replying, I would no longer respond to anything. I would pay whatever they demanded as long as I had properties that they could lay their hands on. I would not protest. Instead, I would transfer all of my belongings to others. My shares would go to my three adult children in Norway. I would sell my house. The cash from the sale would go to Portugal where it would be used to pay off all debt on my wife's apartment. The rest would be kept as cash and gold, all registered and held in the name of my wife and our young boy.
The process was exhausting and brutal. I was hit by a deep depression and angst. But I managed to carry the plan through. The house was sold early 2017. The money came in during the spring. Everything got transferred and registered as planned.
Then, early 2018, I got the first letter demanding money for the sale of my house. The claim amounted to the entire inflation adjusted profit made on the house. I was only to keep the principal. The profit was for the taxman. However, with nothing any longer registered in my name, I could safely ignore the claim. They could at most arrest me and put me in jail. But to do this, they would have to send someone over to my address in Portugal. They would have to send me to Norway. They would have to put me on trial. Then, they would have to pay for my stay in jail. It would cost them a lot of money, and there would be nothing for them in the end. It seemed a reasonable risk to take, considering that the difference between complying and ignoring them was a whopping 1500 grams of gold.
After an initial barrage of threatening letters from the taxman, all went quiet. Nothing happened. It was almost as if they had forgotten me. This lasted until yesterday when I got a registered letter in the mail, containing another stern warning that I intend to ignore.
Not reporting changes in my private life was part of this strategy. The last thing I ever informed the taxman about was my move from Norway to Portugal back in 2006. I did not report my marriage in 2011, nor the birth of my youngest son later that same year. But I did up the lying by quite a bit. I constructed an elaborate story in which all sorts of expenses and loans ate up all my income and net worth. With zero net worth and zero income, I was no longer paying taxes.
However, the taxman kept increasing the rates. By 2015, I was forced to up my lying once again, and this turned out to be the drop that made the cup overflow. I got my first stern warning from the taxman in 2016, asking me to document my loans and expenses or pay my full due of taxes. I sent a reply, but it did not convince the taxman. They wanted more documentation.
At this point, I would have had to go all in on my story, which would have been both risky and tedious. I had no appetite for this, so I made a drastic change of plans. Instead of replying, I would no longer respond to anything. I would pay whatever they demanded as long as I had properties that they could lay their hands on. I would not protest. Instead, I would transfer all of my belongings to others. My shares would go to my three adult children in Norway. I would sell my house. The cash from the sale would go to Portugal where it would be used to pay off all debt on my wife's apartment. The rest would be kept as cash and gold, all registered and held in the name of my wife and our young boy.
The process was exhausting and brutal. I was hit by a deep depression and angst. But I managed to carry the plan through. The house was sold early 2017. The money came in during the spring. Everything got transferred and registered as planned.
Then, early 2018, I got the first letter demanding money for the sale of my house. The claim amounted to the entire inflation adjusted profit made on the house. I was only to keep the principal. The profit was for the taxman. However, with nothing any longer registered in my name, I could safely ignore the claim. They could at most arrest me and put me in jail. But to do this, they would have to send someone over to my address in Portugal. They would have to send me to Norway. They would have to put me on trial. Then, they would have to pay for my stay in jail. It would cost them a lot of money, and there would be nothing for them in the end. It seemed a reasonable risk to take, considering that the difference between complying and ignoring them was a whopping 1500 grams of gold.
After an initial barrage of threatening letters from the taxman, all went quiet. Nothing happened. It was almost as if they had forgotten me. This lasted until yesterday when I got a registered letter in the mail, containing another stern warning that I intend to ignore.
Hoping for the best
Thursday, September 5, 2019
The 5th Empire - A Letter from the Taxman
I got a letter from the taxman today. It was a registered letter, so I had to give my passport number and sign for it before I got to open it.
I half expected a big claim. I never paid any taxes on the sale of my house in Norway, and their outstanding claim on that sale is in the tens of thousands of Euros. However, the letter only mentioned a minor claim on something that happened after I sold my house. It's only a few hundred Euros, but I see no reason to pay it. A payment might open for the bigger claim farther down in the taxman's pile of claims. Far better then to have them preoccupied with the smaller claim, which is so small that I doubt they will pursue it any further.
But in the event that they do decide to go after this claim, they now have my whereabouts confirmed. They can send someone over to get me and send me to Norway to stand trial.
This does not scare me the least. Norway is not a very oppressive nation. It does not send tax evaders to prison to rot for all eternity. The court will give me the choice between paying my dues or go to jail for a few months. Considering that Norwegian jails are quite comfy, especially for non-violent people like me, I will probably opt for the jail term. Far better to have them pay my expenses than me paying their's.
With not a single property registered in my name, and with no income, there is nothing that the taxman can get their hands on. For this reason, I find it very unlikely that anyone will come knocking at my door. But if they do, I'm fully prepared. I've been conscripted before. That time was for a full year in the Norwegian navy. I came out all right from that experience, so I don't think I'll suffer much from a similar experience. Especially since this time will be shorter and more comfortable.
I half expected a big claim. I never paid any taxes on the sale of my house in Norway, and their outstanding claim on that sale is in the tens of thousands of Euros. However, the letter only mentioned a minor claim on something that happened after I sold my house. It's only a few hundred Euros, but I see no reason to pay it. A payment might open for the bigger claim farther down in the taxman's pile of claims. Far better then to have them preoccupied with the smaller claim, which is so small that I doubt they will pursue it any further.
But in the event that they do decide to go after this claim, they now have my whereabouts confirmed. They can send someone over to get me and send me to Norway to stand trial.
This does not scare me the least. Norway is not a very oppressive nation. It does not send tax evaders to prison to rot for all eternity. The court will give me the choice between paying my dues or go to jail for a few months. Considering that Norwegian jails are quite comfy, especially for non-violent people like me, I will probably opt for the jail term. Far better to have them pay my expenses than me paying their's.
With not a single property registered in my name, and with no income, there is nothing that the taxman can get their hands on. For this reason, I find it very unlikely that anyone will come knocking at my door. But if they do, I'm fully prepared. I've been conscripted before. That time was for a full year in the Norwegian navy. I came out all right from that experience, so I don't think I'll suffer much from a similar experience. Especially since this time will be shorter and more comfortable.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Say's Law of Markets
Say's law of markets is a classical economic theory that says that production is the source of demand. According to Say's law, the ability to demand something is financed by supplying a different good.
The existence of markets is again based on division of labor, in which individuals seek to optimize their own performance through specialization. Instead of everyone making everything from scratch, each person does what he or she is best at. The shoemaker makes shoes while the potato-farmer grows potatoes. Then they meet in voluntary exchange to the benefit of both. Had they tried doing everything themselves, the total production would have been less.
This logic holds in the aggregate. The more people specialize, the more complex and valuable are the end results, provided everything is done voluntarily. This explains how we have smart phones and computers despite the fact that no single individual has the knowledge or capacity to make such devices from scratch. The raw materials are mined and produced by experts who know next to nothing about computer components. Components are made by experts who know very little about mining or software. Software is made by people who know very little about mining, computer components or marketing. The combined product is brought to market by truckers, sales people and the like.
What should be noted is that none of this can be optimized in any way by the introduction of a third entity. The state and its affiliated currency creating institutions do nothing to help in the above process. They merely complicate the process. Laws and regulations make it harder to do productive work. Taxation merely moves money from those who produce to those that do not produce. The creation of currency makes it harder to calculate prices, introducing errors and miss-allocations.
Finally, it should be noted that Keynes never refuted Say's law. He merely ignored it. He got hung up in the fact that someone may at times produce way too much of a product. But Say never said that all production must necessarily be valuable. He merely pointed out that exchange is always value for value, and that currency serves as nothing more than an exchange mechanism. No messing around with the currency supply can alter this fact. Currency production may trick people into making mistakes. It may benefit some at the expense of others. But it does not help the economy.
The existence of markets is again based on division of labor, in which individuals seek to optimize their own performance through specialization. Instead of everyone making everything from scratch, each person does what he or she is best at. The shoemaker makes shoes while the potato-farmer grows potatoes. Then they meet in voluntary exchange to the benefit of both. Had they tried doing everything themselves, the total production would have been less.
This logic holds in the aggregate. The more people specialize, the more complex and valuable are the end results, provided everything is done voluntarily. This explains how we have smart phones and computers despite the fact that no single individual has the knowledge or capacity to make such devices from scratch. The raw materials are mined and produced by experts who know next to nothing about computer components. Components are made by experts who know very little about mining or software. Software is made by people who know very little about mining, computer components or marketing. The combined product is brought to market by truckers, sales people and the like.
What should be noted is that none of this can be optimized in any way by the introduction of a third entity. The state and its affiliated currency creating institutions do nothing to help in the above process. They merely complicate the process. Laws and regulations make it harder to do productive work. Taxation merely moves money from those who produce to those that do not produce. The creation of currency makes it harder to calculate prices, introducing errors and miss-allocations.
Finally, it should be noted that Keynes never refuted Say's law. He merely ignored it. He got hung up in the fact that someone may at times produce way too much of a product. But Say never said that all production must necessarily be valuable. He merely pointed out that exchange is always value for value, and that currency serves as nothing more than an exchange mechanism. No messing around with the currency supply can alter this fact. Currency production may trick people into making mistakes. It may benefit some at the expense of others. But it does not help the economy.
Jean-Baptiste Say
Public Domain, Link
Monday, September 2, 2019
Purple Sunsets
Volcanic ash is turning sunsets purple. This happens at locations far from the erupting volcanoes, which means that volcanic ash is covering vast areas, dimming and reducing sunlight.
An early and cold winter can be expected in the affected areas. To protect ourselves, we should make sure we have some savings in the form of gold or silver, money that will protect us from the inevitable price inflation that comes with bad harvests.
This is old advise. We have long known that we are entering a grand solar minimum, with its associated uptick in seismic activity, volcanic eruptions and extreme weather. Anyone unprepared at this point has simply not paid attention.
An early and cold winter can be expected in the affected areas. To protect ourselves, we should make sure we have some savings in the form of gold or silver, money that will protect us from the inevitable price inflation that comes with bad harvests.
This is old advise. We have long known that we are entering a grand solar minimum, with its associated uptick in seismic activity, volcanic eruptions and extreme weather. Anyone unprepared at this point has simply not paid attention.
By David Hathaway, NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center - http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml, Public Domain, Link
Sunday, September 1, 2019
Gold and the Elixir of Life
Alchemists have since old associated gold with youth. The logic behind this is that gold does not age. It requires absolutely nothing in order to keep its youthful complexion. Hence, gold has the property of eternal youth.
It is this property that makes gold the ideal money. If we were to time travel 1000 years into the future, leaving everything we owned behind, the smartest move we could make would be to sell everything before departure, buy gold, and hide it in a spot where no-one would find it.
Arriving 1000 years into the future, we could head out to the place where we hid the gold, dig it up, and start buying back all that we sold 1000 years earlier. If we sold a house, we could almost certainly buy a new house, roughly the same size. If we sold all our stocks and shares, we could buy roughly the same amount of stocks and shares in brand new companies.
Gold is simply magic. 1000 years of neglect does nothing to it. The same cannot be said about anything else. A house decays into a ruin within 100 years if not maintained. Dollars and other fiat currencies loose 98% to 99% of their purchasing power within the same time period. Bitcoin and other cryto-currencies require a constant supply of energy to maintain their value.
This magic is not lost on those who own gold. It is immediately understood by all that come in contact with it. It's at the root of humankind's fascination for it. Owning gold gives us piece of mind. While we grow older in our bodies, and all that we own decays, requiring maintenance and attention, gold shines mysteriously, no matter our neglect. It is as if the metal loves us, no matter what.
All of this has been known since antiquity. All sorts of cults have grown up with a deep love of gold. Not least the alchemists, who convinced people to drink their elixirs of life in order to retain their youthful complexion and body. Unfortunately for those who tried these elixirs, the elixirs contained all sorts of poisons in addition to gold. Far from being elixirs of life, they poisoned and killed.
It is this property that makes gold the ideal money. If we were to time travel 1000 years into the future, leaving everything we owned behind, the smartest move we could make would be to sell everything before departure, buy gold, and hide it in a spot where no-one would find it.
Arriving 1000 years into the future, we could head out to the place where we hid the gold, dig it up, and start buying back all that we sold 1000 years earlier. If we sold a house, we could almost certainly buy a new house, roughly the same size. If we sold all our stocks and shares, we could buy roughly the same amount of stocks and shares in brand new companies.
Gold is simply magic. 1000 years of neglect does nothing to it. The same cannot be said about anything else. A house decays into a ruin within 100 years if not maintained. Dollars and other fiat currencies loose 98% to 99% of their purchasing power within the same time period. Bitcoin and other cryto-currencies require a constant supply of energy to maintain their value.
This magic is not lost on those who own gold. It is immediately understood by all that come in contact with it. It's at the root of humankind's fascination for it. Owning gold gives us piece of mind. While we grow older in our bodies, and all that we own decays, requiring maintenance and attention, gold shines mysteriously, no matter our neglect. It is as if the metal loves us, no matter what.
All of this has been known since antiquity. All sorts of cults have grown up with a deep love of gold. Not least the alchemists, who convinced people to drink their elixirs of life in order to retain their youthful complexion and body. Unfortunately for those who tried these elixirs, the elixirs contained all sorts of poisons in addition to gold. Far from being elixirs of life, they poisoned and killed.
.jpg#/media/File:Dell'_elixir_vitae_1624_Donato_d'Eremita_Plate_1_AQ14_(1).jpg)
Alchemist guide to the elixir of life
By Donato d'Eremita - Science History Institute, Public Domain, Link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)