What Caused the World Economic Crisis of 2009?

It is absolutely amazing to me that, I know the world is hurting, Obama and Congress did not learn their lessons. The reason the US is in trouble and hence the world is that too many people took out loans to buy what they could not afford. Then as these people were paying off these loans, the jobs they were counting on started disappearing to outsourcing and, the more destructive, offshoring. Many corporations irresponsibly displaced workers to save a buck or two. Next, even corporations that wanted to protect their workforce were forced to offshore jobs, just so they could compete with the less scrupulous companies. This had a domino effect. It is Incredible short sightedness on the part of the corporations, and share holders, pushing for ever greater return on investment (ROI). Why couldn't they see the golden geese they were killing?

Free Market Economy? What is free market but veiled monopolism. Truly "efficient" markets lead to no less than complete international monopolies with no border controls. We are now experiencing the full failure that is Free Market Economy.

First we started paying a little. When you start displacing a workforce you are not only displacing that worker but also the entire community. It is "okay" when one job is at stake, but a whole factory? With each job comes numerous community jobs that get either reduced or eliminated or both. Just imagine how much money gets pumped back into a community with each $40,000 job.

Sure the job is not actually lost in the world economy as it is being sent somewhere else. But the new person does the job for less, which means less money in the system. Less money means extra cash that kept the economy in motion is now sitting in the bottom of the executives pockets.

The problem that Free Market Economists have missed is the instability that this creates in the world. If these corporations decided that they wanted to open a new branch and add jobs to the wold that would be economic expansion. But by displacing workers they are extracting money out of the system. and when you extract enough money out of the system at some point no one is left to buy your products. This is the point the corporations have achieved at this moment in time.

For example, if you have a community of 1,000,000 people, and you take one hundred $40,000 jobs out of that community. Just how much money is that? 40 MILLION DOLLARS. Just imagine how many groceries could be purchased. how many boats, campers, electronics, clothes and fashion items that could buy. We the people of the United States and the world have allowed our multi-national corporations to loot our cultures in allowing unchecked job displacement.

Yes, sometimes jobs need to fall by the wayside to make room for better, newer technology. It is a different story if a job is being displaced out of obsolescence, e.g. no one would argue that we still need stage coach manufactures anymore. But, if that job is displaced due to being shipped half way across the world...

So what is Obama's plan to rescue these people, take out loans for which the US or world can not afford and drive hyper-inflation that will destroy what is left of the US economy. Hopefully this will not also bring down the rest of the world with us.

The fix is not complete protectionism, on the contrary if an individual or corporation wants to start a new business or part of a business in a foreign land, excellent! This is job creation and should not be penalized. This will grow the world economy. What will sooner or later shrink the world economy is when corporations and companies displace their work load by removing money from local communities. This needs to be weighted heavily and heavily discouraged with penalties and taxes to insure that when it DOES happen it is for good reason.

What can be done? We need to stem fear, you can not do this with a loan on a bank account that is empty. We have seen the consequences of bad checks. How is it that we are allowing Obama to continue the same bad practices started by the people? Fear can not be a market motivator. It will continue to drive the market down, which will take good companies with it as it goes.

My guess is that maybe we should shut down world markets for a while till the fear factor can be reset. Fear needs to be mitigated, and maybe suspending market activity will do it. Then somehow everybody who relies on the markets for a livelihood needs to be taken care of with what they financially need to get them by till the markets are restarted, things such as food, water, medical coverage. Then after a designated time, maybe 6 months, the markets can be restarted where they left off.

What do you think? would this idea work or is it crazy? If I am crazy why wouldn't it work and what are your ideas to fix our problems?

Is it all for not?

Sometimes I wonder, what makes us think we are more civilized than nomadic tribal peoples. Just who is more civilized? We have taken over the world, with our computers, big fancy hospitals and globe trotting jet planes.

Almost always the conquerors have thought they offered more to those "uncivilized people", from the Kings of Europe, To the Soviet Empire, to the Chinese "improving" Tibet, to the USA and Canada teaching American Indians how to be "civilized."

But just what have we accomplished? Before we came along life was simple. Everything revolved around the community and family. You could not survive a day without your tribe. Now we cant survive a day without our computers, and we could go a lifetime without actually seeing people.

I think of those times and I long for that. I long for a day when every hour "I" am surrounded by the community, raised up by all the life from the young playing and dancing to the old spinning yarns of what it was like in days of old.

As it is, I live in a cold building with few if any actual connections to the people that live around me. People of the earth, what have done? The global economy failures are a testament to our greed. The massive dump of consumerism spreads out from the sea to shinning sea. Our cities are cold, giant masses of life broken by walls. Walls that keep us bound, not to each other, but from each other.

Why? Why? What have we done? Why can't we leave it behind and go back to the days of neighbors and simple lives?

I would give it all up to live in a tribal community. I would give it all up for a simple life of lost connections.

Can we go back?

Incompatibility: Gloabal Warming Related Manufacturing Restrictions and Economic Recession (Depression)

I have been thinking a lot lately. I have come to the conclusion that the world needs to scrap Global Warming restrictions until we can get the worldwide economy out of its nose dive.

When you're driving your car and you do something stupid and it goes skidding recklessly off the road. At that time you do not get out of the car to check the air pressure of your tires. You've got more important things to do, like steering the car so you don't crash. If you do get out of your car it will crash and you will die. This is what the world is doing with fears about global warming. If we do need to put restrictions on manufacturing, now is not the time. thousands of people are losing their homes. Do we really want to cripple an economy that has already lost a leg?

Let's use some common sense and send a strong message to James Hansen at NASA. Now is not the time for drastic changes that mean lost jobs. When we are back on our feet we can decide how to power the planet without coal. Wait till the unemployment rate goes back up.

Just a bit of a thought. Maybe more later.

The Paradox of World Economasics

Isn't this paradox amazing? For the world to grow you need to spend you money. For you to grow you need to save your money.

It is truly a paradox, if everybody saves their money, as they should, and waits till they have money, then the world goes into recession and depression, and the individual has even less money as less and less people spending money causes job loss and market failure. But, if everyone goes out and spends all the time the world is growing and there are all kinds of new toys, ideas and business plans. One of the problem is that if you spend everything you make then you have nothing for retirement. And, if you spend money you don't have, sooner or later it can cause a recession and depression.

I guess it means you have to balance your spending and saving. You can't save it all for a healthy world economy. You can't spend it all for a healthy personal economy.

I'll try to develop this idea more if I remember later and have time.

Love Hate with Linux

Let me just say this Linux is awesome, and just getting better all the time. but fellas, I have one complaint. I am absolutely getting tired of the cliché descriptor "Powerful". Not every single piece of software in the Linux repository can be "Small but powerful."

So those of you making all those new cool applications for Linux that keep me from ever wanting to go back to Windows, check out the thesaurus next time. Please find a few different adjectives before I pull out the remaining hair on my head.

Thank you!

Keep up the great work.

Shocker: Change in climate linked to poverty and food shortage

"I tried to convey that climate change and the loss of the sea ice up here will affect everybody on the planet - unpredictable weather changes, rises in sea levels are all linked to food shortages and poverty." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7897392.stm

Wow! Ya don't say! I bet that is exactly what the settlers of Greenland and France were thinking that fateful year when the crops failed in 1816 and there was no more food left and they were dying because of a little thing we all know as The Little Ice Age.

"Each of the peaks in prices corresponds to a particularly poor harvest, mostly due to unfavorable climates with the most notable peak in the year 1816 - 'the year without a summer.' One of the worst famines in the seventeenth century occurred in France due to the failed harvest of 1693. Millions of people in France and surrounding countries were killed. " The Little Ice Age in Europe

Or how about the 1930's, we have more CO2 in this day and age so what caused The Great Dust Bowl . Obviously we screwed up the land but why the drought?

There is more here than meets the eye. The group out to measure the Ice depth is to be commended: we need this information to know how to better treat the earth, but... let's not make hasty decisions on global warming before the science is done. Let the scientists improve the means of measuring the damage till a point that they actually know what we are doing. You can not base all of your predictions on unproven models, which up till this point seems to be the only "proof."

Jet stream Cycle?

With all the hype that continues to be run about Global Warming, I have a question. Is it possible that the jet stream cycles through a location change that could affect the perceived global warming?

How to build a road perfectly strait for an indefinite number of miles(only in East West direction).

I watched a show the other day about Mayan civilization on the Discovery Channel. They said scientists could not figure out how they built perfectly straight roads for 60 miles that would not very by even a degree, with the technology of the time. Although this is not a perfect solution and it does not account for varying elevation of the surface of the land. I thought it might be a unique solution to this problem with more general applications.

Here is my idea.

Set a tall pole exactly perpendicular to the earth’s surface using a plum line. Mark the end of the shadow throughout the day with a string keeping the line on the earth as you go. The next day Move the pole to a new point further along the path and reset the pole with the plum line making sure that the shadow matches up with the line already placed on the earth. Continue until the road has been measured to desired length.

Bush to Mugabe: 'It is time to go'

I was absolutely amazed at the comments of my fellow Americans today http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/president/2008-12-09-bush-mugabe_N.htm. It amazes me the audacity of some of the good people of America. A man, Robert Mugabe, who has been personally responsible for the demise of his country. Under his watch the inflation of Zimbabwe has risen. As of October 10th, 2008, Zimbabwe has an inflation of 231,000,000%. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/3167379/Zimbabwe-inflation-hits-231-million-per-cent.html

Thanks to his "wise" decision to take the land away from farmers who knew what they were doing and give it to anyone who was black whether they knew anything about farming or not, now a country that was considered the bread basket of Africa can no longer even feed itself. A nation once prosperous has had it's entire wealth squandered.

This man was beaten fairly in the March elections as can be evidenced in the length of time that it took to report the results and the fact that Mr. Mugabe's party called for a recount even before anybody in the country knew the results. In this country people who voted for Morgan Tsvangirai were beaten, some to death.

HOW in the WORLD can Americans be so callus to the sufferings of the rest of the world and compare the monster Robert Mugabe to President Bush, who is in the very process of handing over the reigns to the new administration?

Polar bears resort to cannibalism as Arctic ice shrinks: "Really"

It is nice how some scientists can make any picture conform to their view of reality. Case in point:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/09/23/arctic.ice/index.html?iref=mpstoryview.

Lets put a little perspective on this article. We know that the ice did not get to where it is in one day. We know that the ice has been decreasing for years; so if the fact that the ice extent is greater at the end of the melting season than this time last year is not a coincidence but an actual reversal in trend, which only time will reveal. Then this scientist's opinion that it is not in fact gain means nothing. The simple fact is that it is an increase from last year. If this year's increase over last year becomes a trend, an average increase of 9% every year would lead to an accumulation of over 400% in 40 years. Just imagine 400% of 4.67 million square km. That is 18.68 million square km in 2050. That is approximately more ice than the minimum in 1979 by about 10 million square kilometers by my eyeball of the 1979 minimum shown on the chart in the link below.

NSIDC Sea ice minimum extent 1979-2008
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html

Let's also keep in mind that it is not a decreasing rate of decline but an actual increase from the previous year. obviously, one season does not mean that things have changed. But we also need to keep in mind that we need not listen to the rhetoric of a scientist who's guess about next season's minimum can be no better than mine.

Why did the maximum for the 1979 and 2008 seasons start out so close together?

The numbers below are taken from these two sites
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/040708.html
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html

March 2008 Maximum extent 15.21 million square kilometers
September 20008 Minimum 4.52 million square kilometers
March 1979 Maximum extent 15.75 million
September 1979 Minimum 7.1 million square kilometers

I'm personally curious about a few things: the last 2 years the ice has experienced an accelerated rate of both warming and cooling. Why? If it was CO2 driven global warming I would personally expect an increase of warming in general and not an increase of cooling. Maybe somebody who reads this might have a good explanation for this.

I'm also curious as to why the maximums were so close for these years.

I will be watching. I'm beginning to believe that we are at the end of a long warming period and we are in for some very cold weather in the next couple of years.

We will all half to watch and see.

Scientific questions

I have many questions relating to many areas of science. In order that I might actually pursue answering some of these I am attempting to chronicle some of these and even lay out possible hypothesis testing for some of my ideas. So here are some of my current ideas.

Is it possible that man has mistakenly assumed that scientific laws that hold for small scale reactions, both nuclear and chemical, do not hold for large scale reactions. Is it possible that when matter is significantly large that different laws come into play that can cause a reaction to be virtually self sustaining. For instance, is it possible that a mass significantly large would generate enough force from gravity alone that it would sustain a certain amount of heat for almost eternity? Could it be that earths crust offers enough insulation that its core will remain almost indefinitely heated?

What about the sun? We are not at all sure of all the forces playing in reactions on the sun. Is it possible that chemical, nuclear and gravitational reactions simply more or less cycle? I know the second law of thermodynamics would lead us to believe otherwise. But is it possible that we have missed something? How would we test such a hypothesis?

Blackholes effect on warming

Hypothesis:

Black holes exert an enormous amount of force on a system even to the point of bending light waves.

In the suns trajectory through space, it is possible that it has crossed closely to such phenomena multiple times. if the sun should cross such a force in a parallel plane to the Earths orbit it is likely that the earth could receive less energy as some of that energy gets pulled in the direction of that force. Maybe it is possible that such forces coincide with glaciation periods.

I found this article, http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/rogue-black-hol.html. I want to check into this idea more thoroughly.

Can we stop global warming?

Wrong question!

If we know that the earth has had 5 ice ages, and that the dinosaurs lived in a time when the earth was much hotter; why are we trying to stop global warming, when we should be trying to figure out how to live with extreme climate change--both freeze and boil?

Why is it that no "brilliant" climate scientists seem to have studied whether or not the water vapor is capable of escaping earths gravity? the only way that global warming is a real problem is if it is possible for our waters to leave us altogether.

If global warming warms the entire earth, why is it that these scientists haven't considered the fact that more land will become livable and even more land will probably become arable? Lands in extremely cold places, such as Siberia, north Canada, and Alaska, will become more livable. Much land will also become arable that was previously barren: just think of all the new lands that will grow crops when they are unfrozen.

In summary, I think we need to change the focus and intention of our studies of climate so that we can live with the inevitable when it happens.

Global Warming debate ended?

Really? In the 70's the prediction was an ice age. those predictions seemed to have failed. Now we are expected to believe the results of a models that have not been proven accurate which say were gonna cook? If you read anything about global warming and the "science" involved in the calculations you realize that many things need to be considered in the calculations and that there are probably billions of factors that have not been considered.

The biggest problem is that people forget, all to readily, that scientists are human: they make mistakes sometimes on purpose. They even forget that scientists are often not motivated by science, but by economic gain. People have already forgotten the big mess that Dr. Hwang created in Korea over his fabricated genetic experiments.

If Dr. Hwang fabricated research for financial gain, just how many are out there that haven't been found out yet? What this means is that you shouldn't necessarily buy what someone says just because they are a "scientist", or for that matter have a PhD. You need to filter everything you hear and read through your own reasoning process.

I often read the overused pedantic that we should yield to "Peer reviewed journals." This is hype and down right crap. What these people fail to tell you is that there are scientists who pass phony research off for years before it is found out to be false. So lets step back in time 5 years, Dr. Hwang is a renowned, peer-reviewed, published, PhD. scientist. According to certain said scientists we should believe him because he is "peer-reviewed." I don't know about you, but knowing what I know now about Dr. Hwang, and extrapolating that situation to the fact that others like him have to exist, I am still going to rely on my own brain to process what I see and decide whether I should believe it or not.

Here are a couple more cases to illustrate my point:
These scientists fabricated lab data http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2003/Lab-Falsified-Tests6sep03.htm, This Bell Labs scientist faked data http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/11/2, The scientist who falsified this information cost the US tax payer $10 million per year for a program based on falsified information http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38366,00.html --And those in the global warming camp claim that anyone who resists is being buttered by the oil industry.

Setting all this Global Warming bologna aside, we need to stop polluting our environment for the sake of our environment, but not at the cost of bankrupting small countries. I am appalled to see how much trash people throw out. People walking down the street, seeing no receptacle, drop trash on the ground. It has to stop people.

Is John McCain a Yes man?

In recent years it seems that parties are less and less interested in serving the people and more and more interested in serving themselves. I, for one, am sick and tired of self-centered, self-serving legislators who are more interested in what the opposing party has to say than what their constituents say.

John McCain got major flack for his co-sponsorship of the campaign finance reform legislation; but to be honest, I believe his heart was in the right place, even if the bill was flawed. What John McCain did, in co-authoring the bill, was to observe injustices performed at the hands of special interest groups and wealthy individuals and try to do something about it. It seems to me that this is more than much of congress can say.

Whenever something goes wrong on the other side of the fence, you always see Democrats and Republicans alike pointing the finger. Then the guilty party bans together to fend off the attacker whether this is warranted or not. Our public officials always seem to be more interested in party defence, "What's good for the party?" Take the Foley scandal or the Lewinsky scandal, these are both cases in which the opposing parties dove in like a pack of wolves and the wounded parties pulled together instead of asking, "What is best for my constituents?"

Who cares what's good for the party; wouldn't you rather hear your elected officials saying, "What will be good for my constituents?" What I admire about John McCain is that he is not a yes man: he sees something he does not like or believe in and stands up against it. Whether it is good for the party or makes him popular does not seem to matter. He is a man of character which is more than can be said of many in the US Congress.

As to whether I will vote for him this election cycle, I have not decided. Personally I am not sure I agree with everything he stands for, but at least he stands for something. I wish that more of our elected officials demonstrated the character traits of this Senator.

Thank you John McCain for being somebody to look up to.

Does Hillary Clinton Care?

I find it interesting, how such a liar could be so popular. Hillary Clinton has to be one of the most selfish individuals in the world. What amazes me is that she and her husband have been caught time and again in lies, and the good people of New York and the US just seem to turn a blind eye. http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=3735&PHPSESSID=42f0c754
She must believe that the people of the United States exist to serve her rather than the other way around--as a US Senator.

Am I the only one who is irritated by her grand standing; It amazes me that the people of New York allowed themselves to be taken for such a grand ride. Hillary never lived in New York before she ran for the US Senate, so she was using New York from the start. Why else would a woman run for Senate from a 1000 miles away. The people of New York might have had better representation from Kim Jung Il. He probably knows about as much about and cares a little more for the people of New York than Hillary does, as she has shown them in her bid for the Presidency following her ardent disavowal of any intention to run.

To end this thought I'll just note the ridiculous grand entrance: "I'm in, and I'm in to win!" As if people decide to run for any race and spend thousands (perhaps millions) of dollars to 'lose'.

Does International Sesame St. teach racism?

I am an ESL teacher living in a foreign country. Although Sesame St. concentrates on teaching anti-racism, it is an American Show; I was quite surprised to turn on my TV one morning to hear Grover and Elmo teaching in the Korean language. Sesame St. should be in English as it originated in America and the language of America is English. If it was just an entertainment program (like The Simpson's, Bugs Bunny, or The Smurfs) it would be fine for the characters to be speaking the local language, but it is designed to teach language, and specifically English. It seems to me that when a foreign program is used to teach the local language it undermines the society. I think, in having Grover and Elmo teach in Korean, it sends a message that Korean culture and people are somehow inferior to Americans.

Then when these kids grow up they feel that somehow they aren't good enough and they need to have surgery to make themselves look more white/American so they can be "beautiful". Korean culture is great and the people are beautiful. They do not need cosmetic surgery to become beautiful.

New Year's Resolutions

So many people fail, --Why?

OK, what good are they? I am reminded of Jay Leno, or David Letterman asking the patrons on the streets what their New Year's Resolution are. In my mind is a vague, most likely self created, image of one of the these two TV personalities, probably Mr. Letterman, asking folks whether or not they kept their resolutions. Of course 90%, according to my impeccable memory, say that they don't keep the previous years resolution. Wow, what a waste of time and effort, me thinks!

As I see it, two main problems exist with resolutions: frequency of the resolution or goal setting process, and no review system. Most people who set resolutions do them once a year rendering the value of the goal setting process virtually useless. If we set resolutions once a month and reviewed them at the end of the month, I believe people would find two things happening: the New Year's resolution would become more attainable, and people would become better at setting attainable goals. The way in which most folks do resolutions is doomed to fail because there is no recovery system from failure, i.e. when it's broken, there is no mechanic. That is why yearly resolutions are a bad idea without the use of smaller monthly resolutions. Most people don't bother to review the resolution until next year.

So you ask, "What would be a successful strategy for my New Year's Resolution this year?" Good question, Johny boy! First I would make your New Year's Resolution actually a long term goal for the year, e.g. I will lose 50 lbs. Next, you need to break it down into bite size chunks; lets say monthly goals. Maybe you would say I will lose 12 lbs a month by riding my bicycle 3 times a week for an hour. Now we have a frame work that might work, but it won't work if you never review it; when the month comes up check to see if you have accomplished your goal and adjust your goals so you can hit them next month. If you missed for a week, don't be too hard on yourself, and the most important thing is that you don't give up the whole year just because you had one failure.

If you have crystallized goals that you can visualize it will be a lot easier to hit the mark. With your clear plan of action and monthly review, hopefully it will be easier to say, "No!" to that extra fry, or to get onto that bicycle, collecting dust, in the garage. So for all of you New Year's Resolutioners, I hope this will offer some useful advice on how to make them actually stick this year.

Peace Protests

In free countries why do individuals protest for peace? Would these same people protest raped women to stop rape? These actions are logically equivalent.

It is always difficult when one loses a family member: as a society we should never take lightly the loss of any of our military members. Families suffer the most when war is waged. Men and women who fight in wars often return home jaded by their experiences; sometimes, they do not return at all. If you are human and feeling, your heart can't help but go out to these individuals with broken lives.

On the other hand, does the fact that we are losing military members change the fact our nations have been attacked. Will protesting for peace stop terrorists from flying planes into our buildings? Would begging for peace from nations under attack stop bombs from being detonated in the Chechnya school or on Spanish buses? It seems that all to often we humans respond first with our emotions, with out fully considering the ramifications of our actions.

Let's put this into perspective, would you try to stop a bully from bullying kids by asking the bullied kid to be peaceful? Prior to WWII this very kind of reckless reasoning was rampant: Peace at all costs-- to the cost of millions of lives. Don't the protesters for peace see that sometimes we must indeed fight for peace, as ironic as it sounds, or we will be backed into corner where all our freedoms including peace are exterminated. I think it was best put by Kenny Rogers in his song "Coward of the County": " Now please don't think I'm weak, I didn't turn the other cheek, and Papa, I sure hope you understand:
Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man."

So if peaceful nations are attacked do we always have to pick up our ball and go play somewhere else, or is there a time when it is appropriate for us to stand up and say, "NO MORE!"

Barry's Musings

This is a new idea for me. This will be a place to express my thoughts and opinions, and maybe a resource to gather helpful ideas I have found in my current occupation as an ESL teacher in South Korea.

So in the spirit of my musing let me start by examining the very definition of "muse" as found on http://www.thefreedictionary.com/muse

muse(myz)
v. mused, mus·ing, mus·es
v.intr. To be absorbed in one's thoughts; engage in meditation.
v.tr. To consider or say thoughtfully: mused that it might take longer to drive than walk.
n. A state of meditation.

This says it all for me! It is good to reflect and contemplate deeply the state of the world's affairs; for such examination hopefully leads us to wise well thought out actions when the world throws its chaos at us. With careful examination and --musing-- may we hopefully eliminate or modify our future responses to fellow citizens of earth that produce negative impact. With the aid of great writers and authors of humanity such as Winston Churchill, Plato and Jesus let us muse together in order that we may solve some of the world's problems.