Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View jhooper's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Stability Of The European Union June 2, 2014 To ??? [View instapost]
    Speaking of leaving...
    Nov 21, 2014. 10:44 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fake Growth, Fake Money, Fake Jobs, Fake Financial Stability, Fake Inflation Numbers? [View article]
    Speaking of Hamilton, we can include Jefferson and Washington.

    "In a February 4, 1818, essay (in Thomas Jefferson: Writings, pp. 661–696), written long after Hamilton's death in 1804, Jefferson recalled what Hamilton was up to: "Hamilton's financial system had two objects. 1st as a puzzle, to exclude popular understanding & inquiry. 2ndly, as a machine for the corruption of the legislature"
    Nov 21, 2014. 08:56 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Fake Growth, Fake Money, Fake Jobs, Fake Financial Stability, Fake Inflation Numbers? [View article]
    The Truth About Tytler

    Thought it was interesting.
    Nov 20, 2014. 07:32 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • QuickChat #275, November 3, 2014 [View instapost]
    "The result of all this are boom and bust cycles created by people who believe all this stuff"

    The idea that a social elite should call all the shots for the stupid (aka Gruber) is the stuff I am talking about. Thus, the Progressive move in the late 1800s continuing to now to cartelize the system and set up more and more boards of "experts" to command and control the system. The Fed's "independent" setup is such an example along with IPAB and the CFPB. Another earlier example was the Texas Railroad Commission which was finally responded with the creation of OPEC.

    These untouchable boards of "experts" lead to what John Allison noted as, "the problem with gov regulations is not that they cause malinvestment, but that they get everyone to the make the exact same malinvestment at the exact same time." You can see this setup in RC-R of a bank's Call Report or in the collateral requirements for the FHLB or in the grandest and most material malinvestor of them all, the Fed's Discount Rate.

    Once you understand how the coercive power of gov can be used to transfer wealth, it can then be understood why we get these periods of asset inflation followed by periods of asset deflation.
    Nov 20, 2014. 07:30 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • QuickChat #275, November 3, 2014 [View instapost]
    Did you know Bentham had himself stuffed and preserved.

    He also had the idea of the panopticon.

    Bentham's idea reflected a growing notion of concentration camps that started to develop later. Even in the US around the 1900s the ideas of ordering society by putting people in camps was being discussed. The CCC was a manifestation of this. Of course the National Socialists in Germany gave this idea the infamy it has now, but Bentham laid some of the foundations as he believed natural law and natural rights were "nonsense upon stilts".

    However, even before Bentham there were the Taborites, Hussites, and the Anna-Baptists in Europe that were all playing around with the ideas of communes. As such, the ideas Marx and Hegel Bentham were espousing had their origins in much deeper history. In fact, the Pilgrims in the New World experimented with a communal compensation system that nearly starved them.

    The rest of the colonial period in the Americas gave rise to the ideal that when people were able to have their natural rights away from the control of Europe they prospered. As the colonies grew, more control from Europe would be exerted. The colonists engaged in a series of rebellions from the 1600s that often resulted in some newly arrived official being tarred and feathered, tied to a fence rail and run out of town, hence, "run out of town on a rial". The lesson learned was that limited gov led to prosperity, and that revolt when foreign power from afar was imposed led to the removal of that foreign power and a return to prosperity. This of course led to the big rebellion in 1776, that established a new gov paradigm that gov existed to serve the people by protecting their natural rights as opposed to being subjects.

    Europe, of course, took a different tack. They went further into central control, and it was Germany that developed the PHD in the mid 1800s. So, if you lived in the US in the late 1800s, and you wanted a PHD, you had to go to Germany to get one. And, guess what you learned in Germany about gov as a result? So, you come back to the USA with ideas built on the Taborites and Bentham and so forth, and presto, you get W Wilson, the first PHD President, who gives us WWI and central control of the economy for the war effort, and presto, now the US is on the same path laid out by the Taborites and Bentham.

    So, now this is what people are taught in school now, and their conclusion is that it must be right because all the PHDs believe it, thus if I don't the PHD's will make fun of me, and I don't want that to happen, because I want to be considered smart too.

    The result of all this are boom and bust cycles created by people who believe all this stuff, who have attempted to use gov to force the outcomes that nature won't provide. The result is wealth transfer that creates a rich, ruling elite class, and everyone else they convince to vote for this because that will show they are smart and compassionate too.

    Your best hope is not to be a sucker, but rather become one of the ruling elite. That's why participation in the financial markets is so imporant. Financial markets are where the wealth will be transferred to, because that's where the ruling elite's wealth is (just like JB Colbert and John Law). So, if that's where you are too, then you will benefit from this scheme, and not be one of the suckers.
    Nov 20, 2014. 05:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • QuickChat #275, November 3, 2014 [View instapost]
    "One who talks a lot but says nothing regarding the issues,"

    Well, nothing people with certain confirmation biases or fundamentalist dogma want to hear.

    Its also ironic how people who claim to hate income inequality and Capitalism are on a stock thread looking to participate in both.
    Nov 20, 2014. 08:53 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Let Them Eat iPads: Why Wage Suppression Is Key To The Market Puzzle [View article]
    "It matters not what that product is, only that it be psychotically popular with the masses for a sufficient amount of time (like an i-anything)"

    You can't say it doesn't matter, and then list the reasons it does matter. Also, what this statement ignores is why that product is even there in the first place. How did it get there?

    The answer is some human engaged in human action to affect resources into an asset. They did that because of the desire to make their life better by creating a product that would appeal to others to entice them to engage in trade.

    It is also luck that people have feelings. It is also luck that the Earth has an environment conducive to life, and it is also luck that there is a universe at all.

    Granted there are things in life that we don't control, but that does not negate the fact that there are things we do control. Another thing we don't control is the fact that people must produce to survive. In addition to that, people don't control that we all have feelings. Those feelings drive nature's pricing markets. Prices direct us to what improves our lives and what does not. That's why people discovered property. Property utilizes natures laws to indicate to people what will make their lives better and what will not.

    The whole argument about "luck" is really a con for theft. Its an argument used by people who have rationalized stealing, and stealing is just subsidized consumption. Theft ignores nature's laws about property rights dervived from the things we can't control about human nature, and as a result prices become polluted. People loose incentive to produce, because they can no longer be sure about the signals of what will improve their lives and what will not (if I can't keep what I produce, then why make it?).

    So, why there are factors that bring certain products to market that we can't control, we do control why the products that do make it are there in the first place. They are there because people have perceived that there is a chance to make their lives better by engaging in trade. The more those signals are taken away because theft has been rationalized because of luck, you will wind up with less and less products winding up being at the right place at the right time.

    This is why places like N Korea, Cuba, and the Soviet Union had/have massive shortages. Its also why Yeltsin accused the US of showing him a Potemkin grocery store, because he couldn't believe so much food and so many choices could all be in one place.
    Nov 19, 2014. 03:07 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Chekhov's Gun [View article]
    Just because you have a vote, doesn't mean you get the results you want. In fact, votes can also result with idiots in charge. Voting is a market, and the more price sensitive the market is, the more efficient it is.

    "Trying to double his nation’s sales tax to 10 percent over an 18-month period has resulted in the fourth recession since 2008 and the need to postpone the increase’s second part planned for next October."

    In other words, the supposed "experts" don't even know what monetary system they have created. They still collect taxes to deal with deficits, instead of realizing that productivity is what makes deficits and debts valuable, and that's how inflation is dealt with. Collecting their CB notes out of the system only depresses asset prices, and that brings on risk-off.

    As I have noted above, the ups and downs in asset prices shouldn't be as surprising as we are told they should be (ie some strange force makes everyone make the exact same mistake at the exact same time), the force is known, its just that the voters or the people getting the votes don't know what it is. A price sensitive market makes them learn what that force is faster than a nearly price blind market.
    Nov 19, 2014. 01:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • QuickChat #275, November 3, 2014 [View instapost]
    "I'm going with Spock."

    Spock was echoing Bentham and Utilitarianism, hence the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So, Spock, not being a Capitalist, would definitely go along with a majority vote that raped the minority, because the majority got a benefit from that.

    If you say we can't rape the few, then that's an all or nothing idea. Its certainly one I agree with, since I understand the benefits of Capitalism's nonaggression principle.

    If you say you don't want to rape the few, that makes you a Capitalist. That's the whole reason people want to get rid of Capitalism. They do want to rape the few, and they need a rationale for it, so they come up with Utilitarianism to justifty two wolves and one sheep voting what to have for dinner.
    Nov 19, 2014. 12:05 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chekhov's Gun [View article]
    "I agree with him that behind every law is a gun, but just because you get rid of the laws doesn't mean you get rid of the guns."

    Yeah, this is what I am talking about. Where did I ever say you CAN get rid of all laws. The universe is full of laws. The real folly is believing a vote can get rid of those laws.

    Let me ask you this, "If we all had a vote to get rid of gravity, and 100% of the people voted to get rid of gravity, would gravity go away?".

    That's my point, a vote doesn't change nature. Nature is laws. The laws you make have to be consistent with nature. In fact, laws aren't made, they are discovered. So, what we recognize is that nature requires people to produce in order to live. However, people will also try to steal. Another of nature's laws, is that while you are stealing, you also can't be producing. A related law is that while someone is defending their property, they too, also can't be producing. So, we deduce that gov is the product in the market to make stealing expensive, so people have to produce and engage in voluntary cooperation in order to make their lives better. That maximizes production, which maximizes consumption, which maximizes feeling good, which is what we call improving the standard of living.

    It is nonsense to say that I want to get rid of all laws because I merely suggested that gov can be a legal plunderer. Look at history for Pete's sakes. The history of gov is one of conquest, dungeons, chains, slavery, mass murder, oppression, and torture. It makes total sense to get rid of those laws.

    Bastiat made this observation long ago as well. The point of laws is to deter what makes person's standard of living better at the expense of someone else's standard of living. That leaves people with only those options that make everyone's standard of living better at the same time.

    What we have now are people claiming that the failure to provide a benefit is what is harming them, in other words, they want gov to make their standard of living better at the expense of someone else, and as soon as you do that, you have turned gov guns from their legitimate purpose to their illegitimate ones of legal plunder. All I am saying is we get rid of the legal plunder laws, and use the rest of nature's laws to our advantage.

    I don't see why that's so hard for you guys to understand.
    Nov 18, 2014. 05:40 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Chekhov's Gun [View article]
    "I always get to read about what jhooper doesn't want, but I never get to read about what he wants."

    Not true, I tell people all the time, the problem is they don't want to hear it. They would rather make up things I didn't say, so they can argue against that, because it is easier for them.

    So, I will try and tell you guys one more time.

    Gov is the product that market requires for people to improve their productivity and thus their standard of living, whenever the market has people in it that don't understand that stealing is a barrier to production and consumption.

    If everyone understood the pointlessness of force with regards to increasing productivity, there would be no need for gov. The requirement for the market to produce gov would disappear all together. There would still be city products and state products, or some such designations, but a city product is not gov, it is a real estate product, like Disney World. Courts would be the products for defining property rights, and if everyone had no desire to use force for stealing, property would be worked out peaceably. Granted these forms of human association don't happen in the volume we would like, but they do happen today. Its just a matter of expanding it. It won't be widespread in our lifetimes, because too many people still believe a majority vote is OK to approve stealing, but its where we need to go.

    So, in the meantime, I wouldn't mind a move back to what the Founders intended, and what we lost shortly after it was created (it was Hamilton that came up with the idea of the first US central bank, and don't forget there was slavery in the South - I know, I know, you guys want ideas on how to improve slave states).

    Devolve the centralize powers, from Fed, to state, to county, to city, to precinct, to neighborhood. Allow the market for gov to flourish, and then that will allow a mechanism for people to vote with their feet. It happens to a great extent now, why do you think so many people are fleeing the socialist/narco democracies of Latin America? The market that works to give us ever improving computers and smart phones, would do the same for gov. Gov would have to innovate to attract customers. It happens to a degree, now, we just expand on that model.

    Notice a pattern?

    However, I can tell you its never going to happen. Once people figure out they can use gov to vote themselves the contents of their neighbors pocket, they will never go back.

    Your only option is not to be a sucker for the notion that a vote can do away with the law of phyiscs and justify everything, and find ways to protect yourself.
    Nov 18, 2014. 05:03 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chekhov's Gun [View article]
    "Or, maybe he could stick around here and come up with a concrete idea on how to improve our 'slave state.' "

    Why are you guys so married to slavery. Can't you see that by robbing your neighbor of the fruits of their labor, that they loose the incentive to innovate and come up with new and better things that would add to trade and our consumption and thus all of our standards of living. Look how poor the slave South of the US was in comparison to the nonslave North.

    Don't you get it. There is no improvement to a slave state. The best thing to do, is to get rid of it.
    Nov 18, 2014. 04:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chekhov's Gun [View article]
    "Don't put words in my mouth that I never said."

    Well, I would say that's your problem not mine.

    "I said that democratic societies decide what rules to impose on themselves."

    Nice try, but if everybody wanted to do something, then you wouldn't need a vote to force some of those people to go along with it.

    What you are confusing is the proper role of gov with the abuse of gov. We can all agree that we don't want our stuff stolen. I bet you Kramer has locks on his house and security codes for his online accounts. The problem is that while nobody wants there stuff stolen, there are still lots of people that are willing to steal stuff. So, its quite easy to get a vote of the majority and generally a super majority to agree to have rules against stealing.

    What you are talking about are a bunch of people who want to rationalize their stealing by saying its not wrong because there is no right and wrong (which is an oxymoron because they are saying its WRONG to believe in right and wrong) so they can say, "Well, we all had a vote, and we agreed that 51% of us get to steal from the 49% of the you. So, you have to accept that or move away, but of course you can't because 51% of us voted to chain down the 49% of you."

    Just because you have a majority vote, even if its 9 men agreeing to rape 1 woman, that voting process does not mean you have established a set of actions that will lead to everyone's standard of living.

    The democratic process is sacred, but what you are talking about is not the democratic process. When the "we" turns into the "us" taking advantage of the "you", then the democratic process no longer exists. That's the mistake you and Kramer are making.

    You guys can't make the distinction between the point of the democratic process being perpetual choice because everyone always deserves a say in what to do with their own lives, bodies, and property, and the human instinct to steal when stealing is viewed as cheaper than producing leading to a vote that results in one groups of people's choices being taken away with regards to their own lives.

    The only people here arguing for shooting, jailing, and controlling others is you and Kramer, and then you think that gives you the moral high ground?

    Think again.
    Nov 18, 2014. 04:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chekhov's Gun [View article]
    "How do you feel about 90-10 votes?"

    So, you are saying that you would be comfortable if the population were 90% white and they voted to enslave the 10% minority?
    Nov 18, 2014. 04:30 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Stability Of The European Union June 2, 2014 To ??? [View instapost]
    Sort of sounds like a Bond movie.

    “Risks of a triple-dip recession have increased,” said Mr Six

    ECB QE is risk-on. QE, like all gov interventions, is a consumption binge. Consumption is earnings for companies. Higher earnings justify higher PVs for stocks, thus stocks increase. People are conditioned to believe that a rising stock market means a roaring economy, thus they perceive the risk-on scenario. More people move towards stocks and away from bonds, and the result is what we have seen during QEs, stocks up and bond yields up (by which I mean a steeper yield curve).

    I like to buy bonds a few months before QE ends, because that is typically the high water mark for bond yields, thus with the 10 yr huvering around 2.30, I am loathe to buy now because in a few months the 10 yr could be over 2.50. That's when I would rather buy. Then when the QE programs end, the consumption binge is over, risk-off returns, equities retreat, and so do yields. Then I have nice income from higher yields and gains in the bonds.

    So, I am sick of all this talk, I just want them to do it already, tell me when its going to be over so I know when to buy, and be done with it.
    Nov 18, 2014. 03:24 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment