Archive for October, 2010

Pronk Pops Show 3: October 14, 2010:Unemployment and Inflation

Posted on October 28, 2010. Filed under: College, Economics, Education, Government, Government Spending, History, Politics, Videos, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download

www.pronkpops.podomatic.com

Pronk Pops Show 3: October 14, 2010

Unemployment and Inflation and The United States Economy

http://pronkpops.podomatic.com/playpod/play/2010-10-28T15_39_59-07_00

 

“Government spending cannot create additional jobs. If the government provides the funds required by taxing the citizens or by borrowing from the public, it abolishes on the one hand as many jobs as it creates on the other.”

“True, governments can reduce the rate of interest in the short run. They can issue additional paper money. They can open the way to credit expansion by the banks. They can thus create an artificial boom and the appearance of prosperity. But such a boom is bound to collapse soon or late and to bring about a depression.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Economy Sheds 95,000 Jobs; 14.8 Million out of Work

RECORD 41.8 MILLION PEOPLE ON FOOD STAMPS 9-15-2010

Sept 2010 Employment Report

U.S. Recovering Jobs But Pace Has Slowed, Analyst Says

Goolsbee Sees Need to Get ‘Job Engine’ Growing Faster: Video

“Traders will look at the U6 unemployment rate…on Friday”

President Obama on September, 2010 Jobs Numbers

Ron Paul: Obama Stimulus Package Will Turn Recession Into Depression

The U.S. jobless ” recovery” continues and is getting worse.

While the official unemployment rate of 9.6% as measured by U-3 did not go up in September, the real total unemployment rate went from 16.7% in August to 17.1% in September 2010.

The official unemployment level is currently at 14,767,000 unemployed Americans and exceeds the 13 million unemployed during the worse year of the Great Depression, 1933.

The total unemployment level calculated as 17.1% of the civilian labor force of about 154,158,000 is over 26 million, twice the number of unemployed during the worse year of the Great Depression, 1933.

The Obama Depression is not over or improving but is in fact getting worse.

The Keynesian economics recipe for economic disaster of more and more stimulus spending, larger and larger budgetary deficits, financed by layer upon layer of government debt has been a big failure.

A failure made even worse by the Federal Reserves’ quantitative easing monetary policy of monetization of the debt by “printing” more and more money in exchange for the Federal Government’s debt.

Neither the fiscal policy of stimulus spending nor the monetary policy of quantitative easing will create more jobs.

Obama’s economic policies only increase the belief among consumers and business owners that the Federal Government is completely out-of-control.

Only when President Obama’s economic policies are reversed and the current regime in Congress and the President are votedout of office will you finally see job creation and low full employment rates of 2%% to 3% This will take not months but at least five years.

Dixion Says Fed Quantitative Easing Won’t Create New Jobs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85Olz2h6ehM

The immediate result of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy is the devaluing of the dollar

The Federal Reserve’s policy is a massive tax increase on all Americans as the purchasing power of their money declines daily.

This will only mean higher prices for all imports including petroleum and the costs of all goods and services to the extent they require imported goods and services such as petroleum.

Ron Paul vs. Ben Bernanke

Peter Schiff–Dollar Collaspse–Gold As A Hedge Against The Fed’s Committment To Raise Inflation

Who reappointed The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke,–President Barack Obama.

Ron Paul : We Can’t Say Cut Spending For Food Stamps But NOT For The Military Industrial Complex!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whfopF8Xj8I

 

 

All Labor and Unemployment Statistics Are From

The Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln

As Of October 2010

The Numbers In Red Are For The Obama Administration

U-3

Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6

U-6

Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9  
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6  
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8  
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8  
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2  
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6  
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 8.0  
2007 8.3 8.1 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.5 8.4 8.4 8.5 8.8  
2008 9.1 8.9 9.0 9.2 9.7 10.0 10.5 10.9 11.2 11.9 12.8 13.7  
2009 14.0 15.0 15.6 15.8 16.4 16.5 16.4 16.8 17.0 17.4 17.2 17.3  
2010 16.5 16.8 16.9 17.1 16.6 16.5 16.5 16.7 17.1

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767

In order to reduce the U.S. official unemployment rate by .1% in a single month requires the creation of between 250,000 and 300,000 jobs per month depending upon the number of new entrants into the labor market due to population growth and the labor participation rate or those seeking employment.

The labor participation rate goes down as an economy goes into a recession and goes up as the economy grows and prospers. The labor participation rate is currently 64.7%, well below the more normal range of 66% to 67.5% .

A higher labor participation rate means more individuals are actively seeking full-time employment and more jobs need to be created each month to absorb both new entrants and re-entrants into the labor market.

This is the reason why between 250,000 and 300,000 jobs need to be created each month to reduce the unemployment rate just .1%.

Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.3 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 66.0 66.2 66.1 66.0 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.8 65.8
2009 65.7 65.7 65.6 65.8 65.8 65.7 65.4 65.4 65.1 65.0 64.9 64.6
2010 64.7 64.8 64.9 65.2 65.0 64.7 64.6 64.7 64.7

It takes at between 100,000 and 150,000 jobs to employ new entrants into the labor market mostly high school and college graduates.

There are currently over 1.1 million new entrants into the labor force that have not found their first job.

Series Id: LNS13023569
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level – New Entrants
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Unemployed entrant status: New entrants

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 394 420 429 406 466 427 433 499 415 402 419 490
2001 444 396 378 457 468 467 448 485 473 481 495 515
2002 484 507 538 527 497 549 545 612 536 479 591 535
2003 599 584 630 635 630 661 669 652 686 636 593 693
2004 676 666 631 652 718 649 702 704 695 734 700 702
2005 621 753 712 764 710 650 630 626 607 638 673 633
2006 618 710 635 590 522 644 638 647 612 573 583 588
2007 628 599 614 621 536 634 599 590 668 700 661 688
2008 685 660 705 631 807 771 829 826 811 826 735 820
2009 792 1016 881 919 977 969 994 1096 1134 1114 1270 1270
2010 1235 1238 1197 1231 1206 1140 1188 1259 1187

The unemployment rate for the young, ages 16 to 19, is 26%!

The unemployment rate for the young is currently nearly double the usual unemployment rate for ages 16 to 19 of between 12% and 16% when the economy is growing.

Series Id: LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 to 19 years

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 12.7 13.8 13.3 12.6 12.8 12.3 13.4 14.0 13.0 12.8 13.0 13.2
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.2 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.7 15.9 16.1 16.3 15.2 14.9 14.7
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.6 15.9 16.2 15.3 16.0 16.0 15.5 16.2 16.9
2008 17.8 16.5 16.0 15.6 18.9 19.0 20.8 18.9 19.3 20.3 20.3 20.8
2009 20.9 21.8 22.0 21.8 23.2 24.3 24.5 25.7 26.1 27.6 26.8 27.1
2010 26.4 25.0 26.1 25.4 26.4 25.7 26.1 26.3 26.0

Both high school graduates and those who either dropped out or failed to graduate from high school are finding it very difficult to find their first job.

Illegal immigrants, mainly from Mexico and Latin America, of between 10 million to 20 million, has made it even more difficult for young inexperienced American citizens to find entry-level jobs.

Also the Federal minimum hourly wage law prevents many small businesses from hiring young workers.

Good Intentions 2 of 3 Minimum Wage, Licensing, and Labor Laws with Walter Williams

Good Intentions 3 of 3 The Welfare System and Conclusions with Walter Williams

It currently takes between 100,000 and 150,000 new jobs in addition to the 100,000 to 150,000 jobs for new entrants to reduce the unemployment rate by .1%.

The civilian labor force is currently about 155 million.

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150201(1) 150629 150839 150915 151085 151368 151383 151729 151650 152020 152360 152698
2007 153117(1) 152941 153093 152531 152717 153045 153039 152781 153393 153158 153767 153869
2008 154048(1) 153600 153966 153936 154420 154327 154410 154696 154590 154849 154524 154587
2009 154140(1) 154401 154164 154718 154956 154759 154351 154426 153927 153854 153720 153059
2010 153170(1) 153512 153910 154715 154393 153741 153560 154110 154158

Multiply the civilian labor force of about 155 million by .1% and the result is 155,000.

This is approximate number of jobs that need to be created to reduce the unemployment rate by .1 with no growth in the labor force.

When you add in the natural growth of the labor force by new entrants from population growth you arrive at an estimate of between 250,000 to 300,000 new jobs that need to be created each month to reduce the unemployment rate by .1%.

In a robust economic recovery the private sector should be creating 500,000 to 600,000 jobs per month.

Unfortunately, the private business sector and particularly small and medium size businesses, are not creating anywhere near 250,000 to 300,000 per month.

In September the private sector created only a net total of 75,000 new jobs. This is far short of the 250,000 to 300,000 jobs needed to reduce the U-3 official unemployment rate by just .1%.

Even if 250,000 new jobs were being created each month and the unemployment rate declined 1.2% per year and over 3 million jobs were created in a year, it would take over five years to bring the official unemployment rate ( U-3) down to under a 3% rate of unemployment or a near full employment level.

The stimulus package of over $789 billion plus billions in interest payments was supposed to keep the unemployment rate under 8% and not above 8%!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/white-houses-stimulus-math-doesnt-add-up-100456089.html

The stimulus package has been an abject failure of the Keynesian economists including Romer and Berstein who advised Obama that this was what was needed.

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143142(1) 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914
2007 146032(1) 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173
2008 146421(1) 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221(1) 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333(1) 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391

President Bush’s Federal income tax rate cuts of 2001 and capital gains and interest rate cuts of 2003 worked and the negative impact on the economy of the September 11, 2001 Islamic Al-Qaeda Jihadist terrorist attack was mostly minimized and avoided.

However, President Bush failed to control Federal Government spending by not vetoing the massive Government spending increases of both the Republican controlled House and Senate in 2005 and 2006 and the Democratic controlled House and Senate in 2007 and 2008.

President Obama followed the lead of President Bush and the Democratic controlled Congress by more than doubling the Federal budget deficits in 2009 and 2010.

Dan Mitchell on the Deficit

Dan Mitchell discusses Reagonomics vs. Obamanomics

The result is the Obama Depression with more than twice the number of Americans looking for a full-time job than the 13 million Americans that were unemployed in March, 1933, the worse month of the Great Depression.

President Obama is following in the footsteps of Presidents Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George W. Bush by pursuing both the expansion of government with huge budgetary deficits (2009 was over $1,400 billion and 2010 is over 1,340 billion) and tax rate increases by letting the Bush tax rate cuts expire, supporting a massive cap-and-trade energy tax and imposing a mandatory health care plan on Americans that they must purchase or pay a tax penalty.

Feldstein Predicts Dollar to Weaken, Boosting Exports: Video

News Update: CBO Deficit estimates

The result is the same–massive unemployment–over 26 million seeking a full-time job and 41.8 million Americans on food stamps.

My recommendation made February 1, 2009 was to first have a six month payroll tax holiday on payroll and capital gains taxes and at the end of the six month period switch from the current Federal income tax system to the FairTax, which is a national sales consumption tax on the sale of all new goods and services.

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009! Revised and Updated

The FairTax would replace all Federal personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, capital gains taxes, interest and dividend taxes, alternative minimum taxes, estate and gift taxes.

The FairTax requires the repeal the 16th Amendment that gave the Federal government the power to collect an income tax.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The FairTax is also progressive for it provides a prebate or check each month to every American to pay the sales tax on necessities of living such as food, clothing, housing, and energy (electricity and gasoline).

Had the FairTax been implemented with a six month payroll and capital gains tax holiday, the unemployment rate would have been significantly below 8% by now and the economy growing at a rate above 5%.

The FairTax: It’s Time

The recommended economic policy of cutting both Federal taxes and Federal Government spending and regulation had been tried and proved successful in the past when the United States entered the roaring twenties:

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Keynesian Predictions vs. American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

While the above economic policy recommendations would still work, it will never happen under the existing ruling political class.

Unfortunately, the political ruling class based in Washington, D.C., both Democrats and Republicans, vigorously opposed those proposing the FairTax.

Comprehensive tax reform is opposed by the lobbyist and special interests on K Street in Washington D.C. who benefit from the complicated Federal Income Tax.

Professional politicians of both political parties need the campaign contributions of these special interests and lobbyists to run for re-election.

The real problem is simply too much Federal Government spending.

The high levels of Federal Government spending is what is driving the need for new and higher Federal taxation, every increasing borrowing to finance the deficits, and a reckless expansionary credit and monetary policy.

The solution is to cut Federal government spending by eliminating entire Federal Departments, agencies and programs.

That is why I recommended that Federal Government spending be limited to 80% of FairTax collections with the remaining 20% used to pay down the National Debt and fund entitlement (Social Security and Medicare) unfunded liabilities.

A Common Sense Political Agenda For A New Conservative and Libertarian Party: American Citizens Alliance Party (ACAP)–A CAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt and Regulations!

It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

This solution is anathema to the progressive radical socialist of the Democratic Party led by President Obama.

Instead President Obama went with the failed economic policies of the Keynesian economists who always advocate more and more Federal Government spending, which is precisely what the progressive radical socialists want to impose on the American people.

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus

As a direct result of President Obama and the Democratic Party controlled Congress failure in cutting Federal Government spending, closing permanently many Federal Departments and agencies and ending hundreds of Federal Government programs, while proposing even more and higher taxes, more Americans are now unemployed and seeking full-time employment than any time in the history of the United States.

The number of unemployed are twice that of the Great Depression!

The U-3 official unemployment rate will remain above 8% and the U-6 total unemployment rate will remain above 15% for at least another 36 months.

By then the American people will vote President Obama out of office.

By then the American people will vote those Democratic and Republican Senators and Representatives who failed to institute deep and permanent cuts to the Federal budget, a balanced or surplus budget and the FairTax.

President Obama is a progressive radical socialist ideologue.

Obama wants to grow the size and scope of the Federal Government and use coercion and government intervention in the form of higher taxes and pervasive government regulation to redistribute wealth and limit consumer sovereignty and the liberties of the American people.

Paul Ryan on how to break the capital strike

Krauthammer: “We Are Having A Capital Strike”

President Obama’s economic policies created massive economic uncertainty for consumers and businesses resulting in tens of millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans.

President Obama is a regime that must be changed if there is any hope for the tens of millions of unemployed Americans to find a full-time job.

On November 2, 2010 the American people will vote the Democrats out of office who were responsible for this economic disaster by massive government intervention into the economy and expansion of the size and scope of government.

Most Americans cannot wait to vote President Obama out of office in 2012.

Mr. President, you know you are an economic illiterate.

Do the right thing Mr. President, resign for the good of the country and the American people.

Just think, Mr. President, you will have more time to play golf, smoke and be with your family.

Everbody wins.

Good-Bye and Good Luck.

“Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individual’s life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Background Articles and Videos

Christina Romer explains a new report about job creation

The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan

By Christine Romer and Jared Bernstein

January 9, 2009

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Christie Romer: The Only Surefire Way for Policymakers to Substantially Increase Aggregate Demand in the Short Run Is for the Government to Spend More and Tax Less

“…In a report that Jared Bernstein and I issued during the transition, we estimated that by the end of 2010, a stimulus package like the Recovery Act would raise real GDP by about 3 1⁄2 percent and employment by about 31⁄2 million jobs, relative to what otherwise would have occurred. As the Council of Economic Advisers has documented in a series of reports to Congress, there is widespread agreement that the Act is broadly on track to meet these milestones…. What the Act hasn’t done is prevent unemployment from going above 8 percent, something else that Jared and I projected it would do. The reason that prediction was so far off is implicit in much of what I have been saying this afternoon. An estimate of what the economy will look like if a policy is adopted contains two components: a forecast of what would happen in the absence of the policy, and an estimate of the effect of the policy. As I’ve described, our estimates of the impact of the Recovery Act have proven quite accurate. But we, like virtually every other forecaster, failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be in the absence of policy, and the degree to which the usual relationship between GDP and unemployment would break down.

By February 2009, before the Recovery Act was passed, unemployment was already over 8 percent; and by June, before the Recovery Act could have had much of an impact, it was 9 1⁄2 percent… our projection turned out to be wrong even before the Recovery Act had a chance to get off the ground, which is about as clear-cut evidence as one could imagine that the problem was in our assessment of the baseline, and not in the effects of the Act….

I certainly don’t regret having done the study. During the Transition, the little paper helped to build the case both internally and externally for a stimulus of unprecedented proportions. Only in retrospect does saying that our best guess was that unemployment would rise to 9 1⁄2 percent without aggressive action look rosy. At the time, it was scary as hell. It helped convince both our team and the Congress to go for as big a program as possible. And laying down a firm marker that the legislation had to save or create 3 1⁄2 million jobs helped prevent the package from shrinking greatly during Congressional negotiations….

The thing I do regret is that there is still so much unfinished business. I would give anything if unemployment really were down to 8 percent or lower…. That the economy remains as troubled as it is despite aggressive action reflects the fact that this has not been a normal recession. Just as the downturn was uncharted territory, so is its recovery. Because the recession began with interest rates at low levels, we can’t just have interest rates fall and housing, investment, and other interest-sensitive sectors come roaring back as they typically do in recoveries….”

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/christie-romer-the-only-surefire-way-for-policymakers-to-substantially-increase-aggregate-demand-in-the-short-run-is-for-the.html

Democratic Pollster: GOP Poised to Seize House and Senate

By: David A. Patten

“…Republicans are on the brink of pulling off a landslide “of potentially epic proportions” that would bring them control of both Houses of Congress and a majority of governorships, Democratic pollster and Fox News commentator Douglas Schoen says.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Schoen says he now sees several indications that matters are going from bad to worse for Democrats in this election cycle.

He points to a RealClearPolitics.com analysis that now shows Republicans picking up a net gain of nine seats in the Senate, which would deadlock the upper chamber 50 to 50. And polls show several other GOP candidates, including Carly Fiorina in California and Dino Rossi in Washington state, remain within striking distance, he says.

Schoen, a pollster for former President Bill Clinton, is co-author of the new book “Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System.”
…”

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gop-polls-lead-democrats/2010/10/08/id/373121?s=al&promo_code=AF37-1

Monetization

“…Monetization is the process of converting or establishing something into legal tender. It usually refers to the printing of banknotes by central banks, but things such as gold, diamonds and emeralds, and art can also be monetized. Even intrinsically worthless items can be made into money, as long as they are difficult to make or acquire. Monetization may also refer to exchanging securities for currency, selling a possession, charging for something that used to be free or making money on goods or services that were previously unprofitable. …”

“…Monetizing debtIn many countries the government has assigned exclusive power to issue or print its national currency to independently operated central banks. For example, in the USA the independently owned and operated Federal Reserve banks do this.[1] Such governments thereby disavow the overly convenient ‘slippery slope’ option of paying their bills by printing new currency. They must instead pay with currency already in circulation, or else finance deficits by issuing new bonds, and selling them to the public or to their central bank so as to acquire the necessary money. For the bonds to end up in the central bank it must conduct an open market purchase. This action increases the monetary base through the money creation process. This process of financing government spending is called monetizing the debt.[2] Monetizing debt is thus a two step process where the government issues debt to finance its spending and the central bank purchases the debt from the public. The public is left with an increased supply of base money.

Effects on inflation

When government deficits are financed through this method of debt monetization the outcome is an increase in the monetary base, or the money supply. If a budget deficit persists for a substantial period of time then the monetary base will also increase, shifting the aggregate demand curve to the right leading to a rise in the price level.[3] When governments intentionally do this, they devalue existing stockpiles of wealth of anyone who is holding assets based in that currency. It is in essence a “tax” as the overall value of their assets decrease due to a loss in spending power. This is known as “inflation tax“.

To summarize: a deficit can be the source of sustained inflation only if it is persistent rather than temporary and if the government finances it by creating money (through monetizing the debt), rather than leaving bonds in the hands of the public.[4]

Examples

Monetizing the debt can be used as a component of quantitative easing strategies, which involve the creation of new currency by the central bank, which may be used to purchase government debt, or can be used in other ways.

However, there can be an insidious effect. As one observer noted:

When governments reach the point where they are borrowing to pay the interest on their borrowing they are coming dangerously close to running a sovereign Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes have a way of ending unhappily. To get out of the Ponzi trap, governments will have to increase tax revenues, or cut spending, or monetize the debt–or most likely do some combination of all three. [5] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetization

Quantitative Easing

“…The term quantitative easing (QE) describes a monetary policy used by central banks to increase the supply of money by increasing the excess reserves of the banking system. This policy is usually invoked when the normal methods to control the money supply have failed, i.e the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

A central bank implements QE by first crediting its own account with money it creates ex nihilo (“out of nothing”).[1] It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds, agency debt, mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations. The purchases, by way of account deposits, give banks the excess reserves required for them to create new money, and thus hopefully induce a stimulation of the economy, by the process of deposit multiplication from increased lending in the fractional reserve banking system.

Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to sit on the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio.[1]

“Quantitative” refers to the fact that a specific quantity of money is being created; “easing” refers to reducing the pressure on banks.[2] However, another explanation is that the name comes from the Japanese-language expression for “stimulatory monetary policy”, which uses the term “easing”.[3] Quantitative easing is sometimes colloquially described as “printing money” although in reality the money is simply created by electronically adding a number to an account. Examples of economies where this policy has been used include Japan during the early 2000s, and the United States, the United Kingdom and the Eurozone during the global financial crisis of 2008–the present, since the programme is suitable for economies where the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

Consumer Sovereignty

“…Consumer sovereignty is a term which is used in economics to refer to the rule or sovereignty of consumers in markets as to production of goods. It is the power of consumers to decide what gets produced. People use this term to describe the consumer as the “king,” or ruler, of the market, the one who determines what products will be produced. [1] Also, this term denotes the way in which a consumer ideologically chooses to buy a good or service. Furthermore, the term can be used as either a norm (as to what consumers should be permitted) or a description (as to what consumers are permitted).

In unrestricted markets, those with income or wealth are able to use their purchasing power to motivate producers as what to produce (and how much). Customers do not necessarily have to buy and, if dissatisfied, can take their business elsewhere, while the profit-seeking sellers find that they can make the greatest profit by trying to provide the best possible products for the price (or the lowest possible price for a given product). In the language of cliché, “The one with the gold makes the rules.”

To most neoclassical economists, complete consumer sovereignty is an ideal rather than a reality because of the existence—or even the ubiquity—of market failure. Some economists of the Chicago school and the Austrian school see consumer sovereignty as a reality in a free market economy without interference from government or other non-market institutions, or anti-market institutions such as monopolies or cartels. That is, alleged market failures are seen as being a result of non-market forces.

The term “consumer sovereignty” was coined by William Hutt who firstly used it in his 1936 book “Economists and the Public”. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_sovereignty

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Dan Mitchell–Videos

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

The Wisdom of The Founding Fathers–Videos

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009! Revised and Updated

A Common Sense Political Agenda For A New Conservative and Libertarian Party: American Citizens Alliance Party (ACAP)–A CAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt and Regulations!

A New Political Party In The United States? American Citizens Alliance Party–ACAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt, and Regulations!

Third Party Time? Yes Provided You Have $10 Billion and 10 Years!

President Obama’s Massive Tax Hikes Will Wreck The Economy, Destroy More Jobs and Kill The American Dream–Stop Stupidity, Spending, and Socialism!–Videos

Obama Depression Worsens: Unemployment in September Hits 10.1% and Under Employment Hits 18.8% According To Gallup–17 Months Unemployment Over 9% with Over 15 Million Unemployed and 27 Million Underemployed!

The Party of Food Stamps–Government Dependency Party (GDP) vs. The Party of Paychecks–Grand Old Party (GOP)–Record 41,836,330 Americans On Food Stamps!

Barack Obama’s Favorite Economist–John Maynard Keynes–A Great Guy?

Economists

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

Richard Ebeling–America’s New Road to Serfdom and the Continuing Relevance of Austrian Economics –Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Milton Friedman–Economic Myths–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Videos

Robert Higgs–Why Are Politicians Always Trying to Scare Us?–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes

Paul Krugman–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Dan Mitchell–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Government Stimulus: Repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Paul Craig Roberts–How The Economy Was Lost–The War Of The Worlds–Videos

Paul Craig Roberts–Peak Jobs–Videos

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr–How Empires Bamboozle the Bourgeoisie–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Murray Rothbard–The American Economy and the End of Laissez-Faire: 1870 to World War II–Videos

Murray N. Rothbard–Introduction to Economics: A Private Seminar–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Julian Simon–The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Econ Talk With Thomas Sowell–Videos

Peter Thiel–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Market Economy–Videos

Tom Woods On Personal Rights and Property Ownership

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Tom Woods–Who Killed The Constitution

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record



Stimulus II: A Sequel America Can’t Afford

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 5: October 27, 2010: Democratic Party National Attack Ad Campaign On FairTax–Videos

Posted on October 28, 2010. Filed under: Economics, Government, Government Spending, Politics, Videos, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |


Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download

www.pronkpops.podomatic.com

Pronk Pops Show 5: October 27, 2010

Democratic Party’s National Attack Ad Campaign and The FairTax

http://pronkpops.podomatic.com/playpod/play/2010-10-29T11_08_18-07_00

Please pass this information on to all FairTax supporters and your friends and neighbors.

The FairTax:

  • Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
  • Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
  • Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
  • Allows American products to compete fairly
  • Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
  • Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
  • Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
  • Abolishes the IRS

We offer a library of information throughout this Web site about the features and benefits of the FairTax plan. Please explore!

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

“…The FairTax is nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 296) that replaces all personal and corporate income taxes, all payroll taxes like Social Security and Medicare, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, and self-employment taxes with a progressive national sales tax. …”

The official FairTax channel on YouTube

The official FairTax channel on YouTube

What is the FairTax legislation?

For More Information and Videos Visit

The official FairTax channel on YouTube

 

 

I am an independent and my political philosophy is classical liberal or libertarian.

I want limited government and the FairTax.

I support and will vote for candidates for office who also want the FairTax to replace the existing Federal taxation system.

A growing number of Americans including Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Tea Party Patriots and others want the FairTax.

Mike Huckabee – What is the “Fair Tax?”

Mike Gravel – On Fair Tax

Ron Paul on Taxes

The Fair Tax

Neal Boortz Explain the FAIRTAX

 

The FairTax is a national retail consumption tax that replaces most if not all Federal taxes and sends a prebate each month to every American to cover the taxes for the basic necessities of life.

The FairTax would replace existing Federal taxes including personal income taxes, payroll taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, capital gains taxes, alternative minimum taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes and gift taxes with one national retail sales consumption tax on the purchase of new goods and services–the FairTax.

The FairTax: It’s Time

The FairTax

www.fairtax.org

 

The Democratic Party has launched a last minute dirty tricks attack ad campaign, both onair (radio and television) and online (YouTube and paid ads on blogs including this one), to say that various Republican candidates that support tax reform and the FairTax want an additional 23% national sales taxes.

This is a lie and the Democratic Party and their desperate candidates know it.

Here are just a few examples that appeared on YouTube:

John Boozman: Excited About National Sales Tax

We Can’t Afford Millionaire Tim Burns and his 23% National Sales Tax

Sydney Hay: A New 23% Sales Tax (AZ-01)

Dan Benishek’s Bad Idea – 23% Tax on Nearly Everything You Buy

Mark McBride supports a 23% sales tax for Myrtle Beach

Andy Harris Doesn’t Have a Clue

Republican candidates who support the FairTax want to replace all Federal taxes with a broad-based consumption or retail sales tax on the purchase of new goods and services.

Yes, the rate would be 23%.

However, you would not be paying any of the above taxes and would be receiving a monthly prebate to pay the taxes on basic necessitates.

This means there would be no deductions from you payroll check for any Federal taxes.

Your gross pay would be the amount on your paycheck–there would be no Federal deductions.

Please visit the FairTax.org site for more information and a detailed response to the lies and distortions in the Democratic Party’s attack ads on the radio, television and in YouTube videos clips, web sites and blogs:

About The FairTax

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_fairtax_four#regressive

The American people are not stupid.

The American people are paying attention.

The American people know that the Democratic Party supported and passed in the House of Representatives the Cap and Trade bill that would have been the largest tax increase in American history had it been enacted into law.

The American people know that the Democratic Party wants an additional new tax, the Value Added Tax, if the Cap and Trade Energy Tax did not pass.

The American people know the Democratic Party wants to let the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 lapse at the end of 2010.

The American people know the Democratic Party wants all these new taxes to expand the size and scope of the Federal Government.

The American people know the Democratic Party wants to force you to buy a health care insurance plan or you must pay a tax fine or penalty.

The American people know the Democratic Party will never cut Federal Government spending, budget deficits, entitlements or the national debts.

The American people know the Democratic Party wants more spending, more deficits, more debts, and more taxes.

The important point to remember is the FairTax would replace all these other Federal taxes and would not be an additional tax on top of these existing taxes.

The FairTax provides a prebate or check to every American to pay for the taxes on basic necessities such as food and clothing.

Under the FairTax most Americans will pay less taxes than under the existing Federal tax system.

The Democratic Party is lying to the American people by not disclosing that the 23% sales tax would replace the current complicated Federal income, payroll, estate and gift taxation system.

The FairTax would also spur economic growth and create jobs.

Do not be fooled by the Democratic Party’s last-minute attack ad campaign to scare you and your family.

Do not vote for candidates, Democrats or Republicans, that would lie to you about taxes and spending.

When people lie to me, I do not trust them.

I do not do business with them and I certainly do not vote for them for public office.

The Democratic Party and those Democratic candidates who are using the FairTax’s 23% tax rate to attack their opponents have made a huge mistake.

The FairTax attack ads will incense and energize the political base of those in favor of tax reform that include Democrats, Republicans, Independents, libertarians, conservatives and the Tea Party Patriots.

After cutting Federal Government spending and repealing Obamacare, the reform of the Federal tax system and its replacement with either a flat income tax or the FairTax is very high priority of movement conservatives and libertarians.

By simply telling the truth, those who have been attacked in these ads will show that their Democratic opponents are both liars and hypocrites.

This does, however, require funds or campaign contributions to run the ads replying to attacks on radio and television.

Time for the Republican Party to step up to the plate and support the FairTax.

Will they do so?

Not likely.

Unfortunately they will not for the simple reason the Republican establishment supports the existing Federal income taxation system to attract campaign contributions from special interests that want changes in the tax code and regulations.

The major change the Republicans would support is a flat tax with one or two brackets.

Both the Democratic and Republican establishments fear the FairTax.

The American people need to support candidates who fully support the FairTax.

Please pass this information on to all FairTax supporters and your friends and neighbors.

Background Articles and Videos

More Boortz: When Democrats Attack the FairTax!

“…Here’s the cherry on the FairTax sundae. When the FairTax plan was being developed it was thought, and people in focus groups confirmed, that nobody should ever have to pay a penny of their earnings to government until they had first taken care of the needs of their family. What is the moral justification for allowing the government to seize a portion of your earnings before you’ve taken care of your family’s needs for the basic necessities of life? The designers of the FairTax were determined to find a solution to this problem, and came up with the “prebate.”

The government publishes Federal Poverty Guidelines every year. These figures are supposed to represent the amount that families of varying sizes would have to spend every year to meet their basic needs. The FairTax plan calls for every head of household in the country – legally in the country – to get a “prebate” at the beginning of each month equal to the amount of the FairTax that person will pay during the following month while purchasing those basic necessities. That poverty level for a family of four is $22,050. This equals $1,837.50 per month in spending, of which $423 would be FairTax. At the beginning of each month this head of household would receive a credit to his checking account, debit card or credit card in the amount of $423. This means that no citizen or legal resident of this country would ever pay one penny in tax to the federal government before his or her family needs were met. The prebate is what caused a focus group participant to blurt out “Well, that’s a fair tax!” Hence the name.

Are there downsides to the FairTax? Yes, as a matter of fact — one huge downside, if, that is, you’re a member of the political class. The FairTax would be the most massive transfer of power from government to the people since this country was founded. Politicians have this strange aversion to giving up power. Another problem is that, as Democrats are now illustrating, the FairTax is very easy to demagogue. If honesty isn’t your forte you can tell people that your opponent wants to add a 23 percent sales tax to everything you buy without including the pesky little details. As Politifac.com says: “Our bigger issue with the Lincoln ad – and a number of similar ads being run against Republicans who have had nice things to say about the “Fair Tax” – is that it highlights support for a 23 percent national sales tax but fails to mention that it would replace federal income taxes. No matter what you think of the plan, that’s a very deceptive omission.”

When you condense over 100,000 words from two books into one column of around 2000 words, much must remain unsaid. There’s the economic and jobs growth that would result from a system wherein people could do business without any tax component on capital and labor. There’s the $300 to $500 billion in annual tax compliance costs that would be eliminated. That’s just for starters.

If you want more information perhaps the two books mentioned at the beginning of this column might be a good place to start. There’s also a great deal of information at http://www.fairtax.org.

The midterms are approaching. Take some time to look behind the ads. …”

http://boortz.com/more/newsletter/102110_fairtax_primer.html

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

President Obama’s Massive Tax Hikes Will Wreck The Economy, Destroy More Jobs and Kill The American Dream–Stop Stupidity, Spending, and Socialism!–Videos

When It Doubt Throw Them Out (Democrats and Republicans)–Vote On Tuesday, November 2, 2010–Do It For Your Children–Videos

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009! Revised and Updated

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 4: October 28, 2010: Quantitive Easying II– Printing Money To Finance Federal Govenment–Videos

Posted on October 20, 2010. Filed under: Business, Economics, Government, History, Politics, Videos, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download

www.pronkpops.podomatic.com

Pronk Pops Show 4: October 28, 2010

Money, Quantitative Easing, Inflation and The United States Economy

http://pronkpops.podomatic.com/playpod/play/2010-10-28T15_48_24-07_00

Non-conventional vs. Traditional Federal Reserve System Building

“Credit expansion is the governments foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.”

“The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.”

 ~Ludwig von Mises

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://www.captainscomments.com/comment/812

Peter Schiff – It’s Scary How Clueless Bernanke Is

 

The Gold Dollar | Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Fed’s Next Move: What Will Boost the Economy?

 

Helicopter Ben Bernanke 10/15/10 Part 1

 

Helicopter Ben Bernanke 10/15/10 Part 2

 

Swonk Says Bernanke Laid Out Rationale for Fed QE: Video

 

Currencies, Phillips curve, inflation target, Ramsey, SchiffRadio.com

 

Bernanke Says Fed Stimulus Move Coming, Amount Unknown

 

Tyson Says Quantitative Easing ‘Only Policy Option Left’

 

Jim Grant on Bloomberg 10/8/10: Quantitative Easing Is Just Money Printing

 

Mandelbrot (Chaos Theory) Taleb (Black Swan) on markets

End the Fed | Ron Paul

 

The primary goal of the Federal Reserve System is price stability or the avoidance of inflation for the U.S. economy.

However, unlike other central banks, the Federal Reserve also was given several other goals by Congress:

“The goals of monetary policy are spelled out in the Federal Reserve Act, which specifies that the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee should seek “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” …”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_2.pdf

Since the Fed already has a zero interest rate policy or ZIRP with the Federal Funds rate target range of between 0.0% – .25% and a low inflation rate for the time being under 2%, the Federal Reserve now turns it monetary policy tools on the persistent high unemployment rates, now at 9.6% and headed once again to 10% or more.

Series Id:           LNS14000000 Seasonally Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9  
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7  
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0  
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7  
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4  
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9  
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4  
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0  
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4  
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0  
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6  9.6      

 

 

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, communicated in an October 15, 2010 speech in Boston what the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) unconventional monetary policy was targeting– maximum employment–by printing more money and purchasing Treasuries and other bonds:

“…In short, there are clearly many challenges in communicating and conducting monetary policy in a low-inflation environment, including the uncertainties associated with the use of nonconventional policy tools. Despite these challenges, the Federal Reserve remains committed to pursuing policies that promote our dual objectives of maximum employment and price stability. In particular, the FOMC is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation over time to levels consistent with our mandate. …”

Translation, the Fed will be printing more money starting in November to expand the money and credit supply by purchasing Treasury securities including bills, notes and bonds in the market as well other assets such as bonds with the objective of lowering the unemployment rate.

 

 

 

 

http://nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html

The Fed will be attempting to “inflate” the economy out of the current “jobless recovery” into another economic boom.

Call it quantitative easing, credit easing or “nonconventional” monetary policy, I call it overdosing on interventionism.

Quantitative Easing–Videos

What is the size, scope and duration of the “quantitative easing” or overdosing on interventionism ?

How big will the Fed’s weekly habit be?

My guess it will start “small” with $2 to $5 billion per week and gradually increase to about $15 billion per week? 

How long will the Fed persist in this habit before going cold turkey?

At least twelve to forty-eight months or until the unemployment rate is below 6% and core inflation is over 2%.

This will require another massive expansion of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet.

How much will it take?

My guess is a 1% reduction in the U-3 official unemployment rate would take a minimum of $600 billion per year ($200,000 money or credit expansion times 3,000,000 new jobs in one year)

A 4% reduction in the unemployment rate from 9.6% to 5.6% or the creation of about 12,000,000 new jobs would require a minimum of $2,500 billion dollars over four years.

The U.S. official unemployment rate as measured by U-3 is again headed towards 10% with over 15,000,000 Americans unemployed.

The private sector needs to create between 250,000 and 300,000 jobs per month to reduce the official unemployment rate by just .1%.

Currently the private sector is creating less than 100,000 jobs per month.

The United States needs between 100,000 to 150,000 jobs to absorb new entrants into the labor market due to the population growth. There are currently over 1.1 million unemployed new entrants that have not found their first job.

Another 150,000 to 200,000 jobs is are needed to reduce the unemployment by .1%.

Unfortunately, the persistent unemployment problem is even worse.

The U-6 total unemployment rate increased from 16.7% in August to 17.1% in October 2010.

With a total civilian labor force of about 155 million, a 17.1% unemployment rate means that over 26,500,000 Americans are looking for full-time jobs.

This represents over twice the number of unemployed Americans, about 13 million, during the worse month of the Great Depression, March 1933.

Assume it takes a minimum of $200,000 increase in the money and credit supply to create one new job.

Assume it takes 250,000 new jobs per month to reduce the unemployment rate by .1% or 3,000,000 jobs per year to reduce the unemployment rate by 1.2%.

Then the Federal Reserve would need to expand the money and credit supply by about $600 billion per year.

If the objective is to reduce the unemployment rate official unemployment rate U-3 from about 10% to 5% then the Federal Reserve would need to expand the money and credit supply by about $2,500 billion over a forty-eight month period.

I fully expect both the U-3 and U-6 unemployment rates to rise by at least .1 to .2% per month for next three to six months.

This would bring the official unemployment rate or U-3 over 10% during the first quarter of 2011 and the total unemployment rate or U-6 over 18% by the start of the second quarter of 2011.

This would represent over 15 million Americans unemployed and over 28 million seeking full-time unemployment.

This in turn will mean the U.S. economy is entering a “new” recession or a “double dip recession” with declining and most likely negative growth rates in the second and third quarter of 2011 and an increased probability of deflation or a declining general price level for goods and services.

Therefore the case for an expansionary monetary policy is still strong and increasing.

With the Federal Funds rate essentially zero, the Federal Reserve will be purchasing assets such as Treasury securities and agency mortgage-backed securities starting in November and continuing for a least six months until the U.S. unemployment rates are down by at least 1% to 2% or more and growth in production or the gross national product is at least above 3% to 4%.

Assuming the Federal Reserve purchases $12 billion in assets or securities each week, the total amount of the quantitative easing will be about $2,500 billion over the next forty-eight months to bring the official unemployment rate U-3 to about 5%.

The Federal Reserve cannot count upon the central bank of Communist China, the People’s Bank of China, to appreciate the Yuan by more than 5% to 10% per year relative to the U.S. dollar to encourage U.S. exports and reduce Chinese imports to the United States.

The real problem is Federal government spending that should be drastically cut until a balanced or even surplus budget is the result.

The Bush tax rate cuts in 2001 and 2003 need to be made permanent as well.

Until such fiscal economic policies are actually implemented, the only monetary policy “bullets” that the Federal Reserve has left is quantitative easing or money printing to purchase assets by expanding their balance sheet.

The Federal Government has for the last two years run deficits exceeding 1,000 billion each year and totaling over $2,500 billion not counting interest and this is likely to continue for at least one or two years until the U.S. economy fully recovers and the unemployment rates are well below 7%.

These budgetary deficits need to be financed by the Treasury Department issuing Treasury bills, notes and bonds.

The Federal Reserve will monetize some of these Treasury debts as part of its quantitative easing operations to the extent other buyers of Treasuries cannot be found.

What is the size or quantity of the quantitative easing?

I do not expect this to be announced, but at least $2,500 billion may be needed in the next forty-eight months to avoid another recession, significantly reduce unemployment to under 6%, and increase the growth of the economy above 4%.

Will such a “nonconventional” monetary policy work?

Only if the Congress and the President drastically cut the Federal Budget so it balances, do not increase taxes, and repeal Obama care.

In other words,this “nonconventional” monetary policy strategy of asset purchases or quantitative easing is not very likely to work any time soon.

The problem with government intervention into the economy is it always requires even more government intervention to correct past mistakes.

Both fiscal and monetary policy are generating massive uncertainty and a lack of confidence by consumers and businesses results in the deferral of consumption and investment expenditures and the hiring of new employees.

Bernanke understands this for he wrote in his Ph.D. dissertation at M.I.T.:

“…increase uncertainty provides an incentive to defer investments in order to wait for new information.”

Massive increases in the size and scope of the Federal government has resulted in huge budgetary deficits and proposed tax increases during a “jobless recovery”.

 

These deficits must be financed and the Federal Reserve will make sure that Treasury debt in the form of bills, notes and bonds will be purchased by printing more money as needed.

The Federal Reserve “nonconventional” monetary policy of printing more money is essentially government intervention into the economy to accommodate the U.S. Government’s Department of the Treasury need in financing massive government deficits

The Federal Open Market Committee will purchase Treasuries, mostly short-term Treasury bills but some notes and bonds in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes or money.

While the Fed’s cover story may be that this is needed to reduce unemployment, the real objective is financing massive Federal government spending and deficits. This is similar to what was done from 1942 to 1951 where Treasury long-term government bond yields were fixed at very low levels to finance World War II.

In fact, the Federal Reserve will be debasing the U.S. dollar by reducing the purchasing power of the dollar.

End the Fed | Ron Paul

This is a hidden tax paid by all the American people.

The cost of exports will rise as the U.S. dollar depreciates relative to other foreign currencies.

The price of petroleum will significantly rise and Americans will be paying over $3 a gallon in 2011 and over $4 a gallon in 2012.

The increases in petroleum and gasoline prices will in turn impact food prices.

The Federal Reserve uses a core personal consumption expenditure (PCE) price index approach in measuring and setting inflation targets, which excludes food and energy. The core personal consumption is a less volatile inflation or price measure than a change in total personal consumption expenditures which includes energy and food.

However, the American people need to eat and use gasoline to power their cars and heating oil to warm their homes.

The American people do not tolerate fools, even educated fools of the ruling class, for very long when they are losing their jobs, homes, health care and retirement plans and their children and grandchildren cannot find jobs or complete their college education.

The Second American Revolution has started.

On Tuesday November 2, 2010, election day, a shot will be heard around the world that even the world’s central bankers will be able to hear, if not fully comprehend.

During which the Federal Open Market Committee or FOMC will meet to decide when and how much quantitative easing or credit easing is needed to create jobs, avoid another recession and finance the U.S. government massive deficits.

The U.S. economy is in a liquidity trap where conventional monetary policy is ineffective and “nonconventional” monetary policy cannot work effectively until the appropriate fiscal policies are a reality and working.

The U.S. economy is slowly drowning in a flood of government intervention that has simply failed in generating jobs and high rates of economic growth and wealth creation.

The American people are paying the price for our ruling class’s continuing failures.

After quantitative easing or “operation pawn shop” fails and the value of the U.S. dollars is further debased, a period of inflation will follow and the Obama Depression will become an inflationary depression–a black swan.

“To be told that the Fed did what it could isn’t much comfort to a family who loses its house to foreclosure, a businessman forced into bankruptcy, a sixty-five-year-old whose retirement fund is devastated, a would-be borrower turned away by a beleaguered bank, a new college grad who can’t find a job, any job. For those victims and all the others, a final verdict on the Fed’s response to the Great Panic must await the health of the U.S. economy in 2010 and 2011 and beyond.”

~David Wessle, In Fed We Trust, Ben Bernanke’s War On the Great Panic, page 266.

“It is indeed one of the principal drawbacks of every kind of interventionism that it is so difficult to reverse the process.”

“Economics does not say that isolated government interference with the prices of only one commodity or a few commodities is unfair, bad, or unfeasible. It says that such interference produces results contrary to its purpose, that it makes conditions worse, not better, from the point of view of the government and those backing its interference.”

 

~Ludwig von Mises

 

Roubini: U.S. Running Out of Options to Stimulate Economy

 

Roubini On Double Dip

 

Nassim Nicholas Taleb – What is a “Black Swan?”

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Peter Schiff “We Should Save ‘Person Of The Year’ For People Who Do Good!

 

Ron Paul: Allow The Free Market, Not The Fed, To Set Interest Rates

 

Maynard Keynes Inventor of Quantitative Easing

The Financial Crisis and the Death of Macroeconomics | Joseph T. Salerno

Government’s Response to the Crisis: A Fantastic Success, for Government | Robert Higgs

 

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

 

Keynesian Predictions vs. American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

 

Our Wise Overlords Are Just Here to Serve Us | Thomas E. Woods. Jr.

 

Nassim Nicholas Taleb Angry

 

16. The Evolution and Perfection of Monetary Policy

 

Crisis and Capitalism

 

Understanding the Financial Crisis

 

The Psychology of the Financial Crisis

Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve

How to Abolish the Federal Reserve

 

Speech

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke

At the Revisiting Monetary Policy in a Low-Inflation Environment Conference, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Boston, Massachusetts

October 15, 2010

Monetary Policy Objectives and Tools in a Low-Inflation Environment”…

“…However, possible costs must be weighed against the potential benefits of nonconventional policies. One disadvantage of asset purchases relative to conventional monetary policy is that we have much less experience in judging the economic effects of this policy instrument, which makes it challenging to determine the appropriate quantity and pace of purchases and to communicate this policy response to the public. These factors have dictated that the FOMC proceed with some caution in deciding whether to engage in further purchases of longer-term securities.

Another concern associated with additional securities purchases is that substantial further expansion of the balance sheet could reduce public confidence in the Fed’s ability to execute a smooth exit from its accommodative policies at the appropriate time. Even if unjustified, such a reduction in confidence might lead to an undesired increase in inflation expectations, to a level above the Committee’s inflation objective. To address such concerns and to ensure that it can withdraw monetary accommodation smoothly at the appropriate time, the Federal Reserve has developed an array of new tools.7 With these tools in hand, I am confident that the FOMC will be able to tighten monetary conditions when warranted, even if the balance sheet remains considerably larger than normal at that time.

Central bank communication provides additional means of increasing the degree of policy accommodation when short-term nominal interest rates are near zero. For example, FOMC postmeeting statements have included forward policy guidance since December 2008, and the most recent statements have reflected the FOMC’s anticipation that exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate are likely to be warranted “for an extended period,” contingent on economic conditions. A step the Committee could consider, if conditions called for it, would be to modify the language of the statement in some way that indicates that the Committee expects to keep the target for the federal funds rate low for longer than markets expect. Such a change would presumably lower longer-term rates by an amount related to the revision in policy expectations. A potential drawback of using the FOMC’s statement in this way is that, at least without a more comprehensive framework in place, it may be difficult to convey the Committee’s policy intentions with sufficient precision and conditionality. The Committee will continue to actively review its communications strategy with the goal of providing as much clarity as possible about its outlook, policy objectives, and policy strategies.

Conclusion
In short, there are clearly many challenges in communicating and conducting monetary policy in a low-inflation environment, including the uncertainties associated with the use of nonconventional policy tools. Despite these challenges, the Federal Reserve remains committed to pursuing policies that promote our dual objectives of maximum employment and price stability. In particular, the FOMC is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation over time to levels consistent with our mandate. Of course, in considering possible further actions, the FOMC will take account of the potential costs and risks of nonconventional policies, and, as always, the Committee’s actions are contingent on incoming information about the economic outlook and financial conditions. ..”

 

Bernanke sees case for more Federal Reserve easing

“… Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Friday offered his most explicit signal yet that the U.S. central bank was set to ease monetary policy further, but provided no details on how aggressively it might act.

 

Bernanke warned a prolonged period of high unemployment could choke off the U.S. recovery and that the low level of inflation presented an uncomfortable risk of deflation, a dangerous downward slide in prices.

“There would appear — all else being equal — to be a case for further action,” Bernanke said at a conference sponsored by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank.

With overnight interest rates already close to zero, many economists expect the Fed to launch a fresh round of bond purchases, perhaps on the order of $500 billion, to push borrowing costs lower at its next policy meeting on November 2-3.

Prices for longer-dated U.S. government debt fell after Bernanke’s remarks as investors bet the Fed would be successful in generating more inflation. Stocks were mixed while the dollar briefly hit an eight-month low against the euro.

Bernanke said the central bank could bolster its economy and inflation-lifting efforts by indicating a willingness to hold interest rates low for longer than currently expected.

The Fed pushed overnight rates to zero in December 2008 and then bought $1.7 trillion in U.S. government and mortgage-linked bonds to offer more support for the economy.

 

Officials have said further asset buying, or quantitative easing, would be the course they would most likely pursue to spur a stronger recovery.

Bernanke indicated Fed policymakers were still weighing how aggressive they should be, leaving markets to guess as to the details of any operation. …”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bernanke-says-sees-case-for-rb-4235164349.html?x=0&.v=3

Personal consumption expenditures price index

“…The PCE price index (PCEPI) (or PCE deflator, PCE price deflator, Implicit Price Deflator for Personal Consumption Expenditures (IPD for PCE) (by the BEA), Chain-type Price Index for Personal Consumption Expenditures (CTPIPCE) (by the FOMC )) is a United States-wide indicator of the average increase in prices for all domestic personal consumption. It is indexed to a base of 100 in 2005. Using a variety of data including U.S. Consumer Price Index and Producer Price Index prices, it is derived from the largest component of the Gross Domestic Product in the BEA’s National Income and Product Accounts, personal consumption expenditures.

The less volatile measure of the PCE price index is the core PCE price index which excludes the more volatile and seasonal food and energy prices.

In comparison to the headline United States Consumer Price Index, which uses one set of expenditure weights for several years, this index uses a Fisher Price Index, which uses expenditure data from both the current period and the preceding period. Also, the PCEPI uses a chained index which compares one quarter’s price to the last quarter’s instead of choosing a fixed base. This price index method assumes that the consumer has made allowances for changes in relative prices. That is to say, they have substituted from goods whose prices are rising to goods whose prices are stable or falling.

The PCE rises about one-third percent less than the CPI, a trend that dates back to 1992. This may be due to the failure of CPI to take into account substitution. Alternatively, an unpublished report on this difference by the BLS suggests that most of it is from different ways of calculating hospital expenses and airfares.[1] …”

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_consumption_expenditures_price_index

Black Swan Theory

 

“…The Black Swan Theory or “Theory of Black Swan Events” was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to explain: 1) the disproportionate role of high-impact, hard to predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance and technology, 2) the non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to their very nature of small probabilities) and 3) the psychological biases that make people individually and collectively blind to uncertainty and unaware of the massive role of the rare event in historical affairs. Unlike the earlier philosophical “black swan problem”, the “Black Swan Theory” (capitalized) refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers, collectively play vastly larger roles than regular occurrences.

Black Swan Events were characterized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his 2007 book (revised and completed in 2010), The Black Swan. Taleb regards almost all major scientific discoveries, historical events, and artistic accomplishments as “black swans” — undirected and unpredicted. He gives the rise of the Internet, the personal computer, World War I, and the September 11 attacks as examples of Black Swan Events.

The term black swan was a Latin expression — its oldest known reference comes from the poet Juvenal’s characterization of something being “rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno” (6.165).[1] In English, this Latin phrase means “a rare bird in the lands, and very like a black swan.” When the phrase was coined, the black swan was presumed not to exist. The importance of the simile lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought. A set of conclusions is potentially undone once any of its fundamental postulates is disproven. In this case, the observation of a single black swan would be the undoing of the phrase’s underlying logic, as well as any reasoning that followed from that underlying logic.

Juvenal’s phrase was a common expression in 16th century London as a statement of impossibility. The London expression derives from the Old World presumption that all swans must be white because all historical records of swans reported that they had white feathers.[2] In that context, a black swan was impossible or at least nonexistent. After a Dutch expedition led by explorer Willem de Vlamingh on the Swan River in 1697, discovered black swans in Western Australia[3], the term metamorphosed to connote that a perceived impossibility might later be disproven. Taleb notes that in the 19th century John Stuart Mill used the black swan logical fallacy as a new term to identify falsification.

Specifically, Taleb asserts[4] in the New York Times:

What we call here a Black Swan (and capitalize it) is an event with the following three attributes.

First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Second, it carries an extreme impact. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.

I stop and summarize the triplet: rarity, extreme impact, and retrospective (though not prospective) predictability. A small number of Black Swans explains almost everything in our world, from the success of ideas and religions, to the dynamics of historical events, to elements of our own personal lives.

Coping with black swan events

The main idea in Taleb’s book is not to attempt to predict Black Swan Events, but to build robustness against negative ones that occur and being able to exploit positive ones. Taleb contends that banks and trading firms are very vulnerable to hazardous Black Swan Events and are exposed to losses beyond that predicted by their defective models.

Taleb states that a Black Swan Event depends on the observer—using a simple example, what may be a Black Swan surprise for a turkey is not a Black Swan surprise for its butcher—hence the objective should be to “avoid being the turkey” by identifying areas of vulnerability in order to “turn the Black Swans white”.

Identifying a black swan event

Based on the author’s criteria:

  1. The event is a surprise (to the observer).
  2. The event has a major impact.
  3. After the fact, the event is rationalized by hindsight, as if it had been expected.

Taleb’s ten principles for a black swan robust world

Taleb enumerates ten principles for building systems that are robust to Black Swan Events:[10]

  1. What is fragile should break early while it is still small. Nothing should ever become Too Big to Fail.
  2. No socialisation of losses and privatisation of gains.
  3. People who were driving a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus.
  4. Do not let someone making an “incentive” bonus manage a nuclear plant – or your financial risks.
  5. Counter-balance complexity with simplicity.
  6. Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they come with a warning.
  7. Only Ponzi schemes should depend on confidence. Governments should never need to “restore confidence”.
  8. Do not give an addict more drugs if he has withdrawal pains.
  9. Citizens should not depend on financial assets or fallible “expert” advice for their retirement.
  10. Make an omelette with the broken eggs.

In addition to these ten principles, Taleb also recommends employing both physical and functional redundancy in the design of systems. These two steps can be found in the principles of resilience architecting. (Reference: Jackson, S. Architecting Resilient Systems: John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken, NJ: 2010.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_complete.pdf

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Quantitative Easing–Videos

Cracking Communist Chinese Currency–Float The Yuan/RBN or Devalue Your Currency Via U.S. Dollar 10% Per Year For Next Five Years Or Face U.S. Import Ban–No Pressure–Your Choice–Videos

Chinese Communist State Company–China National Offshore Oil Corp.(CNOOC)–Invests In Texas Oil–Videos

Printing More Money (Quantitative Easing) and The Coming Currency War and Decline In The Purchasing Power of The U.S. Dollar–Robbing The American People–Videos

The Monetarization of The Debt and Quantitative Easing: The Federal Reserve is printing $1,000,000,000,000!–Run-Away Inflation Coming Soon!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops: Number 2b: October 6, 2010: 2012 Presidential Race: Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton vs. Newt Gingrich/Sarah Palin vs. Ron Paul/Christine O’Donnell–The Times Are A Changin’–Videos

Posted on October 6, 2010. Filed under: Economics, Government, Government Spending, Politics, Radio, Videos, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Obama-Clinton ticket ‘on the table,’ Woodward says

Obama Administration Is Seriously Considering Hillary Clinton As VP Come 2012

Newsmaker: Newt Gingrich on running for president

Gingrich: Obama Is “The Most Radical President In American History”

Sarah Palin takes on Obama at SRLC-A

Sarah Palin On Running For President in 2012

Ron Paul: “Not Quite” Ready to Launch 2012 Presidential Campaign

Ron Paul has issued a sobering warning to us all

Ron Paul: O’Donnell Can Win – We Live In Revolutionary Times!

Christine O’Donnell on socialism in America

Rush Limbaugh on Christine O’Donnell

Christine O’Donnell’s Potential as a Senator

Mark Levin Interviews Christine O’Donnell after primary

After this November elections in which the Republican Party is expected to win a majority in the House of Representatives and may be even the Senate, President Obama will be looking for ways to overcome a vote of no confidence by the American people.

Obama has already lost the independents, older voters, and men and most Republicans cannot wait to defeat him in 2012.

Obama needs to attract women voters if he has any chance at all to win in 2012.

Therefore, the political ruling class are all a buzz that he pull the old switcheroo.

Move Hillary Clinton from her Secretary of State position to the Vice-President position on the 2012 Democratic Party ticket and offer Vice-President Biden the Secretary of State position.

If President Obama did this, he would unite the Democratic Party and forestall a primary challenge by Hillary Clinton in 2012 for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, that she might very well win.

I think this would be a smart move given the possibility of a woman on the Republican Presidential ticket in 2012.

Newt Gingrich will be running for President in 2012 and will pick Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Ron Paul may be running again and if he does he will attract the youth vote and the woman vote should he select a woman for the Vice-President spot.

Should Christine O’Donnell win the Delaware Senate seat, she would make a great running mate to get both the youth and woman vote not to mention the men and older voters.

Will Ron Paul run?

Will Ron Paul run as a Republican or a tea party Libertarian?

A Ron Paul/Christine O’Donnell Libertarian Party ticket would make the 2012 Presidential race very interesting.

The grassroot tea party movement would most likely support a Paul/O’Donnell ticket over a Gingrich/Palin ticket.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have over the last six years lost the support of major portions of their political base.

Many movement conservatives are now independents.

Yes, independents and the tea party patriots will vote Republican in 2010, however, if the Republicans revert back to form, they will lose them again in 2012.

Should this happen, then either a new third-party or the Libertarian Party will be the primary beneficiary.

Two years are a long time in politics.

The winner for the Presidency in 2012 will need to have money, organization, message, momentum, and ambition (MOMMA) to win.

While I expected Newt Gingrich to run in 2008 and would have supported him, I am waiting to see what the Republicans do in 2011 and 2012.

Should the Republican establishment fail to support the FairTax, surplus budgets, immigration law enforcement, and close down several Federal Departments and agencies, I would vote for a Ron Paul/Christine O’Donnell on a new third-party ticket.

The time to cut the size and scope of the Federal Government by at least 50% is now.

If the Republicans do not have the leaders or courage to make these changes, then the American people will turn to a new political party with the leaders that do.

The times they are a changin.

Bob Dylan – The Times They Are a-Changin’

Background Articles and Videos

Christine O’Donnell analyzes 2008 Presidential Race on Fox News “Fox & Friends” program

Obama-Clinton ticket ‘on the table,’ Woodward says

By Alexander Mooney

“…The scenario – whereby Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would switch positions – has been bandied about by political observers for months, seen by some as a potentially savvy strategy to gin up excitement among what appears to be a depressed Democratic base.But it’s never been clear if the idea has been actually discussed in the White House, until now.

“President Obama needs some of the women, Latinos, retirees that she did so well with during the [2008] primaries and, so they switch jobs, not out of the question, and the other interesting question is, Hillary Clinton could run in her own right in 2016 and be younger than Ronald Reagan when he was elected president.”

Clinton will be 69 years old and three months in January 2017. President Ronald Reagan was just shy of his 70th birthday in January, 1980.

“Now you talk to Hillary Clinton or her advisers and they say ‘no, no there’s not a political consideration here,'” Woodward continued. “Of course the answer is, you point out to them that her clout around the world when she goes to Europe, Asia, anywhere is in part, not just because she’s Secretary of State or because she was married to President Clinton, that people see a potential future president in her.” …”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/05/obama-clinton-ticket-on-the-table/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 2: October 6, 2010: 10:10 Campaign: The Progressive Radical Socialists Method of Cutting Carbon Emissions–Kill Those Who Disagree With You–No Pressure–Your Choice–The Big Lie–Videos

Posted on October 5, 2010. Filed under: Climate Change, Economics, Education, Government, Government Spending, Politics, Radio, Violence, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download

www.pronkpops.podomatic.com

Pronk Pops Show 2: October 6, 2010

The 10:10 Carbon Emission Ad Campaign

The Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Replacing  Vice President Joseph Biden on 

The  2010 Democratic Party Ticket

http://pronkpops.podomatic.com/playpod/play/2010-10-28T15_32_24-07_00

1. Who is 10:10 global org and the 10:10 campaign

10:10 is a movement of people, schools, businesses and organisations cutting their carbon by 10% in a year

2. Four ads school, business, sports team, person working in advertising agency

“As you may have heard, last week, 10:10 made a mistake by releasing a short film about cutting carbon which was supposed to be humorous but in the event upset a lot of people.  We quickly realised that we had made a serious mistake and took it down from our website within hours.”

http://www.1010global.org/uk

3. Goal of the campaign is to have human carbon dioxide emissions reduced by 10% starting in 2010.

4. 1010 global.org

5. carbon dioxide, trace gas, .039 air by volume, greenhouse, but water vapor makes up 95%

6. breath out carbon dioxide.

7. Sponsors

http://www.1010global.org/nl

10:10 mini-movie – No Pressure

No Pressure–Your Choice–The Big Lie

1010global.org

http://www.1010global.org/

Statement by Eugenie Harvey, Director of 10:10 UK

“…Last week, 10:10 made available a short film. Following the initial reaction to the film we removed it from our website and issued an apology on Friday 2 October.

Subsequently there has been negative comment about the film, particularly on blogs, and concern from others working hard to build support for action on climate change. We are very sorry if this has distracted from their efforts.

We are also sorry to our corporate sponsors, delivery partners and board members, who have been implicated in this situation despite having no involvement in the film’s production or release.

We will learn from this mistake. Today I have written to supporters and stakeholders explaining that we will review processes and procedures to make sure it cannot happen again. Responsibility for this process is being taken by the 10:10 board.

The media coverage of the film was not the kind of publicity we wanted for 10:10, nor for the wider movement to reduce carbon emissions.

If people have been in touch with us personally about the film, we will be replying to individual emails over the next few days. Meanwhile our thanks go out to all those who support 10:10 and who work to combat the threat of climate change.

Eugenie Harvey …”

http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure

The global warming alarmists are fanatics that really think these public service announcements or propaganda are acceptable and humorous.

While I have a sense of humor, I found the 10:10 video ad campaign tasteless, intentionally designed to scared children and adults, and a poor attempt to shut people up that disagree with the global warming alarmists.

Corporate sponsors including  SONY,  are quickly distancing themselves from the videos and  10:10 campaign as complaints poured in.

Rising global  carbon dioxide emissions have indeed increased from 280 parts per million to over 390  parts per million over the last three hundred years.

So what?

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, required for life on the earth, and is not a pollutant and a primary driver of global climate change.

Unstoppable Solar Cycles

Failure of Climate Models

CO2 is a trace gas

Global Warming – Carbon Dioxide

Did the rise in CO2 cause the modern increase in temperature?

Is a warm climate good?

Bureaucratic Beginnings

The Transfer of Wealth from Developed to Developing Countries

Charles Krauthammer on the EPA regulating carbon dioxide

CO2 Regulation: The Essence of Immorality

Background Articles and Videos

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (High Quality Version)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (1 of 5)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (2 of 5)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (3 of 5)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (4 of 5)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (5 of 5)

The Reset Button

U.S. Gift to Russia Lost in Translation

CO2 Rising (series), Professor Tyler Volk: 1. Where in the world is the CO2 increasing?

CO2 Rising (series), Professor Tyler Volk: 2. Does my exhaled CO2 go into a leaf I can hold?

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – pt1 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – pt 2 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – pt 3 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – pt 4 of 4

Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1 of 2 Bogus Climate Models

Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 2 of 2 Stratospheric Cooling

10:10

“…10:10 is a global warming mitigation campaign calling for a 10% reduction in carbon emissions in 2010. The project aims to demonstrate public support, apply pressure to policymakers to commit to national cuts, and inspire success at the United Nations climate change negotiations.[citation needed]

As of June 2010, 75,000 individuals, businesses, schools and organisations have joined the campaign and pledged to reduce their emissions by 10% in a year.[citation needed]

The campaign was founded as a British campaign in September 2009 by Franny Armstrong, director of The Age of Stupid, with the aim of capturing the public imagination using individual action in a way similar to the Make Poverty History campaign.[1] In mid-2010 the campaign went global, with campaigns launching in around 12 countries.

In October 2010, the group made headlines when a mini-movie produced for their campaign, entitled No Pressure, caused widespread outrage due to its gruesome content.[2][3] Subsequently, several of 10:10’s major corporate sponsors disassociated themselves from the group and withdrew support.[4] …”

“…No Pressure

For more details on this topic, see No Pressure (film).

On Friday 1 October 2010, 10:10 released a short film in which schoolchildren and office workers are summarily and gruesomely executed for not pledging a 10% reduction in their carbon emissions to participating employers and educators.[43] Although originally planned to be shown in cinema and television advertisements, 10:10 removed the film from their website and YouTube later on the same day following negative publicity[44] and apologised for “miss[ing] the mark”.[43]

10:10:10

10:10 and 350.org were jointly coordinating “a day of positive action on climate change”, on Sunday 10 October, 2010 (10.10.10). The day had been planned to include a wide range of events in a reported 180 countries, including sumo wrestlers in Japan, over 10,000 schoolchildren planting trees in Croatia and Russia, a telethon on national TV in the Netherlands and the president of the Maldives installing solar panels on his roof.[43][45] However in the wake of the No Pressure controversy, 350.org disassociated themselves from 10:10, strongly condemning the film. 10:10 are no longer involved in the 10:10:10 day of action.[46][47] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10:10

Sony pulls support for 10:10 initiative over contentious promo

“…In an official release on its corporate website, Sony said that it strongly “condemned the release by 10:10, the climate change campaign group, of a video entitled ’No Pressure’ that Sony considers to be ill-conceived and tasteless”.

The move is a blow to the initiative, just five days before its centrepiece day of action on 10 October, dubbed ’10:10:10′. The campaign aim is to cut global carbon emissions by 10% each year from 2010.

The electronics firm said it believed the video risked “undermining the work of the many thousands of members of the public, schools and universities, local authorities and many businesses, of which Sony is one, who support the long-term aims of the 10:10 movement and are actively working towards the reduction of carbon emissions.”

The company insisted that the promo was released entirely without its knowledge or involvement, and violated the “thoughtful and collaborative philosophy” that it had consistently supported.

Although Sony said that it recognised that 10:10 had acted quickly to remove the video from its website and had issued a public apology, the company said it had “no other option” other than to condemn the video in “the strongest possible terms” and was “disassociating itself from 10:10 at this time.”

The film appeared on the 10:10 website, but was pulled down “within hours” of its appearance, according to the organisation. …”

http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1033027/Sony-pulls-support-1010-initiative-contentious-promo/

Age of stupid – greens blow up school kids in ad to sell climate change

Chris Arnold

“…The recent 10:10 climate change campaign (founded by Age of Stupid director Franny Armstrong) has scored an own goal with a disastrous video ‘No Pressure’ created by Richard Curtis (of Blackadder fame) that features exploding school kids.

The humour is puerile and may well appeal to a drunken 19 year old student but as a piece of communications it has got it very wrong. So wrong they have had to withdraw the video following thousands of complaints.

The video (they call it an ad) features a series of patronising people – a teacher and a boss – asking everyone to sign up to 10:10 (you sign up to reduce your carbon emission by 10%). The script quotes “we cut our carbon emissions by 10%, thus keeping the planet safe for everyone,” which is factually rubbish, it’ll take a lot more than 10%. The teacher then asks the kids to volunteer to do something. All but two, Phillip and Tracy, raise their hands. The two who don’t get killed in a sick and disgusting way. She blows them up leaving the other kids covered in burnt flesh and blood.

There are two other scenes featuring X-Files’ Gillian Anderson (she too gets blown up), together with Spurs players – including Peter Crouch, Ledley King and David Ginola.

The message is, “No Pressure celebrates everybody who is actively tackling climate change… by blowing up those who aren’t.”
It will go down as the ultimate in poor and stupid judgment (a lesson to those who try and make their own ads).  The green blog, An Englishman’s Castle, called it “an eco-terrorism film”.

This is not only embarrassing for 10:10 but for their supporters, O2, Sony, Eada, National Magazines (Esquire, Cosmoplitan, Bazaar, Company), The Guardian and many other brands and organisations, not to mention many celebs. One critic has published the email address of Sony’s CEO, encouraging people to write direct.

Can’t say I’d want to be part of an organisation that advocates blowing up kids. It comes across as ‘eco-fascism’, a tag that has been put against extremist green groups. …”

“…The 10:10 campaign was founded by Franny Armstrong, director of the climate change film The Age of Stupid. In the film an archivist in the devastated world of 2055, asks the question: “Why didn’t we stop climate change when we still had the chance?” He looks back on footage of real people around the world in the years leading up to 2015 before runaway climate change took place. London is now flooded, Sydney is burning, Las Vegas has been swallowed up by desert, the Amazon rain forest has burnt up, snow has vanished from the Alps and nuclear war has laid waste to India (not sure that’s anything to do with climate change but the politics of war). It’s doom and gloom with no positive message.

The idea for 10:10 came to Franny while walking through Regent’s Park on her way to a debate with UK Climate & Energy Secretary Ed Miliband (now Labour leader and probably keeping as far away from this as possible). With her connections she managed to amass lots of celebrities and get lots of PR.
Now’s she is getting all the wrong PR.
…”

http://community.brandrepublic.com/blogs/arnold_on_ethical_marketing/archive/2010/10/04/age-of-stupid-greens-blow-up-school-kids-in-ad-to-sell-climate-change.aspx

350.org

“…350.org is an international environmental organization,[1][2][3] headed by author Bill McKibben,[4] with the goal of building a global grassroots movement to raise awareness of man-made climate change, to confront climate change denial, and to cut emissions of one of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide,[5] [6] in order to slow the rate of global warming, the cause of current climate change. 350.org takes its name from the research of NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who posited in a 2007 paper that 350 parts-per-million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere is a safe [7] upper limit to avoid a climate tipping point.[8][9][10][11][12] The current record level is 392.04 ppm of CO2, an almost 40-percent increase from the pre-industrial revolution level of 278 ppm.[13][14][15] In 1988 the Earth’s atmosphere surpassed the 350 ppm mark,[16] while global CO2 emissions per capita rose.[17][18]

The group reports that they organised the world’s “most widespread day of political action” on Saturday October 24, 2009, reporting 5,245 actions in 181 countries.[19][20][21]

“…The organization was founded by author Bill McKibben,[22] an American environmentalist and writer who frequently writes about global warming, alternative energy, and the need for more localised economies. McKibben promotes the organisation, for instance by writing articles about it for many major newspapers and media, such the Los Angeles Times[23] and The Guardian.[24]

The organising effort drew its name from climate scientist James Hansen’s contention in winter 2008 that any atmospheric concentration of CO2 above 350 parts per million was unsafe. James Hansen opined that “if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that.”[25]

McKibben’s first started to organize against global warming with a walk across Vermont, his home state. His “Step It Up” campaign in 2007 involved 1,400 demonstrations at famous sites across the United States. McKibben credits these activities with making Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama change their energy policies during the presidential campaign. Later, the meltdown of the polar caps pushed him into starting 350.org, based on Hansen’s 2007 book Climate Code Red.[26]

Rajendra Pachauri, the U.N.’s “top climate scientist” and leader of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has come out in favor of reducing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350ppm.[27][28][29] McKibben called news of Pachauri’s embrace of the 350ppm target “amazing”.[30] Some media have indicated that Pachauri’s endorsement of the 350ppm target was a victory for 350.org’s activism.[31][32][33]

The organisation had a lift in prominence after founder McKibben appeared on The Colbert Report television show on Monday August 17, 2009.[34][35][36]

The organisation disseminates its message through social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.[37][38] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350.org

Franny Armstrong

“…Franny Armstrong (born 3 February 1972)[1][2] is a British documentary film director working for her own company, Spanner Films, and a former drummer with indie pop group The Band of Holy Joy. She is primarily known for three films: The Age of Stupid, about climate change, McLibel, about the infamous McDonald’s court case and Drowned Out, following the fight against the Narmada Dam Project. Her most recent project is the UK-wide campaign 10:10, which aims to cut 10% of the UK’s emissions during 2010, has received an unwelcome reception from the audience because of propaganda of violence against global warming skeptics. In November 2009, Armstrong was rescued by London mayor Boris Johnson from an assault by a gang of girls in north London.[3]

“…Armstrong’s first documentary, McLibel (1997, 2005), told the story of the McDonald’s libel trial, the longest-running court action in English history. Filmed over ten years with no commission, no budget and a voluntary crew – including Ken Loach, who directed the courtroom reconstructions – it shot to notoriety when lawyers prevented its broadcast, first at BBC1 and then at Channel 4 in 1997. Eight years later – after the ‘McLibel Two’ had defeated the British government at the European Court of Human Rights – it was finally broadcast on BBC2 at 10.30pm on a Sunday, to an estimated 1 million viewers. It was well received by critics, with Time Out crediting Armstrong with “gusto and wit” in telling a story that “will satisfy both head and heart”.[5] It was then broadcast on TV in 15 countries – including Australia, Canada and the USA – and released on DVD worldwide. McLibel was released in cinemas and DVD stores in the USA in summer 2005 and this was followed in the UK in 2006. McLibel was nominated for numerous awards, including the Grierson Documentary Award and the British Independent Film Awards. It was recently picked for the British Film Institute’s prestigious series, “Ten Documentaries which Changed the World”.

Armstrong’s second feature documentary, Drowned Out (2002), follows an Indian family who chose to stay at home and drown rather than make way for the Narmada Dam. It also sold around the world, was nominated for Best Documentary at the British Independent Film Awards 2004 and was released theatrically in America and DVD worldwide in 2006.

Without backing from the UK TV industry, Armstrong’s films have been seen by more than 56 million people[citation needed]. She has been working full-time on The Age of Stupid (formerly known as Crude) since December 2004. It’s a film that warns of the catastrophic effects of climate change using a mix of factual documentary and post-apocalyptic fictional styles. It was released in the UK on March 13 2009 and had its green-carpet global premiere on September 21 2009. During the Copenhagen climate change conference in December 2009 it was broadcast on BBC4 in the UK and on TV in seven other countries.

In October 2010, a short film, written by Richard Curtis and Armstrong, entitled No Pressure was released by the 10:10 campaign in Britain to spread awareness of climate change. The video was subsequently taken down from the organization’s website due to very negative reception and offence taken.[6] However, it is still available in several places, including YouTube. It depicted a series of scenes in which people were asked if they were going to participate in 10:10. Those who indicated they weren’t planning on participating were told “no pressure” and then blown up in a gory explosion at the press of a red button. [7] In response to questions about the message of the film, she replied, “We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change,”[8] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franny_Armstrong

Spanner Films

Franny Armstrong

“…In September 2009 Franny founded the 10:10 climate campaign which aims to cut the UK’s carbon emissions by 10% during 2010 and which has amassed huge cross-societal support including Adidas, Microsoft, Spurs FC, the Royal Mail, 75,000 people, 1,500 schools, a third of local councils, the entire UK Government and the Prime Minister. 10:10 launched internationally in March 2010 and, as of July 2010, has autonomous campaigns up and running in 41 countries, where some of the key sign-ups include the French Tennis Open, the city of Oslo and L’oreal. 10:10 estimates that organisations doing 10:10 have so far cut 500,000 tonnes of C02. Franny is a Londoner born and bred. …”

http://www.spannerfilms.net/people/franny_armstrong

Carbon Dioxide

“…Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth’s atmosphere in this state. CO2 is a trace gas comprising 0.039% of the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic compounds needed for plant growth and development. It is emitted during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend either directly or indirectly on plants for food. It is thus a major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is generated as a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels or the burning of vegetable matter, among other chemical processes. Amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted from volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs and geysers and by the dissolution of carbonates in crustal rocks. High levels of CO2 are used to increase plant growth in some tightly closed commercial greenhouses.[1][2][3]

As of April 2010[update], carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is at a concentration of 391 ppm by volume.[4] Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the change of the seasons, driven primarily by seasonal plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere. Concentrations of carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and summer as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern autumn and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay. Taking all this into account, the concentration of CO2 grew by about 2 ppm in 2009.[5] Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared.

Before the advent of human-caused release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, concentrations tended to increase with increasing global temperatures, acting as a positive feedback for changes induced by other processes such as orbital cycles.[6] There is a seasonal cycle in CO2 concentration associated primarily with the Northern Hemisphere growing season.[7]

Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 atmospheres. At 1 atmosphere (near mean sea level pressure), the gas deposits directly to a solid at temperatures below −78 °C (−108 °F; 195.1 K) and the solid sublimes directly to a gas above −78 °C. In its solid state, carbon dioxide is commonly called dry ice.

CO2 is an acidic oxide: an aqueous solution turns litmus from blue to pink. It is the anhydride of carbonic acid, an acid which is unstable in aqueous solution, from which it cannot be concentrated. In organisms carbonic acid production is catalysed by the enzyme, carbonic anhydrase.

CO2 + H2O is in equilibrium with H2CO3

CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[8] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

William A. Sprigg, PhD., an IPCC climate scientist, On “Climategate”–Videos

Professor Fred Singer–On Climate Change–Videos

Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Fred Singer On The Climate and Global Warming Alarmists and Junk Science Computer Models –Videos

Al Gore Global Warming Hot Head Says The Artic Ice Cap Will Disappear In 5-10-15 Years–Volcanoe Gate–Eruptions Melt Ice and Increase Carbon Dioxide!–Videos

Climategate–The Political Scam, Investment Fraud, and Science Scandal of The Century Exposed–The Progressive Radical Socialist’s Big Lie And Con That Man Is The Cause Of Global Warming Was In Fact Nothing More Than Politicians, Investment Bankers, and Government Scientists Creating Climate Crisis!–

Glenn Beck, John Bolton, and Lord Christopher Monckton On Copenhagen 2009 Treaty, Climate Change and World Government–Videos

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

“We Can Reverse Climate Change”–President Barack Obama–Liar or Fool–Or Both–You Be The Judge!

John Holdren–Science Czar–Videos

John Holdren: Global Warming: What Do We Know and Should Do–Videos

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Facing Fundamental Facts

Gore Grilled & Gingrich Gouged–American People Oppose Massive Carbon Cap and Trade Tax Increase–Videos

National Center for Policy Analysis–A Global Warming Primer

Global Warming is The Greatest Hoax, Scam and Disinformation Campaign in History

Global Warming Videos

Global Warming Books

Global Warming Sites

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...