| Wednesday,
April 20, 2011 I can miss things
Dear Jerry,
Well, this time I did not miss
anything.
"Gary Brecher" is a non-person. It's widely considered
to be a fictitious character created by "The Exile" to cover the writer(s)
of "The War Nerd" columns. This has been known for years.
"Brecher's" "book" (fictitious characters tend to
accumulate quotation marks) is an assemblage of his "best" columns,
"published" by the parent company of "The Exile".
Here's Wikipedia's article on "Brecher"-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Brecher
From the article-
"On June 25, 2008, the following revelation is made on
citypaper.net [4] <http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2008/06/26/nonfiction-reviews>
in the course of a review of the War Nerd book: But the War Nerd is, in
fact, neither of those things. He is not even Gary Brecher! Brecher is the
creation of John Dolan, a poet, novelist, lecturer in English at the
University of Victoria, and The eXile co-editor. That's very exciting news
for the War Nerd's regular readers: The columns you've been dissecting and
debating for the last six years were written by an English professor who
writes poetry!"
"Brecher's" writings fit the mold of a University
English professor who came of age in the Silly Sixties.
I guess a journal published in Moscow in English is
not an "English language Russian", if only because it is not devoted to
Russian affairs.
Anyway, John Dolan the former university English
professor, is likely the creator of both "The War Nerd" and "Gary Brecher".
It's the sort of "aging young jackanapes" tomfoolery former (?) sixties
radicals indulge in. Yippies, Hippies, and dippies, like cheap wine, don't
mature.
While not terribly serious, this is a fair example of
how "New Media" can be exploited, to forward an agenda and make a few
simoleons for the exploiter.
Heck, I might just "publish" a "book" of my own
"columns". Since I am summat "fictitious" myself!
Petronius
O dear.
==
Mr. Pournelle,
I'm writing in response to your published letters from
Petronius and Alex Krol in your Mail 671, concerning the Exiled Online's
column, "The War Nerd." While Mr. Krol's link shows a profile for the author
of the column, Gary Brecher, googling Mr. Brecher or visiting his wikipedia
page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Brecher>
, shows that the author is a pseudonym.
Personally, as a minor fan of Mr. Brecher's earlier
work, (available at either the exiled online or in the archives of the
exile.ru site) I hold with the theory that Gary Brecher was actually John
Dolan <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dolan_(writer)>
. The column went on hiatus for roughly a year or so, following the
publishing of the War Nerd's eponymous book. While the column has re-started
within the last month or so, the tone and syntax strikes me as a poor
imitation of the author's earlier works: much more devoted to analyzing
technology rather than the psychology of combatants, and much poorer in
fact-checking. This, coupled with the omission of Mr. Dolan from the
profiles cited by Mr. Krol, leads me to believe that someone else at the
Exiled is writing most of the new columns. As I do not work for either the
Exiled or the original Exile, I have no idea if this is actually the case;
still, it is a feeling I have from reading and comparing both sets of text.
Too bad, as while the War Nerd had a definite juvenile
tone, the column occasionally had decent insights and predictions as to the
course of OIF, the GWOT, and warfare in general. I agree with your comment
that you lacked any confidence that you would find reliable information in
delving further into his content.
Sincerely, Jake Fetters
While I pretend to know everything, or at least
something about everything, I find as I get older that I can't read
everything about everything, and I long lost the habit of reading the war
nerd; I have other sources of information and commentary, and I tend to do
my own analysis when I can.
Thanks.
===========
"Gadhafi has always been one of our darlings in the
name-matching community."
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704004004576270931677317512.html>
-- Roland Dobbins
============
What are the facts?
Dear Jerry,
"What are the facts? Again and again and again —
what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation,
forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the
neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" — what
are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an
unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"
-Robert A. Heinlein
Professor Blinder, in his recent WSJ opinion piece
that you quoted in VIEW, makes a persuasive argument based on emotion, and
some "cherry picked" data, that the USA Federal government is underfunded.
FACTS-
United States Economy in 1951-
I found that the American economy for 1950 was $350
Billion Multiple sources give the average annual USA economic growth for the
period 1946-1971 as about four per cent, which gives an economy for 1951 of
about $364 Billion.
This useful calculator will give you the value of a
dollar of a given year in dollars of any other year-
<http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?
cost1=1&year1=1951&year2=2011>
$1 in 1951 = $8.59 in 2011
American economy in 2010 = $14.7 trillion
Forecasted growth for 2011 (recently lowered) is 2.5
per cent.
That rate gives a little over $15 trillion as the size
of the American economy for 2011.
(2011)$15 Trillion divided by (2011)$8.59/(1951)
$1.00) = (1951)$1.746 Trillion
So the projected American 2011 GDP is, in 1951
dollars, One Trillion 746 Billion.
American GDP for 2011 of (1951)$1.746 Trillion divided
by American GDP for 1951 of (1951)$364 Billion = 4.8 (Yes, I am rounding off
to the nearest tenth)
So in "constant" dollars the American economy in 2011
is nearly five times larger than it was in 1951.
The population of the United States in 1950 (nearest
census to 1951) was 151 million.
The population of the United States in 2010 (nearest
census to 2011) is 308 million.
So the population of the United States for 2011 is
about twice that of 1951, while the economy has nearly quintupled.
The Federal government now takes 23.75 per cent of
GDP. In 1951 it took 14.75 per cent.\ of GDP.
Okay, so the GDP for 1951 was 364 Billion, and the
Federal government took 14.75 per cent, which is-
(1951)$364 Billion X 14.75% = (1951)$53.9 Billion
Professor Blinder argues a return to the 1951 rate of
14.75 per cent would be catastrophic.
2011 US GDP of (1951)$1.746 Trillion X 14.75% -
(1951)$258 Billion,
So the Federal government, according to Blinder, would
be massively underfunded if it has IN REAL CONSTANT DOLLARS nearly five
times as much money as it had in 1951.
Okay, but the population did double. So the Federal
government would be massively underfunded, according to Blinder, if it only
had two and a half times the money it had in 1951. IN CONSTANT DOLLARS, I
remind you again.
Professor Blinder argues, in effect, that if only the
Federal government could have, say, FIVE TIMES as much money IN REAL
CONSTANT DOLLARS as it did in 1951, that it might then be able to stop
borrowing.
So, those are the facts. It took ,me less than an hour
to find, assemble and write this letter. Professor Blinder seems to have
carefully avoided them in his opinion piece. Of course, that's why it is
called opinion.
The following is opinion-
I put it to you that Professor Blinder is an ass.
Petronius
=========
Consequences
Jerry
It appears that many of our leaders have forgotten
that all actions have consequences. Doing nothing also has cosequences.
"Climate Change" is but one area where the
consequences of action and inaction hsve not been properly defined.
Doing nothing, in the short to medium term, most
likely, has no unfortunate consequences so long as UNBIASED climate research
continues so that we csn gain a better undersasnding of the what drives
"Climate Change" and how we might be able to moderate it.
Reducing Carbon emissions by fiat, on the other hand,
has some very negative economic consequences as well as a high probability
of having no positive impact on Climate with other possible negatve impacts.
"No Nukes" is another one of those gotchas. If we
build no new electric generating capacity there are two major consequences.
Electricity prices rise and shortages are likely. As a result there will be
a decrease in Economic Activity and Qulity of Life. A secondary consequence
is a reduction in Tax Revenue and an increase in deficit spending with a
further debasing of our Currency.
If we build new conventionally powered, coal and
natural gas, the resulting emissions and hazards to life and limb from
mining, transportation, and drilling will be many orders of magnitude
greater than building new Nuclear Generating capacity.
There are many other examples that could be cited.
However, these should lead to the conclusion that if we wish to maintain any
semblence of our current economy and quality of life for future generations
we need to start building Nuclear Power Plants NOW!
If we want to preserve our planet and Climate for
future generstions we MUST fund UNBIASED research of Climate Change and
avoid precipitate action that may have unintended and undesireable effects.
Bob Holmes
==========
Where does money go?
The President wants to raise taxes (to Clinton-era
levels; or alternatively, he wants to "reduce spending through the tax
code," in his wonderfully Orwellian turn of phrase) on singles making more
than $200,000 per year or couples making more than $250,000 per year.
Let's look at how this person (or couple) spends his
or her (their) money:
Purchases of personal effects (food, clothing,
shelter, transportation, basic news and entertainment, luxuries): stimulates
private economy. Purchases of personal services, some of which may be
classified as luxuries (child care, house cleaning, lawn services, home
repairs, education expenses, tax preparation, etc): stimulates private
economy Purchases of personal real estate (first/second homes not used as
investment properties): stimulates private economy but potentially subject
to "bubbles" if pursued under anomalous investment rules. Purchases of
professional effects (professional memberships, continuing education,
professional subscriptions and books): stimulates private economy Payment of
business expenses accrued to personal expenses through sole proprietorship,
professional partnership, and/or ownership of S-chapter or LLC corporation
(employee salaries and compensation, office rental and supplies, compliance
expenses and fees, accounting expenses, etc.): stimulates private economy
Donations to private charities Payment of interest in personal debt Personal
investment in state, corporate, or private bonds, business startups,
income-producing real estate including mineral rights, and other "new"
business ventures: stimulate private economy Personal investment in publicly
traded stocks: If pursued primarily for stock value growth rather than
income, speculative and one leading cause of bubbles; stimulates financial
markets only. If pursued primarily for income, stimulates private economy.
Purchases of savings bonds and other treasury instruments: Provides a
secure, steady but low income relative to private investment. Payment of
state and local taxes, and the portion of federal income and excise taxes
apportioned to highway construction, public health and safety (including
portions of federal medical research, federal transportation safety, OSHA,
EPA, NOAA/USGS and related agencies, and the Department of Agriculture), and
education: Pays for public services subscribed to by the person paying
taxes. Ideally, in a more economical fashion than such services would
otherwise be provided. However, we live in a less (considering federal
spending inefficiencies, considerably less) than ideal world. Payment of
social security / medicare taxes: Pays for other people to receive
compensation and medical services which they have not personally earned
(other than promises-to-pay in return for their providing such services to
others prior to their own retirement). A tax on society as a whole with no
corresponding return in growth in economic opportunity through investment,
because it was set up this way. Has been described as a net transfer of
wealth from young black males to elderly white females. Payment of federal
taxes apportioned to defense, war veteran's benefits, and civilian research
and development with defense components or broad commercial benefit (e.g.
parts of NASA, Departments of Energy, and medical research): A tax on
society as a whole with, ideally, a return to the economy through security
and economic growth. Again, this is the federal government; ideal is .. an
ideal. Payment of federal taxes apportioned to all other current federal
activities: At best, "transfers of wealth" to non-producers and their
federal handlers (and to our debtors through interest payments), which acts
as a net damper on the overall economy through loss of labor from the
production pool and the resulting growth of capital.
As seen in this succinct but fairly complete summary,
one might want to tax luxuries and dampen "bubbles" (which are really a form
of subsidized gambling, particularly when the government acts to insure the
losers). And one wants to eliminate government inefficiencies, and transfers
of wealth (certainly in excess of promises to pay, and some people might
argue that...)
But a general tax will probably affect private sector
activity -- thereby reducing the tax base that the government hopes to
gather future revenue from) as much or more as it will affect speculative
activity.
What we have to do is get the government out of the
business of covering business losses, and of paying people not to work (and
paying people to pay people not to work).
In other words,
In a capitalist economy, wealth becomes distributed to
the more effective producers, who used it to create additional jobs.
In a "democratic socialist" economy, with becomes
concentrated in the government and in favored producers (favored because
they buy government favor), to be distributed at whim of the politicians to
create more dependency. This can continue for a while, but it intrinsically
less efficient than pure capitalism, and the total wealth of the economy is
reduced accordingly.
In a purely socialist economy, wealth becomes
concentrated in the government to be distributed at whim of the politicians
to create more dependency. But without the producers, there is a lot less
wealth to distribute.
Just sayin'
=========
Entitlements: to give (a person) the right to do or
have something; qualify;allow.
I am all for getting rid of Medicare, Medicaid and
Social Security. If the Government will just send me a check for the 39
years worth of Social Security payments and Medical Benefit payments I've
paid in, I'll take that money and put it in Roth IRAs and my current 403b
account. We'll call it square.
But of course, they don't have the money because
they've spent it on.... whatever nonsense they spent my money on. In my
view, the only thing worse than a Republican is a Democrat. The Republicans
take my money and give it to their friends. The Democrats take my money and
give it to the poor (and their friends). Either way the money is gone and I
see little real benefit coming back my way. I wouldn't mind so much if I
thought they were spending it wisely: building roads, maintaining
infrastructure, paying for police, fire and emergency services and similar
expenditures. But they aren't. As far as I'm concerned taxation today is
just legalized racketeering. A giant protection racket.
I know this is simplistic. But I seldom see anything
to suggest it isn't, at the base, true. A pox on both their houses.
Randy Wildwood, WA
================
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Wednesday
|
