Strip club offers to hire class of 2016 for actual money

Strip club in Harrison enrages residents with sign

​There is more after the fold.

‘He thought he could help’: Concealed carry gun-wielder intervenes in domestic dispute and is shot dead

. . . for oft evil will shall evil mar. 

T.J. Antes a "concealed carry permit holder was trying to intervene in a domestic dispute . . . 

Instead, he was killed."

There are lessons to learn here. Mr. Antes did some things right, and made a fatal mistake as well. Overall, Mr. Antes acted in the way we should expect a Marine to act, as a counterpoint to evil, in an attempt to stop a violent man from further violence. 

The fatal error is not a dint on what Mr. Antes did but should be evaluated to keep others from making the same mistake. The general rule is once the person acting violent breaks off the encounter, the concealed carry holder should as well. This is not hard and fast, but once the chance of violence has declined, placing oneself in harms way becomes increasingly difficult to justify. This outcome shows us why. 

Temper fi, and condolences to his family. I am sure he will be greatly missed. I appreciate his attempt to maintain order in a world seeking to spin ever into chaos. His actions where the actions of a man attempting to do good, and thwart evil, but as evil will, it ultimately destroyed itself by killing Mr. Antes. A long prison sentence for Bradden is the only likely outcome from this encounter.

Once part of the story needs to be corrected because it is simply factually wrong. 

The "journalist" writes, "As the number of states allowing people to carry guns has increased, reports of injuries and deaths have also risen." This is an absolutely false statement. 

Some background history, the general move from "may issue" to "shall issue" concealed handgun licensing for most states occurred from the mid 1980s through about 2005 when the emphasis shifted from a move to "shall issue" to "Constitutional carry", essentially the right to carry without the need for a permit.

FBI statistics show that in 1960 the rate of violent crime in the US was 160.9 per 100,000 population. The violent crime rate rose unrelentingly thereafter. And by the mid 1980s the states were taking action to allow their citizens to protect themselves by adopting "shall issue" concealed carry laws.

by 1986 the violent crime rate was 620.1 per 100,000 population. As the states increasingly adopted concealed carry laws the violent crime rate slowed, plateaued and then reversed. The rate was 758.1 in 1991, and then dropped to 506.5 in 2000, and further dropped to 469.0 in 2005. During the slow early adoption of "shall issue" concealed carry laws by states the violent crime rates continued to rise somewhat, but as more states adopted these laws, the crime rate plateaued, and finally dropped. The violent crime rate today after myriad states have adopted "Constitutional carry" is even lower at 375.7 per 100,000 population. 

There is no evidence to support the fact that reports of injuries and deaths has also risen. The evidence does support a serious decline in violent crime, however. The same evidence holds for murder in the US and nearly every other serious or violent crime. 

The "journalist" points the readers to a few anecdotal stories as apparent proof. 

In a different vein, it is interesting that the new face of the American $20 bill will be a black, republican, gun toting, chick who fought the Democrat party for the liberty of an entire peoples, and, with a bit of help, won! You go girl! I would do anything to get rid of the racist, Democrat bigot front man on the bill today. Thanks Obama! Perhaps for the first time I actually mean it.

​Why the Dollar Works and the Euro Doesn’t | The Antiplanner

. . . it all goes well till the blog formatting error on page 2. Sigh! 

"The Greek debt crisis led some people to wonder why a common currency works in the United States but not in Europe. Then came the Puerto Rico debt crisis. Yet what happened in Puerto Rico actually shows why the dollar works when the euro doesn’t.

Normally, a country that finds itself with unsustainable debt can devalue its currency. This reduces the standard of living for the country’s residents but makes it easier for the government to pay off whatever debt it owes in the local currency.

Neither Greece nor Puerto Rico have that option since their currency is shared with other nations or states. As a member of the euro zone, Greece can threaten to leave, destabilizing the entire system, unless other members put up with its profligate spending. Greece isn’t the only one: Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain–the so-called PIGS–all seem to have unsustainable debts that threaten the euro.

Likewise, Puerto Rico is seeking federal relief (they’re calling it a “rescue,” not a bailout), but it has less leverage than Greece because if it somehow left the dollar zone, no one in the rest of the country would notice. But this isn’t the reason why the dollar works and the euro doesn’t.

At heart, the main reason why the dollar works and the euro doesn’t is that every state has a constitutional requirement that it balance its budget each year. That doesn’t mean that states can’t go into debt–they obviously do whenever they sell bonds–but those debt must be backed by real income from taxes or user fees. In contrast, countries joining the euro all promised to keep their debts under control, but no one enforced the promises and debts of the PIGS went out of control."

There are more things as well, but he is correct generally. The two systems are notably different. The state balanced budget requirement is met in Europe with something similar, budget and debt requirements, however, the European nations in the south found ways around these rules, sometimes simply ignoring them, other times creating complex debt arrangements to skirt the laws. 

Other things like the US welfare, unemployment, and other transfer programs work differently than the European system. The system in Europe would more resemble the US if the US federal government collected only enough taxes to function the government and required the states to collect taxes and pay for pretty much all the actual programs like welfare, defense, roads, etc. Thus, in the US if there is a localized recession in a state, the federal government payments of unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, etc. all help to mitigate the poor economy. While in Europe this cannot happen. Greece must tax and pay for all of its internal costs, there are no transfer payments from the federal government.

We can analogize the systems like this: the US is a system where the 50 states are all traveling together but in a vehicle. If one state becomes economically "sick," the federal government through transfer payments cans help nurse it back to health. The economy in the US can continue to move along, since the "sick" state is protected. While in Europe the system is more like each nation is a separate vehicle rigidly connected together by spokes, if one nation becomes economically "sick" it will be dragged along by the other healthier nations, or the entire economy must be slowed to the pace of the "sick" nation. Germany keeps the economy humming, so the "sick" are simply dragged, with parts falling off, slowly being ground to dust.

The south countries were let into the Eurozone because the north had excess manufacturing capacity, and the south had the desire for additional consumption. The dirty little secret was that the north simply looked the other way during the boom times in the 1990s-2000s when the south countries were running up debt. The north liked the fact that the south was buying like mad, and the north didn't mind lending them the money at minuscule interest rates to do so. The wheels fell off the buggy after 2008 as it became clear the debt owed by the south was effectively unrepayable. 

Interestingly, this is a game similar to the one the US played after WWII with the Marshall plan. The difference being the Marshall plan was limited in duration and amount, but designed quickly to return Europe to international trading stature. In essence, the US took the role of the north, the manufacturer, producer, and lender, while Europe took the south position, as debtor, and consumer. The big difference was that the role was limited in time, and within a decade Europe became a manufacturing zone with brand new mills, and factories. This never happened in the European south, they only wanted to be consumers. The biggest difference is that Europe under the Marshall plan became a productive producer zone, while the European south only became a consumer region, the money was not used to create valuable productive assets, but only to consume. This has relegated the south to the status of welfare debt slavery.

I am not sure what happened on page two of the Antiplanner blog, I will try to update once he corrects the problem.

Olivier Blanchard eyes ugly 'end game' for Japan on debt spiral

. . . how the hell does a country decide to allow the debt level to reach 250% of GDP?

"Japan is heading for a full-blown solvency crisis as the country runs out of local investors and may ultimately be forced to inflate away its debt in a desperate end-game, one of the world’s most influential economists has warned.

Olivier Blanchard, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, said zero interest rates have disguised the underlying danger posed by Japan’s public debt, likely to reach 250pc of GDP this year and spiraling upwards on an unsustainable trajectory."

I can still remember back in the 1980s when Japan was going to take over the world, and the value of land in Tokyo was higher than all the land in the US. Needless to say, that little bubble popped. Soon after, Japan slid into its old age, with its economy barely able to get up to use the toilet. 

The article starts out focused and worried about Japan, but quickly turns its attention to Europe, as it should. 

I keep asking myself, who would lend money to the Japanese? Only younger Japanese. Demographically, Japan is dying. There are too many old, too few young, and the workforce is contracting. They will need to achieve near perfect robotization to fill their factory floors, take care of the old, keep the water, and sewers running, and babysit the vanishingly few children. How long before all that is left is an island of robots? Well, we know when Japan has reached that point when the robots are making 2nd generation sex robots to satisfy the 1st generation sex robots. 

Europe is hot on Japan's heels with bad demographics, an impossibly weak economy, and a large number of nations which appear to be in permanent economic depression. 

The solution to these problems is not particularly difficult, but requires tax reform, work rule reforms, wage reforms, union reforms, political reforms, welfare reforms and there is less than zero interest in any of this. The Germanic north, and Scandinavia seem to be willing to make serious reforms, and when implemented, the reforms, work well. They might be slow in implementing these changes, but they happen. The south is unwilling to even contemplate real change.

Eventually the article glances off the whole Brexit problem, but answers no questions. Britain is faced with this question, should it stay in the Eurozone, build its relations there becoming a full member? Or should Britain leave the Eurozone and build relations elsewhere? 

The above analysis seems compelling. Europe is mostly a disaster sliding into economic catastrophe. Why would Britain agree to that? Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, and more are in dire shape, with debt averaging well above 100% of GDP. All claim to be following the rules, but still debt seems to increase endlessly. These countries are in what amounts to a permanent depression. Exactly what does Britain stand to gain from these relationships? Debt? Obligations? 

Perhaps it is time to look elsewhere. Perhaps the NAFTA could provide some direction. Britain could turn away from Europe, and turn to its former colonies, like Canada, and even America. It could form, or join existing trade agreements between these nations. The nations involved in NAFTA have far more economic potential than do the European countries. These are mostly active and healthy economies. 

It will be interesting to see what Britain does. I await the referendum. 

Kyle Bass Blog

7 hard truths about money, in cartoons that will make you smile

My advice isn't funny, but it is solid. 

1. It is easiest to have money withheld from you paycheck. You will never notice it. If you cannot do that, put it away, into an IRA before you do anything else with your money. 

2. Tax favored accounts like IRA's, and 401K's are brilliant since they allow you to build wealth without Uncle Sam taking a bite each year. Roth IRA's are better because the money is not taxed when you take it out in retirement.

3. Invest primarily in index mutual funds or the equivalent. These have low fees, and commonly do better than funds attempting to meet their performance. Plus, they really are invest and forget investments.

4. Start young. 

5. If you have an investment horizon of longer than 10 to 15 years, keep you money in the stock market. 

6. Even if you receive a windfall, say an IRA inherited from a grandparent, you should maintain discipline, and make your IRA contribution each and every year. 

For parents and grandparents: Help you children invest in IRA's once they begin earning money. I offered my son a 100% match if he would stash a significant amount of money in a bank account for a "rainy day." At 21 he now has a retirement savings of just about one half of that of the average Boomer, he also received a large windfall of retirement income when his grandfather died. 

Baby Boomers Face a Shocking Retirement Savings Shortfall