Posts Tagged ‘Democrats’

How Do You Spell Obama?

December 3, 2016

In 12 months even democrats, especially democrats, will not know how to spell O B A M A…. At least one may hope so. That would mean that the mood has, finally changed. Instead of being in the mood of denying crucial social indicators, when Democrats would forget their obsession with Obama’s skin color, and would concentrate onto more significant characteristics, such as WHITE POPULATION LIFE EXPECTANCY.

By neglecting life itself, Democrats’ souls sold themselves to the Demon (yes, Demon, Satan, figuratively, but tellingly speaking; BTW, “Shatan”, Satan, also exists in Islam and has functional equivalents in Zoroastrianism, and, thus India).

Democrats indulged in demonic distraction: long ago, the leadership of the Democratic Party sold their souls. This happened under Jimmy Carter, a Democratic saint who ordered the secret attack against Afghanistan. (A fact democrats try very hard to not pay any attention to.) While the US was busy destroying the world, China was busy grabbing everything in sight, especially production (China also holds the largest amount of US government debt, which makes the… US as strong as the Pentagon):

If We Produce Everything, And You Produce Nothing, We Are Everything, And You Are Nothing.

If We Produce Everything, And You Produce Nothing, We Are Everything, And You Are Nothing.

[The real production situation is even worse, and getting even much worse, very quickly, when one looks at manufacturing; another dreadful twist is that South East Asia production is climbing even faster than China, although not in the graph above; see below.]

That attack against Afghanistan was a conspiracy of a Machiavellian index superior to anything Machiavel himself was involved in, or could conceive of. By orders of magnitude: Machiavelli’s activities were between Tuscany and the region immediately east of it, where Cesare Borgia was trying to build a power that could dominate (part of) Italy (although that Biorgia venture was obviously hopeless, considering the immense power of multimillennial France and the ferocity of the uppity Spanish empire!)

Whereas the Democrats, under US president Jimmy Carter encompassed the entire planet in an enormous conspiracy. That conspiracy was deliberately engineered to bring the downfall of the USSR, never mind the millions of Afghans killed in the process. Yes, it worked. The USSR collapsed, and then Harvard and its ilk served poison to Russian president Yeltsin (poison, figuratively speaking; these are not the dreaded “fake news“!). Out of Pluto abuse in Russia came the new Tsar, Putin (who apparently now blocks this site in Russia, just as Xi does in China!) It worked, but the Democrats paid their win with their souls. So when life expectancy of whites went up in the USA, more than 20 years ago, they averted their eyes, and diverted their souls.

Diversion of souls and brains? Watch Obama’s tweeter feed, obsessed as it is by sport teams; sport teams are little more than teams of thieves, as demonstrated by the tax evasion of professional footballers in the order of billions. Relative to Obama, Trump’s tweeter feed looks positively intellectual. Yes, I know, it’s shocking. But I don’t write Obama’s childish tweeter feed. The most admirers footballers in the world are actually some of the greatest known thieves in the world, something which in a demon-power world (pluto-cratic world, to translate…) is of course the best way to educate little children to become themselves demonic monsters.

“The Football Leaks documents “show how the Real Madrid star (Ronaldo) has discreetly deposited 149.5 million euros of sponsorship earnings in tax havens. The forward paid only 5.6 million euros in tax – about 4 percent of this fortune”, wrote Mediapart.”

One of these tax havens, central as a hub, to the tax thievery of people like criminal suspect Ronaldo are the British Virgin Islands, a part of the Brexiting “Great” Britain. Great at tax evasion, for sure. (British organize tax evasion makes Britain, or, at least, British plutocracy, wealthier…)

The preceding, according to the primitives billionaires who own the media in the USA, and, now, most of the world, would make me the author of “fake news”, as it involves “conspiracies”. Mr. Zuckerberg, who owns more than 50 billion dollars and now wears a tie, has indeed decided that “fake news” involve the belief that a “conspiracy” has happened. He knows no history, or then two or three books he claims to have read, so he could fake to be knowledgeable.  

So the Democrats had no more souls, by the time governor Bill Clinton was collaborating with Ronald Reagan on Iran-Contra, putting a remote airport at the disposition of the conniving Republican president’s unlawful venture.

Yesterday Trump saved a few thousand jobs. Obama sneered:Trump will not be able to save jobs, what is he going to do? Wave a magic wand?

Of course. Obama should have taken politics 101. The US president has a magic wand in his hand. Obama had a magic wand in his hand. But, like a dummy, he did not know how to use it. Mike Pence, Trump VP, ex-governor, ex-Congressman replied to the one who did not know how to use his wand: “Trump went to talk to the CEO of Carrier, American to American. We talked. We promised a 7 million dollar/year rebate” Obama could read his teleprompter, but not, really, talk. (The Democrats officially replied taxpayers would pay the 7 million. Well, of course not so. Does not work that way: the US government has several ways to create money ex-nihilo. Plus, he could pass laws to put the tax cheating CEOs in jail for real, and all their collaborators… I am sure the French and the Germans will be eager to help…)

This is a general phenomenon, this obsession with irrelevancies. It is not just about being Obsessive Compulsive about the “glass ceiling”. The Democrats were also Obsessive Compulsive about many mostly irrelevant and 100% misunderstood issues, which enabled them to ignore society’s greatest ills.

The Demoncratic elite was centered on its talking points and thoughtless visions: “Obama saved the economy”, “Quantitative Easing Worked”, “Obama added ten million jobs”, “Obamacare covered some who were not worked, so it worked”, that they did not focus on the obvious flaws of all these observations (Obama followed the Bush-Paulson plan to “save” the economy; in truth he saved the rich, and saved them some more with QE; the population augmented by 24 millions under Obama, but the situation of employment (not U2!) is close to the worse ever; health care in the US is a disaster relative to any other countries, and getting relatively worse, and ever more expensive, etc.)

Democrats were in their own epistemological bubbles, and they persevered: errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum. They persevere in their errors, by refusing to look at them. Thus they fully deserve the demoncrat label, plutocrat, in other words…

This is not just true in the USA. In Europe domestic production collapsed, in 16 short years, to a quarter of what it used to be, relative to Emerging Asia, The Economist just revealed, using IMF data. (Yes that excludes light weights such as South Korea, Japan, etc.) We have been led by the most incompetent leaders in a very long time. In Europe, and the USA.

It’s a collapse!

Let me repeat. Who are these fools who take themselves for leaders? Since 2000, the GDP manufacturing production of Europe has gone done 75% relative to South-East Asia.

The same problem is obvious with Islam. “Democrats” and their ilk in Europe, tell us Islam is a good thing, we have to respect it. And if we fear it, we have “Islamophobia”, and that’s racist. Whatever they mean, or whatever is meant, by Islam (there are more than 100 Islams, and they want to kill each other… It’s a religious duty). Meanwhile those loud Islamophiles carefully avoid the few evenings it would take to read and debate the Qur’an’s 400 pages leisurely…. And discover it is 100% incompatible with democracy, or, even, human ethology, let alone civilization. Hey, of course: they are comfortable, deep inside their folly.

Just as the “Democratic” elite, in its folly, thought that “breaking the glass ceiling” (of a woman becoming US President) was a more important factor that the fact that, under that woman’s rule, the White Population of the USA started to die more and more… It is folly to suppose most people, most of the time, will put survival below any other consideration. If human beings had minds like that, our species would not exist, let alone would have become Gods on Earth. Yes, I know, a heavy-duty.

Patrice Ayme’

Supply Side Epic Fail

November 24, 2013

Comments made on the world wide web show that some don’t get what I say in economics.

Liberals with a self defined “conscience”, such as Krugman, Obama, and pretty much the entire democratic establishment in the USA have promoted a loose monetary policy, low regulation, and the redeeming values of the “marketplace”. Ever since 2008, those self described “liberals” have sent more money to the biggest bankers, their “friends”, in charge of reviving the economy that said bankers had just collapsed.

This strange methodology has a name “Supply side economics“. It has not been effective at all in increasing demand and lowering unemployment. But it has propped up the fortunes of the wealthiest people to new heights.

How could that have happened? Simple: the money, the “liquidity” goes to the biggest banks, exactly those which caused the bubbles and crashes. Why? Bubles are their financial breathing; inhale, buy; exhale: sell short. Trouble? Threaten the governments, and force them to fork more money over to the big banks way too big to fail, through the central banks, or the sort of debt “relief” extended to the likes of Greece.

(That pattern was slightly broken with Cyprus, but then Russian plutocrats occupied the vacuum).

A reason for asset inflation is that the return on investment for increasing production capacity is close to zero in an environment characterized by low demand, excess production capacity, zero CPI inflation, and low innovation. New factories are not built when the existing ones cannot sell at full capacity, and when there is no reason to completely retool.

The low innovation is related to the attitude of governments. Government have to create innovation demand by introducing new technology. A country researcher-in-chief ought to be the government.

Just look at France. Over the last few centuries, the push of government to innovation was crucial… To bring worldwide innovation. After all, even Louis XIV financed the Dutch Huyghens (who invented, among other things, the wave theory of light).

French government demand created the first cars (in the 18C), the fist hot air balloons, better explosives (1790s), first planes (Ader and company), and the first nuclear program (Paris January 1938). Also in the 1830s, the government bought the patent for photography, so that “all of humanity could profit“. In England, it was decided, early on, by the government, to finance trains, instead of the sort of freeways for individual cars Mr. Macadam and his friends wanted to build. (At the time cars were steam driven.)

Nowadays, instead investors, deprived of meaningful pursuits, chase one another to higher returns in speculative asset trading including art, stocks and real estate. Thus the world ugliest triptych was sold for the greatest price ever.

In the USA, government encourages fracking. A “bridge fuel” said Obama. Clearly a bridge to nowhere: as it is, with existing technology, the ecological impact of fracking is so nefarious, that it is, clearly a Ponzi scheme. (Yes, banks are feeding it, similarly to the subprime bubble, and similarly to that, with the full support of the present government of the USA, and that is why fracking is happening, on such a massive scale, in the USA alone; the technology has been around for decades, although horizontal drilling has improved it.)

To cut down this meaningless activities, asset speculation ought to be mitigated by increasing taxes on higher incomes and short term capital gains. Also a wealth tax on land and properties should be cranked up (they are already so, in places such as France, but certainly not in the UK and USA; the latter exemption makes the former uncompetitive!).

Meanwhile meaningful innovation, like figuring out the details of large Thorium reactors, ought to be pushed… in government research programs, something private industry cannot do.

(Instead Obama financed things such as electric car and battery companies, something private industry can do; the money thus diverted was not available for more fundamental pursuits.)

Government spending on innovation, health, education, infrastructure, and housing ought to be increased, paid by the 93% tax on income republican president Eisenhower had instituted.

This has to be done in a subtle manner. For example the Pelosi style Demoncrats have argued Obamacare augmented health spending. And it does, straight into the pockets of plutocrats. It’s not because one knows how to push on the accelerator, that one knows how to drive.

If the 99% had more money in their pockets, consumer demand would increase.

In any case, the so called “supply side theory” and its attendant bubbles have been fully repudiated. Supply Side economics is another name for plutocracy rising. It has completely infected the economy of the USA, starting 20 years ago (that is, under Clinton).

Supply Side Economics believe that the “marketplace”, if left completely free, lower prices on “consumers”. So it is also the theory behind “Obamacare”, and why Obama transformed patients into consumers exerting their free market choice. Supply Side, just as Obamacare, neglects corruption and human nature and its attendant greed (that’s why the Obamacare website failed).

A central feature of Supply Side is the tax rate. In the USA in recent decades the concept has been named after a right winger, Arthur Laffer. However it originated with a French economist, and engineer, the polytechnicien Arsene Jules Etienne Juvenal Dupuit, in the 1850s. (As a good USA right winger, Laffer is careful not to attribute to a Frenchman the invention of the concept that bears his name.)

Kennedy reduced taxes from a top marginal rate of 91% to 65%, high on the Dupuit Curve and hence increasing government revenue. But Reagan reduced taxes from a top marginal rate of 50% to 28%, lower on the Dupuit Curve and thus decreased government revenue (as part of his government killing program). Obama, of course, lowered taxes much further, and, although a very rich man, pays only a 174 or so overall tax rate.

That Krugman and Summers loudly return to their Reagan roots, and advertize bubbles as the way out for the economy, for all to see, something that Reagan himself may have frown on, is truly amazing. The impudence. The bull headedness.

The problem in the USA is not the Tea Party. After all, it did not get to power. Yet. The problem is that democrats implemented Supply Side Economics, namely lowering taxes on the rich to the point deficits could be used as an argument to destroy the Great Society that Kennedy and Johnson put in place.

A mathematically interesting self feeding vicious loop.


Patrice Ayme


August 9, 2008



Warning: The present author is as fanatically ecological as they come, and thinks that burning oil is super dumb. This being said, contrarily to appearances, there is no contradiction with the following. Some decry “Know Nothing Politics”, we go further, and decry “Know Not Enough Thinking”.


In a long editorial in the New York Times, Paul Krugman vents his increasingly impotent rage (“Know Nothing Politics”, August 7, 2008): “Republicans, once hailed as the “party of ideas,” have become the party of stupid… And I certainly don’t mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives. What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.””…

Somewhat illogically on the emotional level, Krugman brandishes von Schiller’s famous quote: “Against Stupidity Even the Gods Themselves Contend in Vain”.

The cause of Professor Krugman’s ire? Drilling. Let’s not guess that he never flies planes and don’t drive a car: that would be too stupid. Another thing that irritates Prof. Krugman: by evoking the “often frightening smarts” of republicans, he acknowledges that republicans play stupid on TV, whereas democrats play stupid for real.

It was even more frighteningly stupid to make drilling an issue. Not drilling was clearly a battle that could not be won. But never mind; as long as one democrat will be standing proud, guzzling oil, he will fight that pointless battle.

I disagreed on some points of Prof. Krugman’s editorial, and tried to express my technical point of views in three carefully reasoned and researched posts on his blog, and they were all rejected as dreadful heresies (who is stupid now?).

So never mind elaborated technical reasons. The simple question is this: if “Against Stupidity Even the Gods Themselves Contend in Vain”, then how come the democrats put themselves in a situation where stupidity could be used against them? Did they want to lose? That’s the question Professor Krugman’s logic irresistibly leads to.

Indeed the stupid ones are the ones who let drilling become an issue, when, in the present state of technology, everybody uses drilling. Democrats use drilling. Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi uses drilling in the fancy downhill ski resort she owns in California (most democratic operators are immensely wealthy, they play poor on TV).

Civilization would collapse completely without drilling. It’s immoral to incite only the Arabs to drill, while the USA patrols offshore with aircraft carriers, to make sure they keep on drilling enthusiastically. The democratic program in a nutshell: offshore patrolling with aircraft carriers in Arabia, thus no offshore drilling at home.

France produces less than a third of the emission of CO2 per person that the USA does (while achieving higher standards of living). France has long achieved Gore’s 2008 dream (producing in 2018 around 95% of US electricity from non carbon sources). Still, France is drilling as much as she can, and some of it next to Paris. In that extremely ecological country, drilling is not an issue (not even the worst, foaming at the mouth French ecologists seem to mind: they use oil too). Even the fanatically ecological Swiss are hoping there is lot of gas below their micro sea, Lac Leman, and are drilling it!

In Switzerland, houses are watched by helicopter to see if they leak heat more than is legal, and running an engine while a car is immobile is unlawful. But drilling offshore in the Leman, that pristine jewel, is correct. Nobody is protesting. Protesting hydrocarbon extraction would strike any European as supremely hypocritical. Natural gas is pretty ecological. It is as close to hydrogen as possible (see elaborated note on this elementary chemistry).

But then Speaker Nancy Pelosi, apparently an expert of not talking about what’s important by talking about what’s unimportant, was asked why she did not submit drilling to a vote in Congress, and she answered grandly: “I am trying to save the planet, I am trying to save the planet.” While looking like a deer in headlights, perhaps because she was struck by the enormity of her hypocrisy, explaining her saucer like eyes. Or maybe she was desperately busy with her next task, making up a story about why her ski resort is saving the planet too.

Saving the planet by not drilling off Nancy’s Northern Californian shore is a red herring. What the US needs is higher energy taxes, that will force efficiency and provide capital for investments. Speaking about the horror of offshore forever avoids the even greater horror of adressing the crisis with serious measures, such as taxes.

After the recent oil spike, France came up with a flurry of new taxes on energy, and gas guzzlers, that were passed into law quasi instantaneously, while increasing subsidies for the poor to compensate.  

Meanwhile Senator Barack Obama has made the concession of becoming intelligent about drilling (he is ready to allow drilling if the republicans themselves become intelligent, a condition the republicans may find intelligent not to satisfy, because they do not want to contend in vain).

DRILLING OFFSHORE MAY BECOME PLANET SAVING BY GETTING RID OF METHANE HYDRATES (Japan and China are already investing in that direction). And that we may have to do if the heating keeps on going.

Here is the long story short: paleontologists were mystified by episodes of extremely brutal overheating of the planet. Typically it was real hot, and then it became amazingly hot (some massive extinctions events seem to have followed). All sorts of fancy explanations were attempted. It seems these bouts of overheating were caused by methane eruptions. Methane has 60 times the greenhouse power of CO2 within 20 years, 21 times within a century.

It is true, and unsurprising, that against stupidity the democrats contend in vain. But these stupid issues they chose themselves. Other stupid issues include: not offering to Clinton the Vice Presidential candidate position (that should have been done long ago), and taxing the upper middle class to death while engineering a tax refuge for the hyper rich (the zero capital gain tax on Venture Capital Funds proposed by Obama at this point).

These issues will cost the Presidential election to the democrats. The drilling stupidity the democrats organized for themselves to lose is just a little warm up. The tax stupidity will be the killing blow. Republicans are just waiting until it’s too late, to spring the trap.

Why such stupidities are central to democratic strategy is explained by the apparent presence of double agents in the democratic party. Obama’s tax adviser from the University of Chicago economic department (a notorious center of right wing survival of the fittest, trickle down economics) delivers ambiguous discourses about “the future”, and doing away with “the past”. Apparently he means out with old tax loopholes for the hyper rich, in with the new. Warren Buffet, who made billions from maximizing his profits in US health “care”, is a trusted, and flaunted, adviser on the same tax subject, etc… I will momentarily refrain from mentioning previous great “socialist” leaders who had great US billionaires as trusted help (OK, if you insist: Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler…). Not that I compare anybody alive with those, I am just pointing out that the same mechanism is at work. We have been down that road before, the world knows what it means. The US population may even vaguely recognize the pattern, smell the fish. 

Of course the USA needs higher taxes, but on energy and consumption, and on the hyper rich. To compensate, give the poor  handsome subsidies (as France does). Capital flight (long occuring) could stop right away, because the European Union views the USA as the largest tax haven in the world, by far (which it is). The day the USA gives the word, all capital will come home to roost (because the Euros have already exerted considerable pressure that way; in general, when the US and the EU agree, nobody can stop them).

A related issue is that the USA does not save enough as a country, so it is an issue of national security to augment US savings and investments, instead of depending upon non democratic countries to provide capital for the USA (Arabic countries, China, etc., have been keeping the USA afloat financially).

As it is, proposing taxes on income and capital gains higher than in any socialist European country is an issue tailored to lose the presidency for the democrats. It’s plain too big to be just a stupidity.

The difference between progressives and conservatives is that the former are supposed to use intelligence the past did not have, making it less worth conserving. Some Republicans have used senseless arguments pro drilling, and many are old arguments from the past whose time has passed. So doing, the Republicans were doing their job, conserving what’s obsolete. Whereas, when democrats use erroneous arguments, they are serving neither intelligence, nor progress. True progressives, such as the present author, have then to point out those mistakes, and the earlier, the better… One would not want to finish like the erroneous French revolutionaries, post 1790, or the erroneous Soviet revolutionaries, post 1917. But it is how they started: by being obviously erroneous, and redefining for their own little comfort what “obvious” and “error” meant (in other words, being intellectually dishonest, as are those who refuse to publish posts that have more, and deeper facts).


Patrice Ayme.
More details on these subjects are found in, especially “How Obama Could Lose” (June 29, 2008), and “Lousy Morality Leads to Lousy Economics” (July 2008).

P/S: (1) Someone on Krugman blog called “BaldApe”, claimed that he “was happy not to be my chemistry professor”. Krugman posted him, but did not post my retort (Post wars!). Here it is. Mr. BaldApe did not understand that NATURAL GAS, METHANE, CH4, IS AS CLOSE TO HYDROGEN as we can get to right now (while minimizing greenhouse gases in industrial production; mass production of hydrogen at this point is very dirty). I mention this because it’s crucial to the energy debate (and central to Pickens’ proposals). The E.U. has opted for lots of natural gas (from North Africa and Russia).

One should not confuse MASS OF MOLECULES CREATED, and NUMBER OF MOLECULES CREATED. A molecule of methane (CH4) is made of ONE Carbon atom (C) and FOUR Hydrogen atoms (H). Burning it consists into having its constituents atoms establishing stronger chemical bonds with oxygen atoms. Now Carbon is tetravalent, and oxygen bivalent. So the Carbon atom, C, establishes two bivalent bonds with two oxygen atoms to fill up its chemical availability. The result is ONE molecule made of one Carbon, and two Oxygens: O=C=O, otherwise symbolized as CO2. Hydrogen is monovalent, so, to fill up the chemical availability of oxygen, two hydrogen atoms need to be used. Hence the four hydrogen atoms in the CH4 attach to two oxygen atoms, so we end up with H-O-H twice, in other symbols, two molecules of H2O.

The same mass can contain vastly different numbers of molecules. For example one molecule of water (H-O-H) has the same mass as nine molecules of Hydrogen (H-H). What counts for the greenhouse is how many molecules of the type that can absorb infrared radiation are around. The greater the infrared capture power of the gas, the more the greenhouse effect of that gas. It’s twenty-one CO2 for CH4, and rise to above 200 times for NO2 (in a 100 year span).

Long hydrocarbon chains, as in oil, contain a lot of atoms of Carbon, so, when they burn, create much more CO2 relative to H2O in comparison to methane.

For Quantum mechanical reasons, O2 and N2 are not greenhouse gases, but H2O is. 60% of the greenhouse is due to water vapor, 26% to CO2, and 8% to a mix of CH4, O3, and NO2.

(2). A Chinese philosophical reset. 2,500 years ago, disciple Kung asked: “Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?” Master Kung (Kung Fuzi, “Confucius”) replied: “What about ‘Shu’ [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?” [Analects XV.24].

Confucius would not have approved of Nancy’s loudly selfish tribe. If drilling is not good for the USA, it should not be good for Arabs either. Or is Arabia supposed to do the dirty work while North America wastes and pontificates?