Right, that’s one thing that improves our competitiveness. Some modern factories can run all night with no people there. It’s like a big copy machine, you just set it up and let it go. Annoyingly, last time I had a conversation with someone who repairs robots, which was a couple years ago, the robots came from Europe. That seems like something we should make.

Essentially, it’s a solution to our high labor costs. We can’t pay low-skilled laborers a globally competitive wage because our standard of living is too high, or because unions have corporations by the balls. So you replace 320 workers with a set of robots, a setup guy, a programmer and a repair guy. The programmer and repair guys service numerous factories. It’s like one human doing the work of 10′s or 100′s of humans. Or, it’s like a single $100/hr human doing the work of 10′s or 100′s of $50/hr humans. China can’t beat that, nor can Africa. Although, robot technology does have a ways to go yet. And items usually have to be designed, at least somewhat, with robots in mind.

The trouble is, we can set these factories up anywhere. US regulations not only make factories expensive, they make them take longer to build. Every day that a factory isn’t running can be hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. And with idiot bills like cap/n trade, and Presidents who have proclaimed that electricity bills will, “Necessarily sky-rocket,” it makes for a poor case to locate in the US. There’s also the high corporate tax along with the capital gains tax on all this stuff.

So basically, we don’t need to build robots, we need to adjust regulation. If it’s profitable to build things here, then people will build things here, and it will most likely include robots.

Maybe Obama should unwisely invest some of our tax dollars in an obsolete robot company instead of obsolete solar panel companies? LOL, just kidding. That’s poison. Robots don’t join unions. If the Democrats don’t have unions, they’re kind of screwed. Can you imagine the shit Obama would get thrown at him if he advocated automation out-loud? LOL He’d have to dress it up, “Robots only do the jobs that are too dangerous for people, or jobs no one wants to do.”  Maybe Pelosi will pass a law that requires some dumb-shit union asshole to babysit each robot. There’s a Washington solution for you.

Afghanistan isn’t limiting our capability to level NK. We don’t need more troops. We’ve got a lot there now and the South Koreans are a serious group with an highly professional and dedicated army. And this time – well, one would assume – we won’t have to worry about 1/2 million screaming Communist Chinese suddenly pouring over the border.

We will have to worry about China bitching about the droves of refugees fleeing NK when that thread breaks holding society together.

But the main thing is taking out those some-thousand artillery batteries pointing at Soul. After that, you’re talking about air superiority within hours over a battle field decades behind in technology. After that, it’s hard to predict what they’ll do with their one effective weapon: Infantry. Regardless, it won’t be much unless SK sends forces miles over the border. That country suffers from mass-hysteria, so I wouldn’t recommend it.

Oh yeah, Crazy Kim might shoot a missile into the ocean…

After that the military would be in control for sure.

When Kim croaks, his son will take over, and it’s safe to say, that little kid might as well be from outer space. If the boy doesn’t take over, or even if he does, the military will take over. Some think the military is already in control, and that explains the weird spontaneous attacks we’ve seen this past year.

That whole society will need deprogramers, the kind cult members need.

I’ve been thinking about this, and I think both American approaches to trade with china and other Asian countries is misguided.

There are the free-trade folks who want to keep trade opened so we can sell goods and purchase inexpensive goods. After all, this is exactly why we have the high standard of living we currently do. The trouble though is, the developing countries are developing, and are now able to do the high level stuff they once relied on us for.

Then we have the Liberal/union folks who want to put up barriers with most every country, in an effort to bottle up the good stuff here – ignoring the facts about where our high standard of living comes from, and the fact that other countries will respond to hostile trade law with their own hostile trade laws.

With regard to Asia, we tend to treat them like special needs children, because to us, they seem irrational and crazy. I think they seem that way because we assume they start with the same assumptions as we do.

For example, in the US or Europe, you make a deal with someone, and that’s that. You wrote the contract, now both side fulfill their portions. In Asia (including the Middle East) and especially China, that’s never that. Every time you talk to the turkey’s they’re trying to get a discount, weasel out of something, or assuming you into doing loads of extra. They’ll pull tricks, like have you over to negotiate a price, and have your competition in the next room doing the same. There’s no honor or kindness. And – our tendencies toward honor and kindness are seen as weaknesses to exploit.

I think Trump’s focus on China is because of their currency, and the fact that many factories in all the other developing nations are more and more often owned by China. Trump also does business with the Chinese and knows what I’m talking about here.

I’m thinking the Chinese might respect some hostile measures in response to their artificial currency. They have a shit more to lose than we do anyway. Let them adjust their currency to the dollar. We’ll adjust a tax to their currency. (Seriously, the US could collapse China just by writing a law that made it illegal to buy superfluous consumer garbage.)

If we combine that with some type of long term relief here for business, I think we could see some move back. Our corporate taxes are unreasonable. We don’t need more taxes we need more payer.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4404107/navigating-new-political-landscape/?playlist_id=87937#/v/4405075/obamacare-repeal-coming/?playlist_id=87937

Good article on what companies do to avoid taxes.  Of particular note is the quote at the bottom of the article, before the top 10 list:

Naturally the Obama administration wants to put an end to this. It has proposed doing away with tax deferrals on overseas income. If the plan passes, a U.S. company that pays a 25% tax on profits in China would have to pay an additional 10% income tax to Uncle Sam to bring it up to the 35% corporate rate. “Eliminating deferrals would put U.S. companies on an unlevel playing field,” says the Tax Foundation’s Hodge, “especially if competing with the likes of Germany, which only taxes companies on domestic operations.”

and…

Would no more tax holiday for GE really end up helping Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer? Doubtful. “The average Joe should be in favor of lower corporate taxes,” says Hodge, “because ultimately they are paying the corporate income tax. Either as workers, getting lower wages and fewer jobs, or as consumers, paying higher prices, or as retirees, getting lower dividends and earnings on their investments.”

Many people simply misunderstand the purpose of the public nuclear strategy. Liberal bloggers describe it like so: This is done in order to ensure that an all-out nuclear war isn’t created when so many other alternatives exist. (agreements ensure nothing) And then you hear Liberals calling up NPR voicing their indignation that the US nuclear strategy includes using nukes in any case for any reason – because we know how terrible they are now – it’s insane – and so on.

OK. I understand why the average Liberal might see our nuclear strategy like this. I mean, look at Obama. He can’t make a good move on either war or make a hair’s worth of progress against terror activities without posting it on the national refrigerator for us all to praise. And besides this, Liberals in general don’t seem to grasp the desperate realities or hard logics of war.

The nuclear strategy is part of the overall strategy of deterrence. In the simplest terms: If you don’t want the crazy people in the world to use their nukes on you – you damn well better keep them convinced you’re crazy enough to use your nukes on them in retaliation – immediately.

During the cold war maintaining this was essential. Likewise, enemies like India and Pakistan maintain the same deterrent check. Once Iran and N. Korea get there nukes, their neighbors will need nukes to deter them. Agreements won’t replace this logic, not when a war can be won and a civilization vaporized within an hour. (Remember, Hitler had that solid wall of democracies to his north and west convinced he had no designs on them, so they had no reason to stop him, until he picked them off one at a time leaving merry old England to fight the good fight by her self.)

Obama has decided it’s best to make some updates to the policy, primarily that he promises not to use nukes on countries not armed with nukes – with the noted exception of countries actively developing nukes in direct contempt of the national community, namely Iran and N. Korea. (Hey guys!) And he has no plans to update the current decades old US nuclear arsenal, but will be dismantling some according to future agreements.

Now the first one might seem natural, obvious, and logical – something that should have been included all along. Why would the US use nukes on a non-nuke country, besides Japan? The US and its allies have lived this past 50 years under a nuclear umbrella that not only protected them from nukes, but also Nazi-German-like conventional aggression, the kind made possible by tanks and trucks, the kind that can change the map over the weekend, the kind that Soviet military hardware was built for that every third-rate government owns. That’s why Western Europe doesn’t keep a serious standing army, the US is there to fish them out of any serious challenge to their sovereignty.

Under such an umbrella, only the truly crazy and brazen would invade a US ally. Sadam Hussein? Kuwait? Thankfully Kuwait was bordered with other allies and Sadam was so uncoordinated and weak that the US was able to push him out with one mighty effort. But the deterrence failed then because Sadam believed the US didn’t have the will to stop him, he underestimated, or rather we didn’t properly display, our crazy.

So why is Obama making such an odd change? Why is he compromising our crazy? Why is he giving the crazies of the world one less reason to behave?

Well, he wants to talk Iran and NoKo out of their nuclear weapons programs without a military strike, and thinks credibility will help. (Ever try to talk a crazy person out of something?) His idea is that, if he isn’t developing nukes, promises not to use nukes on non-nuke countries, and moves to reduce the US arsenal, the crazy guys will see the rationality in giving up their nukes. In other words, it will be harder for them to say: “eh, but you’re doin itnnnnnnnnnnn!”

If you ask me, this line of reasoning sounds like a campaign gimmick gone awry, like Cat’s Cradle fans starting a Bokononist church. There’s no way in hell Obama will earn a shred of credibility with the crazy leaders of the world, not the kind they respect anyway. And meanwhile Russia, China, and other rivals (possible future enemies) are updating their arsenals.

Again – one maintains a ready arsenal for fighting a war – so that war won’t have to be fought. We make bombs not so we can drop them. We make bombs so we can drop them, so we won’t have to. One can see how the philosophy behind this policy is dangerous. (deproliferation is another asinine topic for later, so enough with Obama’s reasoning)

The Liberals are going crazy over Sarah Palin’s latest Obama-bash in this regard. She equated the policy to announcing that anyone can – go ahead and punch me in the face, I won’t do anything about it. The Liberal counters, as usual, are nearly as fun an entertaining as Palin herself. They can’t point out any problems with her logic. They pretend she’s stupid without expressing why, and ponder if she’s just rabble-rousing. Then, usually end their piece extrapolating Sarah’s opinion into some radical view: She doesn’t agree with the policy change so she must want to go nuking some people!

Regardless, what I DO like – or love – about the policy change is the immediate message it has sent. “Ok – everyone without Nukes is cool. We’re not going to wipe you off the map any time soon. Oh – except for you two over there, yeah, you two.”

lol – Ahmadinejad is up to his usual mockery and N. Korea – well – N. Korea is being N. Korea. Mind you, I’m not saying I like the initial message because of the immediate failure of its ultimate goal – that failure being Iran and NoKo’s continues butt-slapping. I like it because it inadvertently told the two remaining spokes on the axis of evil that we got missiles with their names on them. Those two crazies NEED to know we’ve got all 14 of their probable locations targeted and ready for sudden abrupt zapping.

Scott Brown elected Massachusetts State Senator

Do you think a woman who had posed nude could ever achieve national political office?

Disaster in Haiti

The only hope long term for Haiti is a deadly disease that only affects jerks. That’s the only hope for a lot of developing nations criminally ruled by jerks. The CIA got close with AIDS, but they didn’t realize back then that butt-sex and being a jerk were not mutually inclusive. Ah well, dreams for the next conservative administration.

‘We are the world’ Haiti relief recording session begins

These people need to be stopped. Send your money to Red Cross.

State of the Union address

I don’t know why people take Obama’s speeches to seriously. I mean, they were never meant to be taken literally. His message is one of hope and change. We can all learn valuable lessons from his speeches but – lol – you can’t apply those ideas directly to policy – that was never the intended purpose of his message.

Toyota Recall

Yeah! Another fat-cat scapegoat! Yeah, let’s get’m! Whoohoo!

Obama getting tough on China for trade agreement infractions

I’m getting tough on my credit cards too. I’m taking a different approach though. I’m paying off the debt – or at least trying.

Underpants bomber now talking, encouraged by parents

Wow Obama administration! Way to go getting the kid to ignore his lawyer’s advice. If only all terrorists had responsible parents. And thanks for telling us about it too. Now all of America knows how great of a job you’re doing protecting us. Hey, so have you gone ahead and put Al Qaeda on the list to receive your FUCKING news letter yet?

Sarah Palin to receive $100k speaking fee for Tea Party Convention

Only a Liberal would find this controversial. She’s a Conservative from Alaska. What do you think she’s going to do with the cash? Buy something with it? You give those people a rifle and a pair of boots – a few years later they’ve got a city with a shipping port. Watch, she’ll invest in some unknown little jackass somewhere and turn another baby-blue state red. Astroturf my ass… U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A

Healthcare reform bill stalled

Ok guys, I get it. You got caught up in all the inaugural excitement. We elected Obama assuming “change” meant a thoughtful approach, but you thought we gave you a mandate to turn the country on its keel. So you went after you’re dreams: single payer, sky-rocketing business costs, and reduced carbon output. I can’t blame anyone for going after their dreams. And hey, at least you go that juicy stimulus!

But those darn Democrats, they got in your way. Single payer was compromised into single payer under a different name – then into a public option. Then even that was compromised – first into some fancy long winded name coined by Pelosi that essentially meant public option, and finally, a year later, into nothing more than a list new regulations – more similar to the Republican alternative to Hillary Care than the brilliant progressive stride we were all assuming would slide through. (Eh, regardless of the naïve math and unfunded state Medicaid mandates) And to add insult to injury, you have to buy some of those Dem votes too.

And darn-it – you could have passed it. Hell, you could have passed a bill covering sea lions FFS. I know you’d like to blame the Republicans, but shit man – you knew you had all the power and that’s how you wrote the bill. No Republican could have voted for that thing any more than you guys could all climb on board with invading Iraq! Or – wait. You got tricked on that one – hu? Well, you know what I mean. You can’t blame the dog you’re walking when you walk into a pole – even if he was enthusiastic about it.

So the question is: What now. Indeed, this bill is shot to shit. Stack that monstrosity on the back of the toilet in the staff bathroom. But what now? Should you pole-vault over the wall with Pelosi? Should you try to come to some reasonable consensus with a few reasonable Republicans? Should you keep this unorganized circus with your ring leader off in his own ring singing his poems?

I’m not sure what you should do. I’d like to see some actual reform though.

Congress to cut funding for KSM trial in NY

Every time anyone asks Obama or anyone in his admin a question about trying KSM in civilian court, they duck the question and assure us he’ll be convicted and executed. So if this is just going to be a $1 billion show trial – why not just “have the trial” (wink-wink)? You know – take a few days off, “have the trial,” print up some transcripts and stuff, execute the bastard, and use the $1 billion on some new Predator drones or something.

Don’t ask don’t tell – once again up for debate

What part of “don’t ask don’t tell” is so hard to understand?

Here’s something interesting and at the same time frustrating. Look at this video, particularly when Obama and Medvedev are sitting together. Look at Dmitry. He’s sitting splayed – dominant – with his leg crossed away from Obama – dismissive. Obama is the exact opposite. He’s leaning in – engaged – with his arms tucked in – submissive /polite.

That poor man [Obama] is trying so hard to talk reason with someone for whom reason is a useless idea. I hope he realizes soon that he’s not getting anywhere with Russia, China, Iran, NK, or any other bird-brain nation without substantial leverage.

We hear it all the time, “Socialism doesn’t work because there isn’t incentive.” That’s what I learned in 7^th grade. We learned about the transition after the Russian revolution. We learned how farmers produced less and less because, well, it just didn’t matter. Specifically I remember my text book describing how Russian men often became alcoholics and drank Kerosene when they ran out of Vodka.

This isn’t a strong argument though. You can counter this easily by claiming the only motivation most people need is the motivation to do their job well – To each according to his need and from each according to his ability. After all, who thinks about their daily earnings day-to-day and adjusts their efforts accordingly? Who really takes a job motivated only by its wage? And who doesn’t enjoy using his or her talents to improve the world around them?

Or you can claim incentive can be regulated into the system by bureaucracy, and that such regulation would be far more fair and humane.

Here’s the real problem with Socialism. Socialism is a system of distributing wealth. The antithesis of socialism is often thought to be Capitalism. Capitalism is not a system though – it’s an idea – the idea that people should be free. But for the sake of comparison, let’s call it a system. And as a system, Capitalism is a system for CREATING wealth and then distributing it.

The fist difference you’ll notice is that Socialism only distributes wealth, but doesn’t create it. So one might assume there’s an additional mechanism often found functioning along side Socialism that creates the wealth to be distributed. You’d be right. It’s capitalism. Sometimes it’s the black market. Sometimes it’s only among the ruling class.

At beast, a pure Socialist non-capitalist state will have only the mechanisms of wealth creation that were created by capitalism before the state turned over to socialism – no growth in other words. But historically what always happens is, the wealth of the Socialist state shrinks dramatically after the transition, and lots of people starve to death and die.

Modern examples of functioning Socialist states, like China, are functioning because they open certain areas of their economy to Capitalism, and China continues to convert further and further away from the Socialist idea.

Capitalism is simply freedom. And when people are free to create and innovate – truly amazing things appear. Of course, I’m defining freedom as an idea of equality and laws, not anarchy.

Socialism is a system of distributing wealth – which at the same time replaces the thing that creates wealth. In other words, it slaughters the chicken and plans to eat eggs for the rest of the week.

The concept remains valid at incremental levels. For example, Obama’s policies of redistributing wealth are essentially socialist mechanisms. (For those sensitive to the word, call it what you want. I’m not calling Obama a socialist. I’m just pointing out that his policies function as socialist mechanisms.) Obama sees America as an unfair place and would use these socialist mechanisms to correct the unfairness. The problem is – such mechanisms replace some Capitalism (freedom) with some socialism, which results in less overall wealth to distribute. Many people ignore or don’t accept this fact though and weald government power as if we can slaughter some of our chickens and continue producing the same number of eggs from.

Slaughter = tax

Chicken = entrepreneur

Eggs = economic output

LOL – ok. I have a new favorite. I just saw it. It was (msnbc) Chuck Todd’s interview of Obama in China. Here it goes:

Chuck: Can you understand why it is offensive to some, for this terrorist, to get all the legal privileges of an American citizen?

Obama: Ahhhhhh – I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s [KSM – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] convicted – ahhhh – and when the death penalty is applied to’m.

LOL Isn’t that something you’d expect out of a political cartoon of George W, and certainly not the snazzy, progressive, and Progressive beacon of Hope© and Change©? Am I confused or has the Obama brigade managed to redefine the meaning of “trial” along with “tax”?