I write this blog out of an ever growing cynicism and sometime flabbergasted realization of how this country’s and the world’s economies have been total screwed up for such a long time.

The posts I tend to make reflect that cynicism and that fact, combined with the new wordpress theme I am using (by devolux) that pulls posts randomly to fill the block above may provide some startling introductions to BungeeBones.

But I believe we live in some serious econmic times. I believe I’ve faced the truth that we have been lied to by our government, teachers, parents and we have even lied to our selves. And while many of the things I write about are controversial (and as some may say “opinionated”) and while it is often not considered prudent to talk about things like that as part of business, i don’t believe one should leave their ethics outside the door when they enter the business world.

At the heart of BungeeBones, I’m asking web site owners to trust me with their web traffic. If they are going to do that they are entitled to know me (warts, thistles, thorns and all). It’s pretty hard to hide when you are blogging about what you see going on around you on a regular basis.

At the root of the economic problems of our nation and the entire western world, I believe, is the fact no one (except the Almighty Himself) can print money out of thin air. But the entire Western world has followed a path that claims such is possible. We (the people) may have been as gullible as the proverbial Ginger Bread Man and we are now on the fox’s back and are now way out in the middle of the stream. In fact, I think we are on top of the fox’s head ready to be tossed in the air for that one final event (being devoured). But many, too, have gone along willingly and enjoying the ride while it lasts.

I blog about quite a few things including economics, gold, silver, survivalist issues, minimalism (getting by with less), the real estate collapse, corruption in the real estate industry, religion, current events, etc.. I’ve been asked many times where I get these “crazy” ideas. Well, I’ll let you read some of them for yourself and let you decide how crazy they are before I answer that. On a lighter note I’ve started studying guitar in a very unconventional manner and have a thread about that. Enjoy!

No tags

The announcement that scientists have created so-called “synthetic ” life are in the headlines but the claims are simply false. What the scientists have actually accomplished is synthetically creating the “code” that goes into a cell, the DNA. While life is not possible without DNA dna is not, in itself, “life”.

So while DNA is not alive, and creating it synthetically has been hailed as a huge scientific breakthrough are we closer or further from determining the origin of life? In a way, yes we are, because now scientists can see how one incredibly complex component of life can be created. Now they can perhaps come up with theories of ways that such could have been created in nature and not in a laboratory. In other words, now that they have an actual process that can create the component they can now formulate theories of how nature could, itself, create that component. I look forward to seeing those theories develop in the coming months and years.

But as such work relates to the origin of life they still have such a long, long way to go. The scientists injected the DNA into a cell, and the cell then used the DNA to start replicating itself. They had the corresponding component (the cell) to accompany their own, new component. The origin of life then, is intricately tied to both the cell and the DNA. Life cannot start unless both come together as one.

A theory for origin of life must therefore start from a point where DNA and the cell evolved separately.  Such a proposition does seem quite absurd especially since evolutionary theory require huge amounts of time for random probability to enable such transformation.  For DNA and cells to evolve (sans DNA) to have evolved separately the evidence should have both readily available and numerous througfhout nature in today’s environement as well. After all, they are the basic building block.

No tags

With “synthetic life” being all over the headlines these days the discussion usually includes the possibilty of ’something’ escaping in a Frankenstein type way and causing “more” harm than good.

But what if something escaped and wiped out a continent’s entire population? Should the world accept a simple “Oops, where sorry and we promise we won’t let it happen again” from the scientists involved or should they be charged with unleashing ‘wepaons of mass destruction’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ charges?

in my own family tree I have a grandmother that I never met that died from the flu in 1918. It may or may not have been the same strain that had wiped out millions a few years earlier, I don’t know, but the possibility is certainly there. A few years ago, Canadian scientists discovered a corpse in the permanently frozen areas of that country that had died from what has become known as the deadliest flu virus ever to rage through the planet. The scientist began to culture that virus AGAIN, supposedly in order to help us.

The basic question I am asking is whether science is truly worthy to receive carte blance to gamble with millions of lives (that would be the cost of their failure to keep the deadly agent contained) and not face consequences if they fail.

I believe they should face dire consequences if they fail. After all, if a person murders another they will get life in prison and/or the death penalty. What would a fitting penalty be for scientists that killed millions or more? In such a scenario it almost seems life in prison and even death does not serve as enough punishment.

It basically comes down to statistics and probability. The ‘chance’ or ‘odds’ of their work escaping is minuscule they will tell us. And the cure? Well, we can depend on them for that too, they will say, so again the ‘odds’ and ‘probability’ are minuscule that the escape could lead to catastrophe. But just like a gambler at a roulette table, the losing roll will come up. That is also odds and probability. So what do we do when that happens?

While dealing with the punishment when it happens or shortly after would be an emotionally charged time where reason would probably be put to the wayside, we can deliberate and discuss the possibility rationnally now so that, heaven forbid, the unlikely happens we have at done at least some preparation.

At the root of such a deliberation is the problem, I think, of coming up with a punishment fitting the crime.As stated earlier, a murder of one gets a sizeable penalty so a murderer of millions should get an even greater penalty. So could/should a punishment “worst than death” be devised for any scientists that let such a catastrophe happen?

No tags

Now, when I say that,  I don’t mean the Federal Reserve doesn’t have the legal right to exist. No, that decision is left to the realm and the domain of lawyers and judges. Rather, I am talking again about the use of the word ‘dollar” by the Federal Reserve Note. The Federal Reserve NOTE has become known around the world as “the dollar” and what I want to show is that it (the FRN) is NOT a dollar but and is merely a usurper of that position

According to the Dictionary.com

u·surp means

1.

to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to usurp the throne.

2.

to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully: The magazine usurped copyrighted material.

–verb (used without object)

3.

to commit forcible or illegal seizure of an office, power, etc.; encroach.

---

Origin:
1275–1325; ME < L ūsūrpāre to take possession through use, equiv. to ūsū (abl. of ūsus use (n.)) + -rp-, reduced form of -rip-, comb. form of rapere to seize + -āre inf. ending

—Related forms

u·surp·er, noun

u·surp·ing·ly, adverb

non·u·surp·ing, adjective

non·u·surp·ing·ly, adverb

self-u·surp, verb (used without object)

un·u·surped, adjective

un·u·surp·ing, adjective

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Cite This Source

No tags

I keep hearing Peter Schiff (a famous author, economist, YouTube blogger, TV personality and now Republican candidate for the senate for the state of Connecticut) harp his opinion that the ‘right” thing to do regarding our national debt is for us to stop the overspending and to pay it off. He regularly jumps on the morality bandwagon and calls it the right thing to do. Well I think what he proposes is the complete opposite as it is based on a list of misrepresentations and out and out lies (I believe because he should know better) and here is why I say that:

Peter Schiff is well aware of the fraud that the Federal Reserve System is perpetrating on the world. He regularly and vehemently blasts the Federal Reserve using expressions such as “printing phony money”  or ‘money out of thin air”. Those views about the Federal Reserve are 100% correct in my opinion and I agree with him totally on that.

But Peter Schiff’s proposed solution for our economic woes always includes the idea of preserving (not purging) the current evil system. How can he claim a high moral standard while trying to maintain the current corrupt system? How does he propose to keep the same problem from recurring in the future?

But his lack of moral standards gets even worse in my opinion because he is really trying to contract for future generation (which he has absolutely no right to do either legally or morally).  He is, in essence, trying to sentence future generations to slavery in order to pay for the sins of his generation. That is the complete OPPOSITE of a high moral standard. If he were to say something to the tune of paying the national debt off in five years by the current generation (not just balancing the budget mind you but retiring the debt) then yes, that would be the moral thing to do.

As an economist Peter Schiff knows and teaches that printing money “out of thin air” causes inflation. It is, in fact, his favorite topic to bang his drum with. He regularly makes dire predictions of hyper-inflation and eventual collapse of the Federal Reserve system which he says would be far worse than us simply resolving to pay ‘our’ debt. I feel comfortable saying that it is not the future generations debt but the present generations debt and Peter Schiff needs to start acknowledging that.

But he also knows that when it comes to the effects of inflation there are winners and losers. In the days of double-digit inflation, while it was very difficult to get oneself in debt because interest rates were so high and lending standards were so strict (all things that Peter Schiff embraces), those that had accumulated debt already saw major portions of it wiped out by the inflation. In fact, one of the money management strategies in a inflationary wave is to actually borrow as much as one can because you “know” you can pay it back with cheaper “dollars” in the future.

Peter Schiff then fear mongers that inflating our money supply will scare our creditors away which, he claims, will all be part of what “makes it worse” for us. Well, it seems like we are going to stop spending more than what we earn either way, Mr Schiff, and the only issue on the table is whether we maintain the purchasing power of the currency as it stands (thus maintaining YOUR WEALTH) or we inflate the crap out of our currency, drive the creditors out of the country (which you SAY you are in favor of) and wipe the debt out ourselves and set the future generations free of the debt all at the same time.  That cost of their freedom, however, is the loss of your generation’s current wealth because your “money” will become worthless

But the final nail in his high morality claim is the fact that all the creditors have known that we, the United States of America, can and do print our money out of thin air and that we have done so for FORTY YEARS! So, now that the current generation have made their fortunes as a result of our system printing it up for that long Peter Schiff is now being a rat ready to jump from a sinking ship. He wants to have his cake and eat it to. He wants to preserve the current corrupt system in order to maintain his and his client’s wealth but knows the system he used to accumulate it is fraudulent. But rather than giving the fraudulently obtained wealth (by that I mean all the wealth accumulated under a system of printing it out of thin air) he now wants to instill  “discipline”on the current generation that his never exercised.  He wants to prevent the current generation the same privilege of printing and inflating debt away that his generation enjoyed.

And who does this all protect? The Chinese who hold trillions of our debt. Did they not know we print that stuff out of thin air? Are they THAT STUPID? Peter Schiff regularly blasts the members of Congress as being stupid but I think the Chinese are far more stupid. In fact, we need to add the Central Bankers from all around the world as well because they all have been squirrelling away these worthless pieces of paper in their vaults. They all play this stupid game of “loaning” us the worthless paper in exchange for promises to pay them back even more worthless paper. And that, Mr Schiff is the bottom line. Our creditors all loaned us “money printed out of thin air” in exchange for promises to pay them back even more “money printed out of thin air”. Now you come along and want to change the terms of that deal and are willing to sacrifice the future generations of America to do that. As much as you rattle the “Constitution” and your aggrandizing of your own patriotism and morality you are the complete opposite. You are selling the future generations of Americans on the auction block of slavery to pay back something no one ever said they would pay. Our creditors loaned us phony money and expect to be paid back phoney money as well. For you to change the terms of that in the name of future generations is highly immoral, illegal, treasonous and shameful. You do not have power of attorney for the future generations, you do not even have broker status for them. Even if all the minors in the country signed documents granted you  those powers they would be void or voidable.

How can you not see all this?

No tags

In a previous post I made I May Have Met A Neanderthal Or Two I wrote some points about a BBC article regarding an article claiming our (homo sapien) similarities with Neanderthals. Well, the BBC came out with a follow up (complete with charts and everything) and it turns out the French (of which I am 100% French Canadian ancestry) are among the most closely related to the Neanderthals. So, if they are right, I most often met a Neanderthal when I looked in the mirror. AMAZing! My ex was right?

No tags

I believe Stephen Hawking to be a brilliant man. It was quite a while ago I read his book “A Brief History Of Time” and was totally enthralled by both the subject matter and the authors brilliance in presenting it. He took something that is beyond complex (i.e space and time) and made it so lay people could begin to understand.

He recently came out with a remark that goes beyond science, however, but is still brilliant. He said “”We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet.” How true, How true! One does not need to be a “rocket scientist” to figure that out. That remark, to me, speaks to morals and mans’ beliefs, religion, and faith. Mr Hawking presented the same view the Bible presents about mankind.

But he also goes into another area declaring “Aliens almost certainly exist but humans should make every attempt to avoid them, Stephen Hawking has warned.

I want to address the part that says “Aliens almost certainly exists”. I’ll have to assume that he is stating that based on the vastness of the Universe and statistics and probability. But if I may challenge one of the most briliant minds to defend that claim, may I ask if mankind, with all its scientific knowledge, has been able to create even the simplest life form from non-living materials? According to this article from MIT science has failed to do so. The simplestlife forms have yet to be created in a laboratory. How then can he extrapolate  “Aliens almost certainly exist” from a total vaccuum of evidence?And I do mean “total”.

The more logical conclusion is that life was designed by a much, much more highly intelliegent force and mankind (despite its own accalades of its brilliance)  fars far short from being able to build the SIMPLEST of life forms, never mind the more complex ones.

But what we all fail to realize about the question of whether “intelligent” life exist on other planets is that there is a much more important, crucial actually, question that would need to be asked.

IF there were aliens and intelligent life did their species SIN? And, if so, did the Almighty Creator send them a Savior to pay the price for THEIR sin? That, folks, is the question that needs to be asked.

No tags

The headline reads … “Chinese President Hu Jintao has resisted pressure from President Obama to raise the value of the Chinese yuan.”

Do the morons clamoring for the Chinese to do that not realise that they (the Chinese) cannot raise the value of the Yuan without the move also lowering the value of the dollar? And the call for this at a time when the dollar is already at dangerously low levels seems to be like throwing gasoline on a fire.

A sudden move down in the value of the dollar could cause massive, wordwide dumping of the dollar to avoid its impending loss of value. I liken this scenario to be something like a mirror image of a bank run. In a typical, depression era bank run people raced to the bank trying to get their dollars OUT. In this game the Obama administration seems to be playing the players wouldn’t want to take their dollars OUT but would want to get RID OF THEM before they lose value.

What would the effect of this massive, worldwide dumping of the dollar be?

1) massive inflation as the sudden release of all those new dollars in circulation (because dollars in Central Banks are not “in circulation chasing products) get absorbed while competing for a finite number of goods and services.

2) a quick and sudden stop of foreign purchases of US debt since the future inflation all but guarentees a financial loss for them doing so OR

2a) a sudden skyrocketing of interest rates as the US governement scrambles to meet its commitments and can’t borrow anymore at artificially low rates

3) a combination of both rising interest rates (further dampening the economy)  AND higher prices which, together, is called “stagflation”. The really scary part is that there is such a HUGE number of dollars that those idiots in the world’s central banks have squirreled away (if they had only gotten rid of them when they first got them then none of this would have happened) this will not be no small dose of stagflation.

Nope, it will be mega-stagflation

No tags

The headlines read “A Human-Like” Fossil discovered and, of course, caught my attention. Briefly, the article makes it sound like the discovery of the proverbially “missing link” but does not come out that pointedly and say that.

While there is a huge diffence between what the general public believes Evolutionary theory is as compared to what the scientific community believes it is, there is a general belief in the idea that there is A (singular) missing link that will be found and will tie it all together.

The article states

A. sediba has a fascinating mix of features – some archaic, some modern.
…
Its small teeth, projecting nose, very advanced pelvis, and long legs throw forward to more modern forms. And yet its very long arms and small brain case might echo the much older Australopithecine group to which Professor Berger and colleagues have assigned it.

There is a principle commonly understood among animal breeders that the larger the number of traits that one selects for, the more difficult and slower the progress towards success in all of them. In other words, if I create a “wish list” that I want a cow that makes 50% more milk, but has excellent feet, excellent udder health, and has small calves I’ve created four criteria and unless a creature excels in ALL of them they may actually hurt in the area that they don’t excel in. So while it is much easier to make progress in one trait it is far more difficult to make progress in all areas.

We can look at the effect of human selection of such things as horses, dogs, swine, poultry etc. There have been tremendous changes affected by INTELLIGENT selection (but not random selection) and breeders have been able to often overcome the challenge of making progress in multiple traits simultaneously.

The problem with the report about the fossil discovery is the relatively large list of differences that the fossil has and that the physical differences (not genetic) become the basis for determining its species. While there are long armed, big toothed, small brained humans they don’t constitute a different species on account of those traits .

Another aspect of the equation is to consider how much potential change can one reasonably expect per generation. While nature certainly throws the occasional mutation the chances of that being the cause of five improvements (as we see it) are slim. Things that affect the probability of anything like that happening are dependent upon the generation interval, how long the time period where the changes have been observed, and the population or gene pool (related to the number of generations).

A farmer with a small herd has fewer opportunities for genetic improvement than a farmer with a larger herd. A farmer slecting for certain traits for a longer period of time could be expected to have made more progress in a certain direction than a farmer doing it for a shorter period of time.

While the discovery of a “human-like” creature may seem like a step towards a “missing link” it can also work the opposite. For example, as stated, to make those genetic changes one would expect large numbers of fossils (many generations) rather than few. Also, placing a date on the new find affects the time left remaining (in the time line graph of Evolution) that is available for the rest of the genetic changes to occur.

As to what is human like we can see that elephants have ears, and humans have ears. I guess it can be said it is up to us, then, to decide if that makes them human like.

No tags

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner flew half way around the world for a whopping 75 minutes with China’s Vice-Premier Wang Qishan.

I have written a few posts about this issue and the reports coming out of the BBC still seem to obscure the real problem. The article states as follows:

But it is understood to be part of a long-running dispute over the value of the Chinese yuan, which the US says has been kept artificially low.

The US is trying to persuade China to allow its currency to trade more freely on foreign exchange markets, and there are signs that this will happen.

I would like to ask the BBC this very pointed question and to defend that statement by explaining how, exactly, does China prevent a market like the FOREX currency exchange from dealing or trading the Yuan? I may be a totally clueless, ignorant amateur in world finance so, please, do explain how they could and do manage such a feat?

China is a sovereign power over its own affairs and territory. That territory does not include one of the world’s largest free markets (i.e. the FOREX). The insinuation that China has somehow prevented the FOREX from trading Yuan is, to me, absolutely ungrounded in any truth or reality so on what does the BBC base their claim?

My hunch is they can’t, because it is a baseless assertion. The truth, the real story is that China simply matches the US production of imaginary, Monopoly, out-of-thin air, phoney Federal Reserve Notes and debases its own currency at a pace equal to the US (and the rest of the Western world).

The sad part is that if my hunch is correct then the BBC isn’t performing journalism but is dispensing propaganda and that would be truly disturbing considering the long history and fine reputation of the BBC institution..

No tags

This BBC article reports how the US Treasury is delaying a report on China’s alleged “manipulation” of the Yuan until after some upcoming high level meetings are held. I’m curious if the delay will put the report before or after our audit of the Federal Reserve is completed?

I guess it is quite easy to defend US monetary policy when the vast amount of that policy is veiled and in the secrecy of the Federal Reserve which even Congressman say is “more secretive than the CIA”. After all, anyone accusing the US of manipulating its currency would need proof which is pretty difficult to get if all the policy decisions are done behind closed doors. But isn’t monetary “policy” and monetary “manipulation” the same thing?

So I say the BBC missed the mark on their reporting. The real story isn’t the Treasury delaying the report as the article tries to make us believe. No, the real story is how can the US manipulate its currency and cry “foul” when another country does the same thing?

The “foul” that the Chinese are accused of is pegging their Yuan to the US dollar. What that basically means is that when we (err the Fed) prints up huge sums of Federal Reserve Notes and debases the value of the dollar the Chines follow suit and print up an equivalent amount to debase the value of it by an equal amount.

So while they still “loan” us those cheaper dollars back when they buy our Treasuries they won’t let us just print money out of thin air to buy their stuff. Any attempts we do along those lines provides them the reason to print up more of their Yuan.

No tags