Posts Tagged ‘Mad Max and/or Thunderdome’

In a dispassionate, purely economic view, she has an economic incentive to not work.  Her behavior is reprehensible to those who work, but in an amoral view, her behavior is quite logical.

Parasitism is rewarded, and if it provides all she desires, why not be a parasite?

Margaret Thatcher gave conservatives/libertarians/classic liberals the answer in a simple sentence years ago:

margaret-thatcher other peoples money

To the individual riding the socialist gravy train, however, that’s not a concious concern.  The welfare recipient isn’t concerned about where the next handout is going to come from as long as they keep coming, and if the handouts stop, there’s always someone to blame and some politician willing to buy votes.  The career welfare recipient is almost always someone who isn’t concerned about their long-term well-being, otherwise they’d be actively working to improve their lot in life.  Those rare few that are concerned are those who demand more from others simply because they exist.

At the point that the handouts stop completely, they’ll either starve or work.  Whether that’s because of welfare reform that stops giving people disincentives to work or whether the system collapses and no longer can give handouts, either way, the practically Randian caricature of the moocher exemplified by that caller will simply cease to exist.

If that career welfare recipient is forced to starve or work because welfare goes away by reasoned economic decision-making in government, there’s going to be gnashing of teeth, bleeding hearts bleeding, and knee-jerkers jerking knees.  There will also be private charities for those who truly need, rather than the taxation at gunpoint that leads leftists who “care about the poor” to ignore the poor since they have government to care for them.

If that career welfare recipient is forced to starve or work because welfare has gone away because of collapsing government

mad-max2

That’ll make things interesting.

Several months ago, Dick’s Sporting Goods stopped selling black rifles.  It was very noteworthy because they had contracted with Troy Industries and many, many people had rifles on order from Dick’s.  Dick’s managed to screw over both the consumer and Troy Industries at the same time.  But Dick’s pulled out of the firearm market and went limp from political pressure.

Today, Dick’s has posted a major loss, coming up short, and in laughable move, has blamed their performance issues on Lance Armstrong.

If there’s a silver lining for all the people who were eagerly waiting for that Troy Carbine and were vastly dissappointed, it’s that Dick’s isn’t doing so well in the financial department.

At a time where the only thing a company has to do to sell firearms, ammo and accessories is to unlock their doors, Dick’s sales have flat-lined. In fact, their sales dropped 2.2 percent  in the fourth quarter of 2012 compared to 2011 and their shares 10 percent in the last quarter.

Dick’s CEO pointed his finger squarely at, well, Lance Armstrong. “People had a very negative reaction to the Livestrong brand,” he said at an earnings report.

Except while Dick’s sales are going soft, other companies are doing quite well.  Cabela’s has been doing very well due to firearm sales – and those firearm sales have brought people in to the store to buy other products as well:

“First-quarter results exceeded our expectations on every line of the income statement,” said Cabela’s Tommy Millner. “In addition to expected increases in firearms and ammunition sales, we saw particularly strong performance in softgoods and footwear.”

Remember this is what Cabela’s gun racks looked like just three months ago:

Cabelas Rack 130127

Cabela’s at the floor level has a general approach within the company that it’s best to underpromise and overdeliver, and that may well extend to their higher levels as well.

“Without firearms and ammunition, same-stores sales increased just 9 percent — still strong, but clearly much of Cabela’s growth was driven by gun buyers,” wrote Jeremy Bowman of the Motley Fool. ”As the stock has now tripled in the past year and a half, investors may want to take a cue from their senators and sell while the stock is hot.”

We suspect it’s a bit early to start bailing on Cabela’s, that gun sales will stay strong for the coming months. What we can be sure on, however, is that while this boom is also a bubble, Dick’s failed to get in on much if any of it.

Cabela’s is wise enough to know that people are coming for the guns, but staying for the rest of the store, and that guns sales are a government-induced artificial bubble.  They probably will be continuing to do very well, even if their stock price begins to plateau.

To give some idea what it’s looking like elsewhere in the gun world, consider that Sturm Ruger has had huge sales, and are now hammered with massive backorders.

Demand is still exceeding supply, and the bubble increase in demand (assuming the government doesn’t get progressively more tyrannical and spin us into Mad Max territory), is going to end up leaving an ultimately higher permanent demand than existed before the bubble started.

Some people are getting into the gun market so they can get their homeland security rifle and that’s it.

oleg volk rifle girl force multiplier for liberty

Some are getting into it because they think it’s a “last chance”, and some are getting into it because of concerns that guns will be more difficult to acquire – not a last chance, but a last easy option.  Some are getting into it because others are, and they want to see what it’s all about.

If the government’s inexorable push for citizen disarmament is stymied again for a while (and Joe “I Get Drunk With Your Rulers On My Black Tie Yacht And We Disarm You Pissants” Manchin is introducing another anti-rights bill), there will be a permanently elevated demand for ammunition and arms.

The public’s interest in firearms will have changed by the millions of votes in favor of the Second Amendment – the millions of votes not made at the ballot box, but with the money in Americans’ wallets.

The American public is still taking the Brain Gremlin’s advice:

Gun Lessons From Australia

Posted: February 25, 2013 by ShortTimer in Government, Guns
Tags: ,

A couple weeks ago, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard wrote this opinion piece:

IT is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obama’s proposals on gun control. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States.

After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn’t be easy.

Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms.

This isn’t about guns, it’s about control.

City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.

So they were forced to turn over their weapons or go to jail.

In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate.

Consensus is opinion, not data.  From the WSJ:

…Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was “relatively small,” with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported “a modest reduction in the severity” of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don’t provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia has plenty to say on the subject of self-defense as well.

Few aspects of the Commonwealth’s anti-gun policies have created as much discontent as the move to outlaw self-defence as a genuine reason to possess a firearm. Even the much vaunted United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims in Article 4: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” (1) Unfortunately, Australian governments seem happy to employ UN treaties when it comes to social re-engineering, but just as eager to disregard them when persecuting shooters. Article 18 of the same proclamation supposedly guarantees: “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property” (2), but it didn’t stop John Howard from imposing his ‘buy-back’ confiscation program.

The only people helped by the Australian gun bans were street criminals who oppress individuals and the power-hungry in government who oppress nations… even if it’s “for their own good.”

Australia has showed us for decades that there will always be violence among people, no matter if there are guns or not.

When chains with spikes and angle-iron tridents and boomerangs with razor edges are outlawed, only outlaws will have chains with spikes and angle-iron tridents and boomerangs with razor edges.

mad-max2

The “modern” argument to dealing with the Humungus would be to just walk away and give them whatever they want.

Via the American Interest:

Thunderdome in California?

Things are getting worse in San Bernardino. The city filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, but its financial situation has continued to deteriorate. And now with what promises to be a heated court battle over payments to the state pension fund in the offing, further cuts are likely.

Things are getting so bad that at a recent city council meeting, the city attorney advised residents to “lock their doors and load their guns” because the city could no longer afford to keep up a strong enough police force.

Aw yeah…

As money gets tight, cities have to choose between paying pensioners or paying for vital services. If California’s courts rule for the pensioners, they’ll be forcing a harsh reality on San Bernardino’s residents. Fighting for scraps in the ruins of a higher civilization?

Tupac called it for 2095 (not to say didn’t start earlier), and Rammstein called the apocalyptic beach party for 2012.

Previously: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Kyle Smith has a great piece at the New York Post ripping Paul Krugman’s latest book: “End This Depression Now!  We Need An Extraterrestrial Invasion!”  Well, the first part of that is the book title.  Really, it rips much of Krugman’s idiotic Keynesian philosophy, one that Krugman is even inconsistent with.

as a Keynesian, Krugman usually maintains that it doesn’t matter what you’re spending on, as long as you’re spending: Just shovel the bucks in the furnace, we’ll all warm ourselves by the glow.

Hence his “Independence Day” stimulus scenario: To you and me, that looks like a colossal waste of money on laser cannons that will never be used and will sit there rusting and burning up maintenance dollars for the next hundred years. But you and I aren’t geniuses like Krugman.

Blithely ignoring evidence that there have not been savage spending cuts in Europe, he continued making the same argument in his May 17 column, saying (he must have a hot key for this by now), “Europe’s answer has been austerity: savage spending cuts” (note he didn’t say tax hikes). Free-market economists (also known as the Austrian school, hence Krugman’s clever combo term for his enemies as “Austerians”) can hardly be blamed for Europe’s weak economies if those countries are doing the opposite of what Austerians prescribe, which is to cut out a lot of spending while reducing taxes.

And it gets worse, as Krugman gets worse.

Earlier this year Krugman wrote, “People think of debt’s role in the economy as if it were the same as what debt means for an individual: There’s a lot of money you have to pay to someone else. But that’s all wrong; the debt we create is basically money we owe to ourselves, and the burden it imposes does not involve a real transfer of resources.”

In 2003, when the debt was less than half what it is today, he wrote, “We’re looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high . . . But what’s really scary — what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea — is the looming threat to the federal government’s solvency . . . How will the train wreck play itself out? . . . My prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt.”

Inflation to pay current bills, a reference to hyperinflation, is exactly what he would later ridicule Kinsley for worrying about.

In 1996, Krugman (who, as Wall Street Journal blogger James Taranto never tires of reminding us, is a former Enron adviser) said Social Security has a “Ponzi-game aspect in which each generation takes out more than it put in.” Last year he said it “is and always has been mainly a pay-as-you-go system, which is nothing like a classic Ponzi scheme.”

Of unemployment benefits, Krugman wrote in his textbook that “The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job.” Later he ridiculed Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) as “bizarre” for saying, “Continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”

Krugman rejects the things he once wrote in his own book.  That’s back there in part 2, but once again, it’s a glaring example of an “economist” who’s really an inconsistent hack bent on pushing for more spending.

How Keynesians feels about government spending.

And MOAR stupidity is provided:

This month Krugman gave us a great summation of why he refuses to even stick to one set of wrong-headed ideas. He has a short attention span, like politicians focused on the next election cycle.“It’s usually far from clear,” Krugman wrote, “what exactly the long-run policy is supposed to be, other than the fact that it involves inflicting pain on workers and the poor.”

See, Paul, a free market system means you take care of yourself, because you know what’s best for you.  You get to keep more of your money, you get to spend it where you like it, and the poor and the suffering get to keep more of their own money and spend it how they like.  Since they keep more, so do other people who want to expand their businesses (and even charities) which helps out those who are working their way up.  The long-run policy of a powerful state will keep the proletariat down, because if the poor proletariat becomes the well-to-do bourgeois, then there’s nobody for the socialist to save.

You knew Krugman was just building up to a one-liner, the one that showed how careless he was about consequences: “In the long run, we are all dead.”

This is a trademark Keynesian phrase, a cop-out, and a weak, pathetic retort.  The effect of “in the long run, we’re all dead” is hedonism, selfishness (not in the Randian self-improvement kind, either), destroyed morality, and chaos.  It’s an excuse for failure that ignores that future generations will ultimately have to deal with their progenitors’ problems.

It’s a philosophy that ultimately rejects the idea of improvement of human condition.  It believes there are limited resources, limited capacities for the human mind, limited abilities, and that governments manipulating money and people is the best way to go… and if it fails, who cares?  There’s no improvement of humankind, there’s only destruction.  There’s only suffering and pain for the workers and the poor, that’s the only long term goal.

That’s not so much Keynesianism as it is nihilism, though.  After all, Keynes wouldn’t have supported the kind of spending and systemic debt that we’re dealing with today.  He knew better.  But the modern Keynesian knows it will fail, and flippantly ignores it.

Perhaps especially today, on Memorial Day, it’s worth noting that some people believe in something, and they believe in future generations and making a great country and a safe world for them.  “In the long run, we’re all dead” is the defeatist drivel of a coward who refuses to make tough choices today.

PRK Arms – What’s in a Name?

Posted: December 13, 2011 by ShortTimer in California, Guns
Tags: ,

From Tina Korbe over at HotAir:

Listen to this advertisement and you’ll reasonably assume that what’s for sale is something forlorn, lonely, cute and cuddly … a stray puppy, perhaps.

“They’ve been mistreated and misunderstood for generations,” the ad begins. “Abusive owners have done severe damage and given these beautiful creatures a bad reputation.”

That’s how it’s supposed to sound. The owner of PRK Arms in Fresno, Calif., brainstormed this brilliant way to sell guns — and, so far, it’s worked. According to a news report from Fresno’s CBS 47 news, the gun shop has seen more business this holiday season than ever before. Among the many new customers are a surprising number of women, who are buying guns in record numbers, according to gun store owners.

The funny part is that in all of the comments, and throughout all of the story, nobody bothers to say what PRK means.  It’s a very, very common term within the firearms community, especially the online gun world:

In general, it references the extremely restrictive and nonsensical gun laws of California/Kalifornia/PRK/Kalifornistan that make gun ownership for good citizens extremely difficult.  Criminals and the wealthy and connected obviously don’t care.  The good law abiding citizen is oppressed while the criminal and the ruler live free.  “Not for sale in California” is a pretty standard thing to see on Gunbroker or Auction Arms (along with not for sale in NY, IL, HI, MA, MD, etc.).

And since Jerry Brown is once again Reichsmarshall of Kalifornia:

But by 2095 things should be sorted out:

From the Jawa Report and the excellent photos at Ringos Pictures:

This is perhaps the easiest of these idiots’ “thoughts” to break down.  John Galt was in hell when moochers and looters used the power of government to seize the property of producers.  The moochers and looters self-imposed their own hell for all mankind because they denied their own productive class from improving society.  The moochers and looters self-perpetuated a caste of vehement haters of ability, demonizing self-reliant self-made people at any level, preventing people from improving their own lot without pulling someone else down.  In Rand’s work, rejection of self-reliant producers and responsibility is exaggerated to make the point.  Here, it’s made by real people, who are real fools.

Okay, let’s do that.  Death to capitalism.

So now you should make your art for the glory of the people and the workers.  You shouldn’t sell your art – Death to capitalism! – you should work for free and give it away and have your needs taken care of by others who work for free.  Your life will be adequate, you will not be allowed to be famous or renowned.  You will produce the art that the state demands in equal amounts.  Death to capitalism!

Or you could try to change the market for your art, or the medium you use.  Or you could be producing art rather than protesting against people who do buy your art.

Heck, I don’t know what kind of art you make.  You should’ve brought some with (or maybe you did and it’s out of the picture) – you could’ve sold some.  More power to you – you’re a producer!  Except the guys in the first pic want you to go to hell, and the second wants to destroy your means of livelihood.

Nowhere.  That’s where.  The only bailouts were given by the government to their union buddies at GM and Chrysler and bank donors of… Obama.  It’s not like this info is hard to find.  It was a corrupt move by a corrupt guy who was playing corrupt politics.  Bet you voted for him, though.

And if you have $100,000 in grad school debt, why can’t you find a job – did you acquire no skills?  Were you just going to school to go to school?  Were you just wasting money with no clear career path in mind?  Were you going to school without seeking a job, without preparing to enter the workforce?  Are you not adaptable enough to take a cruddy degree and turn it into something that an employer might find useful, even if non-traditional?  Or is it better for you to just whine about your own piss-poor decisionmaking?

From RingosPictures again (I highly recommend visiting – there are dozens and dozens of pictures of the protest):

*Sigh*  These assholes again.  From the wordy Wobbly preamble:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth. We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers. These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all. Instead of the conservative motto, “A fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work,” we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, “Abolition of the wage system.” It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

Communists who want to seize other’s property and take possession of the means of production.  So the artist above?  He or she will have his/her studio seized by the Wobblies because any artists assistants would be workers against the artists’ employer status.  The means of production will be seized… by the workers… who once they own the means of production… will employ workers.

This murderous idiocy failed spectacularly to the tune of 94 million dead.  It’s nice to know there are still imbeciles who buy into politics of envy and hatred, rather than bettering themselves.

Of course, the real Industrial Workers of the World supports the Occupy Wall Street movement.

When 1% of the ruling class holds the wealth created by the other 99%, it is clear that the watchwords found in our union’s preamble, “the working class and the employing class have nothing in common”, ring true more than ever.?The IWW does not follow a business union model. We believe that the working class and the employing class have nothing in common and we don’t foster illusions to the contrary.

Throughout the world, from Egypt to Greece, from China to Madison, Wisconsin, working class people are starting to rise up. The IWW welcomes this. We see the occupation of Wall Street as another step – no matter how large or small – in this process.

Feel your anger!

While we’re at it, Jawa Report highlights this one from RingosPictures in particular:

This is almost indistinguishable from parody.  Some Tea Partiers may dress up in period costumes and may be inarticulate or unable to communicate what’s brought them to their protest effectively, but this kind of maniacal quackery pretty much resides on the far left.  Or it’s parody.  It’s difficult to tell.  Given that it’s two signs and not one, I’m willing to go with “not parody”.  Funny how the National Socialists (the left) and the international socialist leftists all start to sound the same.

Resistance to what, exactly?  Resistance to the consequences of your own poor financial decisions?  Resistance to the shogun or the samurai hunting you down?  You suck as a ninja, too.

Furthermore, since when do people screaming “resistance” and “death to _____” while wearing masks mean a thing?  Since when do people who act like thugs and celebrate murderers and regimes that killed millions amount to crap?  Guess what – they don’t.

Nice.  Destroy the economic system and the state.  You’ll even be thrown out of Bartertown.  Wez will have a seat ready for you on the back of his bike.


http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile

Obama floats plan to tax cars by the mile

By Pete Kasperowicz – 05/05/11 07:45 AM ET

The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive.

The plan is a part of the administration’s “Transportation Opportunities Act,” an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.


It’s worth it to read the article.  It mentions specifically putting tracking devices in vehicles, monitoring driving, and charging a tax based on the miles traveled.  It’s a violation of the 4th Amendment, unless you agree with the craziness that police can put a tracking device in your car without your knowledge and it’s ok.

This isn’t terribly new.  Brits have been threatened with this for a while, and been voicing their opinions on it for a while.

The proposal for the tax is surfacing because people are driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, and driving less, and they’re using less fuel.  Since there’s less fuel being used, there’s less revenue for government from fuel taxes.  When the economy is in decline like it has been for the last few years, and when gas and diesel prices are absurdly high, people drive less.  Businesses use less.  Shipping companies use less.  Thus, tax revenue is reduced due to lack of consumption.

The great social planners don’t actually care about the painful effects of this proposed tax – they consider them “good things”.  They won’t get rid of the gas tax that already exists.  It will simply add to the individual’s tax burden, but with the addition of tracking their every movement.  Of course, to the planners in office – who also have an eco-dalek and social justice bent – this is a tool to redistribute wealth and punish humanity for its own good and to “save the planet” for the “greater good”.  Things that you and I consider negatives, that hurt us average Americans, are what they are using to “nudge” us into the choices they’ve made for us.

It limits our actual economic freedom by limiting our income, it limits our movement by reducing the movement we can afford, and limits the freedom of our lives – everything we can afford, as more of our income is confiscated for taxation.

Gas is already getting ridiculously expensive, made so in no small part by the anti-energy policies of the US govt that are restricting offshore shallow-water drilling, that are restricting land drilling, and thus driving up prices.  Of course, $7/gallon gas is considered a “good thing” to the elites.

The near future.  Fury Road to Serfdom!