Ideas pop up in the media. When other commentators & investment advisors, looking for material to justify their salaries, pick those ideas up and repeat them, you’ve got a recipe for a market rise. More and more people pick up & pass on the idea, and the price rises as more and more people listen and crowd in. They believe because everybody else believes. They buy because the price is rising.
Only one problem: when everybody expects the same thing, they’ve already placed their bets and for lack of buyers the market collapses. Government and central bank actions — “surprise parties” — exaggerate these reactions. Right now the dollar and stocks are priced for perfection. Markets rarely grant perfection.
Right now, everybody who wears pointy Eye-talyun shooes on Wall Street is certain that Mother Yellum will begin raising interest rates AND SOON. Problem is, they haven’t quite thought that through. Sure, Mother Janet, with two eyes on the labor market, is going to raise rates and risk slowing the economy while unemployment still rages? Is she going to raise rates in the face of Japan & Europe suppressing rates & QE-ing themselves to death, thus pricing US products out of world markets?
More, you just let Mother Yellum get a whiff of something scorching in her Wall Street kitchen, that is, you let stocks burn a day or two, & she’ll come out of that kitchen a spittin- & a-printin’ money like a threshing mo-sheen.
Mother Yellum, as all socialists and fascists, has a problem: the more you control an economy, the more you have to control. Totalitarians must become totaller. Their excuse is always, “It would have worked, if we’d done more of it! We need MORE control!”
And get out of your head the hogwash notion that QE and ZIRP have saved the world or the economy: they haven’t. They saved the banks, which is all they were meant to do. They’ve starved any recovery.
Problem for socialists — ALL socialists, American, German, Russian, or Chinese — is that socialism doesn’t work. Therefore they always need MORE control. Now so many central banks have entered markets — and I’m not talking merely about central banks KNOWN interest rate and currency exchange rate manipulations, I mean in all stock and commodity markets, and central banks around the world — that there ain’t much free anything left. After all, a central bank with bottomless pockets can run a market for a long time, as the present stock rally proves.
So the question becomes, when will the wastage of socialism finally catch up with the socialists? The Soviet Union lasted 70 years, and US socialism ain’t far behind, & piling on control by the second.
Hmm. Body armor is a purely defensive item. Who, pray tell, are we trying to protect people from with this proposed ban? Those who might not want to die if they get shot? I think that counts as just about everyone. I thought all those patrol rifles (AR-15 style) were to allow law enforcement to defeat people with body armor on…
And oh by the way, it still really hurts if you get shot with one of these on…
Originally posted on High Heels and Handguns:
Well as if it isn’t bad enough that the democrats want to disarm law-abiding citizens, now they want to ban the purchase of body armor.
H.R. 5344, otherwise known as the ‘Responsible Body Armor Possession Act’, bans the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians.
The term `enhanced body armor' means body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor, determined using National Institute of Justice Standard-0101.06.
And then you say, “Oh! But look! There are exceptions to this bill!” Don’t get ahead of yourself. Those ‘exceptions’ only apply to our fabulous government. And don’t even think about violating this new bill, otherwise you will get fined and can be imprisoned up to 10 years.
Seriously?! You don’t see ANYTHING wrong with our federal government deciding how and IF we can protect ourselves? This…
View original 52 more words
Originally posted on RealDefense:
Originally from ar15.com
Lately in GD we have had two different board members find themselves looking down the barrel of a gun along with the GF of another ARFCOMMER in street robberies. Also Blitz308 got shot all to pieces last year.
While many say it is better to be lucky than good, no one is lucky every time. In this post I am going to attempt to provide some insight into street encounters. Other may have different viewpoints. I am not here to argue. I will say some of the comments I have seen posted in the threads about this sort of matter make me realize that while some ARFCOMMERS are clearly street veterans others are not. This is really for those who are not.
First, my info. I worked in the street of one of America’s most violent, dangerous cities for 15 years. I usually worked in the…
View original 3,346 more words
The following set of principles, which lay out in the clearest and most succinct terms the philosophy of policing by consent, appeared as an appendix to A New Study of Police History by Charles Reith (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1956). Reith was a lifelong historian of the police force in Britain, and this book covers the early years of Metropolitan Police following the passage of Sir Robert Peel’s ‘Bill for Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis’ on 19 June 1829. Reith notes that there are particular problems involved in writing police history, owing to the loss or destruction of much early archive material, and, probably for this reason, the principles appear without details of author or date.
The Nine Principles of Policing
1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Looks like those principles are alive and well in America today, doesn’t it?