As headlines like this continue to surface, it is difficult not to construe that a primary objective of CV19 policy is to intentionally weaken US military capacity. Otherwise, it simply makes no sense to force vaccines on a demographic that is exposed to far greater risk in the line of duty than to the virus.
Reinforces notion that it would be wise to keep eyes on China.
How much vaccination uptake has resulted from people imitating others in the midst of uncertainty? Institution theory posits that uncertainty exerts mimetic pressure to copy the behavior of others.
In this case, uncertainty could amount to more than not knowing about the potential effects of CV19 on one's health. It could also be driven by regulatory uncertainty--not knowing the shape of policy rules related to CV19 in the future, nor the impact of those rules on everyday life (e.g., will I still have a job if I don't vax?).
We know that desire for stability can be a strong behavioral motivator. Perhaps by getting the shot, some people feel like they are reducing uncertainty.
At least for a while.
These pages have discussed the concept of evolutionary pressure as it pertains to CV19. One theory is that vaccines increase pressure on the virus to mutate in ways that evade vaccines in order to survive. Behavior of the recent delta and omicron variants appear to support this premise as vaccinated people have been capable of contracting CV19 infections.
If this hypothesis is in fact true, then the question becomes one of severity. Will mutations become more or less severe? These pages have discussed the spectre of vaccine-resistant virus strains that become more deadly and longer lasting.
However, the characteristics of both "deadly" and "long-lasting" may be inconsistent with the central goal of a virus: to survive. Deadly forms of a virus run out of hosts and become extinct. Milder variants, on the other hand, possess more staying power.
This article suggests that the contagious but mild omicron variant is consistent with such a premise. Although it evades vaccines and infects more people, omicron subjects hosts to relatively mild symptoms.
Similar to the Spanish flu of 1918, perhaps CV19 is mutating into milder strains that will ultimately make it indistinguishable from other seasonal flu bugs.
Ludwig von Mises coined (!) the term 'crack up boom' to refer to people swapping out of money and into real goods out of fear that purchasing power was being destroyed by ever increasing monetary creation--either through expansion of bank credit or through monetization of debt.
As supply of money ever increases, demand for money (i.e., desire to hold cash rather than spend it) collapses. People buy stuff even if they don't need it because anything tangible is better than holding cash which is deemed worthless.
Mises witnessed this phenomenon first-hand during the marquee hyperinflation of the 20th century in 1920s Weimar Germany. He saw children playing house with piles of worthless currency, and men pushing around infamous 'wheelbarrow wallets.'
Ron Paul wonders whether we're on the verge of another crack-up boom. Trillion$ in new money have been created with no end in sight. Inflation measures are printing multi-decade highs. Asset prices have followed suit.
He thinks that re-kindling the spirit of liberty would stop progress of a crack-up boom. Why? Because liberty-minded people do not tolerate massive government spending nor central bank intervention in financial (and social) affairs).
That's a worthy cause to pursue.
Although the pandemic has been rich with examples of 'escalation theory,' where people continue or increase commitment to failing courses of action, there may not be a better one than those sticking with vaccines despite their increasing failure rates (and risks).
Escalation theory can be joined with prospect theory to explain why people who have been vaxxed multiple times cling to the idea of getting vaccinated despite breakthrough infections. Because people hate losses, including loss of self-esteem when a strongly held belief appear to be wrong, they will cling to those beliefs and perhaps even double down (e.g., my infection would surely be worse if I wasn't vaccinated) rather than question their assumptions.
Add some psychological concepts from what we know about cognitive dissonance, and you've built a solid theoretical foundation for explaining the odd behavior that we're witnessing.
Good question. Although I suspect all networked devices (phones, computers, etc) should be included.
A pandemic of the connected...
God is with us once again.
The Overton Window conceptualizes the range of politically acceptable policies at a given time. Developed by policy analyst Joseph Overton, the model can be seen as representing the window of opportunity of sorts for politicians.
In the model, all possible government policies fall along a single vertical scale. Toward the upper end of the scale are policies that reduce government regulation and expand personal freedom. Toward the lower end of the scale are policies that increase government regulation and restrict personal freedom.
At any given time, only a subset of these possibilities is widely seen as legitimate. This subset constitutes the Overton Window. Politicians are likely to pursue policies inside the window. If they stray outside the window to champion other ideas, then politicians are likely to be viewed as too radical or extreme to gain or keep public office.
An interesting and perhaps counterintuitive feature of the theory is its premise that politicians are able to detect the boundaries of acceptability defined by the window but possess limited capacity for altering those boundaries. Instead, intellectuals, social movements, advocacy groups, and other shapers of popular opinion are more likely to alter the window.
An exception might lie in charismatic political leaders who behave in manners that capture the hearts and minds of the people.
Because the battle between force and freedom is as old as society itself, the boundaries of the Overton Window are in a constant state of flux. As such, politicians who operate near the edges of the window risk public opinion turning against them if the window moves away from the policies that they promote.
Interstate policy competition has surely intensified with regulatory responses to CV19. We are seeing an exodus from areas of the country with more stringent CV19 regulations.
They are migrating toward freedom.
As these pages have noted, liberty is like a magnet, and never loses its capacity to attract.
Studies continue to emerge that confirm what was readily predictable from the beginning, that CV19 lockdowns have been one of the worst policy disasters in civilized history. They have produced little benefit at the expense of immense cost.
Findings suggest that lockdowns have:
During this special Season, let us pray that God lightens the burden of these mistakes and helps us learn from them.
Heather Mac Donald discusses the fear once again being manufactured by the public health/media dyad as the Omicron variant of CV19 becomes more prevalent. She aregues that this tandem has been employing the following playbook since the pandemic's early days:
1) Create a group norm of fear.
2) Buttress group fear with 'expert opinion.'
3) Manufacture epistemological uncertainty and insist on that uncertainty as long as possible.
4) Bury both the good news and those dissenters who question the bad news narrative.
5) Omit relevant context.
6) Flog the case count.
I particularly liked Mac Donald's word 'safetyism.' She theorizes that women are the driving force behind safetyism's conquest to US public health policy and the American mind in general. She also suggests that the dominance of women in corporate HR departments explains the ongoing deferral of back-to-work plans and restrictions that strangle what little remains of office life.
This is a nice claim--one that has absolutely zero chance of permeating mainstream channels.
What is the greatest story never told (by mainstream media) concerning CV19? There are certainly many to choose from. Measurement problems, the folly of masking, broad economic and social costs of lockdowns, lack of truly following the science, faulty, if not outright corrupt, vaccine development and approval process, China's, and Fauci's, role in assembling the virus, use of pandemic as a tool to disrupt and fix elections, etc.
A still-developing chapter involves increasing evidence of outright failure of mRNA vaccines to provide durable protection against infection. Alex Berenson summarizes data out of Ontario showing greater tendency of vaccinated people to become infected compared to unvaccinated individuals. Although not the primary focus of this piece, Denmark data suggest similar.
Policymakers and their media lackeys continue to ignore these developments. Instead, they continue to pound the table for forced vaccination.
We have productive people hitting the silk in droves due to regulatory repression or just plain fear. Supply and productive capacity thus decline.
But demand for this people doesn't change. They still need and want.
So less supply at equivalent demand means...higher prices.
Layer on top of that over $4 trillion in debt monetization over the same period, with much of it being sent to people directly in multiple rounds of stimulus checks.
More money in the system chasing a given amount of goods means...higher prices.
How can rapidly rising prices be surprising given this context?
CV19 vaccine mandate proponents argue that societies have mandated vaccines for other diseases such as smallpox. I doubt these people are prepared to seriously compare the mortality profiles of CV19 and smallbox side-by-side. Nor would they be willing to compare their safety profiles.
And then we have the efficacy issue. As suggested above, if multiple administrations of a mandated vaccine still resulted in smallpox infections, a significant number of people would probably be asking some questions.
Interesting interview with Dr Peter McCullough, a pioneer in early treatment of CV19--both in terms of the general pandemic timeline and in treatment for individual infection. He explains his collaborative efforts to devise multi-drug treatments to CV19 cases based on matching symptoms with prior research and experience.
He also explains the tremendous pushback to these treatments by the establishment, including A-list journals such as New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet. It appears, from where he sits, that fraudulent papers on the issue have been published in both journals and that, based on his experience as a journal editor, the review processes were manipulated.
He also notes that 'risk stratification'--the notion that 'we don't have to treat everybody'--became apparent early in the process.
Meanwhile, prestigious medical universities such as Duke and Harvard lack treatment protocols for CV19.
It is also interesting to note that currently no random control trial work is underway to evaluate the long-term effects of various treatment options. We are now two years into the onset of this virus.
Obvious questions continue to surface about why the medical community in general, and particularly the academic medical community, continues to shun scientific principles and practices that have been successfully utilized in previous public health situations.
It is difficult to conclude that this malpractice has been anything but intentional.
The 'efficient market' hypothesis (EMH) posits that investors process new information quickly and accurately, resulting in prices that quickly adjust to the news. In fact, that news is often anticipated in advance of it actually happening.
There are several problems with the EMH. One is that it treats investors as a monolithic entity rather than segments and individuals who tend to process information differently. Fund managers, for example, are likely to process new financial information differently than retail investors.
Another problem is that the effect of new information may be difficult to determine. Is, for example, the Fed's recently announced initiative for combating inflation bullish or bearish for stocks? Moreover, is it likely that the Fed will actually follow through on what it says, or is this merely another example of the 'open mouth committee?'
A third problem relates to how long it takes to process information. Some information may be complex, taking a long time to chew through before actionable conclusions can be drawn. Consequently, considerable lags might precede market price movements.
Immediately after the FOMC's announcement yesterday, for instance, gold didn't move much. However, this morning the metals and miners are ripping higher. Perhaps investors needed time to digest the announcement overnight in order to come to judgment about the macroeconomic implications of the news before acting.
These problems have prompted some theorists to posit that markets are only 'semi' efficient. Perhaps, but semi efficiency vs outright inefficiency seems only a matter of degree.
position in gold
Legitimacy can be defined as social acceptance, recognition, and status bestowed on those who conform with social norms. Institutional theory is grounded in the proposition that desire for legitimacy causes widespread compliance with rules and customs, leading to a general isomorphism, or sameness, of behavior.
A factor that may moderate this relationship in a community is the strength of Christian belief among its members. A clear message of the bible is that walking the path of Christ and acting in His name requires nonconformity. Rules must be broken, fires must be started, and persecution--which could be defined as negative consequences of not complying with social norms--is likely.
Formally stated, the proposition is this: The greater the Christian belief among members of a community, the lower the preference for legitimacy from society-at-large.
Christians strive to conform to the will of God more so than 'the will of the people.'
Because, as Christians see it, the only legitimacy that matters is conferred by God.
Saw a graph in the WSJ today that showed the 'labor force participation rate' as being about 62% compared to 64% pre-corona.
That figure seems way off.
If the number prior to the pandemic was in fact 64%, then I would guess today's figure is closer to 50%. There are a ton of people not working--including those who a) hit the silk due to CV19-related regulatory oppression (many of those opting for 'early retirement.' b) are being subsidized to not work thanks to ongoing pandemic unemployment benefits, or c) fear that they will catch a disease if they were working.
This is why we are seeing such a 'tight labor market.' Able bodies are electing not to work.
In droves.
Optimistic piece by Alex Berenson that CV19 madness may be coming to an end. He bases his thesis on seven pillars:
1) Daily death counts are no longer a focus.
2) The percentage of kids aged 5-11 yrs old appears to already have peaked at 15%--only a month or so after kid jabs were approved.
3) Political movements for childhood vax mandates have ground to halt.
4) Federal district courts have all ruled Biden's vaccine mandates unconstitutional.
5) Speculation that the Supreme Court will rule the same.
6) Widespread suspension of vaccine mandates in the corporate world.
7) Lack of public support for public health complex (which includes mainstream media) attempts to rewrite history to read that vaccine boosters were planned all along.
He also shares a headline from a recent Atlantic piece observing that many Americans, outside of major metropolitan areas inhabited by professional classes, are already behaving like the pandemic is over.
Fitting piece for this Season of Hope.
Nice collection of studies showing the ineffectiveness of various CV19 interventions. Various forms of lockdowns, closures, stay at home, and masking policies are considered.
Not only have they been found to be ineffective, results suggest that, as these pages discussed early on, these policies cause great harm to society, particularly to the poor and other vulnerable groups.
Would think that an addendum for vaccines is in the works.
Superstition over science continues as many people continue to mask up despite no conclusive scientific support and to vax up despite falling efficacies and rising safety issues. Policymakers continue to push mandates on both fronts.
We know that beliefs, however misguided, die hard.
Let us hope and pray that those who cling to these particular superstitions do not face prospects of hard death.
The CPI printed at +6.8% YOY this am, the highest annual rate in almost 40 years. The inflation gauge has now exceeded 5% for six consecutive months.
In what may retrospectively be perceived as one of the larger market disconnects on record, gold continues to languish in this environment. Bullion has more or less flatlined on the news and the miners have been sold, with many names marking new lows for the move.
I continue to add to the sector on weakness, and to shift bullion ETF funds into miner shares, as it seems the stars are favorably aligning the risk/reward relationship for precious metal producers.
position in gold
Some representatives appear warm to the idea of Donald Trump becoming Speaker of the House should the GOP regain control of the chamber in next year's midterm elections.
Honestly, I had no idea that the speaker did not have to be a member of Congress. It has never happened before in US history. But the mere prospect is interesting to consider.
This season, I can think of few Ghosts of Christmas Future that would haunt leftists, and RINOs, more than the spectre of Donald Trump being installed as Speaker of the House.
This post shares an interesting video that discusses the theoretical concept of 'mass formation.' Mass formation can be seen as the emergence of large-scale narrowmindedness in a society.
Conditions for mass formation include lack of social connectedness and sensemaking as well as large amounts of latent anxiety and passive aggression. When inundated with a narrative that presents a plausible "object of anxiety" and strategy for coping with it, then many individuals group together to battle the object with a collective singlemindedness. By doing so, these people offload their problems to avoid the mental anguish of personally dealing with them.
As mass formation progresses, the group becomes increasingly bonded and connected. Field of attention is narrowed and unable to consider alternative points of view.
Left unabated, this groupthink supports totalitarian governance structure capable of otherwise unthinkable atrocities in order to maintain compliance.
Studies suggest that mass formation follows a general distribution:
30% are brainwashed, hypnotized, indoctrinated w.r.t. the group narrative
40% in the middle are persuadable and may follow if no worthy alternative is perceived
30% rebel against the narrative
The rebels, naturally, become the enemy of the brainwashed and a primary target of aggression.
An interesting note in the discussion was that the most 'intelligent' in terms of education level and IQ are commonly among the brainwashed.
Participants in the video suggest that the best was to counter mass formation is for the rebels to continue to speak out against it, which serves to help break the hypnosis of some in the brainwashed group as well as persuade some in the middle to choose reason over mindlessness.
It is relatively straightforward to integrate the concept of mass formation into theories of viral response discussed on these pages. In particular, there seems to be strong associations with social identity theory, cognitive dissonance, threat rigidity theory, and institutional theory.
Finally, I liked how the Belgian professor in the video confidently predicted that totalitarian products of the CV19-stimulated wave of mass formation would ultimately collapse--just like all totalitarian efforts do. An insightful, yet elementary prediction to make.
After all, what we're really talking about here is socialism--a system that always ends in chaos.
Thinking scientifically involves assessing 'why is it this and not that?' Early on you need a theory or hypothesis that postulates the important variables and how they are connected. A good theory is descriptive and predictive. Often, it is well supported by past scientific work.
It should also be well supported by reason and logic. Reason and logic transcend measurement problems liable to distort results of empirical studies of complex, multivariate environments.
Due diligence is also required to identify plausible rival theories or hypotheses that raise the question of 'what else could it be?' Many individuals ignore this step, because it often requires stepping outside comfort zones to understand other perspectives that don't agree with yours. Doing so is essential, however, as it helps overcome confirmation bias that clings to pet theories. Developing plausible alternatives pits your theory in the ring against other reasonable explanations of a phenomenon.
Then the theories need to be tested. Testing could be as straightforward as applying logical tests or reason validate some theories and invalidate others. This is a desirable approach both because of its efficiency and its capacity to disentangle empirical complexity.
If empirical testing is required, then care must be taken to develop an appropriate way to measure important variables and relationships in real world contexts. This can be difficult due to the multitude of background factors that could obscure or alter findings from their true value. More often than not, empirical findings are limited or contestable because of measurement problems.
At the end of the day, logic and reason become the final arbiters, because even empirical test results must be evaluated by the mind. If the validity of one theory cannot be reasonably separated from the invalidity of other theories, then scientific progress is stalled until future study advances it.
However, it one theory stands alone after testing, then progress has been made. We know why it is this and not that.
And we are one step closer to the truth.
Over the past year or so I've had recurring feelings of dotcom deja vu. It hit me again a couple of nights back while I was watching the after-hours tape slide by on CNBC (something I rarely do anymore). As the stock names travelled across the bottom of the screen, I realized just how few of them that I had heard of.
It turns out that many of the underlying companies sport little or no sales, much less profits. Yet, they regularly sport markets cap in the tens of billions of dollars.
Similar to the eyeball propositions of the dotcom names twenty years ago, extreme optimism has pumped up these 'concept stocks.' As Fleck recently opined, many of these stocks represent "business plans masquerading as companies."
Of course, those participating in masquerades usually have to reveal who they really are at some point. Twenty years ago, investors didn't like what they saw when the costumes came off.
They may be in for a similar awakening.
Clearly, one faction behind the CV19 madness is the communist cohort.
When the argument for related interventions proceeds along the lines of surrendering individual rights for sake of the 'greater good,' then you can bet that Uncle Karl has been whispering sweet nothings into leftist ears.
Upon the failure of classical Marxism, communism morphed along cultural and watermelon lines.
Now, it appears that we have a new communist variant--one that spreads along the lines of so-called 'public health.'
With retirement coming up fast I've been doing a few things w.r.t. personal finance. I've been saving more and spending less in order to build cash. Have also been selling some stuff on ebay and elsewhere to collect extra 'juice.' Also helps thin things out at the house--much needed.
Preparations are being made to rollover my 401(k) from work. I'm looking forward to allocating this capital among far more choices than those available thru the current fund administrator.
In both my brokerage and IRA accounts, I've been buying dividend paying stocks. Dividends are real cash that can provide a significant, and perhaps under-appreciated, income replacement in retirement.
Inflation is particularly bad for retirees as it erodes purchasing power of savings. To hedge against the prospects of Big Inflation, I've been building stock positions in the oil complex (e.g., ENB, XOM) and miners (e.g., AEM, AGI, PAAS).
The miners appear particularly attractive. The financial strength of many in this group has perhaps never been better. Solid balance sheets and cash flows. Many are paying significant, and increasing, dividends (which helps me kill two birds with one stone). The sector has been pounded down to attractive valuation levels--particularly given the growing inflationary environment.
I've been swapping funds out of precious metal ETFs such as PHYS and into the miners to more fully express my perception of this situation--albeit at a slightly higher risk profile.
positions in AEM, AGI, ENB, PAAS, XOM
Florida has been one of the few bright spots (!) w.r.t. state CV19 response. Despite having an age demographic that is vulnerable to the virus, Florida has maintained mortality figures far lower than most states--particularly when data are adjusted for age.
Much of the credit goes to Governor Ron DeSantis for his leadership in responses grounded in reason and true science as well as in principles of limited government and constitutional liberty.
Now the state has cranked up a website focused on prevention (e.g., exercise, healthy eating, supplements). It also discusses various early treatment strategies (e.g., monoclonal antibodies).
Hopefully other states will follow.
Most people view themselves as peaceful. They claim that they detest violence.
However, many of those same people are proponents of a strong state. The core competence of the state is force. When people contract with the strong arm of government to get something that they want, they are not acting peacefully. They are principals of violence, collaborating with agents to act aggressively against others.
Truly peaceful people seek to influence others through persuasion. They don't coerce.
A valid gauge to the innate peacefulness of a society is the size of its government. The larger the government, the less peaceful the citizenry.
Further, because government is viewed institutionally, the larger the government, the more violence has been legitimized.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vmecBD5vbiYR4k5FYh__MqQ0mahURHzriBEbvFHTL_Wv1476I0TCarlS8RXWfNjPi_lSsJxQyMCfwklhP8jojtAb5ttzlZRLINks1LvX8z0y9WUDl0ZtSreDAOoasvBqXBjA=s0-d)
