Inflation? What's Inflation?

I often wondered about the best way to define or describe inflation and have never found a way to present it in a way that satisfies my understanding. Statements like "Too many dollars chasing too few goods" or "an increase in the price of a basket of goods and services that is representative of the economy as a whole" have never had any real meaning to me. That is why when I heard Neal Boortz explain it a few weeks ago, it finally clicked for me. This is how he explained it:

• Imagine that you are at an auction buying items from all over the world. You have a certain amount of money, someone else has half that amount, and someone else has three times your amount. The auction is going along, and the people bidding on things have some idea of what they are willing to pay for the items being sold. Now, let's say that someone calls timeout on the bidding and brings in a few stacks of hundred dollar bills. He sets them on the table and walks away saying, "Have at it, boys!" After the orderly scramble to get your share of the piles of money is over, the auction resumes. Now, think about what will happen to the bidding after everyone has more dollars to bid. The prices "sure as hell" aren't going down.

Now, our government has decided to put 10,000,000,000 hundred dollar bills (that's $1,000,000,000,000 for the Tceh graduates out there) into the U.S./world economy. Does anybody want to take a guess about what is going to happen to the price of EVERYTHING in the next couple of years? My bet is that we will look back on the Carter years with fondness after this stagflation hits us in the face.

Here's some free advice (I am sure it's worth what you paid for it): If you have credit card debt, pay it off. If you have adjustable rate loans tied to the FED rate, find a way to get out of it to something fixed. Basically, get out of debt as fast as you can. Interest rates are going to skyrocket once this inflation train starts rolling. With that cheerful thought, have a good evening.

Return to Illumination Hour

I am re-posting this rant from last March. It was one of my first few posts (March 26, 2008). We are planning a similar party this year for Saturday, March 28. We will have help from 4 more people because my brother Adam and his family will be visiting. Illumination Hour will take place between 8:30 and 9:30 pm. Join us from your house if you get the chance.

As a side note, Rush Limbaugh jumped on this Thursday afternoon during his show. I am wondering if he was an early adopter of MPU as a daily read. Also, the "on the hour" radio news this morning has noted that there several businesses around the country doing Illumination Hour rather than Earth Hour.

---------------------

"Who Doesn't Want to Wear the Ribbon"
Originally posted March 26, 2008

Over the years I have been amazed at the absolutely meaningless gestures that people will go through to prove that they care about something. Many of you will recognize the post title from Kramer's run-in with some "street toughs" over his refusal to wear an AIDS awareness ribbon.



I guess everyone on the planet except me knows that having more ribbons on your lapel than Patton means that you care more about the rain forest, AIDS research, breast cancer, etc. than someone who doesn't wear them. Somehow this makes sense. Which brings me to what has many jazzed today, Earth Hour.

In case you don't know (I didn't until this morning), Earth Hour is a ritual that the inventors of Earth Day have brought us this year. Next Saturday (March 29) between 8 and 9 pm, we are supposed to power down "non-essential" electrical appliance and turn off all of our lights to show that we care about energy conservation and reducing our carbon footprint. Basically, the idea is to produce a voluntary blackout for an hour to reflect on the evilness of our comfortable but very energy intensive lifestyle. Jay Currie has a very different idea.

I have never read his blog before today, but from this post I get the idea that he is just about as tired of empty gestures as I am. He has decided to "Just Say No!" by keeping his lights on (ALL of them) during Earth Hour. I get confused on the inspiration for the idea but Tim Blair has planned an Illumination Hour on March 29 between 8 and 9 pm. As my buddy Chip would say, "What are the odds?" A couple of Tim's dedicated readers have decided to take it a step further and have a Carbon Party.

That is my kind of activism. During their HOUR OF POWER, it sounds like they plan on some sort of steel cage death match between the AC unit and the furnace with the winner getting to dominate the household environment for an hour. They also plan to run their vehicles, all electronic equipment, oven, and the washer and dryer. The hope is that they will consume enough electricity during the hour to more than offset any conservation accomplished during the Earth Hour.

If you're interested in becoming part of Illumination Hour to make a mockery of according to Samantha Burns, "Earth Hour stupidity, and all it represents," then visit her web page and sign the official online petition. If you don't have the activist, petition-signing bent, just forget what your Dad always told you for an hour and leave the light on when you leave a room this Saturday night.

Or better yet, you could call Motel 6 and ask them to keep several lights on for you.

Where Does My AGW Skepticism Originate?

For those of who have discussed this with me, you know that I have discounted MAN-CAUSED global warming for a long time. In fact, based on things like the Surface Station Project, I wonder if we have any way of providing a long term climate record sufficient enough to say anything about climate trends. If you don't know, Anthony Watts (whose blog is a daily read for me) started a project to physically survey each of the climate stations in the United States Historical Climatological Network. He has completed 854 of the 1221 stations. He has found the following using the NOAA criteria for assessing the error in the data:

• 11% of the sites have errors less than 1 degree C
  
• 20% of the sites have errors between 1 and 2 degrees C
  
• 58% of the sites have errors between 2 and 5 degrees C
  
• 11% of the sites haves errors greater than 5 degrees C

Now, we have been told that an increase in the global temperature by 2 degrees C will lead to all kinds of disasters. I don't think that I have been sufficiently convinced that a global temperature has any meaning. However, for the sake of argument, I will go with that assumption for the moment. In the U.S. (where the best climatological data is found because we have $$ for it), 69% of the sites in our historic record set have errors greater than 2 degrees C. So, we can't measure temperature in the U.S. to a point where we can distinguish between measurement error and the catastrophic temperature signal. Combine that this presentation on the debunking of the famous "hockey stick" by Steve McIntyre, and it leaves me very skeptical that man is changing the global temperature by taking an SUV to soccer practice.

• Do I think that the earth warmed in the 20th century? Yes.
• Do I think that the warming was the result of man's emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? No.
• Will the earth be cooler or warmer 50 years from now? Yes.
  

Here is the point. Climate changes all the time, and there is very little if anything we can do about it (unless we figure out a way to control that big ball of fire in the sky). Today's climate is not perfect and tomorrow's won't be either. The best way (i.e, the cheapest and most proven way) to deal with a changing climate is to adapt. Here is what I mean:

• If it's brutally hot in the summer where you live, move or live in a house with AC.
• If it's brutally cold in the winter, move or live in a house with a good heating system.

These things are what humans have done throughout history. Why should we be any different?