patrick.net

Honest Abe says

All of your elaborate arguments do not stand the test of COMMON SENSE. Why is a “foot” 12 inches, all around the world, in non-metric countries? Why is a pound always16 ounces? What is the definition of an ounce? Without an exact definition there is nothing but chaos and confusion.

But according to your logic, there is a definition. A dollar is 10 dimes, or 20 nickels, or even 100 pennies.

Honest Abe says

Why is a “foot” 12 inches, all around the world, in non-metric countries?

For your general fund of information the only non metric countries that exist outside of the United States are Burma and Liberia. Both of which use the metric system anyway, just it's not the official system of measurement. Oddly enough the metric system has been in US law since the Kasson Act of 1866. It's just been a little slow to catch on here.

Honest Abe says

a whole load of bullshit

Seriously Abe, what are you talking about? Your argument was that currency can't be "arbitrary", and then you use a COMPLETELY arbitrarily defined metric (pounds) to argue against it?

Perhaps you simply don't understand what the term "arbitrary" means.

It sounds like your real issue is that currency isn't defined in *fixed* terms, the way that units of weights and measures are, rather than it being "arbitrary".

Of course, you ignore that the whole reason that currency isn't fixed is because economies aren't fixed. One of our biggest problems with China today is that the value of their currency *is* fixed, and it does not reflect the actual state of their economy.

If gold and silver were the basis for our money, countries with lots of gold and silver (a completely random accident of history) would be the most wealthy, rather than countries that have the smartest scientists and most productive factories.

Ten worthless dimes with the value (silver) removed from them make a dollar. Haha. One hundred pennies make a dollar. The metal in a penny is now far more "valuable" than the penny itself. Its now illegal to: (1) melt down a penny and (2) take more than $5.00 out of the country. Why do you defend these inconsistencies, fraud and deception? The real reason we have worthless paper money is so the politicians can inflate it to spend more than they take in. No one, however can "inflate" or create gold or silver out of thin air.

Paper money masks the inefficiencies of government waste and it's endless interference in the economy. Nieve people as well as lower and middle income earners watch prices going up and wages not keeping pace, and buy into the socialist arguments and political propaganda that more regulation, more taxes and more laws are whats needed to make things right.

By eliminating all the dislocations and waste from government intervention, and economic chaos caused by paper money, everyone would do better, private businesses and taxpayers. We will never have a stable economy until we have a stable and honest monetary system.

For many decades government interference and intervention has been relentlessy crushing and destroying the only source of wealth in this country - private businesses and the people they employ.

Which question are you referring to (that I don't understand)? Was it: "Someone is defending the laws against melting pennies and taking $5.00 out of the country"? Or your second question: "Who is it"? Because you only asked two questions.

"The most comprehensive study of the facts undertaken in recent times is that by the National Economic Committee on: The Concentration of Economic Power. The final report of the committee arrives at the conclusion there is little evidence that greater efficiency of large scale production is the cause of the disappearance of competition (and the concentration of wealth). It should be noted, moreover, that monopoly and the concentration of wealth is attained through collusive agreement and PROMOTED BY PUBLIC POLICIES". [The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek - emphasis added by Honest Abe].

As usual, government is the root of Americas economic problems, not the solution.

simchaland says

This current mess has its roots in the 8 years of Bush and the 12 years of Reagan/Bush before that.

no, Clinton did f-all about our oil dependency and rising trade deficit with China.

Didn't help that he had a hostile Congress (to the extent of impeaching his ass for political points).

ca. 1995 China started to get plugged into the game and the international money machine started spinning dollars:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M3

Also didn't help that non-OPEC oil started ramping in 1993:

keeping oil prices down in the $20 range for the decade and preventing investment in alternatives.

This graph:

http://calculatedriskimages.blogspot.com/2010/05/percent-job-losses-during-recessions.html

shows that the 1990 and 2001 recessions were different than previous recessions -- our service economy is bigger and doesn't turn around as quickly.

AFAICT, the 2001 recession only really ended by our idiotic attempt to borrow our way to prosperity, which is why the present recession is so deep and wide.

21st century America really sucks at big-C Capitalism. Socialism too, for that matter.

Politicians invariably respond to crises, that in most cases they have created themselves by spawning new and burdensome government programs, and countless new laws, rules and regulations. These in turn generate more havoc and chaos, which inspire politicians to create even more "programs". The downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes, regulations and other burdens imposed in the name of "fairness", or businesses simply move offshore. This stupidity continues until the free market screams "STOP" which is the beginning of another self-correcting recession.

The very people who regulate, control and manipulate businesses themselves are not business people. Which is precisely why central planning by government dimwits get it wrong all the time. Besides they have no skin in the game, so when things go wrong they don't care. They simply screw the taxpayer and move on to their next scheme.

What do you think is going to happen when a half a century of creeping socialism catches up to the US of A? Start with America not being AAA rated anymore. Then the dollar free-falling under the weight of mega-massive debt. Then Uncle Sam nationalizes every one's retirement account because they need your money more than you do. Then interest rates rise into double digits as a last ditch effort to restore faith, which could lead to civil unrest and widespread misery.

Big government and central planning, trying to micro-manage every aspect of peoples personal lives and business ventures can never be a "solution". Last time I checked, Utopia still doesn't exist, but I suppose it can - in your mind.

What does money represent? To me it represents labor that I have done that I can now trade for something else that I really want. Say I make shoes, I have enough shoes... I want a boat. I sell my shoes then go buy the boat. What happens if while I was saving money to buy the boat the government went out and "printed" up a bunch of money and was buying a bunch of boats. Sure the boat maker is happy (first one to get the government money) but I'm screwed. Supply and demand dictates that as demand goes up and supply goes down prices will move up to balance things out. Now, if the government were constrained to how much gold it had it wouldn't be able to unfairly pay for those boats. It would need to either A) mine more gold which means labor or B) tax it's citizens. Which one would the government do first? Obviously it's not going to do any actual work/labor so it's going to tax. But wait, taxing is not very politically popular so it prints fiat money instead.... problem solved, for them. Mean while I'm still getting screwed saving for my boat because every dollar in my pocket is losing purchasing power. That's how fiat money is not and can not be backed by "goods and services."

It's actually within the power of each one of us to create money. Just write a check. When the check has been accepted by someone, it's money. They took it as payment. Then they cashed it, and the check was cancelled. Money destroyed, at least from your own point of view.

So for a moment, you created money by promising money. The money is the promise.

jkingeek, you're missing the supply side of the equation, how efficiently various economies produce the wealth that money buys.

Plus banks create more money that the government anyway so this fiat money argument is just bullsh--. Over the past 12 months the Fed has printed under $200B of money and given it to the government to spend, while printing another trillion and taking mortgage backed securities off the private sector's hands, to support lower mortgage rates and keep some liquidity in the system so home borrowers can have their loans funded.

Now, if the government were constrained to how much gold it had it wouldn’t be able to unfairly pay for those boats.

The government is not buying boats with the money it spends, it is pushing over six trillion dollars a year of transfer payments, wages, and purchase orders into the private economy.

Your understanding of how the economy works, and the government's place within it, is severely lacking. Being on a gold standard doesn't fix anything, banking is the bigger problem.

@Troy, Explain it to me then. Why won't the government/fed allow market forces to work both ways? Everyone seems so content with inflation but so uncomfortable with deflation. Yes economies can become efficient at production which should lead to deflation (supply/demand). Why is the government having to step in and buy mortgage backed securities in the first place? Who put all the money out there that created the bubble? Banks? Yes. Who gave the banks the cheap money? The FED. Who is the FED? Essentially the government, and to deny that is to expose your severe lacking of the economy.

jkingeek says

Who gave the banks the cheap money? The FED.

Banks do not normally receive money from the Fed. Their loans are funded from the money their depositors give them.

The Fed just mandates how many times the same dollar can be lent out before it is required to be held in cash reserve. Currently this multiple is 10X or thereabouts. The Fed also controls lending by setting certain interest rates that drive what rate banks will lend out to customers, which is a basic throttle/brake mechanism the Fed uses to control the system's lending.

Of the $10T or so in the global money supply:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2

the Fed has funneled only $800B of money creation through the Treasury. Here is a chart of this activity in the past decade:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TREAST

(the dip is the Fed exchanging treasury debt with allegedly AAA rated securities the banks needed to offload)

Why won’t the government/fed allow market forces to work both ways?

Deflation sucks on the macro level. If prices are going down, it removes any incentive to consume if you can wait for lower prices later. But consumers are also producers, and if producers can't sell their stuff, they eventually stop becoming consumers.

This is known as a deflationary spiral.

Why is the government having to step in and buy mortgage backed securities in the first place?

Lower interest rates support higher home prices, and the banking system needs higher home prices since it lent out around FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS based on these (now-nonexistant) valuations.

Also, since we are basically in a deflationary spiral still the money creation was not inflationary.

Inflation works both ways: too much money creation and not enough production, or NO money creation and declining production.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TCU

So in essence, the Fed, by dictating how much banks must hold on reserve they (the Fed) are not creating money, they're letting the banks create money to an extent (10X what they actually have)? I don't see the difference.

jkingeek says

So in essence, the Fed, by dictating how much banks must hold on reserve they (the Fed) are not creating money, they’re letting the banks create money to an extent (10X what they actually have)?

No, actually, banks can only lend out 90% of what deposits they have, but the end result is bank loans becoming bank deposits, and the 90% lend-out results in a 10X money multiplier.

I don’t see the difference.

That's because you're soaking in it (the difference).

Part of the innovation of the go-go 1920s was the rise of consumer credit. Buy now pay later. But, alas, consumer credit isn't that big a deal compared to the real money-creators, which is commercial and private real estate lending.

Here's some more charts:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/REVOLNS?cid=101

vs:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TOTBKCR?cid=101

vs.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/REALLN?cid=100

Land ownership is THE central economic sector, everything revolves around it. Land boom/bust cycles have been going on for hundreds of years -- Daniel Boone busted himself out in land speculation, as did the richest man in 18th century America -- Robert Morris, and these two American heroes didn't need the Fed to get themselves into trouble.

We can both agree that the present financial system is largely a scam, a big money pump to support skimming off of the actual productive members of society. The Federal Reserve was an attempt by The System to impose some extra/quasi-governmental technocratic regulation on the credit and monetary system, to get the benefits of a fiat-based money supply without the attendant political risk of printing our way to prosperity.

The system utterly, abjectly, and disastrously failed in the 2003-2006 timeframe. My personal suspicion is that the Powers That Be were willing to throw any switch and pull any lever to avoid a repeat of a one-term Bush presidency (and once they were on the tiger in 2003-2004 they dared not get off). Justices Roberts and Alito are sitting in some very expensive chairs.

Well said. Yes the financial system is largely a scam. btw I know the government isn't buying boats and I don't make shoes either. :)

Actually the government DOES buy boats... and planes, and trucks and cars, etc, etc, etc. Government also competes with private businesses for office space, land, construction...virtually everything - and it drives up the cost of everything while doing so (supply vs. demand).

In addition to consuming, oh - I don't know - 40%, maybe 45% of the countries GDP, the government produces nothing and contibutes NOTHING to our economy.

Do we need government? Yes. Do we need big, massive, bloated, corrupt government attempting to solve everyone's problems, micro-manage everyones personal behavior, and over-regulate every aspect of private industry? NO - NO - NO. Thats the road to socialism and ultimately to the destruction of our nation.

Honest Abe says

Do we need big, massive, bloated, corrupt government attempting to solve everyone’s proble

Maybe the big bloated government is beginning to learn they can't solve all the problems out there. Example: they've turned to Hollyweird to "plug the hole." That seems like a step in the right direction. LOL

Abe Babe and Rayray, please stop using our roads, schools, police, firemen/women, paramedics, airports, trains, buses, and US Dollars. Since you both want to continue to live in denial and subscribe to the weird fantasy that government doesn't produce or contribute anything to our economy you should both avoid these things because they may snap you out of your bizarre fantasyland quickly if you were to use them.

And I'm sure you must both be against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," for the right of anyone to marry whomever they wish regardless of gender or sex, against repealing Roe v. Wade, and against forcing schools to teach "Intelligent Design" (a.k.a. Christian Biblical Creationism) since you both believe that goverment should stay away from telling us what to do in our personal lives. I'll expect to see you both to be at Gay Pride at the end of the month.

The key to a healthy economy is when people who are consuming something are also producing something of value back into the economy. This is why socialism and welfare states destroy economies. Too may people eating the corn and too few people planting it - results in a lot of hunger for everyone.

Massive government mismanagement has finally awakened the guy on the street (the new angry American) to see that he has been lied to, deceived and taken in by the absurd promises of sleazy, pandering politicians.

The sad thing about socialism is that if there honest money systems, low taxes, and very limited "safety-net" programs, most of the population would be far better off and not need the shackles and bondage of so called "government help".

Honest Abe says

This is why socialism and welfare states destroy economies. Too may people eating the corn and too few people planting it - results in a lot of hunger for everyone.

And I always figured Socialism didn't work because there was no incentive to increase productivity... Turns out they just don't plant enough corn. Who knew.

RayAmerica says

they’ve turned to Hollyweird to “plug the hole.”

typical of the confusion circulating among wingers -- James Cameron has more practical experience with deep submersibles than anyone without a Top Secret classification [edit: clearance].

Honest Abe says

The sad thing about socialism is that if there honest money systems, low taxes

also known as "high land values".

When I was doing research on Norway over the weekend I was quite amazed at the general competence with which its technocrats are running their partially-socialized economy.

The existence and real-world unqualified success of Norway's Eurosocialist system utterly destroys your thesis as you present it here. Even Alberta is trying to learn from the Norwegian example:

"The dismal state of the Heritage Fund is seen by many here as the result of years of mismanagement by successive Conservative governments. 'In some ways, they've had a bit of a bad rap, and in some ways, they deserve a bad rap,'"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article972257.ece

and:

"'Alberta would be better served,' said Todd Hirsch, chief economist with ATB Financial, 'if the government laid out a long-term plan of how we're going to deal with the surpluses, and not just for the current budgetary cycle.'

Instead, the focus remains short-sighted -- on keeping taxes low and using the energy windfall to fuel expenditures instead of saving and investing it. Economic booms do end -- as this one will one day. And sadly, Alberta will have nothing to show for it."

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=3eee7692-6b32-45b9-aa79-69078dd10673

Granted, running an economy of just 5M well-educated people with a 3m bbl/day oil production capacity is easier than a nation of 300M poorly-educated idiots scattered from sea to shining sea.

Singapore and Hong Kong are also examples of semi-socialized economies with long-term economic success.

If you want to ruin an economy, just lower taxes. One would think the recent Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 would be of sufficient demonstrative power.

Does anyone remember the fable of the grasshopper and the ant?

Let's see we've got Honest Abe and RayAmerica in this corner and tatupu70 and simchaland in that corner. Do we need government? I think we can all agree that yes we need government: military, police, firemen, etc. I think the real argument here is do we need a big government nanny welfare state? I'd like to hear tatupu70 and/or simchaland provide a logical argument for it without using your already demonstrated inclination towards sarcasm.

Um, yeah, I'm not for a big government nanny welfare state. I am a Liberal and I like our form of representative democracy and I want it taken back from the corporations. I do believe in having a basic social safety net because we all need a little assistance sometimes. And I believe in workers having rights and being paid a living wage for good work. I also believe in some protection for the environment because, well, I'd like to continue living and eating and breathing and drinking clean water.

And why wouldn't Abe Babe and Rayray have to prove their side with a logical argument? I've yet to read anything logical or rational from either of them supporting their insistence that we should have no government.

So, jkingeek when Abe Babe and Rayray ever pony up and provide rational and logical arguments about anything, I'm game. But don't hold your breath, it may take a while...

There you go again with the sarcasm, you just couldn't post a response without putting in a jab. "don't hold your breath". The whole point of this thread was to point out (I think, correct me if I'm wrong Honest Abe) that the current system is unsustainable. The only way it has gotten this far is by debasing the purchasing power of our dollars with the stealth tax (inflation).

If the system is to be maintained how is it going to be paid for?

jkingeek says

Let’s see we’ve got Honest Abe and RayAmerica in this corner and tatupu70 and simchaland in that corner. Do we need government? I think we can all agree that yes we need government: military, police, firemen, etc. I think the real argument here is do we need a big government nanny welfare state? I’d like to hear tatupu70 and/or simchaland provide a logical argument for it without using your already demonstrated inclination towards sarcasm.

No sarcasm? Now, where's the fun in that?

But seriously, your question is already loaded and shows your bias. No one wants a nanny welfare state. So, if you ask it like that, then it's a strawman.

jkingeek says

There you go again with the sarcasm, you just couldn’t post a response without putting in a jab. “don’t hold your breath”. The whole point of this thread was to point out (I think, correct me if I’m wrong Honest Abe) that the current system is unsustainable. The only way it has gotten this far is by debasing the purchasing power of our dollars with the stealth tax (inflation).
If the system is to be maintained how is it going to be paid for?

What "system" are you refering to?

People who prefer limited governmernt seem to prefer autonomy, good will, mutuality, initiative, industry, self-reliance and seek from a competent government protections that insure freedom of opportunity, freedom to live by his own choices and the ability to relate to others by mutual consent without oppressive government intervention.

Others seek a dominant governments's guaranteed safety, security and dependency over their enitre lives. They demand through the power of the state to redress all trama, injustice, helplessness, and humiliation. This is achieved through countless laws, rules, statutes, civil codes and regulations that indulge their impulses yet exempt them from the proper obligations of a mature adult. They seek a society that is heavily regulated, controlled, shaped, manipulated and administrated by the Modern Parental State (aka the Nanny State).

The state gains traction by daming "villians" for exploiting people yet deny they are manipulating people. They become ruthless while appearing innocent, devious while appearing truthful, obstructive while appearing helpful.

Their over-riding thought appears to be: "TO MAKE THE WORLD HAPPY, WE MUST INFORM THE MASSES AS TO WHAT IS GOOD FOR THEM, AND REGULATE THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT", because they must be incapable of doing so for themselves.

Federal debt tops $13 trillion mark
Spending reaches an alarming $4.9 Billion per day
By Stephen Dinan
9:38 p.m., Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The federal government is now $13 trillion in the red, the Treasury Department reported Wednesday, marking the first time the government has sunk that far into debt and putting a sharp point on the spending debate on Capitol Hill.
Calculated down to the exact penny, the debt totaled $13,050,826,460,886.97 as of Tuesday, leaping nearly $60 billion since Friday, the previous day for which figures were released.
At $13 trillion, that figure has risen by $2.4 trillion in about 500 days since President Obama took office, or an average of $4.9 billion a day. That's almost three times the daily average of $1.7 billion under the previous administration, and led Republicans on Wednesday to place blame squarely at the feet of Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats.

tatupu70 says

The entitlements such as welfare, social security, medicare, etc. are overwhelmingly supported by the general public

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." -- Eisenhower

RayAmerica says

At $13 trillion, that figure has risen by $2.4 trillion in about 500 days since President Obama took office, or an average of $4.9 billion a day.

We're only 9 months into his first fiscal year, which began Oct 1. Way to lie with statistics, Ray.

At any rate, budgets can't be turned around on a dime.

Public debt was $8.5T on June 1, 2010 and $7.5T on Oct 1, 2009, a rise of 13.3% over the first 9 months that Obama is on the hook for.

Over the previous nine months, from Jan 1 2009 thru Sept 2009, public debt rose nearly 18%.

So Obamanomics has already reduced the run rate nearly 500bps or over 25%. Praise the Lord!

While the above numbers are true, they don't really explain things.

The Bush tax regime established 2001-2003 really f---ed up this country's finances. Bush inherited a public debt of $3.3T in 2001 and ran it up to $6.3T on the day he left office (with that other $1.2T waiting to hit as his last budget year unfolded over FY09). His fiscal policies managed to more than double the public debt. Golf claps around for that managerial brilliance.

Publically-held national debt, real terms in ( )

1961: $238B ($1.7T)
1969: $278B ($1.6T) -- Kennedy/LBJ lowered the debt
1977: $550B ($1.9T) -- Nixon/Ford raised the debt
1981: $790B ($1.8T) -- Carter lowered the debt
1993: $3.25T ($4.76T) -- Reagan/Bush raised the debt
2001: $3.3T ($4.01T) -- Clinton lowered the debt
2009: $7.5T -- Bush raised the debt

Granted, the respective Congresses deserve a great deal of the blame/credit for the growth/decline of the national debt

Interested thread.

I live in a region that is solidly conservative, probably has plenty of people who are firm supporters of the Tea Party movement and politicians in the makings of Ron Paul.

When i listen to them, there is merit in some of what they say and I can respect that, but what I find most interesting is that these same types, mainly farmers and ranchers who are the grass rooters or america, are the same ones who are the first in line when a government farmer welfare program comes along, and you better get out of the way or you would darn near get ran over when the line forms by them.

People love to sing the praises of limited government, programs, etc. until it comes home to hit there wallets. How many of those Tea Party types at the rallies protesting government involvement in there lives don't find it kind of ironic that they are receiving Medicare at the same time, and would fight tooth and nail to not have it repealed or have the age for Social Security raised?

I also find it kind of funny that all this "hatred" of government spending didn't seem to go into full wacko mode until Obama came into the office. I figure those types were probably too busy at the time waiting for there government checks during the Regan and bush years...

Cain, you're right in a lot of what you say, IMHO. Thats part of my point - government subsidies, farmer welfare, hand-outs, write-offs, etc. should be limited to safety net standards only. Why on earth, for example, pay people NOT TO GROW CORN, or wheat, or anything else for that matter. See what I mean? Too much of the government's nose in other peoples business - most always with the opposite result as intended (aka "unintended consequences").

In my opinion there was an ample outpouring of anger (rightfully so) on Bush's fiscal mismanagement. However Obama QUADRUPLED (if I'm not mistaken) the spending of Bush. Thats probably the origin of today's current "unhappiness".

Honest Abe says

However Obama QUADRUPLED (if I’m not mistaken) the spending of Bush

LOL. What do you think the chances of you being mistaken on this assertion are?

You'd probably be way wrong about that, too!

Bush took the $300B defense budget of 2001 and turned it into a $700B monster.

Bush recklessly added Medicare Part D in a brazen pandering to seniors and price support to Big Pharma.

Bush took the $640B of discretionary spending of 2001 and left us with a $987B request for 2009, plus another $800B cherry-topper to patch the f---ed up financial system his minions had allowed to wreck itself 2002-2007.

Bush's last budget called for $3.1T in government spending plus the bailout resulted in a $3.9T expenditure.

Obama's first budget calls for a $3.6T expenditure.

Thats probably the origin of today’s current “unhappiness”.

yup, never underestimate the power of agit-prop on fools.

Obama-Bush-Obama-Bush..... I'm so sick of it. Politicians are politicians! The point here is that government spending is spiraling out of control. I think just about everyone reading this agrees. If you don't, I'm sure you'll speak up.

Well, I googled: OBAMA QUADRUPLES BUDGET, the very fist article was titled "After Tripling Deficit in 2009, Obama On Track to nearly Quadruple Bush Deficit in 2010". So apparently my memory did serve me correctly. As bad as Bush was, Obama is even a bigger spender. Yup, that's probably the origin of a lot of today's current unhappiness.

What's that TV Quiz show, "Are you as smart as a 5th (6th?) Grader"? I bet all the kids would be able to answer this question correctly: CAN YOU SOLVE A DEBT PROBLEM WITH MORE DEBT?

I would say this: Never underestimate the stupidity of Congress - none of them is as dumb as all of them.

Honest Abe says

Well, I googled: OBAMA QUADRUPLES BUDGET, the very fist article was titled “After Tripling Deficit in 2009, Obama On Track to nearly Quadruple Bush Deficit in 2010″. So apparently my memory did serve me correctly. As bad as Bush was, Obama is even a bigger spender. Yup, that’s probably the origin of a lot of today’s current unhappiness.

Well, if the interwebs says so, then it must be true...

tatupu70, I'll let you have that one.