How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor
A thought provoking article related to how the recent craze for developing ethanol alternatives to gasoline places undo pressure on global foodstocks.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86305-p0/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor.html
Commentary:
Although there is no doubt that ethanol is a viable alternative to gasoline, it is not the panacea that some folks would have you believe. For one thing, you can not co-mingle ethanol and petroleum within the existing petroleum distribution network. Ethanol is corrosive, and leads to pipeline degradation. Thus, it will require a massive secondary distribution network to provide supply to service stations. That's expensive.
As of now, ethanol is distributed by tanker truck and the "Bulk Transporter" website states that demand for tankers to carry ethanol has been robust:
http://bulktransporter.com/management/trends/economy_flattens_tank_fleets_rolling/
Additionally, ethanol contains fewer BTU/gal than gasoline, meaning you require more of it to perform the same amount of work (that's lower MPG for the laymen commuters out there)
So, why are we so intent on pushing the ethanol alternative? Votes, my friend.. Votes. Someone has to grow the sugar-rich crops used for making ethanol. And ethanol stands to make the nation's farmers very happy, and prosperous, indeed.
But is there an alternative to ethanol? An alternative that possesses comparable BTU/gal energy, can be transported in the existing petroleum supply network, and can be co-mingled easily with petroleum derived fuels?
Yes.. It's called bio-diesel. Some people also call it vegetable oil, peanut oil.. ;0)
But wait Scrutinizer!! Won't that just cause the price of my favorite jar of Skippy (I'm a JIF man myself) to go through the roof? Will my local pub stop giving away peanuts for free while I'm enjoying my brewskie? God forbid!!
But if you click on the link to the left, Oilgae, you'll find your answer. A potentially unlimited source of bio-diesel that does NOT impact the current food chain. A source of fuel that not only can operate diesel motor vehicles (with almost no modification required), but can also be used as winter fuel oil (I'll get to the importance of this in a second).
Here's a useful link I've often referenced in the past:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Now, I know we all love our gasoline power vehicles.. And boy.. those diesels are dirty and noisy.. But is this really the case? Has the technology advanced sufficiently to give diesels the kind of responsiveness we expect from gas powered engines?
Furthermore, as I mentioned it before, another plus factor is that diesel engine's disadvantages in terms of output and noise have been largely overcome, with the latest diesels offering a performance not markedly different from that of gasoline engines in this respect.
http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/technology/randd/project2/03.html
The whole argument for bio-fuels lies in the belief that they are "carbon neutral". In other words, they maintain the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere, whereas fossil fuels release CO2 that has been sequestered for eons in the form of petroleum far underground. Since plants take in CO2 for transpiration (making food), and releasing, any CO2 that would be released by converting them to bio-fuels would maintain the CO2 balance.
Now, the Scrutinizer is not convinced of the "inconvenient truth" of global climate change due to CO2 increases. There are far more powerful greenhouse gases lurking out there, including Methane (up to 23x more potent than CO2) and common water vapor (think sauna). But who am I to argue with the these folks if it serves the purpose of making this country more energy independent and less dependent upon whacko suppliers in Venezuela and the Mid-East?
Furthermore, CO2 increases are a trailing indicator of global warming, not a leading indicator. And it's quite possible that there exist other factors that are responsible for higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, including natural emissions (volcanic), deforestation, and changes within the oceans that decrease it's ability to sequester CO2 (lack of phytoplankton) which I might discuss in a future posting.
But there is one compelling argument for bio-diesels that directly impact each of our pocketbooks. We're all suffering under the recent soaring prices for gasoline in recent months. The primaries reasons for this are limited refining capacity within the US, as well as increasing global demand for refined petroleum products in China and other countries. All petroleum is a fungible international market and the price for fuels and crude oil is set on an international level (modified by currency exchange ratios as with the recent weakness in the US Dollar).
But the most severe impact on the price of gasoline is the limited refining capacity. Refineries have two primary markets they serve throughout the year. During the summer driving season, refineries emphasize the production of gasoline, while during the winter, they focus upon refining heating oil (diesel). In between these seasons, refineries are required to shut down operations in order to facilitate the processing changes required for switching between these two fuel. This normally occurs during the late winter, and early spring, depending upon the amount of reserve fuel in above ground storage as well as demand (harsh winters draw down available diesel stocks). And since there hasn't been a new refinery built in the US in 30 years, we're seeing a choke point in the production of refined fuels.
But were we to rely upon bio-diesels to provide the bulk of that winter demand, then refineries would not be required to switch to meet the demands of the two different markets. They could focus on producing gasoline, and eventually, be rendered obsolete as the majority of vehicles are converted to bio-diesel.
In sum, switching the American economy to an alternative fuel is a major undertaking and will create economic distortions. In order to decrease any negative impacts that might lead to the inflation of agricultural products, we must think carefully about the direction we wish to go with regard to replacing fossil fuel based energy. Thus, my preference is for bio-diesel (as well as hydrogen and electric). Ethanol is far too valuable for it's medicinal purposes (mixed with my favorite fruit based mixer) to be burned in an engine.
The Scrutinizer
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Did Saddam declare war on the US in 1993?
We've all heard the anti-war pundits tell us that there was no evidence that Saddam was supporting Al Qai'da, or the Jihadist movement, in general. They assert that Saddam was a secular ruler, and thus, the sword enemy of militant Islam. But if this is the case, then why was it that we discovered hundreds of suicide vests at Salman Pak, the camp that US intelligence asserted was a training ground for various terrorist groups?:
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDJkNDdkMjhjZjI1MWNjYTgyMDc0MmRjMmYzYjQyZGQ=
Exactly which secular Arab terrorist groups commit ritual suicide bombings? Please name a few examples for me (and don't say the LTTE in Sri Lanka.. they aren't muslim).
Were they to be used against the Israelis? Quite possibly. But then again, I have to ask what is the ideological nature of those suicide bombers who have blown themselves up in Israel? I don't personally recall many bombers blowing themselves up in the name of Ba'thism.
And here's one of my favorite little tidbits of information which has been generally ignored by the MSM. It consists of a number of documents recovered by coalition forces after Saddam's overthrow. They date from 1993, prior to the actual creation of Al Qai'da (which was a merger between Bin Ladin's group and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led by Ayman Al-Zawahiri) in 1995.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200410%5CNAT20041011a.html
Each of the documents is a copy of the original, with the english translation provided in the small .pdf button above it.
Here's a link to Page 1, a memo from Saddam's desk, dated January 13th, 1993, directing that actions be taken against Americans, especially those operating in Somalia (remember "Blackhawk Down"?). The order precedes the Battle of Mogadishu that led to the deaths of 19 US Army Rangers in Oct, 1993.
You can ask yourself if Saddam's Intelligence operatives played a role in this, or not:
http://www.cnsnews.com/specialreports/2004/exclusive1.asp
English translation for Saddam's order:
http://www.cnsnews.com/PDF/2004/enPage1.pdf
(note: bear in mind that many of the translators we hired for document exploitation (DOCEX) were not the best english speakers, thus the poor grammar and spelling. But in other cases the translations are verbatim.. the Ba'thist leadership was notoriously illiterate).
Now maybe the old Scrutinizer may be a "hawk", but it sure sounds like Saddam was declaring war upon the US by issuing the order to "hunt Americans". And if this isn't tantamount to a declaration of war against the US, then please tell me how you would define it? At the very least, was a direct violation of the terms of the 1991 cease-fire (UNSC 687) ending Operation: Desert Storm. In that cease fire agreement, Saddam agreed to CEASE all cooperation with terrorist groups.
So, the next time someone tells you that Saddam was not a clear and present danger to Americans, print out these documents and show them to them. Here was a guy who was authorizing his intelligence service to interact with the likes of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, one of the primary groups that later formed Al Qai'da and attempted to kill 50,000+ Americans on 9/11 (the number of people who normally worked in the WTC on a daily basis). And although there is little publicly available information as to the extent of the ties that developed after Saddam's 1993 order, it's pretty clear he had no problem coordinating his agenda with Muslim extremists when it suited his interests.
And while you're at it, ask yourself (or your congressional representative) why this administration has been negligent in its obligation to inform the American people as to the nature of the threat that dragged our country into overthrowing Saddam. There had been an effort to publicly release all of the captured Iraqi documents in order to enlist the assistance of academics and native speakers to assist the DOCEX operation. However, that all came to a halt last year when some VERY SENSITIVE untranslated documents related to nuclear triggers found their way into the public realm. Documents that, under the terms of the cease-fire, Saddam's regime should have turned over to UNSCOM back in 1991.
Hmmm....
Btw, there are literally MILLIONS of these types of documents we managed to recover in Iraq. The Iraqi's, like most totalitarian states (remember the Stasi files from E. Germany?), were pretty good record keepers. It made sure that everyone in his corrupt regime was accountable to Saddam and had no excuse for not following his orders. Of course, not all related to the operations of Iraqi intelligence, but suffice it say that we've still only scratched the surface in translating a fraction of them. Simply put, when the Iraq Survey Group, funded by executive order, closed down in April, 2005, no other agency wanted to allocate more than a token budget to keep the Document Exploitation efforts open. Had it not been for the thousands of boxes of Iraqi documents sitting in warehouses waiting for translation, I'm sure the entire operation would have been defunded.
As far as I know, there is only a token "DOCEX" operation still in place, and it could prove to be 5-10 years before we ever know the full truth regarding what else Saddam and his cronies were up to.
The Scrutinizer
We've all heard the anti-war pundits tell us that there was no evidence that Saddam was supporting Al Qai'da, or the Jihadist movement, in general. They assert that Saddam was a secular ruler, and thus, the sword enemy of militant Islam. But if this is the case, then why was it that we discovered hundreds of suicide vests at Salman Pak, the camp that US intelligence asserted was a training ground for various terrorist groups?:
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDJkNDdkMjhjZjI1MWNjYTgyMDc0MmRjMmYzYjQyZGQ=
Exactly which secular Arab terrorist groups commit ritual suicide bombings? Please name a few examples for me (and don't say the LTTE in Sri Lanka.. they aren't muslim).
Were they to be used against the Israelis? Quite possibly. But then again, I have to ask what is the ideological nature of those suicide bombers who have blown themselves up in Israel? I don't personally recall many bombers blowing themselves up in the name of Ba'thism.
And here's one of my favorite little tidbits of information which has been generally ignored by the MSM. It consists of a number of documents recovered by coalition forces after Saddam's overthrow. They date from 1993, prior to the actual creation of Al Qai'da (which was a merger between Bin Ladin's group and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led by Ayman Al-Zawahiri) in 1995.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200410%5CNAT20041011a.html
Each of the documents is a copy of the original, with the english translation provided in the small .pdf button above it.
Here's a link to Page 1, a memo from Saddam's desk, dated January 13th, 1993, directing that actions be taken against Americans, especially those operating in Somalia (remember "Blackhawk Down"?). The order precedes the Battle of Mogadishu that led to the deaths of 19 US Army Rangers in Oct, 1993.
You can ask yourself if Saddam's Intelligence operatives played a role in this, or not:
http://www.cnsnews.com/specialreports/2004/exclusive1.asp
English translation for Saddam's order:
http://www.cnsnews.com/PDF/2004/enPage1.pdf
(note: bear in mind that many of the translators we hired for document exploitation (DOCEX) were not the best english speakers, thus the poor grammar and spelling. But in other cases the translations are verbatim.. the Ba'thist leadership was notoriously illiterate).
Now maybe the old Scrutinizer may be a "hawk", but it sure sounds like Saddam was declaring war upon the US by issuing the order to "hunt Americans". And if this isn't tantamount to a declaration of war against the US, then please tell me how you would define it? At the very least, was a direct violation of the terms of the 1991 cease-fire (UNSC 687) ending Operation: Desert Storm. In that cease fire agreement, Saddam agreed to CEASE all cooperation with terrorist groups.
So, the next time someone tells you that Saddam was not a clear and present danger to Americans, print out these documents and show them to them. Here was a guy who was authorizing his intelligence service to interact with the likes of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, one of the primary groups that later formed Al Qai'da and attempted to kill 50,000+ Americans on 9/11 (the number of people who normally worked in the WTC on a daily basis). And although there is little publicly available information as to the extent of the ties that developed after Saddam's 1993 order, it's pretty clear he had no problem coordinating his agenda with Muslim extremists when it suited his interests.
And while you're at it, ask yourself (or your congressional representative) why this administration has been negligent in its obligation to inform the American people as to the nature of the threat that dragged our country into overthrowing Saddam. There had been an effort to publicly release all of the captured Iraqi documents in order to enlist the assistance of academics and native speakers to assist the DOCEX operation. However, that all came to a halt last year when some VERY SENSITIVE untranslated documents related to nuclear triggers found their way into the public realm. Documents that, under the terms of the cease-fire, Saddam's regime should have turned over to UNSCOM back in 1991.
Hmmm....
Btw, there are literally MILLIONS of these types of documents we managed to recover in Iraq. The Iraqi's, like most totalitarian states (remember the Stasi files from E. Germany?), were pretty good record keepers. It made sure that everyone in his corrupt regime was accountable to Saddam and had no excuse for not following his orders. Of course, not all related to the operations of Iraqi intelligence, but suffice it say that we've still only scratched the surface in translating a fraction of them. Simply put, when the Iraq Survey Group, funded by executive order, closed down in April, 2005, no other agency wanted to allocate more than a token budget to keep the Document Exploitation efforts open. Had it not been for the thousands of boxes of Iraqi documents sitting in warehouses waiting for translation, I'm sure the entire operation would have been defunded.
As far as I know, there is only a token "DOCEX" operation still in place, and it could prove to be 5-10 years before we ever know the full truth regarding what else Saddam and his cronies were up to.
The Scrutinizer
Will the internet slay Islam?
Thought provoking article on the Global Politician website.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2817&cid=2&sid=2
Commentary:
While I hopefully don't have the apparent bias against Islam as the author, I do find it interesting to contemplate if the advent of information on the internet regarding contradictions and "uncomfortable truths" lurking within Islam might not cause more muslims to become militant in the defense of their faith. The human psyche has an enormous capacity for cognitive dissonance and justification of contradictions within their faith.
I can look at almost ANY religion and find contradictions and misinterpretations, to include christianity (whether catholic or protestant). Islam is no different. For what is a religion except mankind attempting to manifest its various perceptions of the spiritual "will of god"into their daily lives? And interpretations are almost always subjective, with more emphasis placed upon certain beliefs than upon others. In protestantism, for example, some faiths emphasize the "gifts of the holy spirit" (such as the speaking of tongues), over others (like the gift of healing). Some interpretations accept that alcohol, drunken in moderation, is acceptable (take a little wine for thy stomach's sake), which others strictly forbid it's consumption to the point that they use grape juice for their sacrament ceremonies.
Through the ages the teachings of Christ have been warped and defiled by the corrupt desires of the men and women who claim to believe in them. Anyone know the phrase "kill them all, let God sort them out". It was first uttered by Arnaud-Amaury at Berziers, where crusaders exterminated the "heretical" sect of Cathars. He was asked by a subordinate how to differetiate a Cathar from other residents in the area, to which he responded, "kill them all, God will know his own". Does that sound any different from the militant rhetoric we're hearing from Al Qai'da and other Jihadist factions? Were some Christian leader to utter such an edict today, he would be immediately denounced and humiliated. Thus, it's evident that Christianity has definitely evolved over the centuries via the process of intellectual "domestication".
And as a whole, today's religious faiths are representative of this evolution. In fact, the whole nature of religion is a history of man's attempts to define his place within the universe. Some have theorized that Judaism has its roots within the teachings of Akhenaten's cult of the sun god in Ancient Egypt, widely recognized as the first monotheistic religion. Christianity, obviously, has its roots within Judaism. And Islam has it's roots within both Judaism and Christianity, with both the old and new testaments accepted (supposedly) as holy writings worthy of being read and studied. However, find a modern muslim Imam, mufti, or ayatollah, who would be willing to publicly proclaim that it's alright to read the bible. And, of course, later religious faiths, such as Mormonism, has its basis in Christianity. And it is worthy to note that both of the latter religions make use of contemporary prophets in order to unveil new "revelations" of god in order to supercede, if not replace, the Bible, proclaiming their new religious texts as the "fulness of the gospel". But I digress.
What we represent as religion today would be almost unrecognizable to the beliefs originally taught because they have had to evolve to incorporate modern intellectual and technological change. Where once Christians wouldn't have thought twice about waging wars, and forcible conversion, in the name of god against heretics and non-christians, today the majority of Christians find the thought of waging "crusade" an antiquated belief, unworthy of the teachings of Christ. They prefer to wage spiritual "battles" for souls, using evangelism and foreign ministries to convert people to their religions.
But Islam is different. Muslim society as yet to fully cast off the belief in their right to wage violent Jihad to forcibly convert the infidel. That's not bias, it's just plain fact that is portrayed to the world in the Muslim proclamations and their media. Islam has stagnated since it Muhammad proclaimed that he held a new revelation from god. It's adherents have failed to submit it's original teachings to serious re-examination as to exactly what God demands from them. And the interpreters of the Q'uran have failed to reconcile why their society has been unable to recognize the fruits of its religious fervor. Islam's defeat at the hands of Charles the Hammer at Poitiers, followed by the crushing defeat at the hands of the Mongol horde, followed by the humiliating eviction of the Moors from the European continent by Ferdinand and Isabella, and ultimately it's defeat under the Ottoman Turks at the Battle of Vienna has left its adherents with a serious inferiority complex. And the fall of the Ottoman empire at the hands of the West, and break up of its territorial holdings into a polyglot of arbitrarily defined geographical boundaries is only the latest in that string of humiliations.
And now Islam is facing it's ultimate challenge, an information war where every one of its tenets is being analysed and debated on an international level, via the internet. Thus, maybe, just maybe, the advent of Qutbism (See Sayyid Qutb) which is the basis for moderan Islamic extremism may be argued as a reactionary response to having their beliefs exposed and challenged on a global scale. It only seems logical that as Muslim beliefs, and especially those that justify violence, are revealed, that it's adherents would assume a defensive, if not militant reactionary stance. But the question in my mind is whether there lies the ability for progressive and peaceful change within the soul of Islam that will bring it "up to date"? Can moderate muslims who hold to the perception that Islam is a religion of peace prevail over those who defend their "right" forcibly convert humanity to their religion? Can moderates manage to evolve their religious beliefs to dovetail with modern philosophical thought, namely that violence perpetrated in the name of religion is repugnant and antithetical to the nature of god's will for humanity? That, in my opinion, is a question that we'll have to wait decades before we receive an answer.
What right has any man/woman to believe that they are empowered by God to physically force another human being to adher to their particular religious interpretation? Can anyone logically accept the contention that any Supreme Being would need (or desire) to force people to believe in "him"? I can't. It's the ultimate contradiction that any almighty, all knowing creator of all we know would need to force we puny humans to believe in him. Maybe I'm a fool, but I prefer to believe that God is attempting to throw me a lifeline to save me from the ocean of sins I'm wallowing in, not threatening to make me walk the plank. And what militant religious fanatics are attempting to perpetrate upon humanity is exactly the latter; convert to their faith or walk the plank in order to expedite our trip to hell,... do not pass go, do not collect eternity.
So the challenge for modern muslims is whether they can muster the necessary intestinal fortitude to confront the militants in their midst, and instead, wage a spiritual, but peaceful, war aimed at changing the hearts of humanity to more closely adher to that definition of "paradise" they all seem to claim is awaiting us. And for that matter, the very same thing can be said to apply to those militant Christians who believe they have the god-given right to blow up abortion clinics.
The Scrutinizer
Thought provoking article on the Global Politician website.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2817&cid=2&sid=2
Commentary:
While I hopefully don't have the apparent bias against Islam as the author, I do find it interesting to contemplate if the advent of information on the internet regarding contradictions and "uncomfortable truths" lurking within Islam might not cause more muslims to become militant in the defense of their faith. The human psyche has an enormous capacity for cognitive dissonance and justification of contradictions within their faith.
I can look at almost ANY religion and find contradictions and misinterpretations, to include christianity (whether catholic or protestant). Islam is no different. For what is a religion except mankind attempting to manifest its various perceptions of the spiritual "will of god"into their daily lives? And interpretations are almost always subjective, with more emphasis placed upon certain beliefs than upon others. In protestantism, for example, some faiths emphasize the "gifts of the holy spirit" (such as the speaking of tongues), over others (like the gift of healing). Some interpretations accept that alcohol, drunken in moderation, is acceptable (take a little wine for thy stomach's sake), which others strictly forbid it's consumption to the point that they use grape juice for their sacrament ceremonies.
Through the ages the teachings of Christ have been warped and defiled by the corrupt desires of the men and women who claim to believe in them. Anyone know the phrase "kill them all, let God sort them out". It was first uttered by Arnaud-Amaury at Berziers, where crusaders exterminated the "heretical" sect of Cathars. He was asked by a subordinate how to differetiate a Cathar from other residents in the area, to which he responded, "kill them all, God will know his own". Does that sound any different from the militant rhetoric we're hearing from Al Qai'da and other Jihadist factions? Were some Christian leader to utter such an edict today, he would be immediately denounced and humiliated. Thus, it's evident that Christianity has definitely evolved over the centuries via the process of intellectual "domestication".
And as a whole, today's religious faiths are representative of this evolution. In fact, the whole nature of religion is a history of man's attempts to define his place within the universe. Some have theorized that Judaism has its roots within the teachings of Akhenaten's cult of the sun god in Ancient Egypt, widely recognized as the first monotheistic religion. Christianity, obviously, has its roots within Judaism. And Islam has it's roots within both Judaism and Christianity, with both the old and new testaments accepted (supposedly) as holy writings worthy of being read and studied. However, find a modern muslim Imam, mufti, or ayatollah, who would be willing to publicly proclaim that it's alright to read the bible. And, of course, later religious faiths, such as Mormonism, has its basis in Christianity. And it is worthy to note that both of the latter religions make use of contemporary prophets in order to unveil new "revelations" of god in order to supercede, if not replace, the Bible, proclaiming their new religious texts as the "fulness of the gospel". But I digress.
What we represent as religion today would be almost unrecognizable to the beliefs originally taught because they have had to evolve to incorporate modern intellectual and technological change. Where once Christians wouldn't have thought twice about waging wars, and forcible conversion, in the name of god against heretics and non-christians, today the majority of Christians find the thought of waging "crusade" an antiquated belief, unworthy of the teachings of Christ. They prefer to wage spiritual "battles" for souls, using evangelism and foreign ministries to convert people to their religions.
But Islam is different. Muslim society as yet to fully cast off the belief in their right to wage violent Jihad to forcibly convert the infidel. That's not bias, it's just plain fact that is portrayed to the world in the Muslim proclamations and their media. Islam has stagnated since it Muhammad proclaimed that he held a new revelation from god. It's adherents have failed to submit it's original teachings to serious re-examination as to exactly what God demands from them. And the interpreters of the Q'uran have failed to reconcile why their society has been unable to recognize the fruits of its religious fervor. Islam's defeat at the hands of Charles the Hammer at Poitiers, followed by the crushing defeat at the hands of the Mongol horde, followed by the humiliating eviction of the Moors from the European continent by Ferdinand and Isabella, and ultimately it's defeat under the Ottoman Turks at the Battle of Vienna has left its adherents with a serious inferiority complex. And the fall of the Ottoman empire at the hands of the West, and break up of its territorial holdings into a polyglot of arbitrarily defined geographical boundaries is only the latest in that string of humiliations.
And now Islam is facing it's ultimate challenge, an information war where every one of its tenets is being analysed and debated on an international level, via the internet. Thus, maybe, just maybe, the advent of Qutbism (See Sayyid Qutb) which is the basis for moderan Islamic extremism may be argued as a reactionary response to having their beliefs exposed and challenged on a global scale. It only seems logical that as Muslim beliefs, and especially those that justify violence, are revealed, that it's adherents would assume a defensive, if not militant reactionary stance. But the question in my mind is whether there lies the ability for progressive and peaceful change within the soul of Islam that will bring it "up to date"? Can moderate muslims who hold to the perception that Islam is a religion of peace prevail over those who defend their "right" forcibly convert humanity to their religion? Can moderates manage to evolve their religious beliefs to dovetail with modern philosophical thought, namely that violence perpetrated in the name of religion is repugnant and antithetical to the nature of god's will for humanity? That, in my opinion, is a question that we'll have to wait decades before we receive an answer.
What right has any man/woman to believe that they are empowered by God to physically force another human being to adher to their particular religious interpretation? Can anyone logically accept the contention that any Supreme Being would need (or desire) to force people to believe in "him"? I can't. It's the ultimate contradiction that any almighty, all knowing creator of all we know would need to force we puny humans to believe in him. Maybe I'm a fool, but I prefer to believe that God is attempting to throw me a lifeline to save me from the ocean of sins I'm wallowing in, not threatening to make me walk the plank. And what militant religious fanatics are attempting to perpetrate upon humanity is exactly the latter; convert to their faith or walk the plank in order to expedite our trip to hell,... do not pass go, do not collect eternity.
So the challenge for modern muslims is whether they can muster the necessary intestinal fortitude to confront the militants in their midst, and instead, wage a spiritual, but peaceful, war aimed at changing the hearts of humanity to more closely adher to that definition of "paradise" they all seem to claim is awaiting us. And for that matter, the very same thing can be said to apply to those militant Christians who believe they have the god-given right to blow up abortion clinics.
The Scrutinizer
Sunday, May 13, 2007
China and the Greater Fool Theory
For those unacquainted with the "Greater Fool Theory", simply stated it means there always a greater fool out there willing to pay more than you did for something. And it's the entire basis of the equity markets, where people pay extraordinary price for little slips of paper (generally electronic) that represent a percentage shareholdership in a company. And when you run out of people willing to pay more for your shares, you quickly find out who the "greater fool" really is (believe me, I've been there myself).
Now.. I've nothing against the stock markets. They are valuable sources of financing for companies requiring capital to grow, or just to bring new products to market. And when you are one of those lucky investors who buy pre-IPO stock in some company like Google (Nas:GOOG), you can really make a fortune as that company executes its business plan and increases both revenues and profits, thus increasing the public perception of value for the shares you hold. Heck, it the basis for my owning shares in Microvision (Nas: MVIS), because I see their miniature laser projection displays for eyeware and cellphones as a very disruptive technology that will, if they execute their business plan properly, reap them hundreds of millions in revenues and profits.
But let's face some facts folks.. There's a reason we have something called a "Price to Earnings" ratio (P/E for short). It assists we investors in determining if we're overpaying for a company's stock, or if there is hidden value. Analysts get worried when the S&P500 (SPX) has a P/E of 15-20 times earnings. If you listen to the news, everyone is worried about the US markets because the SPX currently has a P/E of 18.31.
But the Chinese markets? My goodness.. as some may have heard, the sum total value of public shares listed on the Shanghai stock exchange exceed that of all Asian markets combined. This includes Japan, the second largest economy on the planet, right behind the US. But the average P/E of China's markets is currently at 40 times earnings. Now granted, this is being matched by growth in many of these companies, but what is fueling this growth? Is it internally driven, or export driven? And if the latter, which is the likely the case with China, what happens when your customers come upon hard economic times? Who will buy China's products then?
Currently the Chinese markets, including the Hang Seng in Hong Kong, are on a tear as the Chinese government has authorized certain Chinese banks the ability to invest greater amounts in non-Chinese stocks. They are doing this as a pitiful attempt to drain money from the Chinese market bubble. Chinese investors are generally not permitted to purchase foreign equities, nor transfer large amounts of money out of China. This is all because Bejing strictly controls the value of the Yuan (currency) and they don't want people circumventing those currency controls by purchasing foreign stocks and then selling them (Chinese investors would have sell Yuan in order to buy foreign denominated equities, thus placing downward pressure on the Yuan).
Also, I've seen the first public mention regarding my previous comment regarding my belief that Bejing will do whatever is possible to avoid an economic disruption prior to the 2008 Olympics. Get a load of this:
For those unacquainted with the "Greater Fool Theory", simply stated it means there always a greater fool out there willing to pay more than you did for something. And it's the entire basis of the equity markets, where people pay extraordinary price for little slips of paper (generally electronic) that represent a percentage shareholdership in a company. And when you run out of people willing to pay more for your shares, you quickly find out who the "greater fool" really is (believe me, I've been there myself).
Now.. I've nothing against the stock markets. They are valuable sources of financing for companies requiring capital to grow, or just to bring new products to market. And when you are one of those lucky investors who buy pre-IPO stock in some company like Google (Nas:GOOG), you can really make a fortune as that company executes its business plan and increases both revenues and profits, thus increasing the public perception of value for the shares you hold. Heck, it the basis for my owning shares in Microvision (Nas: MVIS), because I see their miniature laser projection displays for eyeware and cellphones as a very disruptive technology that will, if they execute their business plan properly, reap them hundreds of millions in revenues and profits.
But let's face some facts folks.. There's a reason we have something called a "Price to Earnings" ratio (P/E for short). It assists we investors in determining if we're overpaying for a company's stock, or if there is hidden value. Analysts get worried when the S&P500 (SPX) has a P/E of 15-20 times earnings. If you listen to the news, everyone is worried about the US markets because the SPX currently has a P/E of 18.31.
But the Chinese markets? My goodness.. as some may have heard, the sum total value of public shares listed on the Shanghai stock exchange exceed that of all Asian markets combined. This includes Japan, the second largest economy on the planet, right behind the US. But the average P/E of China's markets is currently at 40 times earnings. Now granted, this is being matched by growth in many of these companies, but what is fueling this growth? Is it internally driven, or export driven? And if the latter, which is the likely the case with China, what happens when your customers come upon hard economic times? Who will buy China's products then?
Currently the Chinese markets, including the Hang Seng in Hong Kong, are on a tear as the Chinese government has authorized certain Chinese banks the ability to invest greater amounts in non-Chinese stocks. They are doing this as a pitiful attempt to drain money from the Chinese market bubble. Chinese investors are generally not permitted to purchase foreign equities, nor transfer large amounts of money out of China. This is all because Bejing strictly controls the value of the Yuan (currency) and they don't want people circumventing those currency controls by purchasing foreign stocks and then selling them (Chinese investors would have sell Yuan in order to buy foreign denominated equities, thus placing downward pressure on the Yuan).
Also, I've seen the first public mention regarding my previous comment regarding my belief that Bejing will do whatever is possible to avoid an economic disruption prior to the 2008 Olympics. Get a load of this:
And many investors believe Chinese leaders will prop up prices to avoid turmoil ahead of a key Communist Party meeting in late 2007 and the Beijing Olympics next year.
"We hear that before 2008, the government won't let prices fall," said Ding's sister, Ding Jingxian. "We're not afraid."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_on_bi_ge/china_stock_market_fever
Now the Shanghai market is currently trading around 4,000, which represents tremendous gains over the course of the past year. If you don't believe me.. look at this chart:
The Shanghai market has more than doubled over the past year. DOUBLED!!!
I suspect when that market hits the major psychological barrier represented at 5,000, millions of Chinese are going to look in the mirror and discover they have become the "greater fool". It may happen before it reaches 5,000, but if those comments are correct, the Chinese government will do everything to prevent a market correction from becoming a market collapse, including governmental repurchasing of stocks to place a "bid" under any market collapse.
On the other hand, the ability for savvy Chinese investors to invest in the markets of those countries who actually purchase the predominant amount of Chinese products (the US, Japan, and Europe) should bode well for our markets.
But god forbid we have a recession in the US within the next year. We're already seeing slower growth, despite our fantastic levels of low unemployment (which directly translates to consumer spending for all those cheap Chinese goods.)
I will be looking for ways to short the Chinese markets in a relatively conservative way when it approachese 5,000. I believe there is a Exchange Traded Fund that covers Chinese markets and those can be shorted like any other stock. But preferably my short position will be options based. Less money at risk, and if the market goes up, my potential for loss is limited to the cost of my options position.
The Scrutinizer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)