Effor.com

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

This is from an old (sometime in the 1980’s) Dave Barry column, but I ran across it today and I still find it funny.  It’s about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.  Unfortunately for our country, it’s pretty close to the truth….

“The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They’re the kind of people who’d stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn’t bother to stop because they’d want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.”

Republicans spend too much on defense, bailouts of inept corporations, and in new programs designed to show people that they’re really good guys, like the prescription drug bill.  Democrats spend too much on everything.  Neither is willing to raise taxes enough to pay for their spending.  The only time in the last 50 years that spending has been kept somewhat in check is when we had a Republican congress and a Democrat as president.

For 6 years – from January 1995 through January 2001 – Republicans controlled congress and Clinton was president.  Spending was kept in check and we almost had a balanced budget.  I know Clinton claimed surpluses, but he lied.  The “surplus” came from Social Security payments and the total federal debt increased each and every year, so there wasn’t actually a surplus – but it was as close as we’re ever likely to see from here on.

Obama is making Bush’s budget busting spending look like child’s play.  This year alone, we’re spending twice as much as we’re collecting in taxes.  We’re effectively borrowing money from the Chinese to make interest payments to the Chinese.  It’s the same as using your Visa card to make minimum payments on your MasterCard.  How long do the idiots on Capital Hill think they can continue this Ponzi scheme?

gk

I submitted this review of the “Gator” mulching blade for the 28″ Snapper HiVac mower earlier tonight on Amazon, and I figured I might as well post it here….  The Gator blade has a unique design, but it didn’t work well for me.

I purchased the Gator blade for my 28″ Snapper Hi Vac about a month ago. First I put it on straight out of the box – terrible cut. The grass was ragged and it totally missed blades of grass sticking up 2″ in spots. I sharpened the blade (it wasn’t very sharp from the factory) and it’s a bit better, but in no way would I consider it acceptable.

The standard Snapper Hi Vac (non-mulching) blade has an excellent cut – even better than the John Deere 445 I had a few years ago (at a different house with 3 acres to cut). I bought the Gator because from what I could find online it was the best mulching blade.

If it’s the best, I’d sure hate to see the worst! I tried the Gator both without and with the mulching cover on the Snapper mower. Without the cover (basically a plug that covers the discharge) it has a decent cut – IF you cut at the slowest possible speed – but it gets progressively worse if you try to cut at a normal (2nd or 3rd gear) speed.

With the discharge plug, it’s simply unacceptable at any speed. Even after going over the same area 2 and 3 times it leaves blades of grass sticking up uncut.

The blade is super sharp, and no, it’s not installed upside down. I’m typing this while letting the motor cool off before I remove the Gator blade once and for all. I would not recommend this to anyone for cutting grass – it might work ok for chopping leaves in the fall, but so does the standard Snapper mulching blade.

From my observations, it doesn’t appear that the Gator blade has enough lift.  It doesn’t “suck” the grass up straight so it can be cut cleanly. To me, the Gator appears to have just a tad bit more lift than the standard Snapper mulching blade, but not much more.  And the standard mulching blade also works fine for chopping up leaves.

Bottom line – save your money and use the standard Snapper blade or mulching blade. The standard blade gives a great cut, and the standard mulching blade chops up leaves. No need to purchase the Gator, which doesn’t do anything well from my experience.

gk

This is simply my experience from the past few days, but I’m pretty impressed with Microsoft’s Bing.com search engine.  For example, I’ve been looking for a hat rack, one of those that stand up in a hallway with a few hooks at the top to hang hats, coats, scarves, etc.

I Googled “Knoxville, TN, furniture, hat rack” and on the first page of results there’s only one entry that’s even remotely related to what I’m looking for – and it’s online only, not local in Knoxville.

When I did the same search on Bing, the first 3 results are exactly what I’m looking for – hat racks available locally.  And the next 2 results are for hat racks available online.   I found what I needed and picked it up the same day.   Bing found it for me when Google didn’t.

I don’t remember the other examples right now, but today was a concrete example of Bing delivering better search results than Google.  That’s the first time I’ve been able to say that someone beat Google in years – and I’ve been online since Compuserve and Genie in the late 80’s.  I may look back on this a year from now and say “what was I thinking!” but as of 10 minutes ago, Bing.com has replaced Google.com as my default search engine.

gk

I’ll get this out of the way first – I’m a skeptic whenever the people predicting/promoting something depend on the thing they predicted/promoted continuing so they can get another taxpayer funded grant so they can continue to predict/promote the subject.  Thus I am skeptical of man-made global warming.

Note that I am not denying climate change – the climate has changed MANY times in the past, and the earth has been both much hotter and much cooler than the current climate.  Man wasn’t even around during most of the previous changes – our recorded history only goes back about 6000 years, and the oldest agricultural based civilization discovered so far is about 12000 years old.  It’s interesting that that corresponds to the beginning of the current interglacial period….

Who caused the previous climate changes?  Isn’t it even a possibility that the small changes in climate we’ve measured over the past 100 years are entirely natural?  Where is the evidence that is man CAUSING climate change?  (Again, I’m not denying that climate change may be happening – I simply do not think it’s been proven that man is the cause of any climate change which may be happening.)

With that out of the way, I ran across this web site while reading through a small wind newsgroup email tonight.  In his email, the author dismisses a study contradicting his view by saying “Both articles referenced in this thread are deceptive attempts to create sensationalism where there is none. In both cases a single new observation has changed the results of climate predictions by a tiny amount. The magnitude of the changes are carefully not mentioned because they are trivial.”

I find that statement from him strange because on his website he talks about chaos theory and how it’s misunderstood.  On his website (linked above) he states “That is why we have the butterfly effect. Quite literally, the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in South America could cause a storm in Europe a few years later.”

To which I say bullshit.  That’s the same as saying when I cough or fart, I could cause the moon to wobble on it’s axis or purple aliens to emerge on Mars.  There is ZERO basis for such a ridiculous claim, and the burden of proof is on the person making the outlandish claim.   It’s also interesting that Lorenz first used the term when quoting a meteorologist who was making fun of Lorenz’s own faulty weather modeling scenario.

Anyway, he can’t have it both ways.  He cannot (logically anyway) claim that “the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in South America could cause a storm in Europe” yet dismiss a factual  observation as “trivial”.

Note: Entering incorrect data – even a small error – into a calculation is not the same as a seagull flapping it’s wings.  Or me farting.  Just because a computer model exaggerates the error does not mean it actually happens in the real world.  For an ancient example of how something may be valid in math, yet be totally wrong in practice, you can read about Achilles and the Tortoise.

There’s so much more here, but I’m not going to get into a point by point rebuttal of it tonight.  But I do want to quote one more section.  Towards the bottom, he states: A big shake-up is required. In 2008 we received a warning shake in the form of the credit crunch. (Excuse me, but WTF does he think the unsustainable debt loads of companies and individuals has to do with global warming?  The answer is in his next few sentences…

Instead of governments spending incredible sums of money supporting the very organisations that caused the problem they should be injecting the funds into helping the victims of the deceipt [sic] and into reviving the economy by funding clean renewable energy. Until this happens I am reliant on this website to raise the cash I need to take real practical steps toward delivering clean energy solutions.

As he clearly states – he’s in this to raise cash.  And until the government (you and me via taxes) gives him the money he wants, he’s trying to scare people into giving him cash.  As “proof” of the dire nature of his predictions, he says “It could well get out of control to the extent where we would not be able to stop it at any price! As the planet gets hotter the methane would be released even faster until it could kill all life on earth! If you do not believe me read my essay about SETI.”

Ok, I “do not believe him” so let’s see WTF his essay on SETI has to do with global warming…..

Hmmm…. The only unbreakable laws we know of are the laws of nature. I propose that there is such a law and that it is called “Free Will”. Until enough of us ask for contact from friendly aliens they will stay strictly outside the realm of our senses.”

This sounds suspiciously like churches asking people to pray for rain, or world peace, or a sick friend…. If you’d truly believe in it, it would happen.  Even if there’s absolutely zero evidence for it.

He sort of sounded believable when sticking to basics about global warming, but saying that we can’t contact the “friendly aliens” because not enough of us are asking for contact is strictly wacko stuff.  No science, no theory, this isn’t even a fucking hypothesis!  It’s a mad man’s delusion….

Sorry, he has some webpages with assertions.  And he’s hoping his assertions will convince people to give him money – until he can get your money from the government without having to ask you for it directly.

Enough of this.  I’m not wasting anymore time on him.  The earth has gotten warmer since the 1980’s, and we don’t know why.  There are many theories, but I haven’t seen a single one of them that also explains why the earth got so hot from the 1920’s through the 1940’s.  A valid theory must take into account all known data – no exceptions.  When even one bit of reality contradicts it, it’s no longer a theory – it’s back to being a hypothesis.

gk

I took a look this evening at the various search terms people used when getting to this blog.  Since there’s a dearth of information with real world data about heat pumps, I’m not surprised that various searches about “heat pumps”, “heat pump cost”, and “heat pump reliability” are high on the list.  I described my frustrations about that last year when I needed to purchase a new heat pump.

I am surprised at one term that showed up this week – twice.  It’s “darwins theory of relativity”.  No, I’m not joking.

I give my opinion on a wide variety of topics here, and I have talked about Darwin in the past.  As in here, and here, and here.  I don’t remember talking about relativity, but I guess it’s possible, since (as I understand it) Einstein’s theory of relativity is the best explanation we currently have regarding how the universe operates.  It contains lots of predictions which have been verified to the limits of our equipment, such as the effect of gravity on light, and I know of no data that contradicts the theory.

I just searched for that term on this blog, and I referenced relativity in the “Why is Darwin still controversial” post.

But come on – “Darwin’s Theory of Relativity?”  Really?  Twice in one week?

From the logs I can’t tell if it was the same person who happened to search for that term twice or two different idiots.  But it happened.  So it must be possible.

Another search term I found strange was “who invented the stupid laws we have”.  Only one hit from that term, but it’s still really strange.  I mean strange as in dumb.  I’m curious to find out who thinks laws are “invented”, and why they would think that way.  Laws are simply the rules we (as a society) decide to use in dealing with each other.  They aren’t invented, they are proposed, debated, perhaps modified, passed, and only then do they become law.

Many of them – like the restrictions on freedom and various illegal searches passed after 9/11 – are later ruled unconstitutional, but none of them are “invented”.  Laws may be “proposed”, “submitted”, “debated”, and “bullshit”, but they are not invented as the term is commonly defined.

Just thought it was weird how people found this site.   I get many more hits from valid searches, but these were really weird and for some reason I felt the need to say so.

gk

The S&P 500, DJIA, and NASDAQ are all up about 40% from their lows on March 9th.  Why?  Has the economy (and earnings) rebounded that sharply?  Or were the March lows an aberration?  It’s been a while since I talked about the stock market or the larger economic picture, so it’s time to revisit those themes.

First, the economy.  From the data to date, it appears that the broad US economy is shrinking less rapidly than it was just a few months ago – but it’s still shrinking.  The GDP shrank at a 6.3% rate in the 4th quarter of 2008, and it shrank at a 6.1% rate in the 1st quarter of 2009.  These are the revised (as of May 29th) numbers straight from the BEA here.

Passenger: “The GDP is better than it was before Captain – can we start the party?”

Captain: “Ummm, let me think….  The ship is still sinking….  But it’s sinking at a slightly slower rate.  Re-arrange the deck chairs again, maybe that will help.  Party on dude!”

Ok, so the economy isn’t growing – what’s behind the 40% rise in stocks?  Could it be earnings?  Maybe companies have laid off enough workers, and streamlined operations enough so that their profits are 40% higher than last quarter?  Let’s look at the numbers….

With 99.43% of the Q1 2009 earnings reported, the total earnings of the S&P 500 adds up to $7.61.  That’s certainly a lot better than the negative $23.25 the S&P 500 earned during Q4 2008!  Keep in mind that Q4 was the first time ever for “negative earnings” for the S&P 500.   And another word for “negative earnings” is “losses”.  Or “deficit”.  As in “the US Government has $1.85 trillion in negative earnings for fiscal year 2009.”

Anyway, $7.61 in earnings must be a good thing if that has caused the stock market to surge about 40% in the past 3 months right?  According to Standard and Poors latest spreadsheet, no.   Except for last quarter’s losses, As Reported earnings haven’t been this low since Q4 of 2002.  And the Operating Earnings (currently $10.15) haven’t been this low since Q4 of 2001.

Ok, so actual earnings aren’t driving the market higher – what if the earnings are low, but beating the estimated earnings?  In other words, what if company earnings suck, but they suck less than investors expected them to suck?  Sorry Charlie, according to Howard Silverblatt, S&P Senior Index Analyst, “actuals are -24.3% off estimates, and -43.5% behind last year”.

Of course, Howard goes on to say that the “Operating vs As Reported (top down vs bottom up) varriance enormus; out of the woods or the Island has moved.”  I’m not sure what it means when the Senior Index Analyst at Standard and Poors can’t spell “variance” or “enormous”, but it can’t be A Good Thing.

In the same note, Howard also says “189 issues beat est, but only 87 beat last years earnings; 290 missed with 72 beating last years EPS” which translates (seriously) to “189 out of the 500 companies in the S&P 500 beat their earnings estimates.”  189 out of 500 is about 38% – that means that 62% of the S&P 500 MISSED their earnings estimates.  And yet the stock market is 40% higher.

Ok, so maybe the forward PE ratio is finally coming down to reasonable levels?  It was at a record 60 to 1 at the end of Q4, it must be better now….  Or at least when we look at the estimates for the rest of the year….  Right?

Wrong.  The current PE ratio for the S&P 500 is 114.77, another record high.  And it gets even worse when you look ahead.  Here are the current estimated PE ratios for the S&P 500 for the rest of 2009.

• Q1 – 132.22
• Q2 – 3513.31 !
• Q3 – Negative 301.52 (first negative annual PE in history)
• Q4 – 33.46

To sum it up, I see no reason for the current level of stocks.  Zero.  The S&P 500 index (currently at 944.74) is too high relative to earnings – and in the long run, stock prices are based on earnings.  This minibull may continue for awhile, but prices WILL eventually adjust to the low earnings.  And from where I sit, that means stocks will drop back down to at least the March low sometime this year.

The only possible way I can see stocks continue to rise is inflation.  Specifically, inflation caused by the enormous amount of money the Fed is printing out of thin air and injecting into the money supply.  In that case, stocks can – and will – go higher.  But the actual price increase will be close to zero when adjusted for inflation.  And if you want to maintain your purchasing power, gold and silver (in your physical possession, not an ETF!) are, in my humble opinion, much better inflation hedges than stocks.

I could go on and on about how Geithner, Helicopter Ben Bernanke, a willing Congress anxious to be seen as “doing something”, and Obama are making the mess worse – just as Greenspan, Bernanke, Bush, and a willing Congress created the problem – but that’s another story for another day.

gk

Just had to post this link to an article in The Sun.   Check out the pictures of tennis player Simona Halep – there’s even a video on the Sun website….

According to the story:  The 17-year-old claims they are a disadvantage and has vowed to have a reduction later this year.  She declared: “The breasts make me uncomfortable when I play.“

I think there are laws about plastic surgery for minors – for the sake of the future of tennis, I hope so…..

gk

Timothy Geithner is either really stupid or he’s simply lying to buy time.  I left work early today and I heard this quote from Rush Limbaugh on the way home (I used to listen to him regularly, but his shtick is getting old – how long can he blame everything on the Democrats and Clinton?  Bush had power for 8 years, and borrowed as much money as ALL previous presidents combined – I didn’t hear Rush bitching about spending then.)  so I had to look it up.

Rush is right on this one – here’s a quote from a Bloomberg news story: “It will be helpful if Geithner can show us some arithmetic,” he said.

“He” is Yu Yongding, a senior researcher at the government-backed Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and a former central bank adviser. “The Chinese public is worried about the safety of its foreign- exchange reserves,” Yu said in an e-mail.

Yup, that would sure be “helpful”.  I’m still trying to figure out how we (the US) can borrow as much as we collect in taxes this year and next year and still Geithner can state “No one is going to be more concerned about future deficits than we are”. I’d like to see the math on that.

To put it bluntly, Geithner is either really, really dumb, or he’s simply lying. I think he’s lying.

According to a Reuters story about the visit A major goal of Geithner’s maiden visit to China as Treasury chief is to allay concerns that Washington’s bulging budget deficit and ultra-loose monetary policy will fan inflation, undermining both the dollar and U.S. bonds.

That sounds good – I too would like to be reassured that my savings aren’t going to be worthless because of the incredible amount of money being printed.  But guess what?  Words mean nothing – it’s what they actually do that counts.  And what the Obama administration is doing is driving the final nails into the coffin that is the US economy.  Bush dug the hole, and Obama is pushing us into it.

The really sad part of Geithner’s statements is that even the Chinese know that he’s lying.  According to the same Reuters story when Geithner said “Chinese assets are very safe,” it  drew loud laughter from his student audience, reflecting skepticism in China about the wisdom of a developing country accumulating a vast stockpile of foreign reserves instead of spending the money to raise living standards at home.

Towards the end of the Bloomberg story, it says “I will, of course, make it clear that we are committed to a strong dollar, that we are committed to bringing our fiscal deficits down over the medium term to a sustainable place, to a sustainable level,” Geithner said in the briefing May 27. “We believe in a strong dollar. A strong dollar is in the U.S. interest.”

That’s pure bullshit and I think Geithner knows it.  He can’t really be that stupid.  No deficit is “sustainable” over the long run – every year simply puts you further and further behind.  At some point you must pay the debt off.  And in order to pay ANY debt off you must have a surplus.  That’s simply not in the cards for the US.  Medicare and Social Security are soon to run huge deficits – and where will we get the money to pay that?

gk

This is nuts – but it’s just like all the other government Ponzi schemes.  I just read an article on CNN about the FDIC taking money from large banks in order to have enough funds to bail out failed banks – which have been mainly smaller banks.

The article says  “A lot of large banks haven’t failed because of massive government assistance,” Bair said. “If it weren’t for those, some big banks would have failed and there would have been costs.”

Duh.  So Bair’s policy is effectively to take government money from large banks (which have received bailouts) and use it as insurance to pay depositors in small banks.  Is she really so stupid that she doesn’t think we can tell that it’s government money being used to pay for government insurance?  And that we don’t realize where that money is coming from?

The money is literally being printed out of thin air, which causes inflation.  I’m not the brightest candle on the shelf, but even I can tell that this is not going to actually solve anything.

gk