The BP Mess Is A Natural Punishment

The entire system around which daily life is organized in the United States, undergirded by the Federal Reserve Note dollar, is crumbling. Both long-term trends and externalities, like the BP mess, are natural and predictable consequences. Inertia is such a strong force that the avoidable often becomes, in the macro, unavoidable. But individually you can starve the vampire squid institutions and organizations and in doing so likely increase your health, wealth and happiness.

bp oil spill

PUNISHMENT FOR NATIONAL SINS

In the grand picture this BP mess in the Gulf of Mexico is a tiny and immaterial result from using a fiat currency and fractional reserve banking system.

The Founding Fathers were a particularly contentious lot during the Constitutional Convention. A major point of disagreement was slavery and the slave-trade compromise hinged on a clause found in the United States Constitution Article I Section 9 Clause 1 which contained an interesting word: dollar. Obviously, if the term dollar did not have a commonly accepted definition then this slave-trade compromise would not have been agreed to in the convention. But now the question What Is A Dollar? has no intelligible answer under federal law.

George Mason, a slaveowner, famous American Revolutionary Statesman, Delegate from Virginia to the Constitutional Convention and the “Father of the Bill of Rights” said,

Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of heaven upon a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins, by national calamities.

The slavery issue, which could have been addressed and settled at the Founding, was instead, because of inertia, postponed until it erupted in a bloody crisis led by America’s greatest despot. The monetary issue, in contrast, was settled at the Founding and has been steadily eroded since until the United States and the world now finds itself in a very difficult and dangerous predicament.

Individuals, cities, counties and States are using Federal Reserve Note Dollars as legal tender and this is unconstitutional. Of course, the United States Supreme Court has not and most likely will never address the issue and so it is left to fester and boil until an avoidable crisis becomes unavoidable. Dr. Edwin Vieira in Pieces of Eight foresaw, chronicled and forewarned about all of this. It seems Seth Lipsky of the Wall Street Journal, like most in the Establishment, is a little late, ignorantly or deliberately? Inertia.

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED OIL

Since Henry Ford refined the assembly line into an efficient factory the United States has been favoring oil through tax policy which has artificially stimulated demand. Now the entire American infrastructure has been built around this premise and as Dick Cheney says, “The American way of life is not negotiable.” Just ask Saddam, Obama or Ron Paul.

Of course, a couple natural byproducts of this favorable tax policy for both supply and demand of oil, ranging from highway funding or the public school transportation system to the primary residence interest tax deduction or municipal bond tax exemption, is lower cost resulting in increased demand and the rise of special interest groups such as Big Oil. Then supply which would most likely not ordinarily be produced is sought for production instead of substitute or alternative goods which often encounter legislative barriers to entry. Special legislation is enacted to protect suppliers against externalities so that the commodity can be provided at a lower cost which further feeds demand. The governmental intervention changes the economics; the economics guide the culture and ultimately impacts behavior.

Then, BAM! An externality black swan lands like the Exxon Valdez mess or BP’s massive pollution of the Gulf of Mexico. Sure, Exxon probably does not intend to wreck the oil tanker but if they can privatize the gains and socialize the losses then it would create shareholder value.

While Exxon polluted Valdez on 24 March 1989 the case was finally heard on appeal to the United States Supreme Court on 27 February 2008, about 19 years later and the decision merely remanded the case back down to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and limited the punitive damages to the compensatory damages of $507.5M even though Exxon’s behavior was ‘worse than negligent but less than malicious’. In the meantime, after the first verdict JP Morgan Chase created the first CDS for Exxon in 1994 because of the initial $5B punitive damage award and inflation has since eroded the vast majority of the value of 507.5M Federal Reserve Note Dollars. Thus began the rise of the derivative industry.

While President Obama is strutting around browbeating BP the outcome will likely be similar to Exxon’s which is still unresolved even though three United States Presidents have completed five terms. For example, Exxon posted record profits of $45.2B in 2008. This is an example of privatizing the gains and socializing the losses. Likewise BP will probably privatize the gains with their average net income for the last three years of $21.316B while socializing most of the losses resulting from this massive corporate defecation in the Gulf. Inertia at work to sustain the unsustainable system which had its genesis decades ago.

CONCLUSION

BP’s massive pollution of the Gulf of Mexico will have a tremendous negative impact on millions and millions of people. But BP, like the investment banks they are intertwined with, will likely be able to privatize the gains from oil production and socialize many of the losses. This is just a single example of ‘an inevitable chain of causes and effects’ that are driven by physical and economic law.

But if you think the pollution in the Gulf of Mexico is tremendous then I doubt you understand the scale of the damaging externalities resulting from the current worldwide monetary system. In the grand picture this BP mess in the Gulf of Mexico is a tiny and immaterial result from using a fiat currency and fractional reserve banking system. Exxon Valdez, BP Gulf of Mexico, Chernobyl, Soylent Green, Union Carbide’s Bhopal, the American military, the Health Care Bill, Monsanto’s Food Inc, and etc.

Using a sound money system as demanded by the United States Constitution while boycotting fractional reserve banking, in other words starving the vampire squid, is one way to protect and preserve both your personal health and the environment. In other words, stop paying these institutions and organizations to kill you and destroy the environment! To the extent possible, move your money, support HR 4248, alter your habits, change your buying patterns, cancel your cable, buy gold, and boycott unethical, immoral and damaging companies. You will likely be healthier, wealthier and happier if you do.

DISCLOSURE: Long physical gold, silver and platinum with no interest the XOM, BP, the problematic SLV or GLD ETFs or the platinum ETFs.

What Does the Legatum Prosperity Index Measure?

Prosperity. However, my initial reaction when I first looked at the index was that it was more like an index of the quality of life or well-being than of prosperity. My perception of prosperity was too narrow. One of the purposes of the index is apparently to encourage people ‘to take a holistic view of prosperity’. The authors might have a point. Dictionary definitions of prosperity don’t focus solely on economics – they suggest that prosperous is synonymous with flourishing, successful and thriving.

The index has nine components or sub-indexes:
• Economic fundamentals
• Entrepreneurship and innovation
• Democratic institutions
• Education
• Health
• Safety and security
• Governance
• Personal freedom
• Social capital.

Is this a comprehensive list of factors affecting human flourishing? One apparent omission is environmental quality. Although this is considered to some degree in the indicators used for health, I get the impression that the authors’ view of prosperity does not place much value on the enjoyment that people obtain from the natural environment. I wonder whether that view is backed up by research findings.

The main problem I have with this report is that I am not sure how much substance lies behind it. The presentation is incredibly smooth, mainly because it is completely uninterrupted by references to research papers or data sources. The preface suggests that information on data sources is available on the prosperity web site. All I could find on that site, however, apart from the acknowledgement of input from research consultancy, Oxford Analytica, is a statement that the index draws on the Gallup World Poll and other data and includes only factors for which a statistical link with material wealth or life satisfaction can be shown.

The Legatum Institute claims to be a think tank. It seems to me that no organisation claiming to be a think tank should publish research findings without making sure that the underlying research is open to public scrutiny.

However, leaving aside my doubts, this report is worth looking at just to view the chart showing that countries with high prosperity tend to have high performance on all sub-indexes and those with low prosperity have low performance on nearly all sub-indexes.

Water, Water, Everywhere…

In 1798 Coleridge wrote, “water, water, everywhere, [but not a] drop to drink”. By 2100 this may become “water, water, everywhere, but not a fish to eat”. Carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, may be doing more than warming our atmosphere, it may be acidifying our oceans. According to Dr. Richard Feely, an Oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 525 billion tons of CO2 has been absorbed by the ocean over the last 200 years with 22 million tons being absorbed daily. This gas is converted to carbonic acid and has resulted in a 30% increase in ocean acidity since the early 1900s. Dr. Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institute of Washington stated in a written testimony to the Committee on Science and Technology that 65 million years ago the oceans acidified and not only did almost all marine life with shells disappear, but coral reefs dissolved and weren’t seen again for two million years. Although the impact of ocean acidification has become a concern for scientists and legislators alike, much research to this point has been conducted only in fish tanks and on a small scale. In a July 3, 2008 publication of Nature, Dr. Jason Hall-Spencer presented the first large-scale study of an oceanic ecosystem to provide disturbing proof of what could happen to marine life if the acidity of the ocean continues to rise.

Many things are acidic, such as battery acid and orange juice. The ocean, however, is supposed to be slightly basic at pH 8.2, similar to baking soda. However, the pH has dropped to 8.1 and is estimated to drop to 7.7 by the year 2100. Hall-Spencer has shown that this could be detrimental to the marine ecosystem. By surveying oceanic areas where volcanic vents were either present or absent, he and his colleagues drew comparisons involving the marine life present in each area. These vents released millions of liters of CO2 gas each day, acidifying the surrounding water. In areas of normal pH, marine life which depended on calcified shells thrived. When the pH dropped to 7.8, the number of marine species was reduced by 30%. In more acidic conditions around 7.4, the shells of various shellfish were eaten away, pitted and fragile. Many scientists worry that as the ocean acidifies, aquatic creatures will become unable to make shells. Another pressing concern is the preservation of coral reefs. In acidic conditions, the population of Corallinaceae, an alga important in protecting reefs, dropped by 60%. This left the reef vulnerable to harmful algae and dissolution due to the acidity of the water.

While the fate of a snail or coral reef may not initially trigger concern, the future consequences of ocean acidity on all marine life and the global economy might. In May 2008, NOAA released a “State of the Science” fact sheet. It stated that not only is the U.S. the third largest seafood consumer globally, but patrons spend $60 billion per year on fish and shellfish. Furthermore, coastal and marine fishing supports 70,000 jobs and produces revenue of $30 billion each year. This industry is dependent on the stability of coral reefs. Reefs are the lynchpin for many fisheries since half of them use reefs for the life cycles of their fish. Fish stocks are currently estimated at over $250 million. The marine plankton and small snails which serve as a food source for many fish such as salmon, mackerel and cod would be reduced, along with the coral, as acidity increased. This could reduce the amount of food available and restructure the food web altogether. In the end, if the coral fails, so too does a large portion of the lucrative fishing industry.

Coral does not, however, only support marine life and fishing. It also supports tourism. NOAA estimated that the economic losses from coral reef degradation in the Caribbean will be $350-780 million per year by 2015. Trying to protect the reefs will entail another $3-4 billion each year. The Florida Keys generates $1.2 billion per annum in coral reef tourism while Hawaii collects $360 million every year. These numbers do not even consider the amount of money saved in real estate damage that is averted due to the protection coral reefs provide from storms and tsunami. On June 5, 2008, a hearing was held by the Committee on Science and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives to listen to testimony regarding ocean acidification and its consequences. As stated by the chairman, Nick Lampson, “H.R. 4174 was introduced by…Congressman Tom Allen…to coordinate and expand…efforts…to expand our knowledge of ocean acidification. Through more comprehensive monitoring and research we can begin to address the impacts of these changes on our fisheries and…ecosystems.” In his written testimony to the committee, Feeley wrote that the ocean is estimated to be more acidic in 2100 than in the last 20 million years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has calculated the CO2 concentration could be so high in 2100 as to begin dissolving the coral reefs faster than they can grow. If the predictions for 2100 are correct, the growth rate of coral reefs could be reduced by 85% when compared to today’s rate. They are already growing 15% slower than they did at the beginning of the 1900s when ocean acidity was at a proper level according to data in NOAAs “State of the Science” fact sheet.

The question is what can we do about it? While many, such as Caldeira, believe the “only way to really save the oceans is to greatly decrease carbon dioxide omissions soon.”, H.R. 4174 proposes to give $25 million over three years and $30 million every following year towards research of acidification and how to reverse it. Dr. Joan Kleypas of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, however, stated in her written testimony that $50-55 million each year is the “minimum if scientists are to provide useful information regarding how oceans are responding to acidification and how we should change our…policies.” While this initially sounds stunning, Caldeira noted in his written testimony that, “It’s impossible to say what the oceans are worth to us, but it has to be…tens of billions of dollars per year. [The] research investment [is] starting at several millions of dollars per year…that’s a ratio of about ten thousand to one. That’s like having a $20,000 car and…spending only two bucks to find out what’s going wrong. We shouldn’t be surprised when it breaks down [on] the highway.”