Sir John on immigration

Sir John Bull has an excellent post up on his blog. Amongst other thing in his sights is GDP, which is one of my particular bugbears. To misquote Churchill, GDP is the worst form of economic calculation, except for the all the others that have been tried.

The best example of the mendacity of GDP is the change in the status of women. In the 50's a woman stayed at home, cooked dinner, did the laundry, looked after children e.t.c. None of this was recorded as economic activity. Nowadays most women work. So, whilst GDP has grown since the 50's, how much of this is just the monetarisation of previously unrecorded activites? Day care, fast food, an extra car (as the woman will have to commute to work), new clothes for the career, all of this has boosted the GDP. Are we really richer, though? No.

What seems to be repeatedly swept under the carpet, when we are talking about immigration, is that GDP can grow whilst people get poorer. People like Kelvin McKenzie point to GDP increases as the reason we should welcome even more Poles. Well interestingly, GDP has actually declined since Poles were let in, in May 2004. But, even if they have added to GDP in terms of economic activity, increases are based on low end services - eating out, having a coffee, buying groceries e.t.c. All of them add to the GDP, but unless the immigrant is highly skilled and thus we can all reap the 'consumption price effect', GDP per capita will actually decline.

Gold Prices

I doubt anyone took my advice and bought some gold, simply because of what they read on this blog. Nevertheless, with gold struggling just below $580 an ounce, if anybody did take my advice I would imagine they would want to use my face as a dartboard, at this moment in time! But I am not worried in the slightest. Unless the US is facing deflation, with commodities, housing and the economy turning south, then the fundamentals remain the same.

However, if people are getting a bit jittery about gold, then this article should dampen the anxiety a bit:

As expected, more talk of a slowing US economy caused base metals prices to continue their decline last week and, as expected, falling base metals prices dragged the gold price down as well. Very few institutional investors differentiate between gold and other metals; they bought them all as a hedge against a weaker US dollar, so when they finally wrapped their heads around the fact that the US economy can slow down and that a slowing economy will cause a decline in base metals demand, they started selling their metals - including gold.

Why do I believe it is only a temporary downturn? Well.....

US money supply (as measured by my own estimate of M3) increased by 8.4% over the past twelve months. Current gold inflation, which is mine supply as a percentage of all above-ground gold (all the gold that has been mined to date), is around 1.6% per annum. That is why the gold price continues to rise against the US dollar over time – it is as simple as that. In the short term, however, exchange rates and investor sentiment also have to be brought into account and it is mostly they that cause short-term volatility. But in the long-term, the gold price in any currency will rise by an amount equal to the difference between its inflation rate and the inflation rate of the currency you price it with.

My model of the gold price (based on the inflation rates of gold and the US dollar) puts the gold price at around $900 an ounce with the difference between the current gold price and $900 being accounted for by an over-priced US dollar. For gold to rise from $600 an ounce to $900 an ounce requires the dollar to fall, on average, by 35%. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said earlier this year that the dollar had to fall by 35% to 50% in order to balance the US current account gap. I don't know how they came up with those figures, but they correspond very well to my own expectation of how much the dollar should decline.

If the gold price is going to rise to $900 an ounce then gold at under $600 an ounce is starting to look attractive again, but there is still downside risk in base metals and until the gold price uncouples from base metals prices I would not get too aggressive on the buy side. But gold will decouple, because unlike base metals, its value (and long-term price) is not dependent on economic growth.

R.I.P. Oriana

I was saddened by the news about the death of Oriana Falacci, at the age of 77. Michelle Malkin has a great tribute to Oriana, on her blog.

What is so sad is that Oriana was one of the few who not yield an inch to Islamic aggression and intolerance. The contrast with our spineless 'leaders' on this subject, is massive. 'Dave' Cameron's speech shows that he should be added to the list of the clueless:

And the deformed vision of Islam which inspires some of them is part of a wider picture...

So David, how exactly is it deformed? Have you read the Koran? There is nothing blasphemous in what Islamists are doing. As a direct interpretation of Mohammed's words, Islamists have as much validity as traditional Imans. Indeed, listening to the Imans themselves, who's condemnation of extremists is always qualified, I believe that they know that to. Let's go back to Dave:

.......and winning the trust of the majority Muslim community.........

In other words, if Muslims ask, let's surrender. Like all politicians Cameron doesn't get Islam. The only solution he can offer is dhimmitude.

Oriana, you will be missed.

Spanish migration problems

I continue to be unsurprised by the events in the Canary Islands. The Spanish are obviously worried about the effects that it may have on tourism. Hardly surprising, considering that the prospect of boatloads of Africans washing up on the shore certainly puts me off. But, this is no time for being sympathtic towards the Spanish.

As I have mentioned before, the Spanish raised the white flag with an immigration amnesty. This, more than any other event, proves to prospective migrants that the country is a soft touch, and unwilling to enforce the rule of law.

It's rare to here me praising the EU on this blog, or anywhere else, but on this subject we are as one:

While the commission has expressed solidarity with Spain and its efforts to fight immigration, it has also indicated that Madrid may have brought the problem upon itself when it last year put into effect an amnesty programme allowing several hundred thousand people illegally living in the country to apply for work and residency permits.

At the time Spain attracted criticism from other member states for acting unilaterally and, in effect, granting these regularised workers access to the whole of the bloc.

Writing in French daily Le Figaro on Thursday, justice commissioner Franco Frattini said mass regularisation makes it appealing for people to come to countries to live illegally waiting for the day when there might be another amnesty.

He also said that member states should be very strict with employers who employ workers on the black as they create a "pull factor" for people coming from poor countries.

If the Spanish want to stem the tide, it's time to get tough. And remember the golden rule of immigration: never, ever, ever, ever, have an amnesty.

5 Years On

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have.

Ronald Reagan.

Fjordman on Feminism and Islam

The Fjordman, writing over on the Brussels Journal, believes that the rise of Feminism has led directly to European dhimnitude:

I got many comments on my posts about Muslim anti-female violence in Scandinavia. Several of my readers asked what Scandinavian men are doing about this. What happened to those Vikings, anyway? Did they drink too much mead in Valhalla? Despite the romantic mystique surrounding them today, the Vikings were for the most part savage barbarians. However, I doubt they would have looked the other way while their daughters were harassed by Muslims. In some ways, this makes present-day Scandinavians worse barbarians than the Vikings ever were.

One of the reasons for this lack of response is a deliberate and pervasive censorship in the mainstream media, to conceal the full scale of the problem from the general public. However, I suspect that the most important reason has to do with the extreme anti-masculine strand of feminism that has permeated Scandinavia for decades. The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity.

He adds:

Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because they wouldn’t sacrifice their own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what they are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow?

The matriarchy, as a system, has thus failed to be 'motherly' in any meanningful sense. As the majority of females continue to vote for pro-immigration on mass, children are being slaughtered on the underground or having the value of their citizenship degraded by millions of low-skilled immigrants. However, concomitant with this, a recent study found that mothers are more likely to be against immigration than pro.

Thus we have a bizarre paradox, in which feminists and non-mothers are the most pro-immigrant group and mothers are the most anti-immigrant. So, the obvious question has to be: is there an explanation for this?

The Case For Energy Sovereignty.

As energy seems to be in the news at the moment, I thought I would return to the subject. Mostly, the focus from politicians, green campaigners and the BBC has been on climate change. But, the real reason we need to put energy on the top of the agenda is not climate change. No, our medium term security, and long term financial security depend on energy sovereignty. I will examine why, now.

There can be no denying that things have quietened down on the energy front recently. After all, look at the oil prices down at $70 dollars a barrel - a 4-month low. Well yes, that’s true, and I believe that oil prices could probably go down as far as $65. At that point everybody will take their eyes of the larger picture, and alternative energy will look a less attractive investment. But, this is not the time for a short-term outlook.

Whilst it's true that impressive new drilling technology may temporarily raise the production levels of current oil fields, it doesn’t negate the fact that large new fields are not being discovered. In fact, relying on technological improvements in drilling, amounts to little more than moving the deck chairs round on the Titanic. I am absolutely certain that oil will hit the $100 barrel mark within the next ten years, and when it does Britain will be in big, big trouble. W will explain why that is later. So, this is by far the most important reason that Britain must become Energy Sovereign. But there are other reasons for a policy of energy sovereignty, and they are far more pressing than peak oil.

For instance, this week I opened my e-mail up to be confronted by mounds of junk.It was one of those days when the whole world and his wife decides to send me adverts for Tramadol. Sorting through it, I found one proclaiming the coming age of Ethanol and the end of ‘American dependence on Mideast Oil Inc’. Wouldn’t that be nice, I dreamily said to myself. How many of our current problems are tied to oil? There certainly can be no doubt that oil, more specifically oil revenues, has propped up countless dictators and indirectly financed Islamic terrorists. It also allows left-wing ‘populists’, such as Hugo Chavez, to buy votes. Not to mention the danger that western citizens encounter working for oil companies in places such as Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.

A case-in-point is President Idriss Derby, from the large impoverished nation of Chad. Last week he abruptly ordered foreign oil companies to leave, with Petronas and Chevron ordered to get-out immediately. This caught oil executives and western diplomats totally by surprise, but it’s a symptom of the global movement towards defying the west. And, in almost all the cases, they have a new favourite customer - China.

So, there can be no doubt that energy sovereignty is desirable. Oil money goes directly into the hands of hostile regimes and dictators; it also finds its way indirectly into the hands of terrorists. Furthermore, if Iran gained de facto control of the Shiite areas in southern Iraq, it would then become more powerful than the Saudis in terms of reserves. The power they would then yield of the world’s market would be immense. That should worry everybody, unless, like Steve Sailer’s correspondent, you believe in the ‘pipe dream’ that tar sands will save us. It’s plain to see that the goal of extirpating ourselves from the Muslim world is desirable, but it’s achievable only if we actively move towards energy independence.

There is already a large movement of patriotic Americans advocating energy independence. Now is the time for a similar movement to arise in Britain, and time is of the essence. You may ask why do I think the situation is so desperate? Well, it’s very simple: the North Sea Oil peak and decline. I explained a few months ago how important North Sea Oil was to our balance of payments. Just this month its importance to the Chancellor was shown, when, thanks to a tax threshold rising, he received a record budget surplus. And, ironically, the very harbinger of future doom – high oil prices, has led to the profitability of North Sea oil remaining steady, even whilst reserves decline.

Then there is the negative impact on our trade deficit by population growth. In 1988 Britain imported over 30% of its foodstuffs. Since then the population has increased by over 3 million, and with the crazy immigration policies of the government it’s scheduled to hit 70 million by 2040. Added to this, our supermarkets continue to drive British companies out of business and source more and more food from abroad. So, with our exports of oil on the decline, we will rely solely on financial services to keep our trade deficit down. But, as this industry is subject to the whims of the international economy, a global recession or depression would hit that industry very hard. The likely scenario then would be that the Pound will follow the same path that the Dollar is on.

In conclusion, the benefits of energy sovereignty are enormous, but to see the benefits requires a long termist view that is sadly lacking from modern politics. The main question has to be, is energy sovereignty an obtainable goal? I believe it is. And I will examine our future options, at a later date.