Charity

Charity

A group of well-minded citizens, with interests in charity toward their fellow human beings, amass a sum of one-billion dollars, which amounts to roughly three dollars for every person living in the United States.  The idea is to buffer everyone from the effects of accidental damage or sudden disaster to individuals, their residences, and other major property.  The heirs of the dead would be sheltered from the loss of their loved one(s).  The victims of house fire or other catastrophe would be protected from undue financial loss.  Those caught in auto accidents, would at least have the money to replace the transportation loss.  People struck by disease or disability, would have their medical expenses covered, and maybe even the necessities of life could be covered.  Any disaster would be distributed over the whole population, reducing the pressure on any one person, creating a nation of caring, sharing people.  It sounds great, doesn’t it?

The administrators of this plan, hope to cover costs by investing in promising financial ventures.  A dollar invested at 7% will double in ten years; at 10% it will double in seven years; at 20%... three and a half years; at 35%... two years.  The trick is in finding stable “blue-chip” investments with a high rate of return.

The first year’s administrative salary and maintenance expenses run to 10%, with an additional 10% for each of the following years; so, without solid investments, the whole billion dollars will be gone in ten short years.  This means that investments returning more than 7% must be found just to cover the billion-dollar loss; in fact, investments paying more than 10% are required, just to balance the first year’s attrition.

It gets worse: for, inflation rates are running at around an additional 7%, devaluing the billion dollars by 50% in just ten years.  So, after ten years, the billion dollars is only worth half a billion dollars.  Another 7% of returns must be found to balance this loss.  Now, we are looking for investments that earn 17% or more annually.

It’s very possible to find business models that return far more than 17% annually.  Sustained rates exceeding 40% are not unheard-of.  I would not open a factory, store, or other enterprise that did not return this kind of money… it’s just not worth the risk.  If you cannot recover your capital investment in a year or at most two years, you have become a high-risk investment.

How do you make that kind of money, year-in and year-out?  It’s simple.  It’s called hustle, sweat equity, hard work, industriousness.  Suppose you have one dollar invested in candy; you make one penny for every dollar’s worth of candy you sell.  If you sell one dollar’s worth of candy every day of the year; your one dollar capital investment has made 365.25 cents: that’s a 365.25% return.  You don’t need large margins; you just need to turn your buck each and every day.  Many businesses operate at around 100 turns a year; with only 1% margins, they can operate on a 100% return on investment (ROI), every year.  Some businesses can only reach 10 turns a year; these must have 10% margins to reach a 100% ROI, or settle for lower profits.

In spite of such realities of business, have you ever heard of a publicly traded commodity with a cash ROI of 50%, 25%, or even 10%?  I haven't either.  Your savings account pays 2 or 3.5%, and brags that you are doubling your money every twenty to thirty-five years; when, in fact you are losing money to the tune of 3.5 to 5% due to inflation.  If the kind of 17% or better ROIs necessary to protect our billion-dollar charity exist, I don’t know where to find them.  The only way to make that kind of money is through diligent hard work.

Several points emerge from this study.  The one point we are seeking to emphasize is that insurance programs, presented publicly as a sort of self-funding charity, cannot possibly work.  All insurance, public or private, has at its core an unsustainable and somewhat fraudulent tax.

This includes government health care.  The best way to solve the health care problem is through local direct action clinics and similar instruments.  The expensive middlemen must be cut out of the picture.  Who are these expensive middlemen, you ask?  Annual administrative salary and maintenance expenses; as well as inflation and other hidden tax loads.  Money goes from the hand of the patient to the hand of the doctor, and the neighbors chip in.  Administrative costs are minimized: they most certainly do not line the pockets of multi-million dollar executives who do absolutely nothing to earn their keep.

The only way to help your needy neighbor is to roll up your sleeves and go to work.  The Amish have a plan.  Say your barn burns down.  You are out the cost of timber, shingles, and nails.  You throw a party; the neighbors put up a new barn in a day or two; food is pot luck; losses are minimized.  If you lost livestock, somebody gives you a cow to start over.  If hay was burned, sharing covers the loss.  The community sweats and shares together.

Insurance simply does not work that way.  Insurance has to pay multiple levels of middle men lining their pockets with multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses; middle men who do absolutely nothing to earn their keep.  Insurance cannot be made to work, as long as administrative salaries and expenses of any magnitude must be born; as long as inflation eats away continually at the dollar in our pockets.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Slander

Cyril of Jerusalem

Slander

St. Cyril’s biographers have stated things which we believe are incorrect; very possibly slanderous.

The phrase, “by various frauds”, may be found.[i]  We are in no position to retrieve the evidence; nor, why should we desire to do so; Cyril is a saint of the Church; he stands before the Judge of all flesh; he deserves the benefit of the doubt.  Our observation is much humbler.  The charge of fraud is simply out of character with the writings found here: the writings give every evidence of one who desires to find peace for the Church, for Jerusalem, and for his flock.  Let the Court of Last Resort end the matter.

On the charge of selling church furniture, we rejoice; may his tribe increase; St. Cyril had a heart of gold for the poor.  May God richly bless him: for we think he got his priorities right, where so many miss the point.  May his tribe increase.

The charge that, “He belonged to the Semi-Arian, or Homoean party,” is simply ludicrous.  We need to be wary here of pigeonholing people, without due cause.  St. Cyril was a man of peace, he may have voted with the Homoean party in favor of a particular wording, because he perceived that wording to be a possible road to peace.  However, to associate St. Cyril with Semi-Arianism is clearly unfounded: for in his Catechetical Lectures, he clearly and repeatedly declares Christ’s Godhood (the true meaning of Godhead), and calls Christ God; as he also refers to the Spirit.  Since these Catechetical Lectures are given while he is rather young, possibly still a priest; no one has any cause to even suspect or think of St. Cyril as being Semi-Arian, or anything other than thoroughly orthodox: for his Catechetical Lectures exude orthodoxy with every breath.[ii]

The charge that, “The one God for him is always the Father,” is equally absurd: for St. Cyril is, in most places, quoting, or at least paraphrasing Scripture.  Shall we charge St. Paul, St. Peter, or any of the other Apostles of being Semi-Arian; because, they fail to subscribe to the exact technical theological wording of Church Councils which will only come decades, and decades later.  The fact is that St. Cyril has an obvious desire to neither add to, nor depart from the words of Scripture: which is the major part of his charm… would to God, we gave greater attention to such points in our churches today.

Or, was it not the purpose of these Church Councils to choose that exact technical theological wording, without finding fault with every brother who participated in the debate, or charge them with ambiguity for reasoning together as brothers.  It is not as though the meaning of the word, οὐσία, was of such fixed technical meaning around the years 325 or 381; it was not; nor is it all that clear even today: for we still struggle between essence and substance, between energies and attributes.  This also ignores the fact that other words like, ὑπόστασις, were synonyms.  We did finally settle on the wording that there are three ὑπόστασεις in one οὐσία; yet, we seeking to be wise, have become fools, forgetting that these words put technical theological names to inexpressible and unfathomable mysteries.  Shall we condemn, with attendant impatience, that with which all men struggled in 325 or 381; or brand as Semi-Arian, everyone who ever supported the words ὁμοιούσιος (similar essence)?

St. Cyril, in his Catechetical Lectures is decidedly not Semi-Arian.  After the technical wording had been sorted out, St. Cyril signed with all the faithful: he deserves to be free of all (evidently false) accusation.  One simply cannot read the Catechetical Lectures in their entirety and believe that St. Cyril had anything to do with Semi-Arianism or any other compromise of the truth.



https://www.swrktec.org/catechism

---

[i] Possibly, Jerome.  Yet, Jerome, for all his talents, tended to be a sour-puss who squabbled with a lot of others… tending to find fault where no fault exists… or, at least where others might graciously extend the benefit of the doubt.  On the other hand, these were tumultuous times; the Church, as St. Cyril faithfully shows, was under attack from several sides all at once.

[ii] Doubtless, this accusation stems from confusion over strife with Acacius of Caesarea, leader of the Arian faction.  Acacius, was ever the bitter protagonist in this affair; St. Cyril was ever the peacemaker: nevertheless, we are not surprised that some the filth of the argument rubbed off on the innocent party.  One cannot wrestle with the forces of Satan, and come away unscathed.  Even so, history has settled the question: for Cyril is called saint, while Acacius is not… leaving the Church in his bitter disgrace.  Here are all the “facts” we were able to gather in the matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacius_of_Caesarea

We believe that St. Cyril is innocent of all charges.  We find him not guilty as charged.

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 4

Energy Policy

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 4

For the love of the human race.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Our Thesis

We have investigated Dr. Bartlett’s mathematics with rigor and found that his use of mathematics is both correct and precise.  It is the task of the mathematician and the scientist to observe reality and explain exactly how and why it works.  This field is known as mapping; Dr. Bartlett’s mapping speaks with deadly accuracy: he has been faithful in this task.

We also investigated Dr. Bartlett’s data, and observed that his data need updating.  We attempted a partial update of the data, but this is an ongoing task that requires incessant continued surveillance.  Maintaining a good, up-to-date data set is the most difficult part of the mathematical problem.  GIGO explains why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 4

http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html  Better results were achieved by playing the video clip directly from this site, rather than by linking through YouTube.  Click on the arrow in the middle of the picture, rather than on the black bar at the top.  This is Part 4.

Dr. Bartlett opens this part with a juicy quote from a very important Texas oil man, Michel T. Halbouty (1909-2004), “There is still as much oil to be found in the U. S. as has ever been produced.”[1]

1.    What time is it?  A. It’s 11:59, 1 minute before noon.

Then he turns the conversation immediately to coal with this quote, “We’re sitting on half of the world’s known supply of coal, enough for over 500 years.”[2]  A report to the Senate committee said this, “At current levels of output and recovery, these American coal reserves can be expected to last more than 500 years.”²

“There is one of the most dangerous statements in the literature.  It’s dangerous because it’s true.  It isn’t the truth that makes it dangerous, the danger lies in the fact that people take the sentence apart: they just say coal will last 500 years.  They forget the caveat with which the sentence started.  Now, what were those opening words?  “At current levels.”  What does that mean?  That means, if and only if we maintain zero growth of coal production.”[3]

Discussion continues.  The Demonstrated Coal Reserve Base is around: R_b = 470 G-tons according to Dr. Bartlett’s charts.  The Recoverable Reserve is around: R_r = 240 G-tons (1991).  The significance of these two numbers is that we cannot practically reach over 50% of the total coal with existing technical equipment and methods.  Vastly improved technical equipment and methods can nearly double the realistic coal supply.

Extraction Rates.  In 1971 coal was extracted from mines at a rate of 560 M-tons per year.  In 1991 coal extraction rose to a rate of: 990 M-tons per year.  The Average Rate Growth in this period was roughly 2.86% per year.  Dr. Bartlett uses an equation to calculate the expiration time for any reserve, which he suggests may be derived by using first-year elementary calculus.  Let’s review our calculus to see if we can derive Dr. Bartlett’s equation.

T_E ≅ 1/k * ln (k * R/r₀ + 1)

We begin by observing that: if exponential growth is in actual practice, that the reserve is equal to the area under the exponential curve.

y(t) = a * b^t: the exponential curve

A(t) ≡ ∫ y(t) dt = ∫ a * b^t dt + C

The initial value, a, or y₀, is a constant.  Let z = b^t.  We employ logarithmic differentiation:

z = b^t

ln(z) = ln(b^t) = t * ln(b)

dz / z = ln(b) dt

dz = ln(b) * z dt = ln(b) * b^t dt:integrating

∫ a * b^t dt = a / ln(b) ∫ ln(b) * b^t dt = a / ln(b) * b^t + C

At t = 0, A = 0, and a, always = y₀

A = 0 = y₀ / ln(b) * b⁰ + C: solving for C

C = - y₀ / ln(b): substituting and factoring

R = A = y₀ / ln(b) * b^t - y₀ / ln(b)
= y₀ / ln(b) * (b^t - 1): multiplying

(b^t - 1) = R * ln(b) / y₀ = ln(b) * R / y₀: adding

b^t = ln(b) * R / y₀ +1: taking the ln

t * ln(b) = ln [ln(b) * R / y₀ + 1]: dividing

t = 1/(ln(b) * ln [ln(b) * R / y₀ + 1]

We remember from before that b = 1 + r, and that for small r (less than 0.10), ln (1 + r) ≈ r: substituting….

T ≈ 1/r * ln [r* R / y₀ + 1]: QED

So, now we have both an exact formula that even applies to enormous values of r, and an approximation similar to the Rule of 70, which can be worked with a slide rule and a pencil.  Nowadays, we would simply grab our scientific pocket calculators and go for the exact solution.  We might even keep the formula in storage, so that we don’t have to remember it.

We construct the following tables using Dr. Bartlett’s data, updating it with 2008 data, and filling in with the exact calculation for the T formula.

	1971	1971	1991	1991	2008
	Recoverable Coal Reserve (G-tons)	Demonstrated Coal Reserve Base (G-tons)	Recoverable Coal Reserve (G-tons)	Demonstrated Coal Reserve Base (G-tons)	Recoverable Coal Reserve (G-tons)
	240	470	240	470	237
	Extraction Rate (M-tons/year)		Extraction Rate (M-tons/year)		Extraction Rate (M-tons/year)
	560		990		1,063

 

 

Growth	1971 Years of Recoverable Coal	1971 Years of Reserve Coal	1991 Years of Recoverable Coal	1991 Years of Reserve Coal	2008 Years of Reserve Coal
0%	429	839	242	475	223
1%	167	225	123	175	118
2%	114	145	89	118	85
2.86%	91	114	73	95	70
3%	88	110	71	92	69
4%	73	90	60	76	58
5%	63	77	52	65	51
6%	56	67	47	58	45
7%	50	60	42	52	41
8%	46	54	39	47	38

 

 

 

 

 Clearly, “We [do not] have coal coming out of our ears.”[4]  To achieve a mythical 500 year reserve time we have to throttle back to zero growth and develop technology that will use 100% of the Demonstrated Coal Reserve Base.  Using the 2008 data, we have at best 223 years of coal left, and very possibly as little as 30 years left.  Since the 1991, by 2008, a mere seventeen years, we have dropped from between 242/475 years of coal to 223 years of coal.  This is amazing, it only took us seventeen years to consume nineteen or more years-worth of coal.[5]

When gasoline and natural gas fail, their energy demand will be thrust upon coal.  Houses and factories will install coal burning furnaces as were common, even in the 1940’s.  Automobiles and trains will be powered by coal generated electricity, or by external combustion steam engines, ala 1850.  The demand on coal will roughly triple, quadruple, or even quintuple.  The reserve of 223 years will evaporate before our eyes to 223/3 less than 75 years; perhaps as little as 223/5, equals 45 years.  Under current economic plans this change will not be exponential, it will be sudden and catastrophic.  Don’t say it won’t happen.  When the oil crisis struck in the 1970’s, there was no warning.  Overnight, the price of gasoline doubled.  Our leaders have repeatedly employed a policy that it is best to crash the system.  When the coal is gone we will turn to our forests.  Our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be forced to cope with this disaster.

Here is a 2008 data table for leading coal using nations:

Rank	Country	Reserves (M-tons)	2008 Production (M-tons/year)	Years of Reserve
1	United States	237,295	1,063	223
2	Russia	157,010	328.6	478
3	China	114,500	2,802	41
4	Australia	76,400	399.2	191
5	India	60,600	515.9	117
6	Germany	40,699	192.4	212
7	Ukraine	33,873
8	Kazakhstan	33,600	111.1	302
9	South Africa	30,156	252.6	119
10	Serbia	13,770
11	Columbia	6,746
12	Canada	6,528
13	Poland	5,709	144.0	40
14	Indonesia	5,529	240.2	23
15	Brazil	4,559

In 2008 the world’s known coal reserves are listed at 860,884 M-tons.  World production was at 6,795 M-tons/year.  This yields an average world supply of 127 years based on zero growth.

“In the 1970’s there was great national concern about energy, but this concern disappeared in the 1980’s.  The concerns about energy in the 1970’s prompted experts, journalists and scientists to assure the American people that there was no reason to be concerned.”[6]

There is no question that additional reserves of coal can be found.  However, there is little incentive to pursue such reserves as long as gasoline and natural gas are the fuels of choice.  Nevertheless, it is likely that these new reserves of coal will be found under forests.  This means that we probably cannot get the coal without destroying the forests.

The continued devastation of forests will further deplete our life-giving supply of oxygen.  Moreover, in certain cases deep soil carbon provides the nutrients for vigorous and long sustained plant growth.[7]  It seems to me that if we are going to mine carbon out of the earth, we ought to be looking for judicious ways to put carbon back into the earth.  Terra-preta may well be a critical and essential ingredient in revitalizing our infertile and chemically dependent American soils, the answer to world hunger, and the solution to the oxygen depletion problem.  It may also enable us to grow healthier, more robust forests.

“Don't believe any prediction of the life expectancy of a non-renewable resource until you have confirmed the prediction by repeating the calculation.

“Corollary, The more optimistic the prediction, the greater is the probability that it’s based on faulty arithmetic or on no arithmetic at all.”⁶

Our Conclusion

Once again Dr. Bartlett’s “arithmetic” speaks with deadly accuracy.  We have examined his theorems with rigor, and proved them using standard mathematical methods.  We have updated his data for coal, and found out that our coal reserves are not in much better shape than our oil reserves.  The main point made is that there is a broad willingness to manufacture and falsify data.  This is a public scandal.  It is nothing less than fraud.  Considering the life-threatening danger it imposes on the general population, this falsification of information must be classified as grand larceny, and even murder.  We have lived with a system of utopian false hope: but at what cost?  Everybody likes positive attitudes and hopefulness.  The reality is that this will take many lives.

---

[1] Halbouty, Michel, Time Magazine, October 29, 1990, Halbouty (1909-2004), a Texas wildcatter is responding to the question, “But haven’t many of our bigger fields been drilled nearly dry?”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_T._Halbouty

[2] American Electric Power Company: This quote is possibly sourced in a report to the committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate.

[3] This is Bartlett’s profound and telling analysis.  It deserves our utmost attention.  In our “sound-bite” world we, typically, do not pay attention to what is actually said, we frequently drop conditional clauses; especially, when they are placed at the beginning of sentences and not emphasized.  We suspect that the phenomenon is being used by expert communicators to manipulate readers; if conditional clauses are correctly constructed, they will almost always be overlooked: thus the public is played.  School reading programs often fail to teach the need to dissect sentences and analyze them.  Even with training, the rush of information is so great that critical information slips by us.  We desperately need to understand Dr. Bartlett’s method here, and learn to employ it ourselves.  The words, “if and only if,” are a standard mathematical expression indicating that the truth of the statement works both ways: if we have enough coal for over 500 years, we must be at zero growth conditions.  Mathematical logic statements are not usually true in both directions.

[4] Falkie, Thomas, Energy Fuels Corporation, June, 1976.  http://www.aimehq.org/programs/award/bio/thomas-v-falkie

[5] The top end figure is 252 years-worth of lost coal.  However, this number reduces to an inexplicable absurdity.  The 2008 report must be for recoverable coal only.  God help us, if this 2008 report includes even a portion of the Demonstrated Coal Reserve Base.

[6] Dr. Bartlett

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta, and http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081119-lost-cities-amazon_2.html