Planting Trout

On the way back from Monroe, I decided to take a detour by Blackman's Lake in Snohomish. I found the public access boat launch and was sitting there when a guy (shown in the picture with his little granddaughter) asked me to move my car. He pointed to a truck and said they were about to plant some fish. I moved and got out of my car to watch.



Talking to the guy-- his name is Ralph-- I learn he's a member of the private non-profit "Snohomish Sportsmen's Club". He said the club plants salmon fingerlings and grown trout in the local lakes and streams and rivers to supplement the planting done by the state. The state plants smaller fish. The club also sponsors fishing derbys for kids and sets up "special needs" fishing derbies. It sounds like a good organization. Ralph mentioned that the club has been in existence for more than 50 years. They plant several times a year. Anyway, the truck pulled up and put a soft plastic gravity-fed tube which dumped the fish-- in this case fish about 14-16 inches long-- directly into the lake. The driver said he was dumping 800 pounds of fish, which probably meant about 400 fish.

The fish came out pretty fast and hit the lake. They had a tendency to try to swim back upstream trough the plastic tube and back into the truck. We had to tap a few off the beach into the water. The club dumps the fish into an area of the lake with Lilly pads so the fish have a chance to get oriented and then disperse. The fish that's shown upside down recovered and swam away. If not planted in the lake weeds, the fish would hang around the boat launch and public fishing dock and be easy pickin's for anglers. Ralph said that as soon as the truck is seen dumping the fish into the lake people start calling their buddies on the cell phone to come catch some easy fish. That's why the club was planting on Monday rather than on a weekend. Otherwise "... half the fish would have been caught by the bums ..."

It was pretty interesting.

Lapstrake Canoe

It didn't take too long to realize that some fish might be swimming out a little ways from the shore-- just out of casting range. That, plus some lakes only have a boat launch for public access, so people fishing from the bank at the launch have to reel in their line for those who want to put boats in the water. It gets a little crowded.

One day all was going well fishing from the boat launch until a younger guy drove up, threw his car doors open, and cranked up the volume on "his" music for all of us to hear (suffer). So much for a peaceful afternoon of fishing at the lake.

I went to Craig's List in search of a light solo canoe and found one in Marysville-- a very decent lapstrake canoe. "Lapstrake" means "overlapping wood strips" or something similar. The dictionary refers to "clinker-built" as the same thing. I'll be reading and learning more from here. Anyway, I'm told that this is a Tom Hill design. It's 13.5 feet long and weighs about 35 pounds. There is a fiberglass bottom.

Ten years ago I bought a book titled "Mississippi Solo" written in 1998 by Eddy L. Harris, who had started in the ankle-deep headwaters of the Mississippi River and paddled its entire length to New Orleans. It was interesting. He made the adventure sound real appealing, and it didn't take much more than a small canoe to make his dream happen. About that same time I had purchased a book published in 1985 simply called "Basic Canoeing" or something, which described the "J" stroke and all the other basics. I had a daydream of paddling around the Snohomish River sloughs.

So this wooden canoe looked perfect for my purposes. It's amazing. It's just right. The craftsmanship might be a little rough, but it's solid.

Here's a picture of how the canoe looks when I'm paddling around. Also, here's a picture of a bald eagle sitting on one of the lake's swimming docks, and a picture of one of the docks. While it's not the Mississippi River, it's pretty close.

Foolproof Fish Cooking

Surely there are many more ways to cook trout, but these are the only three that I know and use-- frying, baking and grilling.

Frying... dust the trout with flour and pepper and put in a skillet with a little hot oil. Fry until it flakes and doesn't look raw. Pretty easy. Don't forget to turn the fish over.










Baking...make an aluminum foil boat and set the trout inside with some Italian salad dressing and maybe some chopped up vegetables to look good. Close it up and bake. When in doubt, cook a little longer. Not too hard to do.










Grilling... put the fish on the grill and cook. You might rest it on a piece of aluminum foil. Cook until it is flaky and it doesn't look raw. Not too tough. I don't have any pictures of grilled fish.











The last time we used the outdoor grill was in March 2009. We found some rodent droppings inside the grill on the fake rocks. (It is...er... it was a natural gas grill). The animal must have gotten in through one of the rust holes. I decided it was time to get rid of it, so we did. It hasn't been replaced since fishing season started. Here's a picture of the hamburgers we went ahead and cooked on the grill one last time for old time's sake. (Everybody is still alive). That grill got a lot of use.

Add something else. Unless you are just going to eat fish, you might add something else, like a piece of bread or some healthy vegetables like these. Save room for ice cream.

Role Models

How do we learn our roles in life? Is it possible that an older sister helps mold a younger brother? How about the following--













Growing up and learning to read in the 1950's, I recall that my older sister (by three years) helped me learn to read by using comic books. She would open a comic book and proceed to instruct. Not only did she help me learn to read, but I probabaly learned my proper role in life (as a male). I recall that she picked which comic books to "read" to me.

Could it be that an older sister assumes the superior role as a "Little Lulu" while the younger brother is merely a "Tubby"? That the sister is the smart "Nancy" while the brother is born to be a perfect "Sluggo"?

And how about this-- are these learned "inferior" male roles assumed and held over into adult relationships? Why does Charlie Brown continue to trust-- yet be fooled-- by Lucy? It's probably no accident.

Maybe that's a little cynical. Perhaps younger brothers learned something about proper relationships from such role models as "Popeye" (a befuddled vagabond sailor) or "Lil' Abner" (an uneducated hillbilly).















These comic book characters probably taught a lot.

Beginning Fishing

Okay, it's been a while since the last posting. Always thinking and writing about the economy, inflation and bailouts gets a little tiring. So I went fishing.

This is a beautiful fish, isn't it? But fishing is more about the experience than the result (or at least that's what amateurs say when they aren't catching any fish).

The simple plan was to get a rod and reel, some bait, and find a few small private spots on some local lakes-- lakes that could be reached within a half hour of the house or office. Sort of like these pictures--

As it turns out, there are a lot of local lakes that sort of look like that. But most have aluminum cans and plastic bags and Styrofoam coffee cups-- thrown into the water or bushes even though there is a nearby trash can. (I've decided to always carry a trash bag and fill it up with garbage. Then I'll have something to carry away, particularly when I don't catch fish, which will probably be most of the time).

So, I got a decent graphite pole and spinning reel and looked at the maps of the area and found the lakes with public access and fishing from the shore . . . and got some advice and a tour from Clayton (a real fisherman).

For bait, I started out with night crawlers. Clayton showed me how to tie two hooks on a leader and thread the worm on the line. It has worked-- once so far.

One time at a lake I found a lure that sort of looks like this, only green. I later tried it after worms didn't work and caught a fish! It was the biggest trout I'd ever caught. So now that's a favorite lure, of course.

I've learned that other fishermen and bait shop owners are super friendly and love to talk about fishing. They are more than willing to share a few tips with a novice like me. The learning part might be the best part. I'm finding that fishing is a social-- albeit solitary-- sport.

I saw a guy casting a metal lure and he said I needed one, too. So, off to the tackle shop for a Kastmaster and some pointers. I got one like this and caught another big trout! It's fascinating that an animal will try to eat a small metal machine like this lure.

I spend a lot of time (when my reel isn't one big bird nest) casting into tress and bushes. I had to wade into the lake to retrieve my pole tip after using it as a rake to scrape my lure out of some brambles. If you've ever fished, you know how it goes. This fishing sport is going to teach me patience and relaxation-- I hope. It sure tests my patience.

This is not a picture of me (is that a golf club?) but it's a picture of exactly what I went through to hold on to my first big fish. So far, I'm finding that fishing really is fun.

China Will Have Alaska Oil

China (and Japan) Are Biggest US Creditors--

In September 2008 China passed Japan to become the US government's largest foreign creditor. China's investment in US Treasury Bonds surged to $585 billion in September, pulling ahead of Japan which now holds $573 billion worth. Overall, China's holdings may be $800 billion or more.

China is also thought to be purchasing US debt through third countries. China now owns nearly one dollar out of every ten dollars in US public debt. According to some reports, China and Japan hold almost half of the US debt held by all foreign countries.

Simply stated, the US owes a lot of money to foreign countries, of which China and Japan are our biggest creditors.

It’s sort of like owing money to China for the monthly house payment, and owing Japan for the monthly car payment. The monthly paycheck has to go to these creditors. And, more money must be borrowed to buy other things like new household goods (i.e., “stimulate the economy”) or fund retirement plans (i.e. “social security”). For the US, foreign countries have become our bankers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803558.html

The US Is Continuing to Spend Money It Doesn’t Have--
















The US now wants to spend more trillions of dollars. In 2008 there were the $160,000,000,000 “stimulus checks” and $750,000,000,000 TARP funds to “bailout” the banks. In 2009 under President Obama’s administration we already have the $800,000,000,000 “stimulus package” and the 2010 budge is announced to be more than another $600,000,000,000. Other billions ($30,000,000,000+) have been paid to automobile companies.

Further, President Obama has announced projected budgets involving the spending of trillions of dollars which the US does not yet have.

The money needed to pay the US past and future public debt must be obtained from (a) future taxes or (b) the printing of money or (c) continued borrowing from China and Japan and other countries.

Taxes Can’t Cover the Spending--

Even if the incomes of our nation’s “richest” and “wealthiest” citizens were taxed at 100% the money would not be enough to cover even half of the projected spending. See my other posting— "$250,000 Minimum Wage.” The US will be increasingly forced to rely upon China and Japan as the US seeks to raise money.














In February 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton returned from Asia where she urged China to keep buying US debt and to work with Washington to fix the global economic crisis. She said Washington must incur more debt to China to boost the ailing U.S. economy (and stimulate demand for Chinese products). She says it would not be in China's interest if the US is unable to get its economy out of a recession.

Continued Printing of Money Won’t Cover the Debt—

In short, printing money cheaply does not create wealth, but simply dilutes the purchasing power of existing dollars. See my other postings— “Fiat Money Inflation in France,” “Redistribution” and “Real Silver Coins.” Besides, China and Japan would not be pleased if we paid our debts to them with dilluted dollars.

How the US Borrows Money—

A great amount of money is borrowed from foreign countries. How so?












Well, the US imports a lot of its consumer goods from other countries. Take a look at the labels on products and see where they are made. Most products today are made in China and Japan and other foreign countries. The US trades US dollars for goods made in Asia and elsewhere— the US accumulates a lot of Chinese goods, and China accumulates a lot of US dollars.
















The US borrows back some of those dollars held by China and others to cover some current obligations the US can't pay simply by raising taxes and printing money (e.g., roads and building projects, military expenses, Medicare and Social Security).

The US gives its promise in the form of an “IOU” called a Treasury Bond or Treasury Note or Treasury Bill. All these “promissory notes” require that the US pay back the loans in the future, with interest. Bonds are long-term debt instruments and may be due in 30 years, Notes may be due in 2-10 years, and Bills are usually short term debts due in 13, 26 or 52 weeks.

China and Japan loan US dollars back to the US, taking these Treasury debt instruments in return. In short, these countries trust the US to repay the debts, plus interest. The US must repay these debts. Mature notes may also be replaced with new notes-- sort of like constantly re-financing the house.

At some point China and Japan may want some collateral for the debts. I.e., China and Japan may want something to repossess in case the US defaults and can’t continue to pay its debts with interest.

China Will Have Alaska Oil --
















It is conceivable that China will insist upon something other than a simple unsecured promise of the US government that it will pay its debts. (Recall how France used lands seized from the church as collateral to back its fiat money in the 1790s).

What does the US have to use as collateral?

The US has unused oil reserves in Alaska (because federal law prohibits development there by US citizens and companies— the federal government would rather US citizens trade some of their dollars to other foreign countries for oil).

With its expanding population and need for natural resources, it could be only a matter of time before China insists on getting repaid in oil instead of more paper dollars. China may insist that the Treasury Bonds and Notes be secured by using the oil reserves as collateral—sort of like how the bank takes a mortgage on the house. If the debt is not paid, the bank seizes the collateral (such as the house, or car, or oil). Or…

Maybe Japan Will Protect Alaskan Oil from China--


















A twist on the above scenario might be that the US would refuse to pledge its oil assets to China. Japan is an ally of the US. Japan has the world’s second largest economy after the US. Before World War II Japan had the world’s largest navy.

Could it be that, rather than allow China to get Alaskan oil, the US will strike a bargain with Japan for Japan to assume the US debt to China in exchange for US oil? Would the US turn over its Alaskan oil to Japan if Japan would help the US get out of debt to China? Could it involve a scenario where Japan would use its Navy to protect Alaska from China (if the US couldn’t even afford a strong navy anymore)?

It’s because the US is spending more than it can afford that these questions are even considered.


UPDATE:

China's premier Wen Jiabao expressed concern (Friday March 13, 2009) about China’s massive holdings of Treasuries and other U.S. debt, appealing to Washington to safeguard their value. He noted that Beijing is the biggest foreign creditor to the United States.

"We have made a huge amount of loans to the United States. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried," Wen said. "I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."

Inside China there has been a lot of debate about whether they should continue to buy Treasuries.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090313/D96T37FO0.html

UPDATE:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sought Arab support Tuesday (March 31 in Doha, Qatar) for a proposed oil-backed currency to challenge the U.S. dollar in his latest swipe at Washington's dominance in global financial affairs.

While it's highly unlikely Chavez will gain any serious momentum for his "petro-currency" proposal at a summit of South American and Arab League leaders, it represented another attempt to undercut the dollar's standing as the world's leading commercial currency.

China has struck deals—most recently this week with Argentina—to conduct trade in currencies other than the dollar. Iran has proposed replacing the dollar with the euro or other currencies to set worldwide oil prices.

The $250,000 "Minimum Wage"

$250,000 will eventually be the new “minimum wage” (as well as the effective “maximum wage” people will limit themselves to-- if the federal government doesn’t).

The Obama administration has claimed that taxes will only increase for that 2% to 5% of the working population earning more than $250,000—increases required in the interests of “fairness.” The current 39% top tax rate is scheduled to rise to 41% under President Obama’s plan. It will likely rise above that during the next few years.

Can taxes be increased so that the government takes 40%, 50%, 75% or even 90% of a person’s property? Of course they can— and they have. Remember, the top rate was more than 70% under Carter, was at 80% under Franklin Roosevelt, and reached 90% under Eisenhower and Kennedy. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19

Year after year, election after election, politicians always say “the rich” and “the wealthiest” should pay “their fair share” of taxes. What is the "fair share?" Is it the present 39%, or the 70% imposed under Carter, or the 90% imposed under Roosevelt? How about 100%?

The answer depends upon whom you ask— If you ask the person paying that 50% or 90%, the answer is “Taxes are too high.” If you ask the person who is not the target or subject of the higher tax, the answer is “The rich should pay more— they aren’t paying ‘their fair share’.”

What is the purpose of taxation? It could be to pay for essential government projects (whatever “essential” means).

But, if the purpose becomes “economic equality” or another redistribution scheme, then “fairness” requires that incomes eventually become equal—from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.

Incomes are not equal due to a number of reasons. In the end, “inequality” presupposes that “the rich make too much” or “the poor don’t make enough.”

Confiscatory taxes could equalize income—

If property is taken from the top 5% and redistributed to the benefit of the other 95% (whether by direct payments or through specialized entitlements), incomes will still be disparate unless the money taken from the 5% is enough to raise the 95% to the desired $250,000.

Raising the minimum wage could equalize income—

A law could be passed that simply requires that each “poor” person be paid the same amount as any “rich” person. Why should the minimum wage stop at $15 per hour? Why shouldn’t the minimum yearly wage be $250,000— the same amount made by a “rich” person?

Income could be equalized through a combination of both— by taxing everything over $250,000 and raising everybody else’s income up to $250,000.

An accounting period, perhaps ending on April 15th of each year, would be the date at which books would be balanced to make sure that each person earned no more than $250,000 and that each person was paid no less than $250,000.

And, suppose that somebody made a bad investment so that his income was only $200,000 on April 15th— the deficiency of $50,000 would be corrected by issuance of a government check. Incomes could remain equal at $250,000— regardless of effort, abilities, opportunity, discipline, recklessness or prudence.

Curiously, however, nobody would want to work once his or her income hit $250,000 per year— once the $250,000 ceiling is reached, the worker will take a vacation for the rest of the year (unless forced to work for free at a gulag the rest of the year). Also, there just aren’t enough people earning more than $250,000 to take from to make incomes equal for the rest of us. Perhaps the limit should be reduced to $200,000, or dropped to $150,000 or less until all our incomes can be balanced evenly.

If the economic and taxation policies proposed by President Obama are implemented, given the record deficit spending that would result, in reality the maximum wage and minimum wage should really be about $75,000—

A recent WSJ article “The 2% Illusion— Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough” is illustrative:

IRS data for 2006 (the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%") shows that filers with adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 comprised just 7% of all returns. Yet, the "top" taxpayers paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The “richest 1%” paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues. This was at the current 39% top income tax rate.

“A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable ‘dime’ of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html

So, even if the government took every dime over $75,000 of every living taxpayer, there wouldn’t be enough revenue to pay for the government’s existing programs and promises to people now living. Perhaps that’s why the US government borrows today and promises to pay in the future— having our future children continue to pay our bills with their energy and money.

"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" -- Whimpy