Economics and politics have already reached an impasse in Europe. China doesn't have elections, but there are rumors of change there too, and its government has rejoined the inflationary race. We are getting close to the same point in the United States.

Hope you're all prepared.

I got a proper turntable. First spin: Boomer's Story.

HP Introduces Nano Sponge

I don't normally pass along "cause" links, but this is an exceptionally good one.

My name is Charlene Westbrook and I am asking for my WUAH Family to help us in our time of need. We lost our beautiful Nicole by a cowardly and random act of violence. We need donations to pour in for her funeral expenses so that we may lay her to rest next to her father Sgt Alan Westbrook, KIA in Iraq on October 1, 2005, in Farmington, NM. Her Uncle Kenneth was wounded in Afghanistan and died of his wounds on October 7, 2009. Our family has gone through too much and we are humbly asking for your help.

The full story is truly tragic. This is her dad. This is her uncle. And she was an organ donor. Giving to the very end.

Please pitch in a couple of bucks, and pass it along. If we can get 20 people to donate $100, or 100 people to donate $20, we can lay one American hero to rest alongside another.

The G.I. Joe Stimulus: Are U.S. Troops Good for Growth?

Ever since Adam Smith entitled his book The Wealth of Nations, economists have tried to explain why some countries are so much richer than others. One important channel, discussed in Acemoglu and Robinson's new book Why Nations Fail, is that outsiders come in and impose new rules of the game. Sometimes they impose good rules, sometimes bad.

Classic examples: North vs. South Korea, or East vs. West Germany. In both cases, large numbers of U.S. troops were present in the countries that grew richer. Might that be part of a larger pattern? Have U.S. troops been a guarantor of good rules of the game? Are U.S. troops a good predictor--maybe even a cause--of long-term economic growth?

With Hudson Institute economist Tim Kane, I looked into this question. We found that countries with more U.S. troops had faster economic growth, the relationship was not small, and it wasn't just driven by post-war rebuilding.

Bad government is the most destructive economic force on the planet. Replacing bad government with slightly less bad government and institutions is a huge economic win.

"Gold is a great thing to sew into your garments if you’re a Jewish family in Vienna in 1939," the Berkshire vice chairman said, "but I think civilized people don’t buy gold, they invest in productive businesses."

- Charles Munger

Jews in Vienna in 1939 didn't know they were Jews in Vienna in 1939. The few who did, and had gold to sew into their clothes in 1939, had to have bought it in 1938... or 1937... or...

We don't live in a civilized society. Fraud runs rampant. Corporate success isn't based on production, it's based on cronyism. In this environment, gold makes a lot of sense. And the more corrupt crony capitalists like Munger say it's a bad idea, the better idea it becomes.

A beating at Church and Brambleton

The next day, Forster searched Twitter for mention of the attack.

One post chilled him.

"I feel for the white man who got beat up at the light," wrote one person.

"I don't," wrote another, indicating laughter. "(do it for trayvon martin)"

Here's the thing: just because you're colorblind doesn't mean everyone else is. And some of them hate you for the color of your skin. Which means - whether you want it to be or not - it's relevant to you, and your life, and maintaining that life.

Pretending that race doesn't matter is like hiding by covering your own eyes.

I know it's an hour and a half long, but I found it a good lesson on persuasiveness.

So it turns out George Zimmerman was recognized by the mayor for his role in calling for investigation of the beating of a black man by police. He also volunteered, mentoring black children. Did it earn him the slightest bit of good will, or the benefit of the doubt? Did it prevent him from being automatically painted as a "white-Hispanic" racist?

Of course not.

Nor are historic acts of sacrifice by hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers during the Civil War be credited to their descendants. White people in America once owned slaves, so all are guilty, even those who fought and died to free those slaves.

Barack Obama is first-generation black American. His father came from a well-connected African family, and was offered every opportunity - including the scholarship that brought him to the U.S. The white side of his family - the side that's been here - owned slaves. And were very well off. Yet he is seen as a victim overcoming a history of adversity, simply because of the color of his skin. Meanwhile, poor white kids growing up in trailer parks in the upper midwest, whose ancestors never owned slaves, and may have even fought and died to free the slaves is considered the heir to privilege, simply because of the color of their skin.

This is toxic to race relations in America. Why would a white person in America ever want to go to the effort to breach barriers between subcultures if there is so much to risk, and so little to gain? Of course, friendships are valuable in and of themselves. I'm sure George Zimmerman probably enjoyed mentoring those kids, for its own sake. But he could have just as easily mentored little Hispanic kids who looked like he did, in his own neighborhood, received the same satisfaction, done just as much good for the world, and saved on the gas driving into Orlando.

Mitt Romney is not John McCain. That is something that Obama and company discovered in the “War of the Dogs.” Obama has used the fact that Romney, loading five kids, himself, and his wife in a station wagon, put the family dog in a dog carrier on the top of the car during a family vacation. It polled horribly in focus groups, and made the participants immediately have negative feelings about Romney. So, Romney’s aides went on Twitter and posted Obama’s own words in “Dreams from My Father: A Story of RACE AND INHERITANCE” about eating dog. Also, snake and grasshopper. While growing up in Indonesia. While that revelation makes Obama seem even cooler to SWPL-hipsters, for everyone else it is repulsive and more evidence of how alien and out of touch Obama is. Game, set, and match to Romney. Even the MSNBC morning crew were laughing at Obama. Eating dog beats putting the family dog on top of a crowded station wagon, in a carrier. What kind of American eats Dog? No kind, and that was the message of the laughter.

Obama is in trouble.

Is it a low blow? Absolutely. But it's not like Republicans haven't spent years pointing out the abject corruption of this administration. Jon Corzine is still walking around free. We have a saying out west, "I don't mind seeing a murderer hanging for horse theft." Or the Chicago equivalent, "Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion."

If it takes an appeal to cute litte puppy dogs to remove a Nobel Peace Prize winner who executes 16-year-old American citizens without the benefit of trial, much less conviction, so be it.