Contrary to what you may have heard, there is no "bee-pocalypse." There is lots of alarmist talk about "colony collapse disorder," people are blaming pesticides and talking about hundreds of billions of dollars at risk. But a closer look tells a very different story.

Yes, honeybees are dying in above-average numbers, but the most likely cause is the varroa destructor mite and associated viruses.

Moreover, if you look at the actual numbers, they undermine much of the catastrophic rhetoric. In the United States, where we have good data, beekeepers have adapted to CCD. Colony numbers were higher in 2010 than any year since 1999. The beekeepers are not passive victims.

Yet, scare stories abound. We are being warned that "bee deaths may have reached a crisis point for crops," and some commentators go as far as invoking an impending "bee-pocalypse" or a "bee-mageddon."

They fondly  employ a quotation attributed to Albert Einstein: "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the Earth, man would have no more than four years to live." The implication seems to be that if the smartest guy on the planet was alarmed, we should be too.

However, the quote seems to have been made up, first appearing in 1994 in a pamphlet distributed by French beekeepers, protesting the high cost of sugar for feeding bees and opposing a proposed reduction of tariffs on imported honey.

What a hornet's nest on the TTP Forum got stirred up by that Congressista's questioning of Social Security in The Traitor in the White House.  I guess some clarification is required.

He meant it as a "teachable moment," a thought experiment to demonstrate that just as his conservative audience was determined no matter what to demand their Social Security payments, so is everyone else in America who's receiving some sort of government payout.  He thus sees truly cutting government spending as a hopeless task.

He was not questioning Social Security, and was quite interested - as were his two colleagues - in the concept of selling off federal lands (1/3 of the entire US) to pay owed SS benefits when I mentioned it.  But his thought experiment backfired, both in his townhall meeting and the TTP Forum because of the visceral emotions surrounding SS.

Here's my perspective.  People have been conned by government scammers into thinking that SS taxes are somehow different from income or other taxes.  All the money taken by force or extortion by the federalies was earned by those from whom it was taken. Social Security is a government racket, a gigantic Ponzi Scheme.  There is no Trust Fund.  It does not exist.  Your money has been spent.

Further, the purpose of Social Security is to make people dependent on government.  Even conservatives, most especially conservatives.  I personally look at SS taxes as stolen and gone just like all others. Stealing money is what governments do, and SS money is no different.

Why should the federal government bother to impose taxes when it can use the Federal Reserve to "print" all the money it needs to pay its bills?

Last year, the Fed bought 77 percent of all of the government's new debt, which is the equivalent of printing money. The government borrowed almost 40 cents for each dollar it spent, with the Fed printing 30 cents of each dollar spent through its bond purchases (creating new money) -- an amount equal to about 7 percent of gross domestic product.

What would happen if the Fed printed enough money each year to cover the cost of the federal income tax of approximately $1.4 trillion? Most people who have taken a course in economics know that it ultimately would result in ruinous inflation.

Can one envision a world where there is both apparent price stability and no income taxes? The following is to encourage you to think about possible alternatives to the existing economic order.

Here is the link to a remarkable document: The Boston Manifesto.

It is “A Statement by a Group of Vietnam Veterans Explaining their Outrage Over the Nomination of Senator John F. Kerry to be President of the United States,” prepared by the Vietnam Veterans to Correct the Myths.

What follows is the Manifesto’s explanatory note. I encourage you to read the Manifesto’s Executive Summary (via the link above) and consult the supportive documentation. -JW

For four days beginning on July 26, 2004, a group of Vietnam veterans, scholars, and experts—including recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, several former Special Forces officers and enlisted men, and veterans who have taught about the war at the high school, college, and graduate school levels —gathered at a small college in Boston to examine the “Myths of the Vietnam War.”

Emerging markets are now big enough to drag down the global economy. As Indonesia, India, Ukraine, Brazil, Turkey, Venezuela, South Africa, Russia, Thailand and Kazakhstan try to shore up their currencies, the effect is ricocheting back into the advanced world in higher borrowing costs.

Even China felt compelled to sell $20 billion of US Treasuries in July. "They are running down reserves by selling US and European bonds, leading to a self-reinforcing feedback loop," said Simon Derrick from BNY Mellon.

We are told that emerging markets are more resilient than in past crises because they have $9 trillion of reserves. But any use of that treasure to defend the exchange rate entails monetary tightening, and therefore inflicts a contractionary shock on countries already in trouble.

We are also told that they borrow in their own currencies these days, immune to the sort of dollar squeeze that caused such havoc in the early 1980s and the mid-1990s. This is true, but double-edged. India, Brazil and others will surely be tempted to stop fighting markets, let their currencies slide and inflict the pain on foreigners - that is to say, on your pension fund.