Two items, one a radio commercial the other a news item, reveal how the American Dream of home ownership can hides a darker side. For many the recent "housing bubble" and its aftermath have led to foreclosures and debt slavery for those unfortunate enough to be caught in the toils of an unstable economy. For years I have advised that renting is a much better alternative to home ownership, and the two subjects of this post bring the picture into clearer focus.
The radio commercial has two women talking about the home that one of them just bought. "We both make the same salary; how could you afford to buy your own home?" asks the one who is evidently not too well informed about such matters.
"Four bedrooms, three baths," announces the proud new homeowner, "and it's only $199.00 a month!"
The pitch is about foreclosed homes that are being sold for a little as $20,000.00 and if you call the number they give you they'll furnish you with a current list of homes you can buy. Sounds great, doesn't it? Well, maybe not.
What the ad glosses over are the hidden expenses; property taxes, insurance, maintenance, landscaping, and the possibility of loss in value like the folks in Bedford, Texas, are facing.
This small city in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex made the news recently when the Texas Department of Transportation announced that the new highway they are planning is routed in such a way that will take half the back yards of all the homeowners along the proposed route. In one instance the right of way passes through the middle of a swimming pool. These home owners stand to lose no matter which way it goes; they might take the DOT to court, the equivalent of jousting with windmills, and face the expense that would entail along with the loss in property values they are going to suffer.
Home Ownership; the American Dream or a nightmare?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Stone Walls and Rockheads
A piece on Yahoo! news yesterday told of the problems a resident of Westport, CT, is experiencing over a stone wall he had built in front of his house. It was a replacement for a wall that had stood in the same place for years, so it seemed alright to just build a new one. Later, as it turned out the wall extended six inched onto town property, though when inspectors working for the town visited the site they allowed the construction to go forward. Things would have been fine if the gentleman's neighbors hadn't filed a lawsuit demanding the wall be removed. The legal fees so far amount to $150,000. And the matter doesn't seem close to being settled.
I don't know about you but to me a hundred and fifty grand is a lot of money, far too much to spend on something as stupid as a stone wall. It's the other side of being wealthy, I suppose: do something with your own property and litigious neighbors file lawsuits. It seems that the man who had the wall built, a Mr. Hancock, was perfectly within his rights to build the wall where the old one had stood. If it overlapped town property, as the older one presumably had, then the fault lies with the town; they didn't do their job.
So now Mr. Hancock is out all that money and there is no resolution in sight. I am reporting on this situation because I see a much better - and less wasteful way to resolve the issue. Here goes.
The wall is six inches into town property. So how long is the wall? Sixty feet? Whatever. It can't be much longer, but let's just say it's 60 feet. Instead of all the haggling and miscues, it would have been a simple matter for Westport to lease the thirty square feet of overlap to Mr. Hancock at $100.00 per square foot. That would be $3,000 a year in revenues the town would receive and Mr. Hancock would have to live 50 years longer to run up a bill of $150,000. It would appear that the issue is between Mr. Hancock and the town, thus the lawsuit filed by the neighbor could be thrown out; if it isn't then Mr. Hancock could settle the matter for $50,000 and still be ahead of the game.
I don't know about you but to me a hundred and fifty grand is a lot of money, far too much to spend on something as stupid as a stone wall. It's the other side of being wealthy, I suppose: do something with your own property and litigious neighbors file lawsuits. It seems that the man who had the wall built, a Mr. Hancock, was perfectly within his rights to build the wall where the old one had stood. If it overlapped town property, as the older one presumably had, then the fault lies with the town; they didn't do their job.
So now Mr. Hancock is out all that money and there is no resolution in sight. I am reporting on this situation because I see a much better - and less wasteful way to resolve the issue. Here goes.
The wall is six inches into town property. So how long is the wall? Sixty feet? Whatever. It can't be much longer, but let's just say it's 60 feet. Instead of all the haggling and miscues, it would have been a simple matter for Westport to lease the thirty square feet of overlap to Mr. Hancock at $100.00 per square foot. That would be $3,000 a year in revenues the town would receive and Mr. Hancock would have to live 50 years longer to run up a bill of $150,000. It would appear that the issue is between Mr. Hancock and the town, thus the lawsuit filed by the neighbor could be thrown out; if it isn't then Mr. Hancock could settle the matter for $50,000 and still be ahead of the game.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Silver Lining - What to do about Health Care
I don't have health insurance and don't want any. Obama's much touted health care program is a farce and I'm not having any of that either. A poll appeared on Yahoo! this morning that listed America's most medicated states - Texas wasn't one of them and I like to think I'm doing my part to keep it off that list. I take care of myself. My program is simple;
Eat right; red meat moderately marbled, chicken, fish, etc., no veggies,
Get out in the sun and exercise, and
Stay away from doctors.
But, you say, those are the things that Health Care professionals say you shouldn't do. The reason they tell you this is because there's no money in it for them. They aren't promoting health care but Disease Care; the big pharmaceutical companies don't want you to be healthy because they make money as long as you stay medicated. And aren't health care costs skyrocketing? Yes, and Americans are as sick and obese as ever.
Did I mention that I smoke cigarettes too? Have been for 58 years. And I drink three or four pots of coffee every day.
At this point I must state that I am not a doctor and therefore am not permitted to give medical advice, but I must admit I sometimes do. Like the time a friend, a man of forty, complained that his diabetes was getting him down. He was tired and listless, so I told him to get a bicycle and ride hell out of it. He did, and six weeks later when he went to the doctor - he didn't have diabetes anymore! I have a Gitane 10-speed with 25,000 miles on it, 17,740 since July 13, 2001. That's when I got a Cat's Eye microprocessor installed: it's a speedometer, it measures lapsed time, average speed, and has an odometer. The odometer registers up to 9,999 miles; the current reading is 7,740 miles - the second time around! On March 9, 2006 it reset to zero.
For the record, I am 71 years of age; I stand 6'2" and weigh 230 lbs. I have never been healthier, happier, stronger, and more fit than today. Besides riding my bicycle I also belong to a gym where I go to work with weights two or three times a week. I have no friends my own age; my friends are all at least fifteen years younger than I am and there isn't the slightest hint of a generation gap. And I'm not trying to "look" younger. It's like the day I was riding along and saw a fully restored 1936 Packard sedan. It was beautiful; looked showroom new. Well, I'm a 1938 model and I like to look show room new too. Get healthy and the looks take care of themselves.
The whole trick here is simply the law of supply and demand. Get fit and trim and you won't need doctors and medicines, unless you have a chronic disorder that absolutely calls for certain treatments. When I was 28 years old I worked out with weights and spent a lot of time outdoors - and I looked good. I'd go to the beach to look at the girls and the girls were looking back! At 35 years old I was out of shape and obese - 260 pounds of fat! I watched television(electronic brain damage), drank a lot of beer, and ate like a pig. That was half a lifetime ago; if I can do it there's a better than even chance that you can too.
When I started working out fifteen years ago I could barely do dumbbell presses with 12½ pound weights; today I do sets with 45 lb. dumbbells and am about to graduate to 50 lbs. I can bench press 240 lbs., not a lot by some standards, but for me at this time it's good. I could go on, but you get the idea. Like I tell my friends at the gym, "I may not be Mr. Universe, but I'm not Mr. You-Gotta-Be-Kidding either."
Try it, you may like it. I do. And you get to keep your money instead of paying for expensive prescriptions.
Eat right; red meat moderately marbled, chicken, fish, etc., no veggies,
Get out in the sun and exercise, and
Stay away from doctors.
But, you say, those are the things that Health Care professionals say you shouldn't do. The reason they tell you this is because there's no money in it for them. They aren't promoting health care but Disease Care; the big pharmaceutical companies don't want you to be healthy because they make money as long as you stay medicated. And aren't health care costs skyrocketing? Yes, and Americans are as sick and obese as ever.
Did I mention that I smoke cigarettes too? Have been for 58 years. And I drink three or four pots of coffee every day.
At this point I must state that I am not a doctor and therefore am not permitted to give medical advice, but I must admit I sometimes do. Like the time a friend, a man of forty, complained that his diabetes was getting him down. He was tired and listless, so I told him to get a bicycle and ride hell out of it. He did, and six weeks later when he went to the doctor - he didn't have diabetes anymore! I have a Gitane 10-speed with 25,000 miles on it, 17,740 since July 13, 2001. That's when I got a Cat's Eye microprocessor installed: it's a speedometer, it measures lapsed time, average speed, and has an odometer. The odometer registers up to 9,999 miles; the current reading is 7,740 miles - the second time around! On March 9, 2006 it reset to zero.
For the record, I am 71 years of age; I stand 6'2" and weigh 230 lbs. I have never been healthier, happier, stronger, and more fit than today. Besides riding my bicycle I also belong to a gym where I go to work with weights two or three times a week. I have no friends my own age; my friends are all at least fifteen years younger than I am and there isn't the slightest hint of a generation gap. And I'm not trying to "look" younger. It's like the day I was riding along and saw a fully restored 1936 Packard sedan. It was beautiful; looked showroom new. Well, I'm a 1938 model and I like to look show room new too. Get healthy and the looks take care of themselves.
The whole trick here is simply the law of supply and demand. Get fit and trim and you won't need doctors and medicines, unless you have a chronic disorder that absolutely calls for certain treatments. When I was 28 years old I worked out with weights and spent a lot of time outdoors - and I looked good. I'd go to the beach to look at the girls and the girls were looking back! At 35 years old I was out of shape and obese - 260 pounds of fat! I watched television(electronic brain damage), drank a lot of beer, and ate like a pig. That was half a lifetime ago; if I can do it there's a better than even chance that you can too.
When I started working out fifteen years ago I could barely do dumbbell presses with 12½ pound weights; today I do sets with 45 lb. dumbbells and am about to graduate to 50 lbs. I can bench press 240 lbs., not a lot by some standards, but for me at this time it's good. I could go on, but you get the idea. Like I tell my friends at the gym, "I may not be Mr. Universe, but I'm not Mr. You-Gotta-Be-Kidding either."
Try it, you may like it. I do. And you get to keep your money instead of paying for expensive prescriptions.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Silver Lining - Drugs, a Moral Issue
Our neighbors to the south are experiencing a growing wave of violence as the Mexican government wages war against its major drug cartels, and the cartels battle each other over control of this lucrative export. Here at home our own War on Drugs has been a dismal failure. Drugs are as plentiful today as they have ever been and the lives of innocent people are being destroyed; in Mexico it's by killing people, here it's by locking them up in prison. The one common denominator is corruption, and the solution to the problem is the de-criminalization of drug use. Prohibition taught a lesson that our public officials still don't seem to grasp: prohibit something and people will find a way to profit from it. The Volstead Act benefited organized crime as it criminalized a large segment of the population, many of whom died or were permanently disabled from drinking rotgut.
The latest news from Mexico tells of gunmen breaking into a drug rehabilitation center in Ciudad Juarez and killing 17 people. The piece goes on the tell of police and soldiers being killed in this wave of violence, and people resigning from the police forces out of fear of being targeted. This is crazy! Crazier still is the policy on our side of the border of keeping the market for drugs lucrative by carrying on this stupid War on Drugs. It would be much cheaper to de-criminalize drugs and spend them money on rehabilitation, and to furnish drugs to users who are not ready to quit. That is the only way to effectively deal with the problem: illicit drugs are profit centers, take away the profits and market will collapse.
Drug abuse is a disease which must be cured, not a criminal act that needs to be punished. I advocate spending tax payer's money to buy up all the drugs produced anywhere in the world. Establish tight controls on these supplies, meting out doses to still practicing addicts, and sponsoring rehabilitation centers to treat recovering addicts. If we can structure an effective program to deal with our own drug problem, it could serve as a model for other nations and to these we could sell our surplus drugs as they come on line and adopt the same sane policy. We would end up with all the drugs anyway, as depriving the cartels of their market would take the profits away from the whole downline: acreages now devoted to growing the stuff could be converted to growing food. To do otherwise is to criminalize ourselves as a people further as accessories before the fact to cold blooded murder.
Think about it. Aren't we better than that?
The latest news from Mexico tells of gunmen breaking into a drug rehabilitation center in Ciudad Juarez and killing 17 people. The piece goes on the tell of police and soldiers being killed in this wave of violence, and people resigning from the police forces out of fear of being targeted. This is crazy! Crazier still is the policy on our side of the border of keeping the market for drugs lucrative by carrying on this stupid War on Drugs. It would be much cheaper to de-criminalize drugs and spend them money on rehabilitation, and to furnish drugs to users who are not ready to quit. That is the only way to effectively deal with the problem: illicit drugs are profit centers, take away the profits and market will collapse.
Drug abuse is a disease which must be cured, not a criminal act that needs to be punished. I advocate spending tax payer's money to buy up all the drugs produced anywhere in the world. Establish tight controls on these supplies, meting out doses to still practicing addicts, and sponsoring rehabilitation centers to treat recovering addicts. If we can structure an effective program to deal with our own drug problem, it could serve as a model for other nations and to these we could sell our surplus drugs as they come on line and adopt the same sane policy. We would end up with all the drugs anyway, as depriving the cartels of their market would take the profits away from the whole downline: acreages now devoted to growing the stuff could be converted to growing food. To do otherwise is to criminalize ourselves as a people further as accessories before the fact to cold blooded murder.
Think about it. Aren't we better than that?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Just in Case You Haven't Seen This One Yet
Fraud is rampant on the Internet and one of the most used is the wire transfer version. Actually it's such an old scam that it has whiskers, but it still appears, as it did for me only this morning. Thus I'm posting this article so you won't be taken in by these vipers.
I drop by craigslist.com every once-in-a-while just to see if there are any part time jobs listed that I might be interested in just to pick up some loose change. There usually isn't anything there that interests me, but yesterday there was a listing for a short term, part time driver. I responded and received an email this morning from the principal. Here is a copy of the email:
Hello,
Thanks for your response, i need to do a brief introduction about my self, i am Dr.Stephen Kaite,i am the present CEO of DE' ALANS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, site #117 new port,Scotland,we are specialized in taking exhibitions,holding lectures and special events for both adult and youth education activities in architectural development. i would be coming over to the United State for a private research on educational architectural, and construction design and would be working with The United State Architecture Foundation (USAF) and i am glad to read from you as regards the driving job. I have good preparation concerning our pick up and for other purposes which we might need you for, which everything is okay with us, We believe you are fit for this position in as much as you will prove yourself a reliable, loyal and good person. We will be arriving on the Sep 10 2009.I will prefer you have your car available and if your car will not be available due to our schedule let us know so that we can make arrangement to hire a car,
I am offering you $600 weekly and I want to know if you going to be available through out our stay and we will be staying for 8 weeks. Youwill make yourself available 5 times a week to our schedule for 3 hours each day and that should be after sunset around 3:00 Pmto 6:00pm each working day, you will be working on Monday,Thursday, Friday . You will be picking us up from the airport to the hotel on our first arrival and we will be arriving in the morning around 9:00Am to 10:00Am and after our arrival you will be picking us up from the hotel to anywhere we wants to go, Also I want you to know that my Personal Assistant here in united state will be sending you a Paycheck that will cover your first week payment which is $600 and our travel expenses and after you have cash the Paycheck you will deduct your first week payment $600 and the remaining funds will be sent to our Travel Agent through western union money transfer or money gram for our travel expenses, accommodation and any other expenses like gas for the vehicle and more. The paycheck is going to be an instantly cash because we don't want to have any delay and it will be well prepared soon and send out to you.All details regarding our travel will be provided to you as soon you receive the Paycheck and send the remain money to the travel agent for our travel expenses , hotel accommodation, gas for the car and some other necessary things. Get back to me as soon as possible with the following details to prepare the Paycheck with my personal assistant and send it out to you, if you are good with the offer so that we can have a good and comfortable preparation before our arrival schedule.
FULL NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY:
STATE:
ZIP CODE:
CELL PHONE:
HOME PHONE:
GENDER:
D.O.B
MARITAL STATUS:
BEST TIME TO CALL:
PRESENT JOB STATUS/POSITION:
Did you accept my offer?
All i need from you is total honesty and sincerity. I know you will be committed to the work ,You will also have a nice period of working with my wife. I will look forward to your e mail with the required information.Here is my phone number +447024035747 please dial as presented for international calls ,
I will be waiting to hear from you
Regards
Stephen
Now I don't know what Steve's doctorate was in but it sure wasn't English. The text is sloppy with poor grammar, usage, syntax, and punctuation. This is the first sign of fraud; the author is a foreigner so poorly grounded in the English language that he seems unaware of his ineptitude. He (she?) claims to be from Scotland but it could be from anywhere; Nigeria and Russia are major sources of Internet scams.
The scenario Steve presents is rather elaborate and is baited to entice the sucker using money and sex.
The money sounds good: $600.00 a week for 15 hours? Not bad! But Steve seems to think that sundown in Dallas, Texas, is around 3:00 to 6:00PM. But the itinerary is otherwise wonderfully detailed; pick him up at the airport, drive him to his hotel, and pick him up at sundown (3:00PM)and return at 6:00PM, after dark I suppose. Not much time to do whatever Steve and company are supposed to be doing. Doesn't seem too clear. Anyway, he wanted me to be available 5 times a week; Monday, Wednesday, and Friday (Steve obviously didn't major in math either) to take him "wherever we wants to go." Yo, bruthuh, maybe we cruise the 'hood wheah I gots mah crib.
The hook is buried in the financial details. Note that Steve wants to send a "Paycheck" from which I am supposed to deduct my first week's pay and send the balance to his travel agent by Western Union or Moneygram transfer. Pretty cute.
The "Paycheck" would most likely be a very genuine-looking cashier's check from some bank in the United States. The last time somebody tried to pull this scam on me the guy was in Wisconsin but the supposed bank was in Santa Fe, New Mexico. And did it ever look good! Counterfeiters can dupe up a check that even fools banks. That time the check was made out for $5,500.00; I was supposed to cash it at my bank, take my cut (I think it was $500.00) and send the rest off somewhere. The check looked so real that the bank would have cashed it, and it could have taken up to six weeks to discover that it was a bogus check. When the check bounced the deficit would be charged back to my account and I would have been out $5,000.00. I responded to this pitch just to see what would happen, so take my word - that check looked genuine!
The sex part of Steve's pitch is suggestive only, but also having a nice period working with is wife opens up a lot of possibilities. What kind of work?
Well, you've got the idea. Do not engage in any financial arrangements that involve cashing checks and wiring sums of money to unknown destinations. The deals sound legitimate and this makes them easy to fall for. One of my friends has a roommate who called me one day about two years ago to say that he had just received a check for $5,000.00 to spend as a "Mystery shopper". He was assigned a couple of stores to visit and report on the kind of service he received. He was to spend about $200.00 and get to keep what he bought. Finally, he was to mystery shop Western Union when he went there to wire the balance to wherever. Good thing he called because he was so taken in by the scam that I had a little trouble convincing him that it was a fraud.
A word to the wise.
I drop by craigslist.com every once-in-a-while just to see if there are any part time jobs listed that I might be interested in just to pick up some loose change. There usually isn't anything there that interests me, but yesterday there was a listing for a short term, part time driver. I responded and received an email this morning from the principal. Here is a copy of the email:
Hello,
Thanks for your response, i need to do a brief introduction about my self, i am Dr.Stephen Kaite,i am the present CEO of DE' ALANS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, site #117 new port,Scotland,we are specialized in taking exhibitions,holding lectures and special events for both adult and youth education activities in architectural development. i would be coming over to the United State for a private research on educational architectural, and construction design and would be working with The United State Architecture Foundation (USAF) and i am glad to read from you as regards the driving job. I have good preparation concerning our pick up and for other purposes which we might need you for, which everything is okay with us, We believe you are fit for this position in as much as you will prove yourself a reliable, loyal and good person. We will be arriving on the Sep 10 2009.I will prefer you have your car available and if your car will not be available due to our schedule let us know so that we can make arrangement to hire a car,
I am offering you $600 weekly and I want to know if you going to be available through out our stay and we will be staying for 8 weeks. Youwill make yourself available 5 times a week to our schedule for 3 hours each day and that should be after sunset around 3:00 Pmto 6:00pm each working day, you will be working on Monday,Thursday, Friday . You will be picking us up from the airport to the hotel on our first arrival and we will be arriving in the morning around 9:00Am to 10:00Am and after our arrival you will be picking us up from the hotel to anywhere we wants to go, Also I want you to know that my Personal Assistant here in united state will be sending you a Paycheck that will cover your first week payment which is $600 and our travel expenses and after you have cash the Paycheck you will deduct your first week payment $600 and the remaining funds will be sent to our Travel Agent through western union money transfer or money gram for our travel expenses, accommodation and any other expenses like gas for the vehicle and more. The paycheck is going to be an instantly cash because we don't want to have any delay and it will be well prepared soon and send out to you.All details regarding our travel will be provided to you as soon you receive the Paycheck and send the remain money to the travel agent for our travel expenses , hotel accommodation, gas for the car and some other necessary things. Get back to me as soon as possible with the following details to prepare the Paycheck with my personal assistant and send it out to you, if you are good with the offer so that we can have a good and comfortable preparation before our arrival schedule.
FULL NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY:
STATE:
ZIP CODE:
CELL PHONE:
HOME PHONE:
GENDER:
D.O.B
MARITAL STATUS:
BEST TIME TO CALL:
PRESENT JOB STATUS/POSITION:
Did you accept my offer?
All i need from you is total honesty and sincerity. I know you will be committed to the work ,You will also have a nice period of working with my wife. I will look forward to your e mail with the required information.Here is my phone number +447024035747 please dial as presented for international calls ,
I will be waiting to hear from you
Regards
Stephen
Now I don't know what Steve's doctorate was in but it sure wasn't English. The text is sloppy with poor grammar, usage, syntax, and punctuation. This is the first sign of fraud; the author is a foreigner so poorly grounded in the English language that he seems unaware of his ineptitude. He (she?) claims to be from Scotland but it could be from anywhere; Nigeria and Russia are major sources of Internet scams.
The scenario Steve presents is rather elaborate and is baited to entice the sucker using money and sex.
The money sounds good: $600.00 a week for 15 hours? Not bad! But Steve seems to think that sundown in Dallas, Texas, is around 3:00 to 6:00PM. But the itinerary is otherwise wonderfully detailed; pick him up at the airport, drive him to his hotel, and pick him up at sundown (3:00PM)and return at 6:00PM, after dark I suppose. Not much time to do whatever Steve and company are supposed to be doing. Doesn't seem too clear. Anyway, he wanted me to be available 5 times a week; Monday, Wednesday, and Friday (Steve obviously didn't major in math either) to take him "wherever we wants to go." Yo, bruthuh, maybe we cruise the 'hood wheah I gots mah crib.
The hook is buried in the financial details. Note that Steve wants to send a "Paycheck" from which I am supposed to deduct my first week's pay and send the balance to his travel agent by Western Union or Moneygram transfer. Pretty cute.
The "Paycheck" would most likely be a very genuine-looking cashier's check from some bank in the United States. The last time somebody tried to pull this scam on me the guy was in Wisconsin but the supposed bank was in Santa Fe, New Mexico. And did it ever look good! Counterfeiters can dupe up a check that even fools banks. That time the check was made out for $5,500.00; I was supposed to cash it at my bank, take my cut (I think it was $500.00) and send the rest off somewhere. The check looked so real that the bank would have cashed it, and it could have taken up to six weeks to discover that it was a bogus check. When the check bounced the deficit would be charged back to my account and I would have been out $5,000.00. I responded to this pitch just to see what would happen, so take my word - that check looked genuine!
The sex part of Steve's pitch is suggestive only, but also having a nice period working with is wife opens up a lot of possibilities. What kind of work?
Well, you've got the idea. Do not engage in any financial arrangements that involve cashing checks and wiring sums of money to unknown destinations. The deals sound legitimate and this makes them easy to fall for. One of my friends has a roommate who called me one day about two years ago to say that he had just received a check for $5,000.00 to spend as a "Mystery shopper". He was assigned a couple of stores to visit and report on the kind of service he received. He was to spend about $200.00 and get to keep what he bought. Finally, he was to mystery shop Western Union when he went there to wire the balance to wherever. Good thing he called because he was so taken in by the scam that I had a little trouble convincing him that it was a fraud.
A word to the wise.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Silver Lining - Let's Get Out of Debt!
Like what's happening to our nation? I don't either. It wasn't that many years ago when a million dollars was a lot of money. It's still a respectable sum but nothing compared to billions and trillions. Now we're talking serious money! It would really be nice if these mind boggling sums weren't debt, but they are and things don't appear to be getting any better. It's time for "We the people" to take informed action.
A youth group connected to the Campaign for Liberty has made up pocket size editions of the US Constitution to distribute to as many people as possible. Makes for good reading. As concerns money, this document clearly assigns the responsibility to Congress "to print and coin money, and to regulate the value thereof." In 1913 this nest of vipers created the Federal Reserve System. The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted by a small quorum of the Senate at Christmas time of that year, when many of their colleagues were at home with their families. Not only was this unconstitutional fraud imposed on the people but the amendment has never been properly ratified. In addition the Sixteenth Amendment specifically stated that it was not authorized to impose any new taxes.
The Federal Reserve prints fiat money out of thin air and lends it to the government at interest. It has never been audited, answers to no one, and has been looting the wealth of this nation for ninety-six years. We have had depressions, inflation, wild business cycles - all the things that the Fed was supposed to help us avoid. During the Great Depression the Fed reduced the money supply by one-third, at the very time when more money should have been made available. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation run by bankers, for bankers, with little regard for the well being of this nation and its people. But this power is only an illusion. Oh, the Fed doesn't have to answer to Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court, but it will ultimately be answerable to the people. And the time is now.
We the people can cancel all debt, personal and private, regardless the number of zeroes involved. It's a simple idea. Let's take it step by step.
The Federal Reserve is a corporation. It charges interest on the loans it makes to the government, therefore it is a for-profit corporation. As a profit making corporation it has never been legislated as immune from paying taxes. Corporations pay income taxes. As a corporation the Federal Reserve is liable for income taxes because it has never been declared exempt, and there is no reason why it should be. Has the Fed ever paid corporate income taxes? Do pigs fly?
The Attorney General of the United States can and will bring formal charges of Income Tax Evasion (remember Al Capone?) against the Federal Reserve if enough of the people stand up and demand it. Write to your Senators and Congressmen, demand that they restore their constitutional mandate and put this corrupt and criminal Central Bank out of business. The interest and penalties alone would be enough to wipe out all our national debt, which is in reality the people's debt.
Get busy.
A youth group connected to the Campaign for Liberty has made up pocket size editions of the US Constitution to distribute to as many people as possible. Makes for good reading. As concerns money, this document clearly assigns the responsibility to Congress "to print and coin money, and to regulate the value thereof." In 1913 this nest of vipers created the Federal Reserve System. The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted by a small quorum of the Senate at Christmas time of that year, when many of their colleagues were at home with their families. Not only was this unconstitutional fraud imposed on the people but the amendment has never been properly ratified. In addition the Sixteenth Amendment specifically stated that it was not authorized to impose any new taxes.
The Federal Reserve prints fiat money out of thin air and lends it to the government at interest. It has never been audited, answers to no one, and has been looting the wealth of this nation for ninety-six years. We have had depressions, inflation, wild business cycles - all the things that the Fed was supposed to help us avoid. During the Great Depression the Fed reduced the money supply by one-third, at the very time when more money should have been made available. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation run by bankers, for bankers, with little regard for the well being of this nation and its people. But this power is only an illusion. Oh, the Fed doesn't have to answer to Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court, but it will ultimately be answerable to the people. And the time is now.
We the people can cancel all debt, personal and private, regardless the number of zeroes involved. It's a simple idea. Let's take it step by step.
The Federal Reserve is a corporation. It charges interest on the loans it makes to the government, therefore it is a for-profit corporation. As a profit making corporation it has never been legislated as immune from paying taxes. Corporations pay income taxes. As a corporation the Federal Reserve is liable for income taxes because it has never been declared exempt, and there is no reason why it should be. Has the Fed ever paid corporate income taxes? Do pigs fly?
The Attorney General of the United States can and will bring formal charges of Income Tax Evasion (remember Al Capone?) against the Federal Reserve if enough of the people stand up and demand it. Write to your Senators and Congressmen, demand that they restore their constitutional mandate and put this corrupt and criminal Central Bank out of business. The interest and penalties alone would be enough to wipe out all our national debt, which is in reality the people's debt.
Get busy.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Silver Lining - An Open Letter to Obama
Dear President Obama,
I hope that you will regard this letter in the spirit in which it is intended: true peace and justice for the people of this great nation. Your administration has come in for a fair amount of criticism over such things as your health care reforms, Check Card unionization, the National ID Card, implanted RDIF chips, the North American Union, and several other instances of increased government control of the lives of American citizens. As it turned out that protesters at one of your latest appearances were carrying rifles, it may be time to settle down and take a hard look at where we are.
Abraham Lincoln, without whose action in 1863 you would in all likelihood be sitting in the back of a bus instead of the oval office, said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." He also said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Our house, to which the voters gave you the keys in 2008 is sorely divided and this condition cannot remain unattended much longer.
One of your campaign promises was to end the war in Iraq, a war based on the lies and misrepresentations of the Bush regime, acts of treason that have so far gone unaddressed on your watch. We still don't have the truth about 911 and we the people are getting a bit hot under the collar on that issue. So, let's talk.
Firstly, I believe it would be well to formally introduce you to the people, we the people, whom you have been chosen to serve. Contrary to popular opinion we are an intelligent, honest, and decent people, and when roused to action we are capable of rising to great heights of industry and resourcefulness. We were the "arsenal of democracy" not so many years ago when we defeated totalitarianism abroad. Do you think we will tolerate totalitarianism here at home? Think again. Protesters carrying rifles suggest that we won't and that we are dangerously close to making that point in the most unambiguous of terms.
As to the war in Iraq, there is one sense in which it is not as wasteful as it may appear. Our troops are helping the cause of liberty, not for the Iraqis but for ourselves. A quote from another great leader in history, Tzar Peter the Great of Russia will help make the point.
Toward the end of the 17th century Russia was at war with Sweden under Charles XII and doing very poorly. Russia was sorely unprepared for the war and suffered a number of defeats. Peter's minsters approached the Tzar and asked what could be done to remedy the situation. Referring to the Swedes Peter replied, "Watch them, they are teaching us how to beat them."
You may recall the federal law enacted in 1878 called Posse Comitatus which prohibits the employment of federal troops against American citizens. How many troops does the Pentagon want to retain in this country for national emergencies and crowd control- 400,000? What does this have to do with the war in Iraq? Simple.The Iraqis have been teaching us how to beat an occupying military. Car bombs? IEDs? Guerrilla warfare? How do you think four hundred-thousand troops would do when set against fifty-million armed, and very pissed off Americans? Want to find out? Oh, and those foreign troops? Forget it; if we won't take shit from our own military, you can be damned sure we aren't going to take it from foreigners.
So, there you have it. The decision is yours. Stop trying to foist a Socialist agenda on the American people. Stop curtsying to the moneyed interests. Stop supporting Israel. Trash the North American Union, ID Cards, and RDIF chips. Get rid of the Federal Reserves as John Kennedy tried to do with Executive Order 11110. Disband Homeland Security and FEMA. And uphold the US Constitution as you took an oath to do.
In short, let's be friends.
I hope that you will regard this letter in the spirit in which it is intended: true peace and justice for the people of this great nation. Your administration has come in for a fair amount of criticism over such things as your health care reforms, Check Card unionization, the National ID Card, implanted RDIF chips, the North American Union, and several other instances of increased government control of the lives of American citizens. As it turned out that protesters at one of your latest appearances were carrying rifles, it may be time to settle down and take a hard look at where we are.
Abraham Lincoln, without whose action in 1863 you would in all likelihood be sitting in the back of a bus instead of the oval office, said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." He also said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Our house, to which the voters gave you the keys in 2008 is sorely divided and this condition cannot remain unattended much longer.
One of your campaign promises was to end the war in Iraq, a war based on the lies and misrepresentations of the Bush regime, acts of treason that have so far gone unaddressed on your watch. We still don't have the truth about 911 and we the people are getting a bit hot under the collar on that issue. So, let's talk.
Firstly, I believe it would be well to formally introduce you to the people, we the people, whom you have been chosen to serve. Contrary to popular opinion we are an intelligent, honest, and decent people, and when roused to action we are capable of rising to great heights of industry and resourcefulness. We were the "arsenal of democracy" not so many years ago when we defeated totalitarianism abroad. Do you think we will tolerate totalitarianism here at home? Think again. Protesters carrying rifles suggest that we won't and that we are dangerously close to making that point in the most unambiguous of terms.
As to the war in Iraq, there is one sense in which it is not as wasteful as it may appear. Our troops are helping the cause of liberty, not for the Iraqis but for ourselves. A quote from another great leader in history, Tzar Peter the Great of Russia will help make the point.
Toward the end of the 17th century Russia was at war with Sweden under Charles XII and doing very poorly. Russia was sorely unprepared for the war and suffered a number of defeats. Peter's minsters approached the Tzar and asked what could be done to remedy the situation. Referring to the Swedes Peter replied, "Watch them, they are teaching us how to beat them."
You may recall the federal law enacted in 1878 called Posse Comitatus which prohibits the employment of federal troops against American citizens. How many troops does the Pentagon want to retain in this country for national emergencies and crowd control- 400,000? What does this have to do with the war in Iraq? Simple.The Iraqis have been teaching us how to beat an occupying military. Car bombs? IEDs? Guerrilla warfare? How do you think four hundred-thousand troops would do when set against fifty-million armed, and very pissed off Americans? Want to find out? Oh, and those foreign troops? Forget it; if we won't take shit from our own military, you can be damned sure we aren't going to take it from foreigners.
So, there you have it. The decision is yours. Stop trying to foist a Socialist agenda on the American people. Stop curtsying to the moneyed interests. Stop supporting Israel. Trash the North American Union, ID Cards, and RDIF chips. Get rid of the Federal Reserves as John Kennedy tried to do with Executive Order 11110. Disband Homeland Security and FEMA. And uphold the US Constitution as you took an oath to do.
In short, let's be friends.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Silver Lining - The Desperate Fear Mongers
I have been very busy the past month and have not had the time to post an entry in all that time. However in the course of my daily activities I have seen and heard things that make it seem that our media are trying evermore desperately to keep the American people fearful and confused. One real gem is a commercial for the Wine Experience that plays on my local classical music FM station. The spokesman opens with the question, "Does matching food and wine stress you out?" Valium, anyone?
A Newsmax email came in this morning and asked the burning question, "Is Jesus coming back?" I unsubscribed immediately. This is not news but the End Times crap that the lunatic fringe keep alive over the trouble in the Middle East. Nut cases like John Hagee of San Antonio are salivating over the possibility that the United States will go to war with Iran and kick off the Battle of Armageddon. Then Jesus comes back and the Jews convert to Christianity and all the fruitcakes get swirled up into Heaven in the "rapture". This is after Jesus ("Judge not lest ye be judged,") judges all the zombies that are supposed to rise from their graves. Somebody's been watching too many horror movies. But that is all part of the dumbing down of America, a campaign that has been going on for fifty years, ever since the book "Why Johnnie Can't Read" was published. Today Johnnie still can't read and his kids and grand kids are like wise intellectually challenged, but they don't have to worry because Johnnie and his equally clueless colleagues hold high positions in politics, science, and religion. No Johnnie and the kids don't worry because they think Jesus is coming back. As a measure of how bad it's become, there is a product on the market that helps people improve their brain function.
A radio commercial touting this "amazing breakthrough" claims to get your old gray matter humming along like a ten-speed blender. "You can read ten books in the time it takes most people to read one."
Why would I want to do that? I enjoy a well written book and take the time to enjoy reading. I don't think I would enjoy a Beethoven symphony played ten times faster, but speed is the thing these days. Like the commercial (forgot what it was for) which reminded people that after work "you have to pick up the kids, start dinner, run errands, and have little time to yourself." Things get especially hectic around the "holidays" when the whole population is envisioned as running around like chickens with their heads cut off; shopping, planning family get togethers, having the folks in from out of town, and adjusting to peoples' busy schedules.
People are cast as starving rats in a maze with a heavy scent of cheese in the air. It's the way the Real World wants us to be; scattered, off balance, with minds so clouded that one becomes easily confused when presented any concept more involved than coming in out of the rain.
Want to be happy? Then don't find time for yourself - MAKE time for yourself. Want to improve your brain function? Try thinking! Otherwise you can continue allowing others to do your thinking for you and sit quietly by waiting for Jesus to come back. It's only been two-thousand years.
A Newsmax email came in this morning and asked the burning question, "Is Jesus coming back?" I unsubscribed immediately. This is not news but the End Times crap that the lunatic fringe keep alive over the trouble in the Middle East. Nut cases like John Hagee of San Antonio are salivating over the possibility that the United States will go to war with Iran and kick off the Battle of Armageddon. Then Jesus comes back and the Jews convert to Christianity and all the fruitcakes get swirled up into Heaven in the "rapture". This is after Jesus ("Judge not lest ye be judged,") judges all the zombies that are supposed to rise from their graves. Somebody's been watching too many horror movies. But that is all part of the dumbing down of America, a campaign that has been going on for fifty years, ever since the book "Why Johnnie Can't Read" was published. Today Johnnie still can't read and his kids and grand kids are like wise intellectually challenged, but they don't have to worry because Johnnie and his equally clueless colleagues hold high positions in politics, science, and religion. No Johnnie and the kids don't worry because they think Jesus is coming back. As a measure of how bad it's become, there is a product on the market that helps people improve their brain function.
A radio commercial touting this "amazing breakthrough" claims to get your old gray matter humming along like a ten-speed blender. "You can read ten books in the time it takes most people to read one."
Why would I want to do that? I enjoy a well written book and take the time to enjoy reading. I don't think I would enjoy a Beethoven symphony played ten times faster, but speed is the thing these days. Like the commercial (forgot what it was for) which reminded people that after work "you have to pick up the kids, start dinner, run errands, and have little time to yourself." Things get especially hectic around the "holidays" when the whole population is envisioned as running around like chickens with their heads cut off; shopping, planning family get togethers, having the folks in from out of town, and adjusting to peoples' busy schedules.
People are cast as starving rats in a maze with a heavy scent of cheese in the air. It's the way the Real World wants us to be; scattered, off balance, with minds so clouded that one becomes easily confused when presented any concept more involved than coming in out of the rain.
Want to be happy? Then don't find time for yourself - MAKE time for yourself. Want to improve your brain function? Try thinking! Otherwise you can continue allowing others to do your thinking for you and sit quietly by waiting for Jesus to come back. It's only been two-thousand years.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Liz Cheney, Will You Please Shut Up!
Today (Tuesday, July 14) Yahoo! News reported that Liz Cheney doesn't believe that her father, Dick Cheney, did anything wrong in directing the CIA not to disclose to Congress their secret plan to kill al-Qaida figures.
At the same time, Liz Cheney accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats of seeking to politicize lingering arguments over how the Bush administration conducted the war against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Where was she when all this was going on? How about this piece of news from the BBC?
Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication
by Mr. Charrington on January 7, 2008
BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“. Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice” namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations” such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government’s story of Al-qaeda, a “group” or criminal organization they could “legally” go after. This video documentary is off the hook…
See,Liz? Right from the horse's mouth. NO AL-QAIDA! Got it? It was an invention by the Neo-Conservatives (Fascists) just like the reasons (lies) behind the war in Iraq. And didn't dear ol' dad make a fortune from Halliburton't no-bid contracts to provide our troops with bad food and impure water? Overall the war has turned out to be a disaster of the first magnitude and Dick Cheney was one of the prime movers who got it underway. YouTube has dozens of videos that show Cheney denying statements he is alleged to have made, and videos showing him actually making the statements.
But, Liz,I do understand your position. You were, after all, a former principal deputy secretary of state for Mideast affairs during George W. Bush's presidency. I'm sure you got that post because of your glowing credentials and not because you father was Vice President. Mideast affairs? Hey, you did a great job! But I would offer one suggestion, though.
Instead of helping with dad's memoirs your time might be better spent working on his defense because, sooner or later, he and the rest of that slimy regime will be called to account. It's only a matter of time.
At the same time, Liz Cheney accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats of seeking to politicize lingering arguments over how the Bush administration conducted the war against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Where was she when all this was going on? How about this piece of news from the BBC?
Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication
by Mr. Charrington on January 7, 2008
BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“. Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice” namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations” such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government’s story of Al-qaeda, a “group” or criminal organization they could “legally” go after. This video documentary is off the hook…
See,Liz? Right from the horse's mouth. NO AL-QAIDA! Got it? It was an invention by the Neo-Conservatives (Fascists) just like the reasons (lies) behind the war in Iraq. And didn't dear ol' dad make a fortune from Halliburton't no-bid contracts to provide our troops with bad food and impure water? Overall the war has turned out to be a disaster of the first magnitude and Dick Cheney was one of the prime movers who got it underway. YouTube has dozens of videos that show Cheney denying statements he is alleged to have made, and videos showing him actually making the statements.
But, Liz,I do understand your position. You were, after all, a former principal deputy secretary of state for Mideast affairs during George W. Bush's presidency. I'm sure you got that post because of your glowing credentials and not because you father was Vice President. Mideast affairs? Hey, you did a great job! But I would offer one suggestion, though.
Instead of helping with dad's memoirs your time might be better spent working on his defense because, sooner or later, he and the rest of that slimy regime will be called to account. It's only a matter of time.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Silver Lining - An Exquisitely Beautiful Video
Presented here as a reminder that in this world of pain and suffering, war, poverty, and hunger, all brought about by evil men, that people can still create rare beauty that ennobles the spirit of mankind. Enjoy!
Kim Komando’s Video of the Day » Blog Archive » African thunderstorm
Kim Komando’s Video of the Day » Blog Archive » African thunderstorm
Friday, July 10, 2009
Silver Lining - Why Obama will Fail
Well, we've finally done it, elected a black president. This puts him in an unique position in the history of our nation; he has two constituencies, the voters at large who looked to him for change and the blacks who looked to him for identity; and it looks like he is betraying both groups. By continuing the corrupt policies of the criminal Bush regime Obama has reprised the role of Steppen Fetchit, the servile nigger who jumps at his master's every command. But these are different masters as we have been coming to understand. They are not the Kentucky colonel sitting on the colonnaded porch of his ante-bellum mansion sipping mint julep. No, the latest menagerie of masters are not so open. Hatching their plots behind closed doors and maintaining a level of secrecy that any Nazi regime would find it difficult to match, these masters are the central bankers and imperialists we have come to know as Neo-cons, white trash from top to bottom: Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and all the rest of this stinking collection of human garbage who have committed high treason on several counts. And many of us thinking people wonder why these hooligans aren't doing time in Federal penitentiaries. Why are those who committed such heinous crimes still at liberty?
Certainly the highest of these crimes is being led into two losing wars based on lies, deceptions, contrived "evidence", and the spectre of 9/11 being another Reichstag Fire. Mr. Obama seems to be waffling on his campaign promise to end the war in Iraq that so far has cost the American tax payers over a half-trillion dollars, money that could be much better spent in looking after the needs of our own people. But war is a major part of our history and from which our nation was formed. In the Revolution, the War of 1812, and World War Two, many brave men and woman gave their lives that we might live in freedom. But total freedom wasn't realized until the Civil Rights movement that liberated black America from the rigors of segregation. And this conflict was fought on our own soil, a struggle based on the Constitutional guarantees of equal justice under the law. Mr. Obama has received the fruits of both these conflicts but seems not to acknowledge the gifts he has received by he blood, sweat, and tears of the many brave Americans who stood up for what was right; habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial before a jury of our peers, the Fourth Amendment guarantee of security in our person, houses, papers, and effects against unlawful search and seizure. For so long as Obama tolerates torture, warrantless wiretaps and searches, detentions, and the fictitious "war on terror", so does he deny the double heritage that is his. He forgets these things at his own peril for we, the American people will have the last word as we always have had when the going got tough. There is a revolution sweeping the land; we will take back our nation from the thieves and liars who have steered our ship of state so far off course. And that is because we are a decent people, a generous people, a good people. The permanent changes will not be brought about by stuffed suits in high places, but by decent men and women who comprise our vast body of unsung heroes. Some of these we know, most of those we don't, and some of these were there and we did not notice them at the time. I'll tie this package up by identifying one of the latter, a man well known and loved in his time, and a great American in the bargain.
He was a comedian. His name was Jack Benny and his radio and television shows were very popular in the 1930's to the 1950's. There were black entertainers in that day who had made names for themselves; Nat "King" Cole, Lena Horne, Hattie McDaniel, Louise Beavers, Ruby Dandridge, among them, but they all experienced segregation and the hostility of bigoted whites. And then there was Eddie Anderson.
Eddie was a black man, the ever famous, much beloved "Rochester" on the Jack Benny Show throughout the years. Mr. Anderson wasn't just on the show, he shared top billing with Jack himself, and in that was the latter's greatness. Though he could have taken center stage at any time, he instead stepped aside and and let budding new talent emerge under his wing; Mel Blanc, Sheldon Leonard, Phil Harris, Dennis Day, Frank Nelson, and Eddie Anderson with whom he generously shared the spotlight. Once when the show was on the road the troupe went to the registration desk of swank mid-western hotel to check in. The desk clerk said to Jack, "Why Mr. Benny, we are delighted to have you here - but, of course your friend (Eddie) can't stay here. This great American, Jack Benny replied, "If he doesn't stay here then I'm not staying either." Rochester stayed - and that was more than fifteen years before the Civil Rights movement.
Let's hope Obama sees the light.
Certainly the highest of these crimes is being led into two losing wars based on lies, deceptions, contrived "evidence", and the spectre of 9/11 being another Reichstag Fire. Mr. Obama seems to be waffling on his campaign promise to end the war in Iraq that so far has cost the American tax payers over a half-trillion dollars, money that could be much better spent in looking after the needs of our own people. But war is a major part of our history and from which our nation was formed. In the Revolution, the War of 1812, and World War Two, many brave men and woman gave their lives that we might live in freedom. But total freedom wasn't realized until the Civil Rights movement that liberated black America from the rigors of segregation. And this conflict was fought on our own soil, a struggle based on the Constitutional guarantees of equal justice under the law. Mr. Obama has received the fruits of both these conflicts but seems not to acknowledge the gifts he has received by he blood, sweat, and tears of the many brave Americans who stood up for what was right; habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial before a jury of our peers, the Fourth Amendment guarantee of security in our person, houses, papers, and effects against unlawful search and seizure. For so long as Obama tolerates torture, warrantless wiretaps and searches, detentions, and the fictitious "war on terror", so does he deny the double heritage that is his. He forgets these things at his own peril for we, the American people will have the last word as we always have had when the going got tough. There is a revolution sweeping the land; we will take back our nation from the thieves and liars who have steered our ship of state so far off course. And that is because we are a decent people, a generous people, a good people. The permanent changes will not be brought about by stuffed suits in high places, but by decent men and women who comprise our vast body of unsung heroes. Some of these we know, most of those we don't, and some of these were there and we did not notice them at the time. I'll tie this package up by identifying one of the latter, a man well known and loved in his time, and a great American in the bargain.
He was a comedian. His name was Jack Benny and his radio and television shows were very popular in the 1930's to the 1950's. There were black entertainers in that day who had made names for themselves; Nat "King" Cole, Lena Horne, Hattie McDaniel, Louise Beavers, Ruby Dandridge, among them, but they all experienced segregation and the hostility of bigoted whites. And then there was Eddie Anderson.
Eddie was a black man, the ever famous, much beloved "Rochester" on the Jack Benny Show throughout the years. Mr. Anderson wasn't just on the show, he shared top billing with Jack himself, and in that was the latter's greatness. Though he could have taken center stage at any time, he instead stepped aside and and let budding new talent emerge under his wing; Mel Blanc, Sheldon Leonard, Phil Harris, Dennis Day, Frank Nelson, and Eddie Anderson with whom he generously shared the spotlight. Once when the show was on the road the troupe went to the registration desk of swank mid-western hotel to check in. The desk clerk said to Jack, "Why Mr. Benny, we are delighted to have you here - but, of course your friend (Eddie) can't stay here. This great American, Jack Benny replied, "If he doesn't stay here then I'm not staying either." Rochester stayed - and that was more than fifteen years before the Civil Rights movement.
Let's hope Obama sees the light.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Silver Lining - The Emerging Truth
The term that is getting the most usage these days is Revolution and this nation is inching closer to that eventuality by the day. People are getting smarter. The tireless efforts of such true patriots as Congressman Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Peter Schiff, and many others are bringing the truth to a wider cross section of the American people. But now we are seeing the government and its media toadies inadvertently aiding in the very process that will bring their criminal cabal crashing to the ground.
We are approaching the anniversary of our independence, the Fourth of July, and the hype is amping up to nauseating proportions. Gala celebrations are planned throughout the nation, but all the fireworks, bands playing patriotic music, and all the related hoopla, only amplify the garish irony surrounding the encroaching Socialism that threatens to steal more of our personal liberties and bankrupt the nation beyond redemption.
There are still 130,000 troops in Iraq, four more were killed during the pullout from Baghdad. The news carried the story but it was nothing like the media blitz that followed the death of Michael Jackson. "The whole world mourns the death of Michael Jackson," one headline bleated. Really? The whole world? I seriously doubt that anyone was really thinking about Jackson very much lately. He was famous for his odd tastes and the scandals that dogged him every bit as much as he was regaled for his music. His career was nowhere; a recluse, the London tour was intended as a comeback and he put a lot of work into it, to his credit. As with the untimely passing of any human being, Jackson's death was sad but was it a catastrophe of global proportions? Hardly. It may create jobs, though: Michael impersonators, like Elvis impersonators with fancy footwork.
Cigarette taxes tripled over the past thirty days or so as the government continues its fraudulent anti-smoking campaign. They claim its to pay the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses; but where does the money really go? It gets Pentagoned (a new term I just made up to describe the strange disappearance of tax dollars into thin air; Oops! It was here a minute ago!). It is taxation without representation, the issue that tipped the 13 colonies into revolution.
Then there's Crap and Trade (no typo) an innovative way to fuel inflation. The high costs of the meaningless target reductions in "greenhouse gases" will of course be passed onto the already overburdened taxpayers. Another log on the revolutionary fire, and it's coming! I could go on but it's time to get to the point. What kind of revolution am I talking about?
The revolution I am speaking of will not involve Minutemen, militias, or citizens carrying placards or firearms. But they will be armed - with facts and a huge resentment against the thieves and liars who have sold out to big corporations and big money. It's about the MONEY, stupid!
Write this down so you don't forget it: MONEY IS ANYTHING THAT HAS VALUE! Our economy is a barter economy and has never been anything else, and it will always be! Barter is, after all trading one good for another; we use pieces of paper bearing the portraits of dead presidents on one side of most personal transactions and we will continue to do so. These Federal Reserve Notes are worthless though, aren't they? Yes, and they always have been, but that didn't stop us from using them. The point here is simple: We the people have the sole power to decide the nature and value of money: we decide what money is. Like California. They can't agree on a budget; it's in the neighborhood of 24 billion dollars. Schwarzenegger said if the legislature can't submit a comprehensive budget for his approval, the state will have to issue IOUs to pay expenses. Guess what; these IOUs will be money every bit as much as the phony scrip the Fed has been turning out since 1913. Will they be accepted in trade? No reason why not; these Arnolds (we have to call these IOUs something) would be a supplementary currency, used to stretch the dollars supply and to pay state taxes. Remember Tally Sticks?
Some municipalities are already developing alternative currencies.A popular version of these is the Time Dollar. The way these work: I may offer to landscape a neighbor's yard. We agree on $15.00 an hour. The work takes eight hours and is worth $120.00. The customer may decide to pay with Time Dollars, wholly or in part. The person who did the work has $120.00 in Time Dollars that he can use to buy certain goods. The merchant who accepts these TDs in payment for good can use these to pay for goods and services that he needs. If he takes the whole amount in trade he can use the $120.00 worth of TDs to pay a clerk for twelve hours @ $10.00 an hour. This would be a closed loop economy limited to a community of people who agree to the strategy but it could spread as more people see the usefulness of the plan.
When the people get together behind a plan there's nothing that can stop them.
We are approaching the anniversary of our independence, the Fourth of July, and the hype is amping up to nauseating proportions. Gala celebrations are planned throughout the nation, but all the fireworks, bands playing patriotic music, and all the related hoopla, only amplify the garish irony surrounding the encroaching Socialism that threatens to steal more of our personal liberties and bankrupt the nation beyond redemption.
There are still 130,000 troops in Iraq, four more were killed during the pullout from Baghdad. The news carried the story but it was nothing like the media blitz that followed the death of Michael Jackson. "The whole world mourns the death of Michael Jackson," one headline bleated. Really? The whole world? I seriously doubt that anyone was really thinking about Jackson very much lately. He was famous for his odd tastes and the scandals that dogged him every bit as much as he was regaled for his music. His career was nowhere; a recluse, the London tour was intended as a comeback and he put a lot of work into it, to his credit. As with the untimely passing of any human being, Jackson's death was sad but was it a catastrophe of global proportions? Hardly. It may create jobs, though: Michael impersonators, like Elvis impersonators with fancy footwork.
Cigarette taxes tripled over the past thirty days or so as the government continues its fraudulent anti-smoking campaign. They claim its to pay the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses; but where does the money really go? It gets Pentagoned (a new term I just made up to describe the strange disappearance of tax dollars into thin air; Oops! It was here a minute ago!). It is taxation without representation, the issue that tipped the 13 colonies into revolution.
Then there's Crap and Trade (no typo) an innovative way to fuel inflation. The high costs of the meaningless target reductions in "greenhouse gases" will of course be passed onto the already overburdened taxpayers. Another log on the revolutionary fire, and it's coming! I could go on but it's time to get to the point. What kind of revolution am I talking about?
The revolution I am speaking of will not involve Minutemen, militias, or citizens carrying placards or firearms. But they will be armed - with facts and a huge resentment against the thieves and liars who have sold out to big corporations and big money. It's about the MONEY, stupid!
Write this down so you don't forget it: MONEY IS ANYTHING THAT HAS VALUE! Our economy is a barter economy and has never been anything else, and it will always be! Barter is, after all trading one good for another; we use pieces of paper bearing the portraits of dead presidents on one side of most personal transactions and we will continue to do so. These Federal Reserve Notes are worthless though, aren't they? Yes, and they always have been, but that didn't stop us from using them. The point here is simple: We the people have the sole power to decide the nature and value of money: we decide what money is. Like California. They can't agree on a budget; it's in the neighborhood of 24 billion dollars. Schwarzenegger said if the legislature can't submit a comprehensive budget for his approval, the state will have to issue IOUs to pay expenses. Guess what; these IOUs will be money every bit as much as the phony scrip the Fed has been turning out since 1913. Will they be accepted in trade? No reason why not; these Arnolds (we have to call these IOUs something) would be a supplementary currency, used to stretch the dollars supply and to pay state taxes. Remember Tally Sticks?
Some municipalities are already developing alternative currencies.A popular version of these is the Time Dollar. The way these work: I may offer to landscape a neighbor's yard. We agree on $15.00 an hour. The work takes eight hours and is worth $120.00. The customer may decide to pay with Time Dollars, wholly or in part. The person who did the work has $120.00 in Time Dollars that he can use to buy certain goods. The merchant who accepts these TDs in payment for good can use these to pay for goods and services that he needs. If he takes the whole amount in trade he can use the $120.00 worth of TDs to pay a clerk for twelve hours @ $10.00 an hour. This would be a closed loop economy limited to a community of people who agree to the strategy but it could spread as more people see the usefulness of the plan.
When the people get together behind a plan there's nothing that can stop them.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Silver Lining - Ones and Zeroes
The much talked about financial problems out government faces are largely imaginary. What that means is that money created out of thin air can just as easily vanish into thin air once we come to our senses. Where once a hundred-million dollars was considered a lot of money, now we are talking in the tens of trillions, 94% of this just digits stored in computers. Only three percent of the money supply is in the form of bills and coin, and these are in the hands of the people. And it will stay there as a guard against all the gloom and doom predictions of hyperinflation and economic meltdown. As long as we have a currency that represents value, the market forces (laissez faire) that operate on Main Street will see us through. People will sell for less and work for less until they come to their senses and start turning things around. And we will. We can begin by just saying, No.
The depth of the current financial crisis involves derivative financial instruments known as Debt for Credit Swaps. These CDS's are a form of insurance taken out by investors whose holdings appear in danger of losing value. Foremost among these were holders of Collateralized Debt Obligations, another derivative instrument cooked up by Wall Street when the Mortgage Backed Securities that started the whole mess started coming apart.
Banks had been solicited for mortgages by Lehman Brothers that the Wall Street firm packaged into huge concentrations. These enormous inventories and the checks pouring in each month were to be the basis for the Mortgage Backed Securities that Lehman sold to the world's central banks, insurance and retirement funds. The banks wrote mortgages on an ever descending scale of qualification, toward the end lending money to people with no income or assets. The banks did this because they could turn around and sell these mortgages to Lehman and get paid right away. No waiting twenty or thirty years. The further rationalized that the people who bought these mortgages without assets or income could resell their houses in another year, pay of their mortgages, and walk away with a few thousand in profits, as the housing bubble had not yet burst and home prices were rising.
The Mortgage Backed Securities started coming apart, so Wall Street dreamed up the Collateralized Debt Obligation. This piece of poor judgment was an investment on an investment that offered higher interest rates on mortgage packages that involved higher risk. The sole intent here was to raise money to plug the holes in the MBS program, sort of like digging a second hole to fill the first one, then a third to fill the second, and so on. Think musical chairs. Now to the point.
The holders of the Collateralized Debt Obligations began to worry that they would lose their investments when the music stopped, thus the purchases of the Debt for Credit Swaps. It's a sensible move and the cautious investors had been paying premiums to the houses issuing these instruments, most notably AIG. The problem mushroomed to astronomical proportions because the SEC had failed to specify ownership of the securities as a condition of purchase,thus anyone could purchase a DCS whether they owned the securities or not. It's like taking out collision insurance on an automobile; if taken out by the owner then in the event of an accident in which the car is totaled, the insurance company covers the loss; if a thousand people bought the same policy the insurance company would have to pay one-thousand claims on the same car. So the tax payers of this country should not have to be stuck with the bill for this fiasco: AIG should have known better, and the SEC should have plugged the loophole that made this disaster possible. So to the question; should we bail these bums out?
Just say,No.
The depth of the current financial crisis involves derivative financial instruments known as Debt for Credit Swaps. These CDS's are a form of insurance taken out by investors whose holdings appear in danger of losing value. Foremost among these were holders of Collateralized Debt Obligations, another derivative instrument cooked up by Wall Street when the Mortgage Backed Securities that started the whole mess started coming apart.
Banks had been solicited for mortgages by Lehman Brothers that the Wall Street firm packaged into huge concentrations. These enormous inventories and the checks pouring in each month were to be the basis for the Mortgage Backed Securities that Lehman sold to the world's central banks, insurance and retirement funds. The banks wrote mortgages on an ever descending scale of qualification, toward the end lending money to people with no income or assets. The banks did this because they could turn around and sell these mortgages to Lehman and get paid right away. No waiting twenty or thirty years. The further rationalized that the people who bought these mortgages without assets or income could resell their houses in another year, pay of their mortgages, and walk away with a few thousand in profits, as the housing bubble had not yet burst and home prices were rising.
The Mortgage Backed Securities started coming apart, so Wall Street dreamed up the Collateralized Debt Obligation. This piece of poor judgment was an investment on an investment that offered higher interest rates on mortgage packages that involved higher risk. The sole intent here was to raise money to plug the holes in the MBS program, sort of like digging a second hole to fill the first one, then a third to fill the second, and so on. Think musical chairs. Now to the point.
The holders of the Collateralized Debt Obligations began to worry that they would lose their investments when the music stopped, thus the purchases of the Debt for Credit Swaps. It's a sensible move and the cautious investors had been paying premiums to the houses issuing these instruments, most notably AIG. The problem mushroomed to astronomical proportions because the SEC had failed to specify ownership of the securities as a condition of purchase,thus anyone could purchase a DCS whether they owned the securities or not. It's like taking out collision insurance on an automobile; if taken out by the owner then in the event of an accident in which the car is totaled, the insurance company covers the loss; if a thousand people bought the same policy the insurance company would have to pay one-thousand claims on the same car. So the tax payers of this country should not have to be stuck with the bill for this fiasco: AIG should have known better, and the SEC should have plugged the loophole that made this disaster possible. So to the question; should we bail these bums out?
Just say,No.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Zua Buna!
The title of this post is "Good day" in Romanian. I have used this greeting often in the past as I am of Romanian extraction. My family emigrated to this country in 1912 to escape the political upheavals of the time. The nation has never been very stable; it was a kingdom under King Carol, a dictatorship under Chaucescu, and was on the wrong side in World War, Part Two, and took part in Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union at a heavy cost in lives and resources. In 1989 Romania revolted and broke away from the Soviet bloc. Some improvements have been realized in that troubled land but in some respects it still lives in the Dark Ages. This headline appeared on BBC just today;
A Romanian nun has died after being bound to a cross, gagged and left alone for three days in a cold room in a convent, Romanian police have said.
Members of the convent in north-east Romania claim Maricica Irina Cornici was possessed and that the crucifixion had been part of an exorcism ritual.
Cornici was found dead on the cross on Wednesday after fellow nuns called an ambulance, according to police.
A priest and four nuns were charged with imprisonment leading to death.
Orphan
Police say the 23-year-old nun, who was denied food and drink throughout her ordeal, had been tied and chained to the cross and a towel pushed into her mouth to smother any sounds.
A post-mortem is to be carried out, although initial reports say that Cornici died from asphyxiation.
"I don't understand why journalists are making such a fuss about this," said
Father Daniel
Local media reports that the young woman had arrived at the remote convent three months before, having initially gone there to visit a friend and opted to stay.
She grew up in an orphanage in Arad, in the west of Romania.
Mediafax news agency said Cornici suffered from schizophrenia and the symptoms of her condition caused the priest at the convent and other nuns to believe she was possessed by the devil.
"They all said she was possessed and they were trying to cast out the evil spirits," police spokeswoman Michaela Straub said.
Father Daniel who is accused of orchestrating the crime is said to be unrepentant.
"God has performed a miracle for her, finally Irina is delivered from evil," AFP quoted the priest as saying.
"I don't understand why journalists are making such a fuss about this. Exorcism is a common practice in the heart of the Romanian Orthodox church and my methods are not at all unknown to other priests," Father Daniel added.
If found guilty of killing Cornici, Father Daniel and the accused nuns could face 20 years in jail.
Another disgusting example of the evil of organized religion.
A Romanian nun has died after being bound to a cross, gagged and left alone for three days in a cold room in a convent, Romanian police have said.
Members of the convent in north-east Romania claim Maricica Irina Cornici was possessed and that the crucifixion had been part of an exorcism ritual.
Cornici was found dead on the cross on Wednesday after fellow nuns called an ambulance, according to police.
A priest and four nuns were charged with imprisonment leading to death.
Orphan
Police say the 23-year-old nun, who was denied food and drink throughout her ordeal, had been tied and chained to the cross and a towel pushed into her mouth to smother any sounds.
A post-mortem is to be carried out, although initial reports say that Cornici died from asphyxiation.
"I don't understand why journalists are making such a fuss about this," said
Father Daniel
Local media reports that the young woman had arrived at the remote convent three months before, having initially gone there to visit a friend and opted to stay.
She grew up in an orphanage in Arad, in the west of Romania.
Mediafax news agency said Cornici suffered from schizophrenia and the symptoms of her condition caused the priest at the convent and other nuns to believe she was possessed by the devil.
"They all said she was possessed and they were trying to cast out the evil spirits," police spokeswoman Michaela Straub said.
Father Daniel who is accused of orchestrating the crime is said to be unrepentant.
"God has performed a miracle for her, finally Irina is delivered from evil," AFP quoted the priest as saying.
"I don't understand why journalists are making such a fuss about this. Exorcism is a common practice in the heart of the Romanian Orthodox church and my methods are not at all unknown to other priests," Father Daniel added.
If found guilty of killing Cornici, Father Daniel and the accused nuns could face 20 years in jail.
Another disgusting example of the evil of organized religion.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
A Smoker's Rebuttal
It's happened again. The nation's smokers have been subject to more tax increases, causing already high prices to triple in some instances. A pound of tobacco that used to sell for $10.81 is now $36.95 and that should be enough to stir up the one-third of the people who enjoy smoking to taking action. It would be one thing if there were any evidence that smoking is harmful in any demonstrable way. There isn't. The Surgeon General's report that started this witch hunt is inconclusive on that score, based as it was on eleven equally inconclusive reports.
The first Surgeon General's report was published in 1964 and it was subsequently required that all cigarette packages carry a warning about the health hazards of smoking. That should have been enough, but then the lunatic fringe of the American population took over and escalated the hysteria to stratospheric heights. It proved to be another way for intrinsically unpleasant people to demonstrate their unpleasant natures. Well, I for one have had enough of this nonsense. Here are the facts about smoking for anyone not too stupid or bigoted to understand.
The United States leads the world in obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes; we are the world's sickest people. Our food is laced with chemicals too numerous to mention here, some guesses number into the thousands; our water is chemically treated with fluoride, a waste product from the manufacture of fertilizer; the air we breathe is polluted by automobile exhaust, coal fired power plants, and sulpherous smoke from various manufacturing plants. In view of all this, how can any data with respect to cigarette smoking be separated out from these other causes? The short answer is; they can't. The anti-smoking campaign is rife with unproven, general statements on the dangers of smoking when a rational assessment of the facts tells a different story.
Reader's Digest is one of the print media's most incessant and hypocritical advocates in the effort to get people to stop smoking. A few years ago they printed an article purportedly by a young woman whose father had died a smoking-related death. On the title page of the article was a photo of the complaining party, a pretty blond who appeared to be in her late teens or early twenties. This innocent-looking girl's story was designed to elicit sympathy and outrage against the filthy habit that took this girl's father out of her life. Boo hoo. But wait! Further along in the body of the story was the information that the girl's father had quit smoking eighteen years before his death! Smell something? I do. It's the rank odor hypocrisy; a publication that has probably contributed to more health problems by marketing prescription drugs to their readers than any other source - they've been doing this for decades, no doubt being generously compensated by Big Pharma - bleating their crippled agenda in the name of "public service" when the only ones they truly serve are themselves. The outrage over marketing prescription drugs to the general public only took form when pharmaceutical companies started sponsoring television commercials, a relatively recent development compared to Reader's Digest's long standing practice.
Another result of the hysteria over smoking and the misleading propaganda against it is that many people believe that cigarette smoking causes heart disease, emphysema, and lung cancer. The fact is that cigarette smoking causes none of these afflictions or any other, for that matter. That is not to say that smoking cannot aggravate an existing condition: it most certainly can, and people with respiratory or cardio-vascular problems should definitely not smoke. Alcoholics should not drink alcoholic beverages but I don't see anyone militating against drinking. Yet drunk drivers are a much greater threat to public health than smoking could ever be. Here there is no doubt about the causal relationship to highway deaths and serious injury. Why aren't heavier taxes imposed on alcohol to the extent that they have been for cigarette smoking. Don't medical costs of alcohol consumption for both drinkers and victims of drunk driving incidents rival those falsely alleged for smokers?
Then there's the matter of "second hand smoke". I had close friend who quit smoking some twenty-five years ago. I haven't seen the man in almost eight years, and that was when I visited him in East Texas after a lengthy hiatus: before that it had been ten years since our last personal contact though we did speak on the telephone occasionally. During one of the conversation he got on a rant about smoking and at one point he shouted, "You're killing me with your second hand smoke!" Over the telephone? At that time I hadn't seen the man in three years.
The man is two years younger than I but on my last visit I didn't recognize him when he came to pick me up at the bus terminal. He looked ninety! Over the past twenty years he has had brain surgery, diabetes, suffers from manic depression, and a few months ago, the last time I spoke to him on the telephone it was clear that his mind was going. I smoke, he hasn't for twenty-five years; I am in peak health, often taken for fifteen or twenty years younger, have never been physically stronger (I work out at a gym) and still ride a bicycle 15 or 20 miles an outing.
I spend a lot of time outdoors even during the many "air pollution" days when people with respiratory problems are encouraged to remain indoors and people are urged to car pool. That leads to another argument that the anti-smoking fanatics don't like to think about. It's all in the numbers.
The normal breathing rate is fourteen breaths a minute, in an hour that's 840 breaths and the air in the lungs is complete;y changed every seven breaths. I smoke an average of thirty cigarettes a day; they are filterless, regular size cigarettes that I make myself using organically grown, additive-free tobacco. I average about two cigarettes an hour, sometimes more and sometimes I don't smoke for three hours at a stretch. At the rate of two cigarettes an hour, ten puffs each, that's twenty out of 840 respirations an hour; one out of 42 breaths. The rest of that hour I am taking in 820 breaths of something else, on "air pollution" days, especially during an inversion, I am breathing bad air. If I happen to be on foot with heavy traffic all around (seldom) I am breathing heavy doses of carbon monoxide with every breath, not just 1 in 42 but every breath - all 840 for every hour I am out there.
There was a time, fifty or sixty years ago, when folks were healthier. The air was cleaner, tap water fit to drink, and food was purer. Men worked in factories, machine shops, and construction, and were able to earn enough money that wives could stay at home, take care of the home, and raise the children. Oh, there were problems alright; alcoholism, some drug use, and crime, but not to the degree we experience today. And people smoked cigarettes without the social stigma that prevails today. There were people who didn't smoke and some of these had unpleasant effects, but they didn't organize into militant factions reminiscent of Medieval mobs; smokers then as now, if asked not to smoke, didn't smoke if it would cause potential harm to anyone. But in the main people just didn't mind much. In 1950 the chances of contracting cancer were 1 in 27; today they are 1 in 4. We are a sicker society today; did cigarette smoking contribute to this in any way?
Yes. But it wasn't the cigarettes themselves. In the early 1950's cigarette companies started producing filtered cigarettes and as these became more widespread public health started its long, gradual decline. The first popular cigarette brand to come out with filters was Kent; the filters were so dense that it was hard to draw on them and to make matters worse, asbestos was the filtering medium. Even without asbestos filters are harmful to smokers. When a smoker inhales smoke through a filter some tiny bits of the filter material also enters the lungs. Filters are made of silicates and this fine residue settles on the lungs - and stays there: the body cannot metabolize it, just as coal miners' lungs couldn't, and over time both groups developed silicosis, also known as "coal miners disease" or ""black lung". Filters, not tobacco or nicotine, are the problem with cigarettes.
I'll close with another example of the ignorance of the FDA when it pronounced nicotine as an addictive substance. There is no such thing; there are addictive personalities but not substances. People satisfy their cravings with many substances, including food. I am a recovering alcoholic with over 28 years of freedom from alcohol. Drugs didn't appeal to me; I took amphetamines to get through college while working full time and carrying a full load at school. When I started hallucinating I stopped taking them. I didn't have a drinking problem; I had a living problem and drinking was my solution to life's problems - until the problems mounted to near fatal proportions. Today I wouldn't trade my worst day sober for my best day drinking; my life works, I have many good, true friends, I am physically fit and mentally acute - and I smoke non-filtered cigarettes. So do me a favor.
Leave me the hell alone! Deal with your own personality problems and stop playing the Blame Game. I don't need you to tell me how to live when you obviously don't know how to live yourself: if you did then you wouldn't find it necessary to meddle in other peoples' business.
The first Surgeon General's report was published in 1964 and it was subsequently required that all cigarette packages carry a warning about the health hazards of smoking. That should have been enough, but then the lunatic fringe of the American population took over and escalated the hysteria to stratospheric heights. It proved to be another way for intrinsically unpleasant people to demonstrate their unpleasant natures. Well, I for one have had enough of this nonsense. Here are the facts about smoking for anyone not too stupid or bigoted to understand.
The United States leads the world in obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes; we are the world's sickest people. Our food is laced with chemicals too numerous to mention here, some guesses number into the thousands; our water is chemically treated with fluoride, a waste product from the manufacture of fertilizer; the air we breathe is polluted by automobile exhaust, coal fired power plants, and sulpherous smoke from various manufacturing plants. In view of all this, how can any data with respect to cigarette smoking be separated out from these other causes? The short answer is; they can't. The anti-smoking campaign is rife with unproven, general statements on the dangers of smoking when a rational assessment of the facts tells a different story.
Reader's Digest is one of the print media's most incessant and hypocritical advocates in the effort to get people to stop smoking. A few years ago they printed an article purportedly by a young woman whose father had died a smoking-related death. On the title page of the article was a photo of the complaining party, a pretty blond who appeared to be in her late teens or early twenties. This innocent-looking girl's story was designed to elicit sympathy and outrage against the filthy habit that took this girl's father out of her life. Boo hoo. But wait! Further along in the body of the story was the information that the girl's father had quit smoking eighteen years before his death! Smell something? I do. It's the rank odor hypocrisy; a publication that has probably contributed to more health problems by marketing prescription drugs to their readers than any other source - they've been doing this for decades, no doubt being generously compensated by Big Pharma - bleating their crippled agenda in the name of "public service" when the only ones they truly serve are themselves. The outrage over marketing prescription drugs to the general public only took form when pharmaceutical companies started sponsoring television commercials, a relatively recent development compared to Reader's Digest's long standing practice.
Another result of the hysteria over smoking and the misleading propaganda against it is that many people believe that cigarette smoking causes heart disease, emphysema, and lung cancer. The fact is that cigarette smoking causes none of these afflictions or any other, for that matter. That is not to say that smoking cannot aggravate an existing condition: it most certainly can, and people with respiratory or cardio-vascular problems should definitely not smoke. Alcoholics should not drink alcoholic beverages but I don't see anyone militating against drinking. Yet drunk drivers are a much greater threat to public health than smoking could ever be. Here there is no doubt about the causal relationship to highway deaths and serious injury. Why aren't heavier taxes imposed on alcohol to the extent that they have been for cigarette smoking. Don't medical costs of alcohol consumption for both drinkers and victims of drunk driving incidents rival those falsely alleged for smokers?
Then there's the matter of "second hand smoke". I had close friend who quit smoking some twenty-five years ago. I haven't seen the man in almost eight years, and that was when I visited him in East Texas after a lengthy hiatus: before that it had been ten years since our last personal contact though we did speak on the telephone occasionally. During one of the conversation he got on a rant about smoking and at one point he shouted, "You're killing me with your second hand smoke!" Over the telephone? At that time I hadn't seen the man in three years.
The man is two years younger than I but on my last visit I didn't recognize him when he came to pick me up at the bus terminal. He looked ninety! Over the past twenty years he has had brain surgery, diabetes, suffers from manic depression, and a few months ago, the last time I spoke to him on the telephone it was clear that his mind was going. I smoke, he hasn't for twenty-five years; I am in peak health, often taken for fifteen or twenty years younger, have never been physically stronger (I work out at a gym) and still ride a bicycle 15 or 20 miles an outing.
I spend a lot of time outdoors even during the many "air pollution" days when people with respiratory problems are encouraged to remain indoors and people are urged to car pool. That leads to another argument that the anti-smoking fanatics don't like to think about. It's all in the numbers.
The normal breathing rate is fourteen breaths a minute, in an hour that's 840 breaths and the air in the lungs is complete;y changed every seven breaths. I smoke an average of thirty cigarettes a day; they are filterless, regular size cigarettes that I make myself using organically grown, additive-free tobacco. I average about two cigarettes an hour, sometimes more and sometimes I don't smoke for three hours at a stretch. At the rate of two cigarettes an hour, ten puffs each, that's twenty out of 840 respirations an hour; one out of 42 breaths. The rest of that hour I am taking in 820 breaths of something else, on "air pollution" days, especially during an inversion, I am breathing bad air. If I happen to be on foot with heavy traffic all around (seldom) I am breathing heavy doses of carbon monoxide with every breath, not just 1 in 42 but every breath - all 840 for every hour I am out there.
There was a time, fifty or sixty years ago, when folks were healthier. The air was cleaner, tap water fit to drink, and food was purer. Men worked in factories, machine shops, and construction, and were able to earn enough money that wives could stay at home, take care of the home, and raise the children. Oh, there were problems alright; alcoholism, some drug use, and crime, but not to the degree we experience today. And people smoked cigarettes without the social stigma that prevails today. There were people who didn't smoke and some of these had unpleasant effects, but they didn't organize into militant factions reminiscent of Medieval mobs; smokers then as now, if asked not to smoke, didn't smoke if it would cause potential harm to anyone. But in the main people just didn't mind much. In 1950 the chances of contracting cancer were 1 in 27; today they are 1 in 4. We are a sicker society today; did cigarette smoking contribute to this in any way?
Yes. But it wasn't the cigarettes themselves. In the early 1950's cigarette companies started producing filtered cigarettes and as these became more widespread public health started its long, gradual decline. The first popular cigarette brand to come out with filters was Kent; the filters were so dense that it was hard to draw on them and to make matters worse, asbestos was the filtering medium. Even without asbestos filters are harmful to smokers. When a smoker inhales smoke through a filter some tiny bits of the filter material also enters the lungs. Filters are made of silicates and this fine residue settles on the lungs - and stays there: the body cannot metabolize it, just as coal miners' lungs couldn't, and over time both groups developed silicosis, also known as "coal miners disease" or ""black lung". Filters, not tobacco or nicotine, are the problem with cigarettes.
I'll close with another example of the ignorance of the FDA when it pronounced nicotine as an addictive substance. There is no such thing; there are addictive personalities but not substances. People satisfy their cravings with many substances, including food. I am a recovering alcoholic with over 28 years of freedom from alcohol. Drugs didn't appeal to me; I took amphetamines to get through college while working full time and carrying a full load at school. When I started hallucinating I stopped taking them. I didn't have a drinking problem; I had a living problem and drinking was my solution to life's problems - until the problems mounted to near fatal proportions. Today I wouldn't trade my worst day sober for my best day drinking; my life works, I have many good, true friends, I am physically fit and mentally acute - and I smoke non-filtered cigarettes. So do me a favor.
Leave me the hell alone! Deal with your own personality problems and stop playing the Blame Game. I don't need you to tell me how to live when you obviously don't know how to live yourself: if you did then you wouldn't find it necessary to meddle in other peoples' business.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Idiots Never Give up!
This is just a short commentary on a news item that appeared on Yahoo! just this morning. This came from the world of "science", as this nonsense tries to pretend it is, while actually being a pathetic attempt to make Creationism look like science.
"2009: A space oddity; big blob in early universe" the headline declared referring to a huge light source estimated to be 12.9-billion light years away! The Big Bang theory is still kicking, it seems, and it is no small source of amazement that rational people still sit still and swallow this garbage by the trowel full.
The first clue came when the article went on to state that "scientists" were looking back to when the universe was only 800-million years old, an indirect reference to Big Bang. "The photo is beyond fuzzy," the article states without crediting the remark, but it couldn't be fuzzier than the thought processes of these "scientists".
Let's proceed rationally.
This "blob" of radiation-emitting light is 12.9-billion light years away; that is where t was 12.9-billion years ago. If the universe was only 800-million years old then that would be how long it had to take for the object to get that far out. As anyone familiar with scientific mathematics knows numbers quantify objects, and those objects are part of the value being expressed. They are called Units, and they either combine with other units (foot-pound) or cancel each other out. An example of the latter would be;
You traveled at 50 miles/hour for 3 hours. How far did you go? The answer of course is 150 miles. The hours canceled each other out, one being in the denominator of the first term, the other being in the numerator of the second term. Now for the problem at hand.
Dividing 12.9-billion light years by 800-million years will require a little substitution to overcome the limitations of the Blogger posting program. The solution to this problem relies on Scientific Notation, which this site lacks the capability to depict. To compensate I will use the form N E^x, where N is a number greater than zero and less than ten, E is 10 and x is the power to which E is raised.
Thus 2 E would be 20 (2 x 10), a thousand would be 1 E3 (1 x 10 x 10 x 10) and so on.
12.9-billion light years would be 12.9 E9 and 800-million would be 8 E8. We want to know how fast an object would have to travel to cover 12.9 light years in only 800-million years. It's a division problem; 12.9 E9/8 E8 = 1.512 E or 15.12 light, as the years would cancel each other out. So what does 15.12 light mean? As used in the expression it would refer to the speed of light, therefore to travel 12.9-billion light years in 800-million years an object would have to travel more than 15 times the speed of light!
Any questions?
"2009: A space oddity; big blob in early universe" the headline declared referring to a huge light source estimated to be 12.9-billion light years away! The Big Bang theory is still kicking, it seems, and it is no small source of amazement that rational people still sit still and swallow this garbage by the trowel full.
The first clue came when the article went on to state that "scientists" were looking back to when the universe was only 800-million years old, an indirect reference to Big Bang. "The photo is beyond fuzzy," the article states without crediting the remark, but it couldn't be fuzzier than the thought processes of these "scientists".
Let's proceed rationally.
This "blob" of radiation-emitting light is 12.9-billion light years away; that is where t was 12.9-billion years ago. If the universe was only 800-million years old then that would be how long it had to take for the object to get that far out. As anyone familiar with scientific mathematics knows numbers quantify objects, and those objects are part of the value being expressed. They are called Units, and they either combine with other units (foot-pound) or cancel each other out. An example of the latter would be;
You traveled at 50 miles/hour for 3 hours. How far did you go? The answer of course is 150 miles. The hours canceled each other out, one being in the denominator of the first term, the other being in the numerator of the second term. Now for the problem at hand.
Dividing 12.9-billion light years by 800-million years will require a little substitution to overcome the limitations of the Blogger posting program. The solution to this problem relies on Scientific Notation, which this site lacks the capability to depict. To compensate I will use the form N E^x, where N is a number greater than zero and less than ten, E is 10 and x is the power to which E is raised.
Thus 2 E would be 20 (2 x 10), a thousand would be 1 E3 (1 x 10 x 10 x 10) and so on.
12.9-billion light years would be 12.9 E9 and 800-million would be 8 E8. We want to know how fast an object would have to travel to cover 12.9 light years in only 800-million years. It's a division problem; 12.9 E9/8 E8 = 1.512 E or 15.12 light, as the years would cancel each other out. So what does 15.12 light mean? As used in the expression it would refer to the speed of light, therefore to travel 12.9-billion light years in 800-million years an object would have to travel more than 15 times the speed of light!
Any questions?
Monday, April 6, 2009
Silver Lining - The Two Economies
The "meltdown" that we are so eagerly awaiting will probably be just another "crisis", like the Savings and Loan debacle of the 1980's, the Dot.com bubble of the 1990's, and the Housing Bubble of more recent vintage. Economists are predicting tough times ahead, but it is my opinion that these "experts" have no idea what they're talking about. They attend Ivy League universities and upon graduation go to work for major corporations, government agencies, or "think tanks" and never experience life on the street, where most of us live. Their cockamamie theories, like Arthur Laffer's "Supply Side" economics of the disastrous Reagan years, that only made the rich richer, are seriously flawed. George H. W.Bush only exacerbated the problem by ignoring the Savings and Loan disaster, and here we are. But where are we? Are things really as bad as they say? I don't think so. I'm going to ask you to think about something if you are among the many facing foreclosure of your home. If you know someone who's in that position, tell them what I am about to tell you.
Your mortgage is a fraudulent contract!
That's right. And if you're into foreclosure you can sue the bank that issued the mortgage, and get to keep the house. The explanation is based on Contract Law; ask any attorney who practices in this area of the law if what I say isn't true.
Any business transaction is an exchange of value. I pay my rent each month by check - just hand it to the apartment manager on the first of every month. In up to two weeks the check arrives at the bank and the owner of the property receives cash. The bank takes the money out of my account and puts it in his account, or just counts out the currency in that amount. In exchange I receive living a secured living space that is warm in the winter, cool in the summer, keeps my hair dry when it's raining, and is my private little domain. I'm happy; I get what I need: the owner is happy; he gets his money, and all is right with the world.
What we have is a contract. even though there is nothing on paper. Even though there is no written agreement between the owner and me (I've lived here for twenty years) a contract still exists because the three conditions essential to any contract exist;
The offer. The owner has an apartment to rent, the salesman has a car to sell, etc.
The acceptance. I agree to rent the apartment, buy the car, or the latte, etc.
The consideration. I pay for what I get. Value changes hands.
Now, let's buy a house. You can't afford the whole nut so you go to the bank and they write a mortgage "contract" that you are obliged to pay over the course of twenty or thirty years. Most folks are honest and will pay the mortgage every month - if they can afford it. But in the Housing Bubble, with it's sub-prime loans, NINA (No Income, No Assets) mortgages, HELOCs (Home Equity Lines of Credit) a lot of people got suckered into buying homes they couldn't afford on the theory that these shacks would appreciate in value and could be resold in a year or two.
Did the banks care? Actually, no. The reason the banks wrote these mortgages is because they didn't keep them longer than a few weeks. They sold the paper to Wall Street (Lehman Brothers) who, in turn bundled them into packages of mortgages (tens of thousands) and sold them to the world's central banks, insurance companies, and pension funds. The bank gets paid, you get stuck! You're in a rough spot; right?
No. For two reasons; first, the bank has no legal right to foreclose: they don't own the mortgage. Only the owner of the mortgage can initiate legitimate foreclosure proceedings. These mortgage "tranches" have changed hands so many times that in many cases no one can tell who owns the mortgage on your house.
The second reason you're off the hook (though you'll have to go to court and sue) is that the mortgage is a fraudulent contract. The reason for this is simple: the bank didn't put up any money; they created it out of thin air thanks to fractional (fictional?) reserve banking. There was no consideration, ergo no contract. It would be the same as if I paid my rent with a check when there is no money in the account.
This is just one item of the law that most people are unaware of; there are many more. And economists are right up there with John Q. Citizen when it comes to knowing anything about real economics. Let's have a Quickie Quiz, OK?
How much is the Dollar worth to you?
Ask forty economists what the value of the dollar is and you will get forty different answers. Oh, they'll refer to their charts and tell you the exchange values against the Euro, Yen, Pound Sterling, Franc, Peso, or whatever. All wrong! The answer?
The Dollar is worth whatever it will buy. Simple. It's called the Exchange Value. Because I know this I bought an $85,000 bicycle for $13.00 ten years ago and spent about $100.00 a year on it. What made this bicycle worth so much? I didn't own a car all that time and rode the bike everywhere, or used Public Transportation (ride all over town for a month on $30.00 - a monthly pass). To run and maintain a car over that period was averaging about $8,500.00 per year. Ten years: $85,000.00 in savings.
And that's not mentioning the health benefits that allow me to approach the age of 71 without doctors, prescription drugs, or any health aids whatsoever. Most folks take me for early fifties. When I tell people my true age they ask me if I'm retired. My reply is, "I'm not old enough to retire."
Go to a men's store and buy a good suit off the rack. How much will you spend? Four or five hundred? More? I'll get a suit of the same quality for $70.00 - tailored! I get shirts that cost $30.00 to $50.00 retail for $3.69 apiece. I took out a small signature loan a week ago at 3½% interest. I am a smoker but unlike most people who are paying nearly $7.00 a pack with the latest tax hike, I get away for about $2.60, and the tobacco is organically grown and has no additives. I spent $50.00 for an injector machine two years ago: it has paid for itself many times over. I share some details of how I do these things on earlier blogs.
What I am practicing is laissez faire, economics, what Adam Smith wrote about in the eighteenth century. It's pretty simple, simple enough that most economists have some idea what it's all about. Then there's the economic theory introduced by John Maynard Keynes, about which most "Keynesian" economists don't have a clue. Another Quickie Quiz.
What is the economic theory that our economy is based on?
a) Adam Smith's laissez faire
b) Keynesian economics
c) Both
If you chose c go to the head of the class!
We all have heard, at one time or another, about the New Economy. Oh, it's called a Capitalist Economy, an Information Economy, a Consumer Economy, and there's a theory that supports every one of them touted by one of the Greats of Ivory Tower babble. The fact is an economy is an economy; if you earn more than you spend you are solvent, no matter if you're an individual, a mom-pop store, a major corporation, or a government. If you spend more than you take in, you're bankrupt. Period. End of discussion.
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, at the time we were having our Revolution. In those times economies were all largely agrarian with some industry that by modern standards would be very primitive. Labor was mostly unskilled and semi-skilled and was thus highly mobile and easily transferable. Workers of average intelligence could be quickly trained in simple, usually repetitive tasks. Wages followed prices. Normal business cycles (not the boom and bust, roller coaster kind authored by the Fed)caused some minor dislocations; a company experienced a setback and laid off a portion of their work force. Since there was no unemployment insurance the laid off worker took whatever job he could find, usually willing to work for less. In this way laissez faire always tended toward full employment. In better times wages rose as there was competition for labor, and it was possible for a worker to advance himself according to his background and experience. In contrast with today's economy, background is not nearly as important as it was in Smith's time. Today it's all about education and ability.
John Maynard Keynes introduced his theory of economics in the 1930's and many modern economists seem to believe that this theory replaced Smithian Classical economics. It did no such thing, rather it brought that theory into modern times. Most economists and government officials seem to believe that Keynes endorsed government spending to stimulate the economy: to deal with depressions, boom and bust cycles, and inflation. It is quite clear that rampant government spending creates depressions, recessions, and those cataclysmic shifts in the markets that have plagued us so much over the past three or four decades.
The reason, and Keynes saw it, for these dramatic shifts in the economy is that with a growing technological base comes specialization in a given field. As specialization becomes more intrinsic to an economy the mobility of labor is severely restricted. The labor in not readily transferable, thus periods of unemployment are protracted and the unemployed person must wait out the slump, taking menial work in the interim, or seek training in another field. Out of all this came assistance programs and jobs sponsored by the government during the Great Depression the most productive of which was the Civilian Conservation Corps, a programs that put people to work building roads, dams; planting trees and building national parks, and other infrastructure projects. It worked!
I read Keynes many years ago and suspect that since then the basic texts have been "bible-ized": edited and altered to say what a small faction of power brokers wished it to say. My recollection are quite different from what I presume to be Keynes' true arguments.
For one thing there's the matter of government spending and the creation of wealth through debt. Keynes endorsed the exact, diametric opposite! Keynes saw the role of government as "lender of last resort" to areas of the economy needing financial support. These funds would come from the General Fund, money actually in existence, not cranked out of thin air as the Fed presently does. These loans would be paid back with a nominal low interest.
Also, Keynes held that the proportion of the total money supply as capital be around 10%. The rest out in the society to fuel commerce and create jobs. The so-called "capitalist' economy is exactly what Keynes did not propose as I recall from reading about the British economist's view. But in the intervening time this fact has been obscured by know-nothings who proclaim a "new" economy, implying that their ersatz "Keynesian" economics replaces that of Adam Smith. It does no such thing; rather, it expands and modifies Smithian doctrine. Adam Smith is alive and well on Main Street.
This brings us to the question of dollar value. The dollar is in a steep decline with respect to other currencies, the comparison that most pundits refer to. But what does that have to do with you and me? The value of a dollar to me is what it will purchase at any given time. I have a French ten-speed bicycle, a Gitane that I bought for $13.00 twelve years ago. It needed some work and I spent about $200.00 getting it restored: $213.00 for a bicycle that I probably couldn't sell for $50.00, but I didn't buy it to sell. I bought it to ride, and ride it I did; to work, shopping, for recreation - everywhere! For ten years I did not own a car and rode the bicycle and public transportation. Can you understand me when I say I that the value of that bicycle over the ten years was $85,000? A conservative estimate held that to operate and maintain an automobile averaged about $8,500.00 a year. Ten years? $85,000.00.
That's value.
I bought a car from a lawyer friend fifteen month ago; it was his late mother's car.
He wanted me to buy it and even gave it to me to drive for a month. He needed money and offered it to me for about $6,000.00 - Blue Book had it listed at $6,600.00 at the time. I made a firm counter offer of $5,000.00 and he took it. Today I still owe the credit union $3,000.00 but the book value is $6,000.00 - twice what I owe on the car. It is also one of the best cars made over the past twenty years; I have had no trouble with it, and a mechanic friend of mine remarked one time, "You'll never wear it out." Plus I can take it to the dealer and get it washed for free! That's value. Do I still have the bicycle? Sure, and I still have the vibrant good health that riding it for ten years helped me to attain. I still ride it, though not as much - still much farther than most people. That's value! The Gitane also has 24,000 miles on it and still gets compliments from tome to time. It's a cool bike.
What will you pay for a suit of clothes, even at a discount superstore? You can pay $600.000 to $800.000 for a suit of average quality; I can get a suit for less than $100.00, same quality, good label - and if anyone asks I can say, "My tailor." This technique is described in one of my earlier submissions; no need to go through it again.
There are many ways to cut corners and spend less, often far less than you otherwise would at straight market prices. What's the big deal about buying new stuff? Think about this: New goods are only new until you pay for them - after that they're second hand before you even leave the store or lot!
The message is simple: People need money even in good times. In hard times even more people need money, and a lot need more money. Save, eliminate credit, and pay only what bills are absolutely necessary. Then looks for bargains. They're out there!
Your mortgage is a fraudulent contract!
That's right. And if you're into foreclosure you can sue the bank that issued the mortgage, and get to keep the house. The explanation is based on Contract Law; ask any attorney who practices in this area of the law if what I say isn't true.
Any business transaction is an exchange of value. I pay my rent each month by check - just hand it to the apartment manager on the first of every month. In up to two weeks the check arrives at the bank and the owner of the property receives cash. The bank takes the money out of my account and puts it in his account, or just counts out the currency in that amount. In exchange I receive living a secured living space that is warm in the winter, cool in the summer, keeps my hair dry when it's raining, and is my private little domain. I'm happy; I get what I need: the owner is happy; he gets his money, and all is right with the world.
What we have is a contract. even though there is nothing on paper. Even though there is no written agreement between the owner and me (I've lived here for twenty years) a contract still exists because the three conditions essential to any contract exist;
The offer. The owner has an apartment to rent, the salesman has a car to sell, etc.
The acceptance. I agree to rent the apartment, buy the car, or the latte, etc.
The consideration. I pay for what I get. Value changes hands.
Now, let's buy a house. You can't afford the whole nut so you go to the bank and they write a mortgage "contract" that you are obliged to pay over the course of twenty or thirty years. Most folks are honest and will pay the mortgage every month - if they can afford it. But in the Housing Bubble, with it's sub-prime loans, NINA (No Income, No Assets) mortgages, HELOCs (Home Equity Lines of Credit) a lot of people got suckered into buying homes they couldn't afford on the theory that these shacks would appreciate in value and could be resold in a year or two.
Did the banks care? Actually, no. The reason the banks wrote these mortgages is because they didn't keep them longer than a few weeks. They sold the paper to Wall Street (Lehman Brothers) who, in turn bundled them into packages of mortgages (tens of thousands) and sold them to the world's central banks, insurance companies, and pension funds. The bank gets paid, you get stuck! You're in a rough spot; right?
No. For two reasons; first, the bank has no legal right to foreclose: they don't own the mortgage. Only the owner of the mortgage can initiate legitimate foreclosure proceedings. These mortgage "tranches" have changed hands so many times that in many cases no one can tell who owns the mortgage on your house.
The second reason you're off the hook (though you'll have to go to court and sue) is that the mortgage is a fraudulent contract. The reason for this is simple: the bank didn't put up any money; they created it out of thin air thanks to fractional (fictional?) reserve banking. There was no consideration, ergo no contract. It would be the same as if I paid my rent with a check when there is no money in the account.
This is just one item of the law that most people are unaware of; there are many more. And economists are right up there with John Q. Citizen when it comes to knowing anything about real economics. Let's have a Quickie Quiz, OK?
How much is the Dollar worth to you?
Ask forty economists what the value of the dollar is and you will get forty different answers. Oh, they'll refer to their charts and tell you the exchange values against the Euro, Yen, Pound Sterling, Franc, Peso, or whatever. All wrong! The answer?
The Dollar is worth whatever it will buy. Simple. It's called the Exchange Value. Because I know this I bought an $85,000 bicycle for $13.00 ten years ago and spent about $100.00 a year on it. What made this bicycle worth so much? I didn't own a car all that time and rode the bike everywhere, or used Public Transportation (ride all over town for a month on $30.00 - a monthly pass). To run and maintain a car over that period was averaging about $8,500.00 per year. Ten years: $85,000.00 in savings.
And that's not mentioning the health benefits that allow me to approach the age of 71 without doctors, prescription drugs, or any health aids whatsoever. Most folks take me for early fifties. When I tell people my true age they ask me if I'm retired. My reply is, "I'm not old enough to retire."
Go to a men's store and buy a good suit off the rack. How much will you spend? Four or five hundred? More? I'll get a suit of the same quality for $70.00 - tailored! I get shirts that cost $30.00 to $50.00 retail for $3.69 apiece. I took out a small signature loan a week ago at 3½% interest. I am a smoker but unlike most people who are paying nearly $7.00 a pack with the latest tax hike, I get away for about $2.60, and the tobacco is organically grown and has no additives. I spent $50.00 for an injector machine two years ago: it has paid for itself many times over. I share some details of how I do these things on earlier blogs.
What I am practicing is laissez faire, economics, what Adam Smith wrote about in the eighteenth century. It's pretty simple, simple enough that most economists have some idea what it's all about. Then there's the economic theory introduced by John Maynard Keynes, about which most "Keynesian" economists don't have a clue. Another Quickie Quiz.
What is the economic theory that our economy is based on?
a) Adam Smith's laissez faire
b) Keynesian economics
c) Both
If you chose c go to the head of the class!
We all have heard, at one time or another, about the New Economy. Oh, it's called a Capitalist Economy, an Information Economy, a Consumer Economy, and there's a theory that supports every one of them touted by one of the Greats of Ivory Tower babble. The fact is an economy is an economy; if you earn more than you spend you are solvent, no matter if you're an individual, a mom-pop store, a major corporation, or a government. If you spend more than you take in, you're bankrupt. Period. End of discussion.
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, at the time we were having our Revolution. In those times economies were all largely agrarian with some industry that by modern standards would be very primitive. Labor was mostly unskilled and semi-skilled and was thus highly mobile and easily transferable. Workers of average intelligence could be quickly trained in simple, usually repetitive tasks. Wages followed prices. Normal business cycles (not the boom and bust, roller coaster kind authored by the Fed)caused some minor dislocations; a company experienced a setback and laid off a portion of their work force. Since there was no unemployment insurance the laid off worker took whatever job he could find, usually willing to work for less. In this way laissez faire always tended toward full employment. In better times wages rose as there was competition for labor, and it was possible for a worker to advance himself according to his background and experience. In contrast with today's economy, background is not nearly as important as it was in Smith's time. Today it's all about education and ability.
John Maynard Keynes introduced his theory of economics in the 1930's and many modern economists seem to believe that this theory replaced Smithian Classical economics. It did no such thing, rather it brought that theory into modern times. Most economists and government officials seem to believe that Keynes endorsed government spending to stimulate the economy: to deal with depressions, boom and bust cycles, and inflation. It is quite clear that rampant government spending creates depressions, recessions, and those cataclysmic shifts in the markets that have plagued us so much over the past three or four decades.
The reason, and Keynes saw it, for these dramatic shifts in the economy is that with a growing technological base comes specialization in a given field. As specialization becomes more intrinsic to an economy the mobility of labor is severely restricted. The labor in not readily transferable, thus periods of unemployment are protracted and the unemployed person must wait out the slump, taking menial work in the interim, or seek training in another field. Out of all this came assistance programs and jobs sponsored by the government during the Great Depression the most productive of which was the Civilian Conservation Corps, a programs that put people to work building roads, dams; planting trees and building national parks, and other infrastructure projects. It worked!
I read Keynes many years ago and suspect that since then the basic texts have been "bible-ized": edited and altered to say what a small faction of power brokers wished it to say. My recollection are quite different from what I presume to be Keynes' true arguments.
For one thing there's the matter of government spending and the creation of wealth through debt. Keynes endorsed the exact, diametric opposite! Keynes saw the role of government as "lender of last resort" to areas of the economy needing financial support. These funds would come from the General Fund, money actually in existence, not cranked out of thin air as the Fed presently does. These loans would be paid back with a nominal low interest.
Also, Keynes held that the proportion of the total money supply as capital be around 10%. The rest out in the society to fuel commerce and create jobs. The so-called "capitalist' economy is exactly what Keynes did not propose as I recall from reading about the British economist's view. But in the intervening time this fact has been obscured by know-nothings who proclaim a "new" economy, implying that their ersatz "Keynesian" economics replaces that of Adam Smith. It does no such thing; rather, it expands and modifies Smithian doctrine. Adam Smith is alive and well on Main Street.
This brings us to the question of dollar value. The dollar is in a steep decline with respect to other currencies, the comparison that most pundits refer to. But what does that have to do with you and me? The value of a dollar to me is what it will purchase at any given time. I have a French ten-speed bicycle, a Gitane that I bought for $13.00 twelve years ago. It needed some work and I spent about $200.00 getting it restored: $213.00 for a bicycle that I probably couldn't sell for $50.00, but I didn't buy it to sell. I bought it to ride, and ride it I did; to work, shopping, for recreation - everywhere! For ten years I did not own a car and rode the bicycle and public transportation. Can you understand me when I say I that the value of that bicycle over the ten years was $85,000? A conservative estimate held that to operate and maintain an automobile averaged about $8,500.00 a year. Ten years? $85,000.00.
That's value.
I bought a car from a lawyer friend fifteen month ago; it was his late mother's car.
He wanted me to buy it and even gave it to me to drive for a month. He needed money and offered it to me for about $6,000.00 - Blue Book had it listed at $6,600.00 at the time. I made a firm counter offer of $5,000.00 and he took it. Today I still owe the credit union $3,000.00 but the book value is $6,000.00 - twice what I owe on the car. It is also one of the best cars made over the past twenty years; I have had no trouble with it, and a mechanic friend of mine remarked one time, "You'll never wear it out." Plus I can take it to the dealer and get it washed for free! That's value. Do I still have the bicycle? Sure, and I still have the vibrant good health that riding it for ten years helped me to attain. I still ride it, though not as much - still much farther than most people. That's value! The Gitane also has 24,000 miles on it and still gets compliments from tome to time. It's a cool bike.
What will you pay for a suit of clothes, even at a discount superstore? You can pay $600.000 to $800.000 for a suit of average quality; I can get a suit for less than $100.00, same quality, good label - and if anyone asks I can say, "My tailor." This technique is described in one of my earlier submissions; no need to go through it again.
There are many ways to cut corners and spend less, often far less than you otherwise would at straight market prices. What's the big deal about buying new stuff? Think about this: New goods are only new until you pay for them - after that they're second hand before you even leave the store or lot!
The message is simple: People need money even in good times. In hard times even more people need money, and a lot need more money. Save, eliminate credit, and pay only what bills are absolutely necessary. Then looks for bargains. They're out there!
Monday, March 9, 2009
Open Letter to the Republican Party
I am interrupting the series Silver Lining to write this open letter prompted by a headline on Yahoo!'s homepage this morning (March 9): Republicans See Their Party as Leaderless. The content of this article was just too much to pass up, so here goes.
Dear Members of the Republican National Committee,
So you think your party is leaderless? In my opinion you're being too modest. If you were only leaderless then that problem could be easily solved. But since you are also soulless and brainless, your lack of leadership is a minor point. What leadership have you had or shown over the past eight years? Starting from the top with George W. Bush, a brainless, gutless moron who lied us into two losing wars on false pretenses: let's call a spade a spade, Bush lied to the people and a lot of innocent people died. And you lied to us too; you tried to lead us to believe that this ol' cowhand from New Haven, Connecticut, was actually our president. No he wasn't, he relinquished any claim to that post when he called the US Constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper"; the same document that he swore to uphold, protect, and defend. He tried to shred it, all with your unswerving complicity. You are not only leaderless but rudderless as well.
You're the same slime balls that endorsed Dick Cheney as Vice President, the puppet master who led our "wartime president" (the one who didn't have the guts to face Cindy Sheehan)by the nose as he enriched himself and his old alma mater Halliburton at tax payers' expense. It won't be necessary to go into the full list of psychopaths who infested the highest offices in the land in the worst criminal conspiracy this nation has ever faced. The whole rotten bunch will be called to account; the American people are now wide awake and we don't like what you did to us. But I offer you hope, if you're not too stupid to understand.
You have a golden opportunity to redeem yourselves. You have in your midst the finest statesman, Dr. Ron Paul - and you're looking around for a leader? The article said that 5% favored John McCain as party leader - he's a nut job, and let's not forget his membership in the Keating Five.
Sarah Palin? Only one percent support her. I personally like her; think she's a sweet lady but clueless. Then you tell us that 2% support Rush Limbaugh? Your party has an unenviable record of transgressions that have inspired many to the idea that you are all crazy - name "Pills" Limbaugh party leader and remove all doubt.
Want to remake your image? Good. Here's how.
Name Ron Paul as party leader. Support him in the next presidential election.
Abolish the Federal Reserve and its fiat debt money and give us honest, debt free money. It's our money; stop giving it to the Rothschilds, Bilderburgs, Warburgs, Barclays, and Rockerfellers.
Dismantle the Military-Industrial Complex that the last real president, Eisenhower, warned us about.
Tell the people the truth about 911: that it was a false flag operation engineered and carried out by elements of our own criminal government: a Reichstag Fire!
Restore our Constitutional rights before we find it necessary to do so.
Restore habeas corpus and the rule of law - or we the people certainly will.
And as it is the duty of every American to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, you'll have to excuse us if we regard police and units of the military enemies of the people when they try to interfere with the people's First Amendment right to lawful assembly and the redress of wrongs. Don't worry, we know how to deal with enemies.
So there you have it.
Do what you will.
Dear Members of the Republican National Committee,
So you think your party is leaderless? In my opinion you're being too modest. If you were only leaderless then that problem could be easily solved. But since you are also soulless and brainless, your lack of leadership is a minor point. What leadership have you had or shown over the past eight years? Starting from the top with George W. Bush, a brainless, gutless moron who lied us into two losing wars on false pretenses: let's call a spade a spade, Bush lied to the people and a lot of innocent people died. And you lied to us too; you tried to lead us to believe that this ol' cowhand from New Haven, Connecticut, was actually our president. No he wasn't, he relinquished any claim to that post when he called the US Constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper"; the same document that he swore to uphold, protect, and defend. He tried to shred it, all with your unswerving complicity. You are not only leaderless but rudderless as well.
You're the same slime balls that endorsed Dick Cheney as Vice President, the puppet master who led our "wartime president" (the one who didn't have the guts to face Cindy Sheehan)by the nose as he enriched himself and his old alma mater Halliburton at tax payers' expense. It won't be necessary to go into the full list of psychopaths who infested the highest offices in the land in the worst criminal conspiracy this nation has ever faced. The whole rotten bunch will be called to account; the American people are now wide awake and we don't like what you did to us. But I offer you hope, if you're not too stupid to understand.
You have a golden opportunity to redeem yourselves. You have in your midst the finest statesman, Dr. Ron Paul - and you're looking around for a leader? The article said that 5% favored John McCain as party leader - he's a nut job, and let's not forget his membership in the Keating Five.
Sarah Palin? Only one percent support her. I personally like her; think she's a sweet lady but clueless. Then you tell us that 2% support Rush Limbaugh? Your party has an unenviable record of transgressions that have inspired many to the idea that you are all crazy - name "Pills" Limbaugh party leader and remove all doubt.
Want to remake your image? Good. Here's how.
Name Ron Paul as party leader. Support him in the next presidential election.
Abolish the Federal Reserve and its fiat debt money and give us honest, debt free money. It's our money; stop giving it to the Rothschilds, Bilderburgs, Warburgs, Barclays, and Rockerfellers.
Dismantle the Military-Industrial Complex that the last real president, Eisenhower, warned us about.
Tell the people the truth about 911: that it was a false flag operation engineered and carried out by elements of our own criminal government: a Reichstag Fire!
Restore our Constitutional rights before we find it necessary to do so.
Restore habeas corpus and the rule of law - or we the people certainly will.
And as it is the duty of every American to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, you'll have to excuse us if we regard police and units of the military enemies of the people when they try to interfere with the people's First Amendment right to lawful assembly and the redress of wrongs. Don't worry, we know how to deal with enemies.
So there you have it.
Do what you will.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Silver Lining - Banks and Credit
Banks are necessary to any economy and were carefully regulated until the Reagan years. De-regulation was touted as a move that would stimulate the economy by expanding the role of banks; instead it led to the Savings and Loan debacle of the '80s that wound up costing the taxpayers $500 billion. The Federal Reserve is the ne plus ultra of unregulated financial institutions, and we have seen the results of placing the nation's monetary policy in such hands. From this experience we should be able to redefine the role of banks and legislate such regulatory measures that would best serve all parties alike. The previously mentioned change in the accounting method employed by banks would be among the first items on the list. Banks must not be allowed to create money from thin air as they presently do.
The freed up dollars following the dissolution of the Federal Reserve System must be funneled into state banks to restore reserves of cash to 15%; this should marginally increase the value of the dollar and so help retard inflation. Banks will issue credit and mortgage instruments but will revert to the old tried-and-true VIVA (Verifiable income, Verifiable Assets) metric to ensure the issuance of well performing loans. The role of banks as safe havens for their depositors' money must be accompanied by responsible use of that money in lending. To this end we would propose the institution of State Banks.
A State Bank would be the central repository of all public funds derived from taxes, federal grants, and other sources. From these funds would the elected and appointed officers of the state be paid and from which funds for statewide capital improvements would be secured. This would go a long way toward eliminating waste as the economic condition of the state would be reflected in the financial condition of the bank. If the governor and legislators use this public money wisely then the state would prosper, the bank would be strong, and prosperity would reign. This would not be the case in the short run for many states as the complete revamping of a state's economic base would take time, but the State Bank would support the sovereignty and self-determination of each state. The bank's financial position would also be available to any citizen's review at all times. The bank would also accept deposits from individuals and operate much like a credit union where a share of the profits is added in the form of interest over and above the base, published rate.
This set of proposals is only a sketch, much to be filled in as organization and operation, but in essence it would amount to a co-operative banking system, the components of which would mutually support one another. The Federal Bank, operated by the Treasury Department would operate as a "market maker" in addition to regular operations. In this context it would issue and call for loans to/from state banks. State bank surpluses could be loaned to the Federal Bank which, in turn could lend funds to states in need of further funding. Interest rates would be held to a modest 5% for these transactions as progress will replace greed and unfair advantage in the market place. Done well this would be a self-regulating economic system with all participants, bankers and individuals alike having complete disclosure at every level.
The freed up dollars following the dissolution of the Federal Reserve System must be funneled into state banks to restore reserves of cash to 15%; this should marginally increase the value of the dollar and so help retard inflation. Banks will issue credit and mortgage instruments but will revert to the old tried-and-true VIVA (Verifiable income, Verifiable Assets) metric to ensure the issuance of well performing loans. The role of banks as safe havens for their depositors' money must be accompanied by responsible use of that money in lending. To this end we would propose the institution of State Banks.
A State Bank would be the central repository of all public funds derived from taxes, federal grants, and other sources. From these funds would the elected and appointed officers of the state be paid and from which funds for statewide capital improvements would be secured. This would go a long way toward eliminating waste as the economic condition of the state would be reflected in the financial condition of the bank. If the governor and legislators use this public money wisely then the state would prosper, the bank would be strong, and prosperity would reign. This would not be the case in the short run for many states as the complete revamping of a state's economic base would take time, but the State Bank would support the sovereignty and self-determination of each state. The bank's financial position would also be available to any citizen's review at all times. The bank would also accept deposits from individuals and operate much like a credit union where a share of the profits is added in the form of interest over and above the base, published rate.
This set of proposals is only a sketch, much to be filled in as organization and operation, but in essence it would amount to a co-operative banking system, the components of which would mutually support one another. The Federal Bank, operated by the Treasury Department would operate as a "market maker" in addition to regular operations. In this context it would issue and call for loans to/from state banks. State bank surpluses could be loaned to the Federal Bank which, in turn could lend funds to states in need of further funding. Interest rates would be held to a modest 5% for these transactions as progress will replace greed and unfair advantage in the market place. Done well this would be a self-regulating economic system with all participants, bankers and individuals alike having complete disclosure at every level.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Silver Lining - The Regulated Economy
The role of government in economic affairs being inescapable it will be our concern to describe an ideal role for government in regulating the economy. For one thing we can recognize the importance of having a national currency, the dollar, as opposed to each state producing its own, as was the case in the early years of the republic. The government issues the currency and accepts it as payment for taxes, which the government needs to fulfill its role in the overall economy. Interstate highways, national parks and wildlife preserves, national defense (not aggression), the power grids, and other functions that are most efficiently served by a central government, should be the extent of government participation in the economic affairs of the various states. But some regulation is necessary to ensure an "orderly" market.
The ultimate collapse of the present government will undoubtedly usher in a new era of States' Rights, and the American government of the future will be a model based on the experiences of the past 100 years. The mistakes of the past must not be repeated and the technology of the present day must be utilized to its fullest to ensure the best possible results in this endeavor.
The biggest changes I see are; the restoration of the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land and the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment: Senators must no longer be elected to office but appointed by the governors of the respective states, thereby being subject to recall at any time they fail to live up to the responsibilities they assume in representing their constituencies, or bring disgrace to their persons, their states, and to the American people at large.
The Federal Reserve will be abolished and with it the enormous (illegal) debt it represents to the common weal. Elections will be held on the Internet and instead of an election day we will have an election week, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate; eligibility will be simplified - if you have a Social Security number you're eligible! The census may also be taken on the Internet by counting active Social Security numbers. Both these latter changes will result in tremendous cost savings - and they are very do-able by virtue of secured sites.
The ideal government participation in the economy would encompass three things; to ensure a consistent and proper money supply to cover the trade of the entire nation; to regulate corporate activity in such manner that such activity not create unfair advantage, and to publish reliable data on various sectors of the economy. With the elimination of the illegal tax on wages and salaries, excess IRS staff could be reassigned to supplant the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and report the true conditions (ownership, profitability, debt, etc.) of firms on the stock markets. It would have the same effect as the present audits conducted by the agency; random and unannounced audits would go a long way toward ensuring honesty and soundness of business firms in general. These are suggestions only; every safeguard is vulnerable to tampering or outright defeat, but installing regulations (term limits is a good one) that will aim at the enhancement of free domestic trade, counter the forces of political corruption, while still overseeing proper professional licensing and maintaining fair and equal labor standards.
The task appears enormous but not at all impossible. The reconstruction of the United States in societal, political, and economic terms must be carried out rationally, in non-partisan co-operation. No longer should we tolerate leaders who lust after world domination but those instead who seek to place this nation in concert with the other nations of the world. Regulation of the economy is essential to these aims and must be a two-way street: regulation of the government as well as by the government.
Next: Banks and Credit
The ultimate collapse of the present government will undoubtedly usher in a new era of States' Rights, and the American government of the future will be a model based on the experiences of the past 100 years. The mistakes of the past must not be repeated and the technology of the present day must be utilized to its fullest to ensure the best possible results in this endeavor.
The biggest changes I see are; the restoration of the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land and the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment: Senators must no longer be elected to office but appointed by the governors of the respective states, thereby being subject to recall at any time they fail to live up to the responsibilities they assume in representing their constituencies, or bring disgrace to their persons, their states, and to the American people at large.
The Federal Reserve will be abolished and with it the enormous (illegal) debt it represents to the common weal. Elections will be held on the Internet and instead of an election day we will have an election week, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate; eligibility will be simplified - if you have a Social Security number you're eligible! The census may also be taken on the Internet by counting active Social Security numbers. Both these latter changes will result in tremendous cost savings - and they are very do-able by virtue of secured sites.
The ideal government participation in the economy would encompass three things; to ensure a consistent and proper money supply to cover the trade of the entire nation; to regulate corporate activity in such manner that such activity not create unfair advantage, and to publish reliable data on various sectors of the economy. With the elimination of the illegal tax on wages and salaries, excess IRS staff could be reassigned to supplant the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and report the true conditions (ownership, profitability, debt, etc.) of firms on the stock markets. It would have the same effect as the present audits conducted by the agency; random and unannounced audits would go a long way toward ensuring honesty and soundness of business firms in general. These are suggestions only; every safeguard is vulnerable to tampering or outright defeat, but installing regulations (term limits is a good one) that will aim at the enhancement of free domestic trade, counter the forces of political corruption, while still overseeing proper professional licensing and maintaining fair and equal labor standards.
The task appears enormous but not at all impossible. The reconstruction of the United States in societal, political, and economic terms must be carried out rationally, in non-partisan co-operation. No longer should we tolerate leaders who lust after world domination but those instead who seek to place this nation in concert with the other nations of the world. Regulation of the economy is essential to these aims and must be a two-way street: regulation of the government as well as by the government.
Next: Banks and Credit
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Silver Lining - Government and the Economy
John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of the first half of the 20th Century developed an economic model for the industrial age. There are so many theories about what Keynes said by so-called Keynesian economists, most of them seriously wrong, that it behooves us to view the facts and develop a greater understanding of what it's all about. First and foremost: Keynesian economics does not replace the laissez faire model of Adam Smith; it refines it to cover a changing world of trade.
Adam Smith's model pertains to a largely agrarian society, the Keynesian model to an industrial society, and these differ from one another in a number of significant ways. An agrarian society with a small industrial base relies on unskilled and semi-skilled labor; a labor force that is highly flexible, mobile, and adaptable to changing conditions.
An industrial society relies on semi- and highly-skilled workers, specialists in fields that are not readily adaptable to other areas of the economy, and so is far less flexible, less mobile, and not readily adaptable to changing conditions. Keynes saw all this and prescribed a role for government to accommodate these differences: that of overseer and lender (investor) of last resort. The present system of government spending is an aberration of Keynesian principle. Keynes' model did not allow for a capitalist economy but one of free enterprise in which capital represents 10% of the total money supply. We have strayed far from that mark.
We might envision the role of government in economic affairs as being very much like a market maker on the trading floor of a stock exchange. This person deals with only one issue of stock and has an account containing x number of shares of this stock. Stocks are bought and sold by investors as a regular part of trading and, as is most often the case, there is some disparity between buyers and sellers; if an investor wishes to sell shares of the stock and there are not enough others willing to complete the trade, the market maker buys the excess. Conversely, if there are more buyers than sellers the market maker sells the difference from his own account. The role of the market maker is to ensure an orderly market. This is what Keynes had in mind as the role of government.
The relationship of government to economics is a precarious one to say the very least. A successful juncture of the social, legal, and economic realities of the society is a matter of critical importance and must clearly define the extent to which government should be involved in economic processes. The history of the United States over the past fifty years shows that the failure to implement proper safeguards against undue government interest has spawned corruption that has infested the halls of state like a metastasized cancer. Lobbying for special interest, pork barreling, and government spending have unleashed a Pandora's Box of evil that has all but destroyed the economy at the macro level. The current recession, bank failures, the excesses of unrestrained derivatives trading, all point to one glaring fact: that the government has utterly failed in its oversight of the economy. We are now involved in the Second American Revolution, the prime evidence of which fact is the growing number of states proclaiming sovereignty - other words it's a polite form of secession. This I believe is the prelude to the collapse of the Federal Government, a bankrupt monolith that is completely out of touch with the people it supposedly serves. They forgot that the people have the power and that power is going to demonstrate itself in no uncertain terms.
Governments collapse all the time. It happens when the interests of the government (those in power) diverge so drastically from the interests of the people they were elected to represent that the people take matters into their own hands. It will come in our nation when an informed public, fully cognizant of the crimes perpetrated in their name (undeclared resource wars, cover-ups of 911, the Franklin Scandal, the USS Cole, the influence of AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee), rigged elections, and the rest of the rot, all of which have driven the United States into unparalleled and unsustainable debt, will say ENOUGH!
"It's the economy, stupid!" This mantra from the Clinton days has always been the main concern of the people. It has now become a major concern which can only result in the collapse of the government. Not a bad thing if we think about it. For one thing the Federal Reserve would lose its best customer and the national debt would be wiped out since it was incurred by the government acting without the consent of the people. The domestic economy would still operate pretty much the same as it does now without recourse to the events in Washington DC. Federal Reserve notes would still be used for buying and selling, people would still be making a living, and the agencies of government not directly connected with the political realities of the government would still function. At the end of the day we would still have to decide, as a free people, the role of government in our economic affairs.
One thing must be made quite clear: that the excesses of government are in large part due to the unregulated monetary policy that the secretive Federal Reserve, acting without the knowledge or consent of the people and their representatives, enjoyed as they brought the republic to the verge of collapse. Regulation of the economy is the key to economic recovery on the scale that we will demand.
Regulation in economic affairs has been seen as an affront to the free flow of trade in this country, something that totalitarian governments employ to control their societies. But it's not regulation itself that is to blame, rather it is the kind of regulation in force. Up till now it had been regulation by the government in areas that allowed for taxation without representation, unbridled spending, and horrendous debt. Such regulation as has been applied by government; the wrong kind, in the wrong places, and for the wrong reasons, has been a one way street: regulation by the government without regulation of the government.
Adam Smith's model pertains to a largely agrarian society, the Keynesian model to an industrial society, and these differ from one another in a number of significant ways. An agrarian society with a small industrial base relies on unskilled and semi-skilled labor; a labor force that is highly flexible, mobile, and adaptable to changing conditions.
An industrial society relies on semi- and highly-skilled workers, specialists in fields that are not readily adaptable to other areas of the economy, and so is far less flexible, less mobile, and not readily adaptable to changing conditions. Keynes saw all this and prescribed a role for government to accommodate these differences: that of overseer and lender (investor) of last resort. The present system of government spending is an aberration of Keynesian principle. Keynes' model did not allow for a capitalist economy but one of free enterprise in which capital represents 10% of the total money supply. We have strayed far from that mark.
We might envision the role of government in economic affairs as being very much like a market maker on the trading floor of a stock exchange. This person deals with only one issue of stock and has an account containing x number of shares of this stock. Stocks are bought and sold by investors as a regular part of trading and, as is most often the case, there is some disparity between buyers and sellers; if an investor wishes to sell shares of the stock and there are not enough others willing to complete the trade, the market maker buys the excess. Conversely, if there are more buyers than sellers the market maker sells the difference from his own account. The role of the market maker is to ensure an orderly market. This is what Keynes had in mind as the role of government.
The relationship of government to economics is a precarious one to say the very least. A successful juncture of the social, legal, and economic realities of the society is a matter of critical importance and must clearly define the extent to which government should be involved in economic processes. The history of the United States over the past fifty years shows that the failure to implement proper safeguards against undue government interest has spawned corruption that has infested the halls of state like a metastasized cancer. Lobbying for special interest, pork barreling, and government spending have unleashed a Pandora's Box of evil that has all but destroyed the economy at the macro level. The current recession, bank failures, the excesses of unrestrained derivatives trading, all point to one glaring fact: that the government has utterly failed in its oversight of the economy. We are now involved in the Second American Revolution, the prime evidence of which fact is the growing number of states proclaiming sovereignty - other words it's a polite form of secession. This I believe is the prelude to the collapse of the Federal Government, a bankrupt monolith that is completely out of touch with the people it supposedly serves. They forgot that the people have the power and that power is going to demonstrate itself in no uncertain terms.
Governments collapse all the time. It happens when the interests of the government (those in power) diverge so drastically from the interests of the people they were elected to represent that the people take matters into their own hands. It will come in our nation when an informed public, fully cognizant of the crimes perpetrated in their name (undeclared resource wars, cover-ups of 911, the Franklin Scandal, the USS Cole, the influence of AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee), rigged elections, and the rest of the rot, all of which have driven the United States into unparalleled and unsustainable debt, will say ENOUGH!
"It's the economy, stupid!" This mantra from the Clinton days has always been the main concern of the people. It has now become a major concern which can only result in the collapse of the government. Not a bad thing if we think about it. For one thing the Federal Reserve would lose its best customer and the national debt would be wiped out since it was incurred by the government acting without the consent of the people. The domestic economy would still operate pretty much the same as it does now without recourse to the events in Washington DC. Federal Reserve notes would still be used for buying and selling, people would still be making a living, and the agencies of government not directly connected with the political realities of the government would still function. At the end of the day we would still have to decide, as a free people, the role of government in our economic affairs.
One thing must be made quite clear: that the excesses of government are in large part due to the unregulated monetary policy that the secretive Federal Reserve, acting without the knowledge or consent of the people and their representatives, enjoyed as they brought the republic to the verge of collapse. Regulation of the economy is the key to economic recovery on the scale that we will demand.
Regulation in economic affairs has been seen as an affront to the free flow of trade in this country, something that totalitarian governments employ to control their societies. But it's not regulation itself that is to blame, rather it is the kind of regulation in force. Up till now it had been regulation by the government in areas that allowed for taxation without representation, unbridled spending, and horrendous debt. Such regulation as has been applied by government; the wrong kind, in the wrong places, and for the wrong reasons, has been a one way street: regulation by the government without regulation of the government.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Silver Lining - Levelling Off
Up to this point we have considered the steps necessary to restore our economy to full potential. First and foremost we have to get rid of the Federal Reserve; this move will erase trillions in debt that the US government owes in interest to this patently unconstitutional central bank. Next we looked at changing the accounting methods that banks use to eliminate the multiplication of the electronic money they create. Say we did these things; now what? For starters, what shall we do with all the Federal Reserve Notes floating around - trillions of them?
Nothing. What they are called is unimportant; what they are is all that matters. If they are debt free dollars it doesn't matter what they are called as long as they are accepted in exchange for goods and services - and they always will be. The proponents of a stable currency will have to go slowly; sudden changes in monetary policy would be as disastrous in the short run as the present situation. I have $12,000 in savings; I am told that the present dollar is worth only four cents; does that mean my savings would become $480.00 in sound money? That is a big downside correction and would put me on the verge of poverty unless prices were drastically scaled back as well and across the board. That's too much to think about, so let's leave things the way they are - for now. If we can't scale back the money supply to increase the value of the dollar then the only alternative is to raise the value of the existing currency. If by now we have a debt free money supply and have cut out the multiplier that banks have cranked out, then we are halfway home with a relatively stable money supply and dramatically reduced budget deficits.
By this time the collection service for the defunct Federal Reserve System, the Internal Revenue Service would also have been abolished. The Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, the present tax on wages is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, and is further unconstitutional as it represents and un-apportioned direct tax. No more income tax. This will leave more money in the hands of the people where it belongs, and as we all know people will either spend it or save it. Either one helps the economy: spenders stimulate production and savers provide capital by way of bank loans on those savings; each has a place in a vibrant economy.
Our primary objective should not be with sound money but rather with a stable currency. Soundness is a subjective view: people have differing ideas about what constitutes sound money, usually respecting a precious metal backing but also art collections, rare coins, or anything that retains value. That defines sound money but doesn't address the matter of distribution. A stable currency, on the other hand, is all about distribution: supply and demand, full employment, fair wages and prices, and a currency that enjoys and intrinsic value of its own without regard to any other standard. This leads to the question of a managed economy.
All economies are managed. The true questions are; who's managing it? How is it being managed, and who benefits from this management? For five hundred years the economies of Europe and the Americas have been managed by central bankers, the wealthy self-interested power brokers whose only aim was to enrich themselves. A stable currency in the hands of the people and governed by sound economic principles is the wave of the future. Government plays an important role in this transformation, and its participation must be made accountable to the people. A government that regulates business must itself be run like a business, not, like at present, a drunken sailor on shore leave after months at sea.
Next: The Role of Government.
Nothing. What they are called is unimportant; what they are is all that matters. If they are debt free dollars it doesn't matter what they are called as long as they are accepted in exchange for goods and services - and they always will be. The proponents of a stable currency will have to go slowly; sudden changes in monetary policy would be as disastrous in the short run as the present situation. I have $12,000 in savings; I am told that the present dollar is worth only four cents; does that mean my savings would become $480.00 in sound money? That is a big downside correction and would put me on the verge of poverty unless prices were drastically scaled back as well and across the board. That's too much to think about, so let's leave things the way they are - for now. If we can't scale back the money supply to increase the value of the dollar then the only alternative is to raise the value of the existing currency. If by now we have a debt free money supply and have cut out the multiplier that banks have cranked out, then we are halfway home with a relatively stable money supply and dramatically reduced budget deficits.
By this time the collection service for the defunct Federal Reserve System, the Internal Revenue Service would also have been abolished. The Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, the present tax on wages is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, and is further unconstitutional as it represents and un-apportioned direct tax. No more income tax. This will leave more money in the hands of the people where it belongs, and as we all know people will either spend it or save it. Either one helps the economy: spenders stimulate production and savers provide capital by way of bank loans on those savings; each has a place in a vibrant economy.
Our primary objective should not be with sound money but rather with a stable currency. Soundness is a subjective view: people have differing ideas about what constitutes sound money, usually respecting a precious metal backing but also art collections, rare coins, or anything that retains value. That defines sound money but doesn't address the matter of distribution. A stable currency, on the other hand, is all about distribution: supply and demand, full employment, fair wages and prices, and a currency that enjoys and intrinsic value of its own without regard to any other standard. This leads to the question of a managed economy.
All economies are managed. The true questions are; who's managing it? How is it being managed, and who benefits from this management? For five hundred years the economies of Europe and the Americas have been managed by central bankers, the wealthy self-interested power brokers whose only aim was to enrich themselves. A stable currency in the hands of the people and governed by sound economic principles is the wave of the future. Government plays an important role in this transformation, and its participation must be made accountable to the people. A government that regulates business must itself be run like a business, not, like at present, a drunken sailor on shore leave after months at sea.
Next: The Role of Government.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Silver Lining - Funny Money and Bad Accounting
As pointed out in the first essay of this series credit is the root cause of inflation; when anyone purchases goods on credit a demand for cash with which to repay the debt created. That means cash must be printed and put into circulation; when interest is figured in then more currency must be created. If this is true for individuals then it is disastrous when the US government borrows money at interest from the Federal Reserve. How much is this debt? Certainly many trillions of dollars, accumulated over the course of sixty years or more. The news is rife with reports of the soaring national debt and the burden it puts on tax payers. We are told that we can never repay all that money - and that is true, but it's not the last word.
There are two ways to satisfy a debt obligation; one is to pay the debt, the other to kill the creditor. Think of how many trillions of dollars would be written off if the US Congress abolished the Federal Reserve; something it has the constitutional power to do and to authorize the creation of debt-free currency. It is their mandate under the constitution to "print and coin money and to determine the value thereof." There is a growing movement to do just that - the people demand it and it will be done. But that is only part of the story. We must also deprive banks of the power to create money out of thin air.
When a bank makes a loan it creates money from nothing and counts it as an asset. If the money is deposited in another bank, that bank also counts the money as as asset. The same would be true for a third, fourth,or any additional banks. All the banks participating in this daisy chain of money creation are free to write loans based on these phony assets after deducting the three percent reserve requirement. And it all revolves around the fraudulent accounting methods the banks employ.
The old axiom states: You can't have your cake and eat it too. Well, that's what banks are getting away with - and it must be corrected. Here's how.
A bank is a business like any other. Let's say you're in the household appliance business; you build refrigerators. In any given month you will build 1,000 units and will need a motor for each one. The motors are $300.00 each, so you will pay $300,000 for them. At this point you have the motors but not the capital; make sense? But if you did business the way banks do you would have the money and the motors. Something is wrong with this picture.
In accounting Assets and Expenses increase by debiting; all other accounts increase by credit entries. Cash is an asset, therefore it would be credited by the purchase of the motors.The motors are a cost of doing business and therefore must be counted as an expense. But the motors are also and asset and must be counted as such. That would balance out the assets, but here wold be an expense debit hanging out in space that would have to be reconciled. This is done my crediting a Revenue account by the amount of the motor cost plus the share of the selling price represented by these components. This markup could then be entered as an Accounts Receivable entry. Let's say that the markup for the finished product is 20% and base our calculations on that. It would look like this;
Cash
Debit............. Credit
.................... $300,000
Inventory Expense
Debit............. Credit
$300,000
Revenues
Debit............. Credit
.................. $360,000
Accounts Receivable
Debit.............. Credit
$60,000
Explanation: Your Assets have diminished by $240,000; the $300,000 you spent minus the $60,000 in Accounts Receivable. The capital outlay is balanced by the Expense entry and the Revenues account is balanced by the Accounts Receivable entry. We must bear in mind that this transaction pertains to only one component of the refrigerator and the similar entries would be made for all components, either in detail or collectively.
The banking model would work exactly the same way. The motor in the above model would be the loan instrument or contract held by the bank. The same numbers are use for convenience. The loan instrument is expensed as it is a cost of doing business. Like the motor in the first example, the bank acquires it in exchange for the money loaned and it is an expense item in the very same way.
Cash
Debit............. Credit
.................... $300,000
Loan Expense
Debit............. Credit
$300,000
Revenues
Debit............. Credit
.................. $360,000
Accounts Receivable
Debit.............. Credit
$60,000
This accounting method doesn't prevent a bank from creating money but will halt the multiplication of these funds when deposited in other banks. Comparing the two models gives this relationship;
Refrigerator Manufacture.........................Bank
Motor.......................................................Loan Contract
Markup....................................................Interest
Offsetting the Loan Expense by an entry in the Revenues account is sound accounting practice as revenues are not receipts, but only the anticipation of receipts. When a payment is received the Expense Account is credited (reduced) and the Revenue Account is debited (reduced): both accounts reduced as their balances are lower. In the Assets group Cash would be debited(increased) by the full amount received and Accounts Receivable would be credited (reduced) by the amount of markup or interest. The imbalance as the result of surplus Cash would be offset by crediting a Capital account in Owner's Equity. The books would be out of balance as all accounting procedures are during accounting periods. Balance is restored at the end of the period when the Profit and Loss Statement is produced and the Owner's Equity accounts are adjusted.
It's a start.
There are two ways to satisfy a debt obligation; one is to pay the debt, the other to kill the creditor. Think of how many trillions of dollars would be written off if the US Congress abolished the Federal Reserve; something it has the constitutional power to do and to authorize the creation of debt-free currency. It is their mandate under the constitution to "print and coin money and to determine the value thereof." There is a growing movement to do just that - the people demand it and it will be done. But that is only part of the story. We must also deprive banks of the power to create money out of thin air.
When a bank makes a loan it creates money from nothing and counts it as an asset. If the money is deposited in another bank, that bank also counts the money as as asset. The same would be true for a third, fourth,or any additional banks. All the banks participating in this daisy chain of money creation are free to write loans based on these phony assets after deducting the three percent reserve requirement. And it all revolves around the fraudulent accounting methods the banks employ.
The old axiom states: You can't have your cake and eat it too. Well, that's what banks are getting away with - and it must be corrected. Here's how.
A bank is a business like any other. Let's say you're in the household appliance business; you build refrigerators. In any given month you will build 1,000 units and will need a motor for each one. The motors are $300.00 each, so you will pay $300,000 for them. At this point you have the motors but not the capital; make sense? But if you did business the way banks do you would have the money and the motors. Something is wrong with this picture.
In accounting Assets and Expenses increase by debiting; all other accounts increase by credit entries. Cash is an asset, therefore it would be credited by the purchase of the motors.The motors are a cost of doing business and therefore must be counted as an expense. But the motors are also and asset and must be counted as such. That would balance out the assets, but here wold be an expense debit hanging out in space that would have to be reconciled. This is done my crediting a Revenue account by the amount of the motor cost plus the share of the selling price represented by these components. This markup could then be entered as an Accounts Receivable entry. Let's say that the markup for the finished product is 20% and base our calculations on that. It would look like this;
Cash
Debit............. Credit
.................... $300,000
Inventory Expense
Debit............. Credit
$300,000
Revenues
Debit............. Credit
.................. $360,000
Accounts Receivable
Debit.............. Credit
$60,000
Explanation: Your Assets have diminished by $240,000; the $300,000 you spent minus the $60,000 in Accounts Receivable. The capital outlay is balanced by the Expense entry and the Revenues account is balanced by the Accounts Receivable entry. We must bear in mind that this transaction pertains to only one component of the refrigerator and the similar entries would be made for all components, either in detail or collectively.
The banking model would work exactly the same way. The motor in the above model would be the loan instrument or contract held by the bank. The same numbers are use for convenience. The loan instrument is expensed as it is a cost of doing business. Like the motor in the first example, the bank acquires it in exchange for the money loaned and it is an expense item in the very same way.
Cash
Debit............. Credit
.................... $300,000
Loan Expense
Debit............. Credit
$300,000
Revenues
Debit............. Credit
.................. $360,000
Accounts Receivable
Debit.............. Credit
$60,000
This accounting method doesn't prevent a bank from creating money but will halt the multiplication of these funds when deposited in other banks. Comparing the two models gives this relationship;
Refrigerator Manufacture.........................Bank
Motor.......................................................Loan Contract
Markup....................................................Interest
Offsetting the Loan Expense by an entry in the Revenues account is sound accounting practice as revenues are not receipts, but only the anticipation of receipts. When a payment is received the Expense Account is credited (reduced) and the Revenue Account is debited (reduced): both accounts reduced as their balances are lower. In the Assets group Cash would be debited(increased) by the full amount received and Accounts Receivable would be credited (reduced) by the amount of markup or interest. The imbalance as the result of surplus Cash would be offset by crediting a Capital account in Owner's Equity. The books would be out of balance as all accounting procedures are during accounting periods. Balance is restored at the end of the period when the Profit and Loss Statement is produced and the Owner's Equity accounts are adjusted.
It's a start.