For several weeks I have been engaged in a debate with an Evangelical pastor over the true meaning of the Bible. He is familiar with my position, as detailed on the website http://timeoftheend-faithandreason.net but has difficulty accepting it. This man is of the mindset that I have often called attention to as being the result of nearly seventeen centuries of brainwashing and indoctrination, beginning with the Roman Church and spreading to its many Protestant spin-offs. Here is a rundown of the differences between our beliefs;
I believe that God is All Things Everywhere, the Spirit of the Universe; he believes that God is not present everywhere, but only where [He] chooses to be. When asked how [God]makes these determinations, my friend replies, "Only God knows."
I believe that the Mind of God is Natural Law; precise, all-encompassing, logical, and immutable; my pastor friend believes that [God], a person "up there" somewhere ( though he can't say exactly where, picks and chooses among his creatures those to whom [he] will bestow favors or inflict punishments. When asked why his [God] behaves so capriciously, the answer is always the same: "Only God knows."
As I believe that the Mind of God is Natural Law, then God's reign in the Universe is passive. And as physics tells us that energy is all there is, so must this universal energy be the actual power of God. Being passive it has no volition but responds to prevailing conditions as they evolve through time, and it is purely rational. Because the universe works so well, has forever in the past, and shall remain so forever into the future, we must accept that the Mind of God is biased toward the good. But as there are an infinite variety of behaviors acvailable to mankind, and as these are generally divided between constructive and destructive ends, the power of choice authorizes the much touted "free will" that God gave man.
An old Spanish proverb states: "God says, 'Take what you want, and pay for it'". Depending upon the choices one makes these payments are either in the form of premiums or penalties.
My friend, on the other hand, believes that [God] makes deliberate decisions based upon how [he] feels about a particular matter. In this context [God] causes people to suffer for not following [his] plan, a plan which is for the most part not very clear. This [God] brings trials and tribulations into peoples' lives so that they will turn to [him]; when asked why this [God] allows wars to happen in which innocent people die, my pastor friend says, "God has his reasons." When pressed for an explanation as to what these reasons could be, his reply is, "Only God knows."
Another sticking point in the good pastor's only-God-knows theology is the supposed sacrifice of [his] only begotten son, Jesus, who "died for my sins." This idea conflicts with scripture on several counts, the main one being what the self-same Master said about the Father. "What father, if his son asked for bread would give him a stone; if asked for a fish would give him a serpent? If man, who is evil, would not do these things, how can you believe that the Father, who is so much better, would do the like?" It seems that this man's "father" sent his only beloved son to die in a most grisley fashion in a transaction that baffles a rational mind. But "God has his reasons." We might ask, What human father would not lay down his own life to save his children? In religions that call for sacrifices it's always someone else who is sacrificed, not the priests or elders who call for these levies.
My belief in the Spirit of the Universe, that it is All Things and in all things, provides that we are all cells in the universal body of God: Children of God. But my pastor friend says that Jesus is the son of [God] and at one point said that Jesus IS God! When asked, Where does that leave the rest of us? he has no answer, except to tell me that I am wrong to ask such questions. His position on this and other issues smacks of an exclusiveness, a "holier than thou" position that brooks no question, coupled with a form of "divine" censorship that bars any investigation.
When asked why he subscribes to such convoluted, contradictory beliefs, this man says it is because his faith is strong. Blind but strong. The weaknesses in this "strong" faith are glaring but he ignores them and simply tells me, "You're wrong." As if saying so makes it so.
The pastor has been visiting my website and read a chapter from one of my books, The Mind of God, and produced a set of counter arguments based on scripture. The specifics are not worth the time and effort to detail here, but the tract he produced contained a liberal dose terms such as; "obviously", "probably", and "perhaps". Taking the last item first, perhaps is another way of saying maybe; hardly definitive in any sense of the word. When asked about statements that contain the word "obviously"; Obvious to whom?, there is no reply except that "it's just obvious." "Probably" is another, much bigger can of worms that my friend seems to have trouble grasping.
Probability is a very special term, one not to be used carelessly, as it cannot stand alone in any logical sense. To say that something will probably happen is to form a conclusion based on factors leading directly to that conclusion: trends, in other words. I drive an automobile. My probablilty of having an accident is very low because; I observe the speed limits, am fully aware of my surroundings, slow down in school zones, and in general "let the other guy have it." I'm never in a hurry, believing it's better to be late than to not get somewhere at all. Now, if I talked on a cell phone while driving, or diverted my attention to scanning for a radio station, lit a cigarette, or tried to read a newspaper, the probabiity that I would have an accident (?) would increase sharply. I'm one of those who believe that most "accidents" are deliberate acts of commission or omission, risks that careless motorists take that practically invite disaster. My pastor friend's "probabilities", on the other hand, are just pulled from the air with no precedent, prologue, or trend. In fact, he has very little to say that is definite, except, "You're wrong."
Perhaps? Probably? Obviously? Take your pick. But I'm happy, loved and respected by decent people, have dear friends such as never before, am in perfect health, and haven't a care in the world. This may be because; I drive carefully, don't smoke in bed, don't look viscious dogs in the eye, look both ways before crossing a street, have a rear-view mirror on my bicycle (on which I ride over 3,000 miles a year), don't meddle in other peoples' business, don't complain or criticize, accept things as they are, and in general maintain a pleasing attitude that people respond to in loving ways. My cup truly runs over and I know why: I do my part and the Spirit of the Universe has no quarrel with me as I live according to the law. Most of the time. Being in this human condition provides that I make the occasional poor judgement, but even in this I am protected from the dire consequences of these miscues. Life is a classroom, exprience is the best teacher, and mistakes are pointers showing me the things I need to work on.
It's up to each individual to decide what he or she will accept in terms of spiritual demonstration. Shall it bea smoke-and-mirrors "faith" that contradicts itself at almost every turn; that tries to impose its fantastic beliefs on others; who quote the Bible in one context and when challenged claim that there are many interpretations of the book, and the one they follow is the right one. How can they be so sure? It's right because they say so. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because a loudmouth coward said so. But it turned out to be a lie, and a million people died, were maimed for life, became refugees, or suffered deprivations that no human beings shoould ever be subject to. Mother Church had "heretics", the neo conservatives (Nazis) have "terrorists", both inventions of fear mongerisng hypocrites to subjugate the decent people of the world. Whether they be men who wear dresses and like young boys, or expensive suits and love power, they are no better than animals; secretive, predatory, callous, and corrupt beyond measure. One blames the Devil, the other blames anyone that's handy, for the things that go wrong.
As an alternative, contemplate the Spirit of the Universe who provides the light and air, the sun, moon, and stars; who is good, true, beautiful, peaceful, orderly, and harmonious; whose divine wisdom is found in Natural Law, a law biased toward the good. Look in a mirror and see what you find; a true child of God or a lowly worm in the dust? Where are you and how did you get there? If you are like so many people we hear about, chances are you're troubled over some non-issue that looms large in your life. Do you feel kinship with the rest of your brothers and sisters or are you isolated and alone? If this is your lot in life, as yourself how you came to be so. Isn't it because from earliest childhood you were indoctrinated into some religious belief and/or political doctrine? Did you go to church? Did you vote in elections? Did it make any difference?
Wake up, fools! The human race has suffered long enough from the power plays and mind games of religion and the greed and incompetence of politics. Both seek to divide us into manageable denominations and political ideaologies which history should have shown by now don't work. In closing let us consider the Seven Deadly Sins according to Mohandas Ghandi;
Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Business without morality
Science without humanity
Worship without sacrifice
Politics without principle
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Building Spirituality - Part One
ghritz@swbell.net | Dashboard | Help | Sign outConscious Ape
I am often in contact with " spiritual " people, or persons trying to become so. I've noticed that in many cases people have a tendency to link spirituality with religion, church, and a concept of God as some sort of Old Man in the Sky. And they take themselves so seriously. It is as though spirituality were a burden that these folks have to carry through life, instead of the basis of our existence. Everyone is spiritual in some form or another. Evil sprits abound in our world; do they not? What follows is a concept of spirituality that I find most satisfying, enjoyable, and productive.
That state which we refer to a spiritual is basically intangible. The Spiritual Realm, underlies all material Reality. A thought is a spiritual entity; it occupies the mind but is unrevealed without some action to bring it into material form. It's the relationship between thought and action, and these thoughts and actions are governed by feeling. And the feeling that most, if not all, humans experience is hurt. All else stems from that and from nothing else! But by and large, most people opt for what they believe to be the opposite of hurt: pleasure.
Don't get me wrong,pleasure is nice, feels good, but too often it's the source of that pleasure that determines the spiritual fitness of an individual. How many times have you heard something like this; "I trusted Helen and she let me down; I'll never trust anyone again for the rest of my life!"
The rest of your life can be a pretty long time, too long to be affected by a single reverse. But if the hurt is severe enough it can end up affecting the rest of your life. A man I met while incarcerated many years ago had just murdered his wife's boyfriend. I don't know how long this man had been planning his desperate act, but in commission it took only a few seconds to pull the trigger. A few seconds that were to determine his fate; twenty years in prison, or a lethal injection.
Was this a bad man? No. There are no bad people, just people who are not spiritually fit to deal with the life's situations. A woman told me a while back that, "Life occasionally throws you a curve ball." I replied with the observation that that is a good opportunity to learn how to hit curve balls. But where does it begin?
Try childhood.
Infants of our species come into the world prematurely, and are completely helpless. Their bodies, the beasts their spirits ride through life, are totally foreign to them and they get by mostly on instinct, a decidedly spiritual faculty. Gradually, through experimentation, these little people learn to use their faculties, to move their arms and legs in deliberate actions, and then to face the first major challenge of life: learning to walk. Most people can't remember that first step on shaky legs, a couple of flops before getting it quite right. Then walking, like the many other mechanical operations we master, becomes automatic. Don't have to think about it any more; they are assimilated into our beings and we just...well...walk! Or tie shoelaces, or perform the countless simple ( and some not so simple ) actions we take without giving the slightest thought. This is spiritual growth in the sense that the mind is freed at each juncture to think about other things; and the world has plenty of things to think about; sex, money, power, fame, war, and a hundred other distractions that the Evil ( Real ) world offers to hinder spiritual progress. In the end, when the curtain of deceit is finally parted, those who suffer the toils and trials of life to the gates of insanity or death finally turn to God. Or seem to.
There is an Evangelical pastor with whom I have many debates over the Bible; we agree that it is the Word of God but, as is said, " The devil is in the details." One point on which we disagree is the Presence of God. I hold that God is All Things Everywhere, my pastor friend believes that God is not everywhere, but only where [He] chooses to be. He can't explain why God chooses to be in one place and not another, and this is typical of the belief system he follows: state a belief, then be unable to justify it beyond the mere statement. " It's just God's Will," he tells me, and that ( as far as he is concerned ) is that! Faith of this kind is but a veneer that hides an ugly, crumbling wall: looks good, but the wall is still there. I advocate tearing down the wall!
But what do most people do? Why they assume an identity that they feel will get them where they want to be, like a spiritual wallpaper, a pretty design, rich vibrant colors, but the wall it covers is cracked and crumbling. Eventually ecven the stoutest wallpaper will crack and peel, like the Cristian woman. A onetime relative by marriage she was the model of faith - until her husband died suddenly, at which time this woman, in tears cried, " There is no God! "
But there is. God is just not the Lord of the Spiritual Feudalism that fundamentalists ( like my friend the pastor ) believe. This reworked Zeus figure is the one who is only where he chooses to be, does whatever strikes his fancy in the moment, favors some and denies others, causes war, famine, and a host of other unpleasant evens to occur so " people will turn to [Him]. " Then, there's Jesus.
As the story goes, [God] sent Jesus ( a Roman knickname: his true name was Yashueh ) to die for our sins in a most unpleasant way. What kind of God is this? [He] has a remarkably human odor about him; priests of all religions that called for human sarcifices invariably didn't sacrifice themselves, it was always someone else. But the man himself asked, " What father, if his son asked him for bread would give him a stone or it asked for a fish, would give him a serpent. " The idea here is that if no human father would treat his son that way, how can anyone believe that the Father, who is so much better, would do any less.
The Evil ( Reality ) of the world lies in the distractions it presents to the striving soul. Religion stands in the forefront of this muddle and its failures are legion. Jesus said, " By their works ye shall know them,"; the works of religions have been to divide into countless denominations, sects, cults, and covens; to ostracize any who do not agree with them or, as " Mother Church " was wont to do, torturing those whose thinking was " in error " and killing those who would not recant their heretical ideas. What kind of God would approve of such atrocities?
The idea here is very simple, so basic in fact that many cannot see it: there are only two ways to go, the Way of God or the way of the world, and this choice is ours every instant. Let's look at the way of God. How can we know what that is? Paul tells us in Romans[1:18-21] that the wonder of God is all about, clearly seen by the eye of reason ( New English Bible ). This is more easily understood if we have a true understanding of what God is: the Spirit of the Universe, not some whimsical tyrant who rules from on high and who " chooses " to be here or there, to reward or punish according to some esoteric formula. Such a God cannot be counted upon as [He] may either " choose " to answer prayers, or not. The Spirit of the Universe answers every prayer.
Perfectly. Never fails!
The Spirit of the Universe is a passive power the mind of which is Natural Law. According to natural law everything operates on a Cause-and-Effect basis; press a button and a bell rings, an elevator appears, or a city of millions is swept up in a nuclear holocaust. The effect is always perfectly concistent with the cause; if the outcome is bad then the action that brought it about was wrong.It doesn't matter how much time you spend on your knees begging for the laws of nature to be temporarily suspended; go out in the rain, you get wet; stay in the sun too long, you get burned; stick a fork in a light socket, you get shocked; spend money carelessly, you go broke. Pray yourself hoarse, till your hands are fused together, and you knees lock into a permanent bend, and nothing will change. Change you attitude, your thoughts, and your actions, and things will change!
It's that simple!
There is a saying: " What goes around, comes around. " Perhaps it would be better undertsood if rephrased: " What you send around comes back to you. "; express love and love is yours, perhaps not immediately perceived but ultimately a treasured additon to your life. And loving people isn't hard; it's just about seeing the good in them. Jesus told us not to be concerned with the mote in our brother's eye but the beam in our own. Is it not true that what you despise in others is nothing more than what you hate in yourself? It is, and no amount of thinking differently can ever change that fact. But acting differently can, and will produce miraculous results. Try it: you might like it. You can change your life, but this change can only originate within you, in your Heart of Hearts, your Secret Place of the Most High, where all your fondest hopes and dreams lie dormant. Let the Father in you " which doeth the works " help you bring these bright imaginings into full and splendid reality.
There is always an implicit caveat in all the articles I publish, both here and on the website http//timeoftheend-faithandreason.net that the arguments presented could be wrong, but they are th sum and substance of what has been given me to give to you. Please accept it in that light.
I am often in contact with " spiritual " people, or persons trying to become so. I've noticed that in many cases people have a tendency to link spirituality with religion, church, and a concept of God as some sort of Old Man in the Sky. And they take themselves so seriously. It is as though spirituality were a burden that these folks have to carry through life, instead of the basis of our existence. Everyone is spiritual in some form or another. Evil sprits abound in our world; do they not? What follows is a concept of spirituality that I find most satisfying, enjoyable, and productive.
That state which we refer to a spiritual is basically intangible. The Spiritual Realm, underlies all material Reality. A thought is a spiritual entity; it occupies the mind but is unrevealed without some action to bring it into material form. It's the relationship between thought and action, and these thoughts and actions are governed by feeling. And the feeling that most, if not all, humans experience is hurt. All else stems from that and from nothing else! But by and large, most people opt for what they believe to be the opposite of hurt: pleasure.
Don't get me wrong,pleasure is nice, feels good, but too often it's the source of that pleasure that determines the spiritual fitness of an individual. How many times have you heard something like this; "I trusted Helen and she let me down; I'll never trust anyone again for the rest of my life!"
The rest of your life can be a pretty long time, too long to be affected by a single reverse. But if the hurt is severe enough it can end up affecting the rest of your life. A man I met while incarcerated many years ago had just murdered his wife's boyfriend. I don't know how long this man had been planning his desperate act, but in commission it took only a few seconds to pull the trigger. A few seconds that were to determine his fate; twenty years in prison, or a lethal injection.
Was this a bad man? No. There are no bad people, just people who are not spiritually fit to deal with the life's situations. A woman told me a while back that, "Life occasionally throws you a curve ball." I replied with the observation that that is a good opportunity to learn how to hit curve balls. But where does it begin?
Try childhood.
Infants of our species come into the world prematurely, and are completely helpless. Their bodies, the beasts their spirits ride through life, are totally foreign to them and they get by mostly on instinct, a decidedly spiritual faculty. Gradually, through experimentation, these little people learn to use their faculties, to move their arms and legs in deliberate actions, and then to face the first major challenge of life: learning to walk. Most people can't remember that first step on shaky legs, a couple of flops before getting it quite right. Then walking, like the many other mechanical operations we master, becomes automatic. Don't have to think about it any more; they are assimilated into our beings and we just...well...walk! Or tie shoelaces, or perform the countless simple ( and some not so simple ) actions we take without giving the slightest thought. This is spiritual growth in the sense that the mind is freed at each juncture to think about other things; and the world has plenty of things to think about; sex, money, power, fame, war, and a hundred other distractions that the Evil ( Real ) world offers to hinder spiritual progress. In the end, when the curtain of deceit is finally parted, those who suffer the toils and trials of life to the gates of insanity or death finally turn to God. Or seem to.
There is an Evangelical pastor with whom I have many debates over the Bible; we agree that it is the Word of God but, as is said, " The devil is in the details." One point on which we disagree is the Presence of God. I hold that God is All Things Everywhere, my pastor friend believes that God is not everywhere, but only where [He] chooses to be. He can't explain why God chooses to be in one place and not another, and this is typical of the belief system he follows: state a belief, then be unable to justify it beyond the mere statement. " It's just God's Will," he tells me, and that ( as far as he is concerned ) is that! Faith of this kind is but a veneer that hides an ugly, crumbling wall: looks good, but the wall is still there. I advocate tearing down the wall!
But what do most people do? Why they assume an identity that they feel will get them where they want to be, like a spiritual wallpaper, a pretty design, rich vibrant colors, but the wall it covers is cracked and crumbling. Eventually ecven the stoutest wallpaper will crack and peel, like the Cristian woman. A onetime relative by marriage she was the model of faith - until her husband died suddenly, at which time this woman, in tears cried, " There is no God! "
But there is. God is just not the Lord of the Spiritual Feudalism that fundamentalists ( like my friend the pastor ) believe. This reworked Zeus figure is the one who is only where he chooses to be, does whatever strikes his fancy in the moment, favors some and denies others, causes war, famine, and a host of other unpleasant evens to occur so " people will turn to [Him]. " Then, there's Jesus.
As the story goes, [God] sent Jesus ( a Roman knickname: his true name was Yashueh ) to die for our sins in a most unpleasant way. What kind of God is this? [He] has a remarkably human odor about him; priests of all religions that called for human sarcifices invariably didn't sacrifice themselves, it was always someone else. But the man himself asked, " What father, if his son asked him for bread would give him a stone or it asked for a fish, would give him a serpent. " The idea here is that if no human father would treat his son that way, how can anyone believe that the Father, who is so much better, would do any less.
The Evil ( Reality ) of the world lies in the distractions it presents to the striving soul. Religion stands in the forefront of this muddle and its failures are legion. Jesus said, " By their works ye shall know them,"; the works of religions have been to divide into countless denominations, sects, cults, and covens; to ostracize any who do not agree with them or, as " Mother Church " was wont to do, torturing those whose thinking was " in error " and killing those who would not recant their heretical ideas. What kind of God would approve of such atrocities?
The idea here is very simple, so basic in fact that many cannot see it: there are only two ways to go, the Way of God or the way of the world, and this choice is ours every instant. Let's look at the way of God. How can we know what that is? Paul tells us in Romans[1:18-21] that the wonder of God is all about, clearly seen by the eye of reason ( New English Bible ). This is more easily understood if we have a true understanding of what God is: the Spirit of the Universe, not some whimsical tyrant who rules from on high and who " chooses " to be here or there, to reward or punish according to some esoteric formula. Such a God cannot be counted upon as [He] may either " choose " to answer prayers, or not. The Spirit of the Universe answers every prayer.
Perfectly. Never fails!
The Spirit of the Universe is a passive power the mind of which is Natural Law. According to natural law everything operates on a Cause-and-Effect basis; press a button and a bell rings, an elevator appears, or a city of millions is swept up in a nuclear holocaust. The effect is always perfectly concistent with the cause; if the outcome is bad then the action that brought it about was wrong.It doesn't matter how much time you spend on your knees begging for the laws of nature to be temporarily suspended; go out in the rain, you get wet; stay in the sun too long, you get burned; stick a fork in a light socket, you get shocked; spend money carelessly, you go broke. Pray yourself hoarse, till your hands are fused together, and you knees lock into a permanent bend, and nothing will change. Change you attitude, your thoughts, and your actions, and things will change!
It's that simple!
There is a saying: " What goes around, comes around. " Perhaps it would be better undertsood if rephrased: " What you send around comes back to you. "; express love and love is yours, perhaps not immediately perceived but ultimately a treasured additon to your life. And loving people isn't hard; it's just about seeing the good in them. Jesus told us not to be concerned with the mote in our brother's eye but the beam in our own. Is it not true that what you despise in others is nothing more than what you hate in yourself? It is, and no amount of thinking differently can ever change that fact. But acting differently can, and will produce miraculous results. Try it: you might like it. You can change your life, but this change can only originate within you, in your Heart of Hearts, your Secret Place of the Most High, where all your fondest hopes and dreams lie dormant. Let the Father in you " which doeth the works " help you bring these bright imaginings into full and splendid reality.
There is always an implicit caveat in all the articles I publish, both here and on the website http//timeoftheend-faithandreason.net that the arguments presented could be wrong, but they are th sum and substance of what has been given me to give to you. Please accept it in that light.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Election or Selection?
Well, we're still getting the bad news: John McCain looks to be the Republican nominee for president of the Republican Party. Maybe even of the United States, but that seems doubtful given McCain's record. Remember the Keating Five? Just in case you don't ( after all it was twenty years ago ) John McCain and four other senators were bought and paid for by Charles Keating, ringmaster of Lincoln Savings in California, one of the big players in the Savings and Loan scandal that wound up costing the American tax payers $500 billion. Space doesn't allow a more detailed account of this fiasco that was presided over by George H. W. Bush, but Google " Charles Keating" or " Keating Five " and educate yourself. But that's only part of the McCain saga of duplicity, corruption, and lack of focus. The following are some articles I published as a columnist for the Unknown News;
September 18, 2006:
Recently Yahoo! News ran something called "Talk to Power" and one of the question and answer segments, featuring Judy Woodruff asking the questions that readers submitted, spotlighted Senator John McCain, one of the presidential hopefuls for 2008. McCain's responses should serve as a warning to those who believe that this spin master would be a good choice for the highest office in the land. Below are some excerpts with my take on them.
The first two questions regarded the war in Iraq and the role and responsibilities of the U.S. military. A member of the military wrote: "It frustrates me that my unit... has been extended in Iraq for a minimum of 120 days. ... There has been a failure here in Iraq. How can you effect change in US policy here?"
"If we left without the Iraqi military and government in control, then I think you would see chaos not only in Iraq but in the region," Sen. McCain said. The second question followed up on the first, focusing on deployment of troops: "Would you allow units to be extended past one year?"
John! John! (snapping fingers and waving hand in front of blank stare), what do you mean "I think you would see chaos not only in Iraq but in the region."? What do you call what we are seeing in Iraq?
To this, Sen. McCain said he considered the armed forces "overstressed" and said that, as President, he would "expand the size of the Marine Corps and the Army so that we have sufficient numbers of troops on active duty."
John, look! We know you were in Viet Nam, like Congressman Murtha who says we should get out of Iraq. But he's a Democrat, a liberal, so his opinion doesn't count. Right? And let's not talk about John Kerry; the Swift-boat nut cases really gave him a going over; didn't they? He's a Democrat too so that's alright, isn't it? So, John, we have the opinions of three veterans of the Viet Nam war; you think we should "stay the course", Murtha says we should get out, and Kerry agrees with both of you. We honor you service in that conflict, John, but as regards opinions on military matters there is one fact that seperates you from Murtha and Kerry: You got captured!
With respect to your belief that we should "expand the size of the Marine Corps and the Army so that we have sufficient numbers of troops on active duty"; just how would you accomplish that? A draft, John? Is that on your mind? Forget it!
John, I know you're a Senator and all that, but I may be so presump-tuous I'd like to point out a fact that you may not be aware of. A draft is unconstitutional! You know, the US Constitution, what Bush, the American Caligula referred to as "only a goddamned piece of paper" (it's really parch-ment)? Well, this document has a bunch of annoying additions (they're called 'amendments') that frustrate the efforts of "patriotic" American leaders like the present Neo-Con Chickenhawks from turning this country into a carbon copy of Nazi Germany. Put you reading glasses on, John.
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
John? Did you get that part about "involuntary servitude"? Isn't that what a draft is? After all, what crimes have apple cheeked kids fresh out of high school been convicted of? And did you also get the part about "any place subject to their juristiction", meaning the United States. Boy, that sure makes Guantanamo look different, doesn't it? But, back to the draft. I know you're probably wondering how young folks get drafted when there's that pesky ol' 13th Amendment to deal with. It's easy: They volunteer! Here's how it works;
Draft notice appears in the mail: Report to Induction Center. Of course that's what the guv'mint tells the kids to do, so they go. Once there they go throught a process designed to confuse and intimidate them. When all that is done, the "inductees" are told to line up; they do and when they are all in a nice straight line they are told to take one step forward to be sworn in. When they do this - take this one step forward, they are volunteering! It's a sneaky and underhanded (so what's new) way for the Military Industtrial Complex ( that Eisenhower warned us against) to ensure that there will be enough cannon fodder for the monied interests (Haliburton, Kellogg Brand) to get fat on.
John, you still with me? Howsabout we do what's right and tell folks whose kids might just get a draft notice someday: Tell your kid not to take that step forward!
The third question also focused on the war in Iraq. But in this case, the issue raised by the Yahoo! user was funding for the war: "Why is the Iraq war still being funded through stopgap emergency funding?" wrote the reader. "It is not fair to ask us as taxpayers to have no say in how much money this war is costing us."
The fault, said Sen. McCain, lies with Congress, which has not taken the lead in demanding that the funding go through the regular budget process.
John? You still with me? Did some concerned citizen really ask this question? I have trouble believing that, since the question seems to focus not on the billions of dollars we are throwing away on that loser, but the method by which we are thowing it away. So far we have spend enough to completely rebuild New Orleans' at least three times. Oh, but that's another issue, isn't it?
The conversation then turned to oil and energy. "Hello Senator McCain," wrote one person, "What is your plan to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil?" In posing the question, correspondent Judy Woodruff also noted a variety of related questions on the boards, including comments focusing on nuclear energy, alternative fuels, renewable energy sources, and global warming.
One reader wrote: "Mr. McCain, after your recent trip to Greenland do you have a more clear picture of what Americans, among others, are doing to our planet's environment with our wasteful use of available energy?"
Sen. McCain responded first by dismissing the idea that global warming isn't real. .
"First of all, I just came back from Greenland where I saw the dramatic effects of climate change. Anyone who doesn't believe that climate change is real - now if you can't visit Greenland, look at Tom Brokaw's latest piece that I think is on the Discovery Channel, which is a really comprehensive look at climate change.
I believe, among other things, that nuclear power has to be a very - play a very big role in our finding ways to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Our dependence on foreign oil is fraught with danger. Look around the world: Venezuela, Iraq, other places in the world where we get our oil supplies. Ethanol doesn't make a lot of sense to me when oil is $10 a barrel. When it gets over $40 a barrel, then ethanol is very important, and I'm glad to see us proceeding rapidly with adopting ethanol as an alternative fuel. By the way, Brazil had managed to now become foreign oil independent because now they are fueling their automobiles with ethanol.
John, John, John! (more finger snapping). Try to say this, Air puh-loo-shun; got it John? Good! So what does the price of oil have to do with the fact that fifty years ago the oxygen content of the atmosphere was 21% and today it's only 16%? Is air pullution alright if the price of oil is $10.00 a barrel? Let's be sure that all the folks with respiratory problems, who are advised to remain indoors on days when the air quality is "orange", hear about that. Oh, and don't all those bombs and shells going off all over the place add to Global Warming? Make the air dirty and radioactive (thanks to depleted uranium)?
Ever thought about that, John?
And what this, John? You mean to say while we've been spreading "democracy" in the Middle East in that disgusting war of aggression to get control of the oil (and don't think you and your cronies are fooling anyone), those rascally Brazilians went and got themselves foreign oil independent?
John, do your patriotic duty. When asked if you are a candidate for president, just say "No."
October 11, 2006:
John McCain is still out of touch with reality. In a news conference in Michigan following a fund raiser for Repulican Mike Bouchard, he made this incredible statement, addressed to Hilary Clinton: "I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure." Sure was, John! You got that part right. But that is only the bottom line. Let's see if we can figure out just why that ship didn't sail.
Facts, John! That's what we're going to deal with, not the "shoot anything that moves" tactics of cornered rats. It's irresponsible, misleading, and utterly contemptuous, to attack an act of true statesmanship that held great promise but was sabotaged by your leader (not mine). Bush's role in this debacle is a matter of record.
From the NO QUARTER website, October 9, 2006:
How did the North Koreans end up knocking on New Mexico governor Bill Richardson's door in 2003? Fred Kaplan, in "Rolling Blunder" for the Washington Monthly, describes the events.
It began in 2001 with Bush rebuking his Secretary of State during a state visit by South Korean leader Kim Dae Jung. "[Colin] Powell told reporters that, on Korean policy, Bush would pick up where Clinton had left off. The White House instantly rebuked him; Bush made it clear he would do no such thing. Powell had to eat his words. ..."
"If Powell was embarrassed by Bush's stance, Kim Dae Jung was humiliated ... Bush not only distrusted Kim Dae Jung but viewed him with startling contempt ... So when Kim Dae Jung arrived in Washington, Bush publicly criticized him and his sunshine policy." The South Korean president was "a democratic activist who had spent years in prison for his political beliefs and had run for president promising a 'sunshine policy' of opening up relations with the North.
Bill Richardson? How did he get involved in all this?
Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, a former UN Ambassdor with a record of successfully negotiating with North Korea, tried to act as intermediary for Bush. When the White House flatly refused to talk to the delegation from the North, they went to New Mexico to look Bill up.
Richardson seemed willing to serve as an intermediary. During the two days of talks in Santa Fe, he stayed closely in touch with the State Department. Richardson was no showboat, had no partisan animus, and--unlike Carter in Clinton's day--probably could have played middleman to Bush without going beyond his instructions. But nothing came of the Richardson gambit. As Pritchard(1) recalls it, "The North Koreans were grasping for straws, looking for any friendly face. But they forgot to do the math. Richardson was a Democrat, a Clinton guy. No way would Bush have anything to do with him."... In the Bush administration, "[t]he default mode was skepticism about anything involving Clinton."
1) Charles "Jack" Pritchard "had been director of the National Security Council's Asia desk under Clinton and was now the State Department's special North Korean envoy under Bush."
How do you like it so far, John? You know the old saying, "When you have both feet in your mouth you don't have a leg to stand on." But we are only getting started: get a load of this!
Kaplan continues (quoting Richardson): We must turn North Korea away from its nuclear brinkmanship and toward providing a stable food supply and more opportunity for its people. This means direct engagement from the highest levels in Washington employing all the tools at our disposal.
We are doing this in New Mexico. North Korea desperately needs Western energy, agriculture and medical technology and, as a result of my trip there last fall, New Mexico is providing aid. Our joint humanitarian exchanges have already sent a team on North Korean heart doctors to New Mexico to learn the latest cardiac surgery techniques.
New Mexico? Are you getting this John? The North Koreans are getting aid from New Mexico? I'll bet you didn't know that. I sure didn't but I'm glad somebody has some sense.
Still from NO QUARTER: On Friday, James Baker III was a guest on Don Imus's MSNBC show. He said, politely, that the Bush administration needs to talk more, especially to its "enemies," and that there's a lack of talk, and diplomacy, in general. It's quite clear that the Bush administration 1) doesn't know how to talk to other countries, and 2) has no appreciation for the importance of dialogue and carrot/stick diplomacy.
In 2003, the Bush administration had a golden opportunity for positive diplomatic rounds with the North Koreans -- via New Mexico governor Bill Richardson (bio ) -- but rejected his help wholesale.
John, please! If the Republicans offer to run you for president, just say, No!
More recently we've heard John saying that we could be in Iraq for a hundred years. And, you know? That's exactly what will happen if this misfit ever sets up housekeeping in the White House. Bush's endorsement may hurt McCain's image but it defines it clearly. More war, more lives, more wealth, squandered in the Neocons' insane Empire Building effort. But there's one item that the Republicans and their Military-Industrial masters seem to have missed: the Revolution has already begun! John isn't going to have much fun if the people are stupid enough to put him in thw White House. Recalling the words of John F. Kennedy, " If peaceful evolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. "
The pot is coming to a boil. Happy landings, John!
September 18, 2006:
Recently Yahoo! News ran something called "Talk to Power" and one of the question and answer segments, featuring Judy Woodruff asking the questions that readers submitted, spotlighted Senator John McCain, one of the presidential hopefuls for 2008. McCain's responses should serve as a warning to those who believe that this spin master would be a good choice for the highest office in the land. Below are some excerpts with my take on them.
The first two questions regarded the war in Iraq and the role and responsibilities of the U.S. military. A member of the military wrote: "It frustrates me that my unit... has been extended in Iraq for a minimum of 120 days. ... There has been a failure here in Iraq. How can you effect change in US policy here?"
"If we left without the Iraqi military and government in control, then I think you would see chaos not only in Iraq but in the region," Sen. McCain said. The second question followed up on the first, focusing on deployment of troops: "Would you allow units to be extended past one year?"
John! John! (snapping fingers and waving hand in front of blank stare), what do you mean "I think you would see chaos not only in Iraq but in the region."? What do you call what we are seeing in Iraq?
To this, Sen. McCain said he considered the armed forces "overstressed" and said that, as President, he would "expand the size of the Marine Corps and the Army so that we have sufficient numbers of troops on active duty."
John, look! We know you were in Viet Nam, like Congressman Murtha who says we should get out of Iraq. But he's a Democrat, a liberal, so his opinion doesn't count. Right? And let's not talk about John Kerry; the Swift-boat nut cases really gave him a going over; didn't they? He's a Democrat too so that's alright, isn't it? So, John, we have the opinions of three veterans of the Viet Nam war; you think we should "stay the course", Murtha says we should get out, and Kerry agrees with both of you. We honor you service in that conflict, John, but as regards opinions on military matters there is one fact that seperates you from Murtha and Kerry: You got captured!
With respect to your belief that we should "expand the size of the Marine Corps and the Army so that we have sufficient numbers of troops on active duty"; just how would you accomplish that? A draft, John? Is that on your mind? Forget it!
John, I know you're a Senator and all that, but I may be so presump-tuous I'd like to point out a fact that you may not be aware of. A draft is unconstitutional! You know, the US Constitution, what Bush, the American Caligula referred to as "only a goddamned piece of paper" (it's really parch-ment)? Well, this document has a bunch of annoying additions (they're called 'amendments') that frustrate the efforts of "patriotic" American leaders like the present Neo-Con Chickenhawks from turning this country into a carbon copy of Nazi Germany. Put you reading glasses on, John.
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
John? Did you get that part about "involuntary servitude"? Isn't that what a draft is? After all, what crimes have apple cheeked kids fresh out of high school been convicted of? And did you also get the part about "any place subject to their juristiction", meaning the United States. Boy, that sure makes Guantanamo look different, doesn't it? But, back to the draft. I know you're probably wondering how young folks get drafted when there's that pesky ol' 13th Amendment to deal with. It's easy: They volunteer! Here's how it works;
Draft notice appears in the mail: Report to Induction Center. Of course that's what the guv'mint tells the kids to do, so they go. Once there they go throught a process designed to confuse and intimidate them. When all that is done, the "inductees" are told to line up; they do and when they are all in a nice straight line they are told to take one step forward to be sworn in. When they do this - take this one step forward, they are volunteering! It's a sneaky and underhanded (so what's new) way for the Military Industtrial Complex ( that Eisenhower warned us against) to ensure that there will be enough cannon fodder for the monied interests (Haliburton, Kellogg Brand) to get fat on.
John, you still with me? Howsabout we do what's right and tell folks whose kids might just get a draft notice someday: Tell your kid not to take that step forward!
The third question also focused on the war in Iraq. But in this case, the issue raised by the Yahoo! user was funding for the war: "Why is the Iraq war still being funded through stopgap emergency funding?" wrote the reader. "It is not fair to ask us as taxpayers to have no say in how much money this war is costing us."
The fault, said Sen. McCain, lies with Congress, which has not taken the lead in demanding that the funding go through the regular budget process.
John? You still with me? Did some concerned citizen really ask this question? I have trouble believing that, since the question seems to focus not on the billions of dollars we are throwing away on that loser, but the method by which we are thowing it away. So far we have spend enough to completely rebuild New Orleans' at least three times. Oh, but that's another issue, isn't it?
The conversation then turned to oil and energy. "Hello Senator McCain," wrote one person, "What is your plan to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil?" In posing the question, correspondent Judy Woodruff also noted a variety of related questions on the boards, including comments focusing on nuclear energy, alternative fuels, renewable energy sources, and global warming.
One reader wrote: "Mr. McCain, after your recent trip to Greenland do you have a more clear picture of what Americans, among others, are doing to our planet's environment with our wasteful use of available energy?"
Sen. McCain responded first by dismissing the idea that global warming isn't real. .
"First of all, I just came back from Greenland where I saw the dramatic effects of climate change. Anyone who doesn't believe that climate change is real - now if you can't visit Greenland, look at Tom Brokaw's latest piece that I think is on the Discovery Channel, which is a really comprehensive look at climate change.
I believe, among other things, that nuclear power has to be a very - play a very big role in our finding ways to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Our dependence on foreign oil is fraught with danger. Look around the world: Venezuela, Iraq, other places in the world where we get our oil supplies. Ethanol doesn't make a lot of sense to me when oil is $10 a barrel. When it gets over $40 a barrel, then ethanol is very important, and I'm glad to see us proceeding rapidly with adopting ethanol as an alternative fuel. By the way, Brazil had managed to now become foreign oil independent because now they are fueling their automobiles with ethanol.
John, John, John! (more finger snapping). Try to say this, Air puh-loo-shun; got it John? Good! So what does the price of oil have to do with the fact that fifty years ago the oxygen content of the atmosphere was 21% and today it's only 16%? Is air pullution alright if the price of oil is $10.00 a barrel? Let's be sure that all the folks with respiratory problems, who are advised to remain indoors on days when the air quality is "orange", hear about that. Oh, and don't all those bombs and shells going off all over the place add to Global Warming? Make the air dirty and radioactive (thanks to depleted uranium)?
Ever thought about that, John?
And what this, John? You mean to say while we've been spreading "democracy" in the Middle East in that disgusting war of aggression to get control of the oil (and don't think you and your cronies are fooling anyone), those rascally Brazilians went and got themselves foreign oil independent?
John, do your patriotic duty. When asked if you are a candidate for president, just say "No."
October 11, 2006:
John McCain is still out of touch with reality. In a news conference in Michigan following a fund raiser for Repulican Mike Bouchard, he made this incredible statement, addressed to Hilary Clinton: "I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure." Sure was, John! You got that part right. But that is only the bottom line. Let's see if we can figure out just why that ship didn't sail.
Facts, John! That's what we're going to deal with, not the "shoot anything that moves" tactics of cornered rats. It's irresponsible, misleading, and utterly contemptuous, to attack an act of true statesmanship that held great promise but was sabotaged by your leader (not mine). Bush's role in this debacle is a matter of record.
From the NO QUARTER website, October 9, 2006:
How did the North Koreans end up knocking on New Mexico governor Bill Richardson's door in 2003? Fred Kaplan, in "Rolling Blunder
It began in 2001 with Bush rebuking his Secretary of State during a state visit by South Korean leader Kim Dae Jung. "[Colin] Powell told reporters that, on Korean policy, Bush would pick up where Clinton had left off. The White House instantly rebuked him; Bush made it clear he would do no such thing. Powell had to eat his words. ..."
"If Powell was embarrassed by Bush's stance, Kim Dae Jung was humiliated ... Bush not only distrusted Kim Dae Jung but viewed him with startling contempt ... So when Kim Dae Jung arrived in Washington, Bush publicly criticized him and his sunshine policy." The South Korean president was "a democratic activist who had spent years in prison for his political beliefs and had run for president promising a 'sunshine policy' of opening up relations with the North.
Bill Richardson? How did he get involved in all this?
Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, a former UN Ambassdor with a record of successfully negotiating with North Korea, tried to act as intermediary for Bush. When the White House flatly refused to talk to the delegation from the North, they went to New Mexico to look Bill up.
Richardson seemed willing to serve as an intermediary. During the two days of talks in Santa Fe, he stayed closely in touch with the State Department. Richardson was no showboat, had no partisan animus, and--unlike Carter in Clinton's day--probably could have played middleman to Bush without going beyond his instructions. But nothing came of the Richardson gambit. As Pritchard(1) recalls it, "The North Koreans were grasping for straws, looking for any friendly face. But they forgot to do the math. Richardson was a Democrat, a Clinton guy. No way would Bush have anything to do with him."... In the Bush administration, "[t]he default mode was skepticism about anything involving Clinton."
1) Charles "Jack" Pritchard "had been director of the National Security Council's Asia desk under Clinton and was now the State Department's special North Korean envoy under Bush."
How do you like it so far, John? You know the old saying, "When you have both feet in your mouth you don't have a leg to stand on." But we are only getting started: get a load of this!
Kaplan continues (quoting Richardson): We must turn North Korea away from its nuclear brinkmanship and toward providing a stable food supply and more opportunity for its people. This means direct engagement from the highest levels in Washington employing all the tools at our disposal.
We are doing this in New Mexico. North Korea desperately needs Western energy, agriculture and medical technology and, as a result of my trip there last fall, New Mexico is providing aid. Our joint humanitarian exchanges have already sent a team on North Korean heart doctors to New Mexico to learn the latest cardiac surgery techniques.
New Mexico? Are you getting this John? The North Koreans are getting aid from New Mexico? I'll bet you didn't know that. I sure didn't but I'm glad somebody has some sense.
Still from NO QUARTER: On Friday, James Baker III was a guest on Don Imus's MSNBC show. He said, politely, that the Bush administration needs to talk more, especially to its "enemies," and that there's a lack of talk, and diplomacy, in general. It's quite clear that the Bush administration 1) doesn't know how to talk to other countries, and 2) has no appreciation for the importance of dialogue and carrot/stick diplomacy.
In 2003
John, please! If the Republicans offer to run you for president, just say, No!
More recently we've heard John saying that we could be in Iraq for a hundred years. And, you know? That's exactly what will happen if this misfit ever sets up housekeeping in the White House. Bush's endorsement may hurt McCain's image but it defines it clearly. More war, more lives, more wealth, squandered in the Neocons' insane Empire Building effort. But there's one item that the Republicans and their Military-Industrial masters seem to have missed: the Revolution has already begun! John isn't going to have much fun if the people are stupid enough to put him in thw White House. Recalling the words of John F. Kennedy, " If peaceful evolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. "
The pot is coming to a boil. Happy landings, John!
Monday, February 25, 2008
It's the Stupid Economy! Part Four
How many times have you heard a politician tell you that " It's your money, " or it's the taxpayer's money? Well, it is! But not if you throw it away, and that's just what you're doing if you don't adopt a sound budget - and stick to it! When you give it away, your money is no longer yours in fact, even though it may be in princple. You can't buy things with principles. What's the answer?
Budget.
But too many people don't know how. Across-the-board cuts are not successful in the long run. Often these unwise reductions, made only on a money basis, fail to distinguish between essentials and frivolous expenses. Trying to cut back on food or transportation can, and often does, lead to crisis points further along where adjustments have to be made that cut into other considerations. It becomes a game of " robbing Peter to pay Paul " and ultimately leads to failure. There are three reason why most poory conceived budgets go wrong.
First, people tend to regard a budget as a fixed entity rather than a dynamic process that continually changes. Static budgets fail to anticipate the unforeseen items that crop up in the course of a month. Secondly, people who contentrate only on allocation of money to specific accounts fail to consider rates of consumption. Finally, most people try, without realizing it, to rationalize two different time bases.
Taking the last item first, a person who works 40 hours a week at $12.00 an hour earns $480.00 in a pay period. After deductions, the net return may be $420.00, or $1,680.00 per month. Trying to spread this out over the entire week or month leads to difficulties that are simply resolved using the WHAM method. This an acronym for Waking Hours Accounting Method. The idea is simple. An individual is usually awake for 16 hours a day when he or she is liable to spend money. Seven days a week at 16 hours a day works out to 112 waking hours per week. To set thing on a equal basis just divide the net earnings per week by 112. In this, all too typical case, the WHAM number is $3.75 an hours. Not much, granted, but that is the rate of return every waking hour for a whole week. The next step is to start subtracting weekly and monthly expenses from this amount: 112 for weekly expenses and 448( four weeks per month ) for monthly expenses. Here's how it works.
Starting with $3.75 an hour, say the food bill is $80.00 a week or $160.00 bi-weekly.
Dividing this by 112 or 224 gives $1.07 which, when subtracted from the WHAM figure leaves $2.65. If the rent is $575.00, dividing by 448 gives $1.28, leaving a WHAM figure of $1.37. In an actual intance, after reducing every conceivable expense in this way, the boiled-down WHAM figure was $0.10. "Ten cents?" the man said when I finished processing his budget. "That's not much." That's when I showed him the magic! Yes, ten cents isn't a lot of money left to spend after you have deducted all your expenses, but - it's ten cents an hour for sixteen hours a day, seven days a week! In a month it works out to about $48.60, over a year it's $584.00! And it was there the whole time.
Hardly a bonanza but if given the choice of having it, or not, there is little doubt about which way you would go. The numbers will vary, some will even come out negative - but that's fine. At least you will have an accurate view of where you stand. Of course, this doesn't take debt into consideration, but before going there let us look at the subject of disbursements.
Development of your budget will resolve itself into a monthly expense figure, a certain amount of money you will allocate to pay the esxpenses listed on your worksheet. You will, of course, not spend the money all at one time, but will pay it out over a period of time; that's the way to keep track of and control this aspect of your budget. It's about rates, specifically the rate of time lapse versus the rate of expense outlay.
To get the time rate, just divide the current date by the number of days in the month and multiply by 100. To get the expense outlat rate, just divide the amount of money already paid out by the allocated amount for the month and multiply this by 100. As you go through the month you will try to keep the time rate behind the money rate: that is, the time should be running out faster that the money. Should the money start running out faster than the time you will likely find some way to cut corners until the rates reverse, and the time runs out faster once again.
The WHAM method may also be applied to existing debt. Suppose that, using the numbers we've been working with, your debt is $5,000.00. The first thing we will have to determine is how much additional income you will need to pay this amount off.
In one year there are approximately 5,840 waking hours. Dividing the amount of debt by the toatal number of waking hours will give $0.85 per hour additonal that you will have to come up with. Well, if we multiply 112 times .85 it works out to an extra $95.89 a week of additonal income. Take a part time job, say fifteen hours a week at $8.00 and hour minimum. You will earn enough to pay off the debt after making arrangements with your creditors to accept a fixed amount monthly over TWO YEARS. While the numbers given apply to a one-year payoff, why not take twice as long to pay the bills off and put an equal amount away. At the end of the first year you could have the debt paid down to $2,500.00 with a like amount in savings. You might then decide to pay the whole thing off or just let it ride.
The technique described here is not a quick fix, it requires discipline and committment, but it should be clear that the problem with excessive debt is time, not money. You accumulated debt over time and can only discharge it over time. The idea of borrowing money to pay off debts is foolish, like treating alcoholism with bourbon. When faced with substantial debt the only way out is to hunker down and work your way out gradually, following a dsicplined approach. In any event, saving is the key to ultimate success, and if your current financial position disallows a savings program, find an income source that will provide dollars to put aside. Now I am about to give the appearance of contradicting myself. Although I recommend saving your way out of debt and decry bill-payer loans, there is one notable exception: Credit Unions.
Savings in a credit union are called shares and they draw interest just like bank deposits. When shares accumulate to significant amounts ( as little as $500.00 would be enough ) you could take out a share-backed loan and pay it out over a period of time, all the while working to reduce your current outstanding debt. Take out two or three of these small loans as you go along and build a record of successful loan repayment along with your savings program. The idea here is to build a shares balance equal to the balance of a credit card obligation, then borrow against it to pay off the credit card. Credit union financing is so much cheaper than credit cards in terms of interest that a loan at 5% interest is better than the 18.9% ( or more ) that you would be paying on the plastic. And keep your eyes open.
In times of economic downturn, when enough people have bad credit suddenly everyone's credit is good! I personaly have had a low credit rating for twenty years, not because I defaulted on anything but because I just didn't use credit cards. A couple of years ago my bank sent me a credit card that I didn't apply for. After ensuring that there would be no penalties for not using the card I decided to keep it. I used it for small purchases and cash advances that I quickly repaid. When the credit union sent me a brochure about their credit card I applied for it; the APR is only 11.5% - a good deal. Both these cards have a $2,500 limit on them, but it's the one from the credit union that I use if buying something on credit ( like my new computer ) that I pay out over time.
Now about the Keeping Your Eyes Open part.
In a bad economy there are always people who have items they wish to sell for cash in what we call " distressed situations ", willing to sell at significant discounts to established value. I recently purchased an automobile, my first in twenty-five years. It's an excellent car in mint condition, nine years old with only 58,000 miles on it. The man I bought it from inherited it and needed some quick cash for a move he wished to make. I made an offer, held held the line, and wound up getting the car for $1,600 less than the current book value. It was easy to finance it through ( you guessed it ) the credit union at 5% interest. Now, imagine if you found a deal like that - and they're out there - you could finance the purchase of some item of value being sold at distress and turn it around in a quick sale, then plow the money back into shares.
In closing let me reiterate that the only way to financial solvency is work over a period ( perhaps a decade or more ) of time, following a disciplined approach, and an alterness to opportunties that may present themselves. Above all, don't hand your money over to credit counsellors or financial advisors to manage for you. Do it yourself. At this point I could say " Where ther's a will there's a way ", but that's so trite that...
I won't say it.
Budget.
But too many people don't know how. Across-the-board cuts are not successful in the long run. Often these unwise reductions, made only on a money basis, fail to distinguish between essentials and frivolous expenses. Trying to cut back on food or transportation can, and often does, lead to crisis points further along where adjustments have to be made that cut into other considerations. It becomes a game of " robbing Peter to pay Paul " and ultimately leads to failure. There are three reason why most poory conceived budgets go wrong.
First, people tend to regard a budget as a fixed entity rather than a dynamic process that continually changes. Static budgets fail to anticipate the unforeseen items that crop up in the course of a month. Secondly, people who contentrate only on allocation of money to specific accounts fail to consider rates of consumption. Finally, most people try, without realizing it, to rationalize two different time bases.
Taking the last item first, a person who works 40 hours a week at $12.00 an hour earns $480.00 in a pay period. After deductions, the net return may be $420.00, or $1,680.00 per month. Trying to spread this out over the entire week or month leads to difficulties that are simply resolved using the WHAM method. This an acronym for Waking Hours Accounting Method. The idea is simple. An individual is usually awake for 16 hours a day when he or she is liable to spend money. Seven days a week at 16 hours a day works out to 112 waking hours per week. To set thing on a equal basis just divide the net earnings per week by 112. In this, all too typical case, the WHAM number is $3.75 an hours. Not much, granted, but that is the rate of return every waking hour for a whole week. The next step is to start subtracting weekly and monthly expenses from this amount: 112 for weekly expenses and 448( four weeks per month ) for monthly expenses. Here's how it works.
Starting with $3.75 an hour, say the food bill is $80.00 a week or $160.00 bi-weekly.
Dividing this by 112 or 224 gives $1.07 which, when subtracted from the WHAM figure leaves $2.65. If the rent is $575.00, dividing by 448 gives $1.28, leaving a WHAM figure of $1.37. In an actual intance, after reducing every conceivable expense in this way, the boiled-down WHAM figure was $0.10. "Ten cents?" the man said when I finished processing his budget. "That's not much." That's when I showed him the magic! Yes, ten cents isn't a lot of money left to spend after you have deducted all your expenses, but - it's ten cents an hour for sixteen hours a day, seven days a week! In a month it works out to about $48.60, over a year it's $584.00! And it was there the whole time.
Hardly a bonanza but if given the choice of having it, or not, there is little doubt about which way you would go. The numbers will vary, some will even come out negative - but that's fine. At least you will have an accurate view of where you stand. Of course, this doesn't take debt into consideration, but before going there let us look at the subject of disbursements.
Development of your budget will resolve itself into a monthly expense figure, a certain amount of money you will allocate to pay the esxpenses listed on your worksheet. You will, of course, not spend the money all at one time, but will pay it out over a period of time; that's the way to keep track of and control this aspect of your budget. It's about rates, specifically the rate of time lapse versus the rate of expense outlay.
To get the time rate, just divide the current date by the number of days in the month and multiply by 100. To get the expense outlat rate, just divide the amount of money already paid out by the allocated amount for the month and multiply this by 100. As you go through the month you will try to keep the time rate behind the money rate: that is, the time should be running out faster that the money. Should the money start running out faster than the time you will likely find some way to cut corners until the rates reverse, and the time runs out faster once again.
The WHAM method may also be applied to existing debt. Suppose that, using the numbers we've been working with, your debt is $5,000.00. The first thing we will have to determine is how much additional income you will need to pay this amount off.
In one year there are approximately 5,840 waking hours. Dividing the amount of debt by the toatal number of waking hours will give $0.85 per hour additonal that you will have to come up with. Well, if we multiply 112 times .85 it works out to an extra $95.89 a week of additonal income. Take a part time job, say fifteen hours a week at $8.00 and hour minimum. You will earn enough to pay off the debt after making arrangements with your creditors to accept a fixed amount monthly over TWO YEARS. While the numbers given apply to a one-year payoff, why not take twice as long to pay the bills off and put an equal amount away. At the end of the first year you could have the debt paid down to $2,500.00 with a like amount in savings. You might then decide to pay the whole thing off or just let it ride.
The technique described here is not a quick fix, it requires discipline and committment, but it should be clear that the problem with excessive debt is time, not money. You accumulated debt over time and can only discharge it over time. The idea of borrowing money to pay off debts is foolish, like treating alcoholism with bourbon. When faced with substantial debt the only way out is to hunker down and work your way out gradually, following a dsicplined approach. In any event, saving is the key to ultimate success, and if your current financial position disallows a savings program, find an income source that will provide dollars to put aside. Now I am about to give the appearance of contradicting myself. Although I recommend saving your way out of debt and decry bill-payer loans, there is one notable exception: Credit Unions.
Savings in a credit union are called shares and they draw interest just like bank deposits. When shares accumulate to significant amounts ( as little as $500.00 would be enough ) you could take out a share-backed loan and pay it out over a period of time, all the while working to reduce your current outstanding debt. Take out two or three of these small loans as you go along and build a record of successful loan repayment along with your savings program. The idea here is to build a shares balance equal to the balance of a credit card obligation, then borrow against it to pay off the credit card. Credit union financing is so much cheaper than credit cards in terms of interest that a loan at 5% interest is better than the 18.9% ( or more ) that you would be paying on the plastic. And keep your eyes open.
In times of economic downturn, when enough people have bad credit suddenly everyone's credit is good! I personaly have had a low credit rating for twenty years, not because I defaulted on anything but because I just didn't use credit cards. A couple of years ago my bank sent me a credit card that I didn't apply for. After ensuring that there would be no penalties for not using the card I decided to keep it. I used it for small purchases and cash advances that I quickly repaid. When the credit union sent me a brochure about their credit card I applied for it; the APR is only 11.5% - a good deal. Both these cards have a $2,500 limit on them, but it's the one from the credit union that I use if buying something on credit ( like my new computer ) that I pay out over time.
Now about the Keeping Your Eyes Open part.
In a bad economy there are always people who have items they wish to sell for cash in what we call " distressed situations ", willing to sell at significant discounts to established value. I recently purchased an automobile, my first in twenty-five years. It's an excellent car in mint condition, nine years old with only 58,000 miles on it. The man I bought it from inherited it and needed some quick cash for a move he wished to make. I made an offer, held held the line, and wound up getting the car for $1,600 less than the current book value. It was easy to finance it through ( you guessed it ) the credit union at 5% interest. Now, imagine if you found a deal like that - and they're out there - you could finance the purchase of some item of value being sold at distress and turn it around in a quick sale, then plow the money back into shares.
In closing let me reiterate that the only way to financial solvency is work over a period ( perhaps a decade or more ) of time, following a disciplined approach, and an alterness to opportunties that may present themselves. Above all, don't hand your money over to credit counsellors or financial advisors to manage for you. Do it yourself. At this point I could say " Where ther's a will there's a way ", but that's so trite that...
I won't say it.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
It's the Stupid Economy! Part Three
Where do we go from here? The problems with the economy are well known, less well known are solutions. But there is an old saying which states that the solution to a problem is found in the statement of the problem itself. In this instance we may look to the term Consumer Economy for the solution to our economic problems. If the corporations that have this country is a stranglehold are able to do so with their deep pockets, we only have to realize where this money comes from.
Us.
Well, you, because I have my own ways of dealing with the problem. For one thing, I never buy retail. I don't own a house. I don't have a cell phone. I don't watch television, don't even own one. I don't spend what I don't have. And I'm doing my part to deal with the present state of the economy in the best way, a way that the big corporations just hate.
I save money.
For about twenty years I got around on a bicycle and public transportation. There were cars available to me, through friends, when I needed one, which was only occasional. Through all that time I managed about 3,000 miles a year bicycling ( last year 3,623 miles ) and scored a double: not only did I save a pile of money but my health, strength, and stamina improved so greatly that today, less than five months shy of seventy years old, I am at the peak of physical well-being. I work out at a gym three times a week with people half my age, and they know I'm an older man, but they don't realize how old! I smilingly give the "bird" to big pharma, one of the biggest drains on the resources of older persons.
How about name brand suits? Want to spend big bucks for quality apparel? I don't. And I stay pretty well dressed for pennies on the dollar. How, you ask? One of my friends owns a dry cleaning establishment and he gets stuck with his share of clothes that people leave over the thirty day pick-up time; he shows me what he has and I just pay the cleaning bill. Voila! Designer suits for $15.00, and nobody knows the difference.
Last month I bought a car and financed it through my credit union. The seller was a criminal lawyer, a personal friend, who inherited it from his mother. " She only drove it back and forth to the liquor store, " he told me. A 1999 Toyota Camry with only 57,000 miles on it. For $5,000 I didn't buy it so much as stole it, as I can turn around a sell it for a thousand dollars more. And I have the money to pay the loan off, but why bother? The interest I earn on my savings ( 3½% ) and the interest on the loan ( 5% ) it's just as easy to let it ride.
Yes, the answer to our economic problems lies with us. Consumers. Spend less, buy wisely, and be patient. In the hole with credit cards? Who put you there? It wasn't the nasty ol' credit card companies, they just handed you the means to go broke but it was you who turned these on yourself. Stop doing it!
You see, we actually have two economies; when one fails, the other kicks in. It's the second-hand, cash money, under-the-radar business that people engage in. Once my girlfirend had an accident and put a huge dent in the right rear fender of her Monte Carlo. It looked like hell, but it would have cost a couple hundred dollars to repair. One day a Hispanic fellow knocked at the door and offered to " bondo " the damage for eighty dollars. I said OK and he had it done in just over an hour: a little paint and it was good as new.
So be patient and keep you eyes open. The bargains are out there just waiting for you to take advantage of them. Don't listen to Financial Advisors, they don't care if you win or lose, as long as they get their fees. Don't turn your money over to anyone to manage for you, you will only lose in the long run. Pay down what credit card debt you have, minus the fees and late charges - and take your time. So you're credit report looks bad; so what? Isn't it easy credit that got you into the hole in the first place? Stop feeding the dog that bites you.
In the next installment I will show you how to get out of debt without borrowing money using actual figures from people I have helped do just that.
Us.
Well, you, because I have my own ways of dealing with the problem. For one thing, I never buy retail. I don't own a house. I don't have a cell phone. I don't watch television, don't even own one. I don't spend what I don't have. And I'm doing my part to deal with the present state of the economy in the best way, a way that the big corporations just hate.
I save money.
For about twenty years I got around on a bicycle and public transportation. There were cars available to me, through friends, when I needed one, which was only occasional. Through all that time I managed about 3,000 miles a year bicycling ( last year 3,623 miles ) and scored a double: not only did I save a pile of money but my health, strength, and stamina improved so greatly that today, less than five months shy of seventy years old, I am at the peak of physical well-being. I work out at a gym three times a week with people half my age, and they know I'm an older man, but they don't realize how old! I smilingly give the "bird" to big pharma, one of the biggest drains on the resources of older persons.
How about name brand suits? Want to spend big bucks for quality apparel? I don't. And I stay pretty well dressed for pennies on the dollar. How, you ask? One of my friends owns a dry cleaning establishment and he gets stuck with his share of clothes that people leave over the thirty day pick-up time; he shows me what he has and I just pay the cleaning bill. Voila! Designer suits for $15.00, and nobody knows the difference.
Last month I bought a car and financed it through my credit union. The seller was a criminal lawyer, a personal friend, who inherited it from his mother. " She only drove it back and forth to the liquor store, " he told me. A 1999 Toyota Camry with only 57,000 miles on it. For $5,000 I didn't buy it so much as stole it, as I can turn around a sell it for a thousand dollars more. And I have the money to pay the loan off, but why bother? The interest I earn on my savings ( 3½% ) and the interest on the loan ( 5% ) it's just as easy to let it ride.
Yes, the answer to our economic problems lies with us. Consumers. Spend less, buy wisely, and be patient. In the hole with credit cards? Who put you there? It wasn't the nasty ol' credit card companies, they just handed you the means to go broke but it was you who turned these on yourself. Stop doing it!
You see, we actually have two economies; when one fails, the other kicks in. It's the second-hand, cash money, under-the-radar business that people engage in. Once my girlfirend had an accident and put a huge dent in the right rear fender of her Monte Carlo. It looked like hell, but it would have cost a couple hundred dollars to repair. One day a Hispanic fellow knocked at the door and offered to " bondo " the damage for eighty dollars. I said OK and he had it done in just over an hour: a little paint and it was good as new.
So be patient and keep you eyes open. The bargains are out there just waiting for you to take advantage of them. Don't listen to Financial Advisors, they don't care if you win or lose, as long as they get their fees. Don't turn your money over to anyone to manage for you, you will only lose in the long run. Pay down what credit card debt you have, minus the fees and late charges - and take your time. So you're credit report looks bad; so what? Isn't it easy credit that got you into the hole in the first place? Stop feeding the dog that bites you.
In the next installment I will show you how to get out of debt without borrowing money using actual figures from people I have helped do just that.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
It's the Stupid Economy! Part Two
Inflation is a thorny issue with economists. It is necessary in certain instances but too much can drive an economy to ruin. It's all about paper money.
In and of itself paper money serves a purpose; it's handy, easily carried around, and as long as it represents value it has worth. But inflation tends to dilute paper currency and therein lies the problem. It's a dilemma. What we will view in this essay are; the causes of inflation, the degress to which it is beneficial, and the dangers of rampant inflation.
Firstly, inflation is necessary as a couterpoise to the depressant effect of a growing population on a fixed base currency: hard money. There is only so much currency available and the more people there are producing and consuming goods, the greater the need for the liquidity that more currency provides. While the inflationary trend in such a case devalues the currency, in small, well regulated amounts, it is beneficial. But it must always be kept in mind that paper currency is not money; it merely represents value. The proper role of paper money is the transferrence of wealth, not the creation of some false feeling of prosperity.
Inflation usually occurs when too much currency pursues too few goods; prices are bid higher and those who have adequate stocks of currency pay them, while those with less are hard pressed. A person who earns fifty dollars an hour doesn't mind paying $3.00 for a latté, a person earning ten dollars an hour would consider such a purchase a luxury. It's all relative, but allowed to grow beyond a certain level inflaton can cripple an economy. By its very nature inflation shatters the constraints that a hard currency places on its partcipants: Hard times? Just print more money!
At the domestic level inflation is bad enough; in terms of foreign trade it is calamitous as a cheaper currency tends to gravitate to offshore banks. This is because it takes more inflated dollars to purchase things abroad and fewer foreign currency units to purchase things here. What happens is that foreign governemnets assume a poition of power over the domestic economy by threatening to divest themselves of this devalued currency as France tried in the late 1960's. One of the attributes of money is the willingness of the issuing party to receive it in rerurn for goods, services, or other considerations. The international medium of exchange is still gold even though we have taken ourselves off the standard. A foreign government only has to specify that it will return so many dollars for so much gold, and the United States government would be obliged to sell the metal. The erosion that would take place is obvious: more dollars in circulation, less gold to back them in foreign exchange.
So we print more paper money ( coupons ) in the mistaken belief that volume equals value. The fallacy of this notion may be seen in the stock market. Once upon a time it was possible to amortize a stock purchase in ten, fifteen, perhaps twenty years.
This is a function of the Price/Earnings Ratio. If a stock sells for ten dollars a share and earns dividends of one dollar per year, in ten years the stock would have paid for itself, and the rest would be pure profit. In those days millions of shares were traded daily, today it's billions of shares because P/E ratios are now 30, 40, or in some cases approaching fifty. Looking at the Price/Earnings Ratio another way is to consider that what it truly represents is interest on the money invested. Flip the ratio over and you get, in the case of the ten-dollar stock, 1/10 or 10% interest. A P/E of thirty returns only 3.33%, so naturally investors trade at higher volumes: when you're earning dimes instead of dollars you need more of them.
Once, the Nationa Debt was measured in millions, then hundreds of millions, the billions, then hundreds of billions: the latest adminstration is proposing a budget of 3.1 trillion dollars. That's inflation!
But there is another side of the issue that government regulators don't seem to consider. I'll cover that in Part Three.
In and of itself paper money serves a purpose; it's handy, easily carried around, and as long as it represents value it has worth. But inflation tends to dilute paper currency and therein lies the problem. It's a dilemma. What we will view in this essay are; the causes of inflation, the degress to which it is beneficial, and the dangers of rampant inflation.
Firstly, inflation is necessary as a couterpoise to the depressant effect of a growing population on a fixed base currency: hard money. There is only so much currency available and the more people there are producing and consuming goods, the greater the need for the liquidity that more currency provides. While the inflationary trend in such a case devalues the currency, in small, well regulated amounts, it is beneficial. But it must always be kept in mind that paper currency is not money; it merely represents value. The proper role of paper money is the transferrence of wealth, not the creation of some false feeling of prosperity.
Inflation usually occurs when too much currency pursues too few goods; prices are bid higher and those who have adequate stocks of currency pay them, while those with less are hard pressed. A person who earns fifty dollars an hour doesn't mind paying $3.00 for a latté, a person earning ten dollars an hour would consider such a purchase a luxury. It's all relative, but allowed to grow beyond a certain level inflaton can cripple an economy. By its very nature inflation shatters the constraints that a hard currency places on its partcipants: Hard times? Just print more money!
At the domestic level inflation is bad enough; in terms of foreign trade it is calamitous as a cheaper currency tends to gravitate to offshore banks. This is because it takes more inflated dollars to purchase things abroad and fewer foreign currency units to purchase things here. What happens is that foreign governemnets assume a poition of power over the domestic economy by threatening to divest themselves of this devalued currency as France tried in the late 1960's. One of the attributes of money is the willingness of the issuing party to receive it in rerurn for goods, services, or other considerations. The international medium of exchange is still gold even though we have taken ourselves off the standard. A foreign government only has to specify that it will return so many dollars for so much gold, and the United States government would be obliged to sell the metal. The erosion that would take place is obvious: more dollars in circulation, less gold to back them in foreign exchange.
So we print more paper money ( coupons ) in the mistaken belief that volume equals value. The fallacy of this notion may be seen in the stock market. Once upon a time it was possible to amortize a stock purchase in ten, fifteen, perhaps twenty years.
This is a function of the Price/Earnings Ratio. If a stock sells for ten dollars a share and earns dividends of one dollar per year, in ten years the stock would have paid for itself, and the rest would be pure profit. In those days millions of shares were traded daily, today it's billions of shares because P/E ratios are now 30, 40, or in some cases approaching fifty. Looking at the Price/Earnings Ratio another way is to consider that what it truly represents is interest on the money invested. Flip the ratio over and you get, in the case of the ten-dollar stock, 1/10 or 10% interest. A P/E of thirty returns only 3.33%, so naturally investors trade at higher volumes: when you're earning dimes instead of dollars you need more of them.
Once, the Nationa Debt was measured in millions, then hundreds of millions, the billions, then hundreds of billions: the latest adminstration is proposing a budget of 3.1 trillion dollars. That's inflation!
But there is another side of the issue that government regulators don't seem to consider. I'll cover that in Part Three.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
It's the Stupid Economy! Part One
I took an economics course in college and learned two things; that economics is the study of how we attempt to satisfy our unlimited wants with limited resources, and that money is anything that has value. Unlimited wants? Thats a tall order, one that we have been unable to succesfully address since the United States became a world economic power. We now have the distinction of being the world's largest debtor nation as our pursuit of those unlimited wants has bankrupted us and reduced our currency to near worthlessness. The issue requires some corrective action; but what?
Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R Texas) wants us to return to the Gold Standard; that's a step in the right direction, and he has also mentioned a second currency, as I have recommended. I sent the proposal to Dr. Paul's campaign committee but can't claim authorship of the idea, but at least we're thinking along the same lines. But no solution to the problem will ever be enough if we don't understand how we came to this disastrous state.
About six-million years ago, before the Lords arrived, our ancestors were nomads, hunter-gatherers who roamed the forests and savannahs of the pristine world in search of small game, roots, and berries. Theirs was a pure subsistence economy; in modern terms we would call it a Consumer Economy, just like we have now. They didn't produce anything as everything they needed lay all about just for the taking. It was a hand-to-mouth existence but it had it's good points; none of these primitives went bankrupt, had their caves foreclosed, their clubs and spears repossessed; it wasn't all bad. These people lived from nature and were healthy; they didn't need doctors, psychiatrists, prescription drugs, health care, or retirement plans. Then something happened.
Eatly man, Homo Habilis, settled down about four-million years ago. They did this because of the introduction of agriculture, an art taught them by the Lords, as it seems unlikely that early man, habituated as he was to hunting and gathering, would have the time or inclination to develop horticulture on his own. Villages sprang up around the arable land and man acquired something he never had before.
Spare time. But wait! Let's back up a moment.
Lords of the World, you may ask. Settlers from somewhere " out there '?
Yes. Consider these facts. First, it is amply clear that isolated peoples never progress beyond the tribal level of socialization. Cultures advance only through contact with a more developed society: that's history. Where did it start? Even when hunter-gatherers came into contact with others of their kind, these others were no more developed that they were - so where could the advancement have come from?
Also, as old habits die hard, it seems very likely that the Lords would have taught early man animal husbandry: raising cattle, pigs, chickens, etc., as man was well used to killing and eating animals, and these had a nasty habit of running away.
And time was of the essence. People accustomed to satisfying their needs on a daily basis, employing methods that have proven successful, rarely take the time to think about other, more complex matters. Perhaps this is the source of mankind's inbred resistance to change. A primitive version of " if it's working, why fix it? "
No, there's much more to it than that.
Consider the development of agriculture. It is much more than popping a seed into the ground and watching for it to grow. The soil must be arable and conducive to plant growth; not all soils can claim this distinction. Another problem would be with the tending of the crop, a task that would necessarily involve a settled group of people to see to the proper watering and to ensure that no animal could just come along and eat the whole spread. Small tribal units constantly on the move would be reluctant to leave any of their small number behind to conduct such experiments for two reasons; one, their presence would be missed as important part of the hunting and gathering process, and two, those left behind would be vulnerable to attack by wild beasts or other small tribes which might not be too friendly. Then there is the question of when to sow a crop. Owing to the reasons already given for keeping the tribe together and on the move, it is also highly unlikely that any members would be afforded the time to conduct meteorological and seasonal research for the purpose of identifying the best time to plant and to harvest the crop. It's just too complicated to have been just " discovered ". But we got there eventually, and our reward for our labors was something entirely different.
Surplus. The subsistence economy of the hunter-gatherers was pure Consumerism flavored by immediate gratification. The only things that were traded were blows when two tribes found themselves eying the same boar. Or the same water hole. But with agriculture and the raising of domestictaed food animals, either those who produced it or those who became it, man was able to settle into more-or-less stable habitats. I personally claim descendacy from these people because their two favorite words are also my favorites: Free and More!
Surpluses had to be disposed of in some manner since they were perishable, or in the case of livestock, had a tendency to eat too much and multiply. Where on group had a surplus of cattle and another a surplus of pigs the two engaged in the first instances of trade, the exchange of commodities known as Barter. Simple?
Well, not entirely. Barter, though a primitive form of exchange, did have some stikingly modern considerations attached to it. One of these was Present-Value-Future-Value. A two year-old cow was worth more than one nine years old. A bull was worth more than a cow. There was also the matter of condition: animals were prone to disease and vegetation to rot and blights, some of which might not be readily apparent. Barterers took great pains in their deliberations. If all was well a bargain was struck. Simple?
Not exactly. There was also matter of supply and demand which affected the trade. If one of the traders wished to sell more than the other wished to buy, or vise-versa, this would affect the final agreement. The agreed terms of the trade constituted the Exchange Value, one of the characteristics of money. But because of the factors listed above, three trades of the same commodities could have three different values of exchange.
Barter was slow and some theorists have proposed that early man developed a set of standards wherein the values of commodities were based on a fixed relationship with a single good. The proposed standard in those days was one head of cattle against which the values of all other goods were compared. This would have proved to be of little added value: barter still took time.
Things plugged along this way for some time until the discovery of copper. Here we must pause to consider. If the development of agriculture presents problems explaining itself in terms of the itinerant, hunter-gatherer tribes, then the "discovery" of copper would present even greater problems. I believe that this was another gift of the Lords. Consider.
We are still stuck with the hunter-gatherer societies with no clear idea how they advanced their cultures while busy surviving in the primordial wilderness. Out there is was kill or be killed, the constant battle between predator and prey - and it still goes on today. The discovery of fire lent light and warmth, but it was out there, plainly seen and only needing to be harnessed. Copper is an ore that is not so readily apparent. It melts at just less than 2,000°F, much hotter that any wood fire used for cooking. What clue would the primitives have had of a metallic substance embedded in certain kinds of rock? And even if they knew, how would they conceive of making things from this substance? No, the simplistic view of history is just too full of holes. " Yeah! You guys go ahead and chase that wooly mamouth. I'll stay behind, build a real hot fire, and cook some rocks to see what comes out of them. "
However it came to be, copper waas the answer to barter, while being a form of barter itself but of a different kind. Being a metal, copper was immune from the ravages of injury, disease, aging, and decay: a pound of copper is a pound of copper, whether produced yesterday or ten years ago. In terms of utility, copper was also used to make a whole variety of impliments, tools and ( sigh! ) weapons; therefore it was a general good, rather than a specific commodity. Copper became the first Medium of Exchange, the fist specie metal. Economics really took off then!
The universal appeal of copper made it possible for trade to flourish as never before, and as it flourished it grew to transcend borders and waterways; caravans and ships carried goods ever farther afield, and copper was the blood that coursed through the arteries of trade. But as the volume of trade increased in most, if not all, commodities so did the amounts of copper needed to complete transactions. This caused a problem, since large amounts of copper were difficult to transport, and were always at risk of being stolen.
The Chinese are generally credited with the invention of paper money, but that is only a guess. This step certainly called for a literate society with a facility for the written word and some mathematics. Combining the need of some substitute for the transfer of copper from one place to another and the capacity for keeping records, it seems logical that one party to a trade would envision a solution: a Letter of Credit.
These letters of credit were not actual currency as they were not yet used for general ditribution, but they did have one characteristic important to money: they would be accepted by the issuing party for goods and services. Thus begn the trading of paper instead of actual metal - but you had to have the copper. Trade among nations relied heavily on thepossession of copper or the resources and manufactured goods to secure quantities of it. It was the first step in distinguishing between powerful and weak nations, later to be translated into wars of conquest. But for a time things went well; then a problem.
Over time it became apparent to the ruling powers that economies tended toward depression. There were two reasons for this: increased population, and the banking system of the time. Population growth acted on curency by thinning it out: if ten people equally divide a million dollars, each would have $100,000; if there were a hundred-thousand people, then each would have only ten dollars, a million people would have one dollar each. The need for currency putstripped the means to acquire specie metal, so more money was printed to keep up. This is called devaluation. In modest amounts devaluation does no real harm; carried to extremes it courts disaster.
The banking systemsback then also contributed to depressed economies by being storehouses for wealth, a place where wealthy merchants stored their treasure for safe keeping, where it was out of circulation. In fact they paid the banks for keeping their resources. Eventually banks started paying depositors interest and lending money.
All the while populations grew exponentially while the stocks of copper expanded by volume, creating the need for more currency. Expanding foreign trade further exacerbated the need for liquidity, and currencies began to devalue. As long as the value of a currency was predicated on a hard-currency principle there were natural curbs on population growth, levels of trade, and the dearth of money promoted greater efficiency. But our unlimited wants prevailed and societies began devaluating their currencies; when paper money replaced letters of credit, they began creating money out of thin air. Inflation became a fiscal way of life.
As stocks of copper grew apace with volumes of trade, it became less likely that one party would demand full restitution in copper, after all they were trading paper, and in the absence of any regulatory agency they just printed more coupons, which is what paper money actually is. Here, it is useful; to examine the phenomenon of inflation.
Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R Texas) wants us to return to the Gold Standard; that's a step in the right direction, and he has also mentioned a second currency, as I have recommended. I sent the proposal to Dr. Paul's campaign committee but can't claim authorship of the idea, but at least we're thinking along the same lines. But no solution to the problem will ever be enough if we don't understand how we came to this disastrous state.
About six-million years ago, before the Lords arrived, our ancestors were nomads, hunter-gatherers who roamed the forests and savannahs of the pristine world in search of small game, roots, and berries. Theirs was a pure subsistence economy; in modern terms we would call it a Consumer Economy, just like we have now. They didn't produce anything as everything they needed lay all about just for the taking. It was a hand-to-mouth existence but it had it's good points; none of these primitives went bankrupt, had their caves foreclosed, their clubs and spears repossessed; it wasn't all bad. These people lived from nature and were healthy; they didn't need doctors, psychiatrists, prescription drugs, health care, or retirement plans. Then something happened.
Eatly man, Homo Habilis, settled down about four-million years ago. They did this because of the introduction of agriculture, an art taught them by the Lords, as it seems unlikely that early man, habituated as he was to hunting and gathering, would have the time or inclination to develop horticulture on his own. Villages sprang up around the arable land and man acquired something he never had before.
Spare time. But wait! Let's back up a moment.
Lords of the World, you may ask. Settlers from somewhere " out there '?
Yes. Consider these facts. First, it is amply clear that isolated peoples never progress beyond the tribal level of socialization. Cultures advance only through contact with a more developed society: that's history. Where did it start? Even when hunter-gatherers came into contact with others of their kind, these others were no more developed that they were - so where could the advancement have come from?
Also, as old habits die hard, it seems very likely that the Lords would have taught early man animal husbandry: raising cattle, pigs, chickens, etc., as man was well used to killing and eating animals, and these had a nasty habit of running away.
And time was of the essence. People accustomed to satisfying their needs on a daily basis, employing methods that have proven successful, rarely take the time to think about other, more complex matters. Perhaps this is the source of mankind's inbred resistance to change. A primitive version of " if it's working, why fix it? "
No, there's much more to it than that.
Consider the development of agriculture. It is much more than popping a seed into the ground and watching for it to grow. The soil must be arable and conducive to plant growth; not all soils can claim this distinction. Another problem would be with the tending of the crop, a task that would necessarily involve a settled group of people to see to the proper watering and to ensure that no animal could just come along and eat the whole spread. Small tribal units constantly on the move would be reluctant to leave any of their small number behind to conduct such experiments for two reasons; one, their presence would be missed as important part of the hunting and gathering process, and two, those left behind would be vulnerable to attack by wild beasts or other small tribes which might not be too friendly. Then there is the question of when to sow a crop. Owing to the reasons already given for keeping the tribe together and on the move, it is also highly unlikely that any members would be afforded the time to conduct meteorological and seasonal research for the purpose of identifying the best time to plant and to harvest the crop. It's just too complicated to have been just " discovered ". But we got there eventually, and our reward for our labors was something entirely different.
Surplus. The subsistence economy of the hunter-gatherers was pure Consumerism flavored by immediate gratification. The only things that were traded were blows when two tribes found themselves eying the same boar. Or the same water hole. But with agriculture and the raising of domestictaed food animals, either those who produced it or those who became it, man was able to settle into more-or-less stable habitats. I personally claim descendacy from these people because their two favorite words are also my favorites: Free and More!
Surpluses had to be disposed of in some manner since they were perishable, or in the case of livestock, had a tendency to eat too much and multiply. Where on group had a surplus of cattle and another a surplus of pigs the two engaged in the first instances of trade, the exchange of commodities known as Barter. Simple?
Well, not entirely. Barter, though a primitive form of exchange, did have some stikingly modern considerations attached to it. One of these was Present-Value-Future-Value. A two year-old cow was worth more than one nine years old. A bull was worth more than a cow. There was also the matter of condition: animals were prone to disease and vegetation to rot and blights, some of which might not be readily apparent. Barterers took great pains in their deliberations. If all was well a bargain was struck. Simple?
Not exactly. There was also matter of supply and demand which affected the trade. If one of the traders wished to sell more than the other wished to buy, or vise-versa, this would affect the final agreement. The agreed terms of the trade constituted the Exchange Value, one of the characteristics of money. But because of the factors listed above, three trades of the same commodities could have three different values of exchange.
Barter was slow and some theorists have proposed that early man developed a set of standards wherein the values of commodities were based on a fixed relationship with a single good. The proposed standard in those days was one head of cattle against which the values of all other goods were compared. This would have proved to be of little added value: barter still took time.
Things plugged along this way for some time until the discovery of copper. Here we must pause to consider. If the development of agriculture presents problems explaining itself in terms of the itinerant, hunter-gatherer tribes, then the "discovery" of copper would present even greater problems. I believe that this was another gift of the Lords. Consider.
We are still stuck with the hunter-gatherer societies with no clear idea how they advanced their cultures while busy surviving in the primordial wilderness. Out there is was kill or be killed, the constant battle between predator and prey - and it still goes on today. The discovery of fire lent light and warmth, but it was out there, plainly seen and only needing to be harnessed. Copper is an ore that is not so readily apparent. It melts at just less than 2,000°F, much hotter that any wood fire used for cooking. What clue would the primitives have had of a metallic substance embedded in certain kinds of rock? And even if they knew, how would they conceive of making things from this substance? No, the simplistic view of history is just too full of holes. " Yeah! You guys go ahead and chase that wooly mamouth. I'll stay behind, build a real hot fire, and cook some rocks to see what comes out of them. "
However it came to be, copper waas the answer to barter, while being a form of barter itself but of a different kind. Being a metal, copper was immune from the ravages of injury, disease, aging, and decay: a pound of copper is a pound of copper, whether produced yesterday or ten years ago. In terms of utility, copper was also used to make a whole variety of impliments, tools and ( sigh! ) weapons; therefore it was a general good, rather than a specific commodity. Copper became the first Medium of Exchange, the fist specie metal. Economics really took off then!
The universal appeal of copper made it possible for trade to flourish as never before, and as it flourished it grew to transcend borders and waterways; caravans and ships carried goods ever farther afield, and copper was the blood that coursed through the arteries of trade. But as the volume of trade increased in most, if not all, commodities so did the amounts of copper needed to complete transactions. This caused a problem, since large amounts of copper were difficult to transport, and were always at risk of being stolen.
The Chinese are generally credited with the invention of paper money, but that is only a guess. This step certainly called for a literate society with a facility for the written word and some mathematics. Combining the need of some substitute for the transfer of copper from one place to another and the capacity for keeping records, it seems logical that one party to a trade would envision a solution: a Letter of Credit.
These letters of credit were not actual currency as they were not yet used for general ditribution, but they did have one characteristic important to money: they would be accepted by the issuing party for goods and services. Thus begn the trading of paper instead of actual metal - but you had to have the copper. Trade among nations relied heavily on thepossession of copper or the resources and manufactured goods to secure quantities of it. It was the first step in distinguishing between powerful and weak nations, later to be translated into wars of conquest. But for a time things went well; then a problem.
Over time it became apparent to the ruling powers that economies tended toward depression. There were two reasons for this: increased population, and the banking system of the time. Population growth acted on curency by thinning it out: if ten people equally divide a million dollars, each would have $100,000; if there were a hundred-thousand people, then each would have only ten dollars, a million people would have one dollar each. The need for currency putstripped the means to acquire specie metal, so more money was printed to keep up. This is called devaluation. In modest amounts devaluation does no real harm; carried to extremes it courts disaster.
The banking systemsback then also contributed to depressed economies by being storehouses for wealth, a place where wealthy merchants stored their treasure for safe keeping, where it was out of circulation. In fact they paid the banks for keeping their resources. Eventually banks started paying depositors interest and lending money.
All the while populations grew exponentially while the stocks of copper expanded by volume, creating the need for more currency. Expanding foreign trade further exacerbated the need for liquidity, and currencies began to devalue. As long as the value of a currency was predicated on a hard-currency principle there were natural curbs on population growth, levels of trade, and the dearth of money promoted greater efficiency. But our unlimited wants prevailed and societies began devaluating their currencies; when paper money replaced letters of credit, they began creating money out of thin air. Inflation became a fiscal way of life.
As stocks of copper grew apace with volumes of trade, it became less likely that one party would demand full restitution in copper, after all they were trading paper, and in the absence of any regulatory agency they just printed more coupons, which is what paper money actually is. Here, it is useful; to examine the phenomenon of inflation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
