This is just a short commentary on a news item that appeared on Yahoo! just this morning. This came from the world of "science", as this nonsense tries to pretend it is, while actually being a pathetic attempt to make Creationism look like science.
"2009: A space oddity; big blob in early universe" the headline declared referring to a huge light source estimated to be 12.9-billion light years away! The Big Bang theory is still kicking, it seems, and it is no small source of amazement that rational people still sit still and swallow this garbage by the trowel full.
The first clue came when the article went on to state that "scientists" were looking back to when the universe was only 800-million years old, an indirect reference to Big Bang. "The photo is beyond fuzzy," the article states without crediting the remark, but it couldn't be fuzzier than the thought processes of these "scientists".
Let's proceed rationally.
This "blob" of radiation-emitting light is 12.9-billion light years away; that is where t was 12.9-billion years ago. If the universe was only 800-million years old then that would be how long it had to take for the object to get that far out. As anyone familiar with scientific mathematics knows numbers quantify objects, and those objects are part of the value being expressed. They are called Units, and they either combine with other units (foot-pound) or cancel each other out. An example of the latter would be;
You traveled at 50 miles/hour for 3 hours. How far did you go? The answer of course is 150 miles. The hours canceled each other out, one being in the denominator of the first term, the other being in the numerator of the second term. Now for the problem at hand.
Dividing 12.9-billion light years by 800-million years will require a little substitution to overcome the limitations of the Blogger posting program. The solution to this problem relies on Scientific Notation, which this site lacks the capability to depict. To compensate I will use the form N E^x, where N is a number greater than zero and less than ten, E is 10 and x is the power to which E is raised.
Thus 2 E would be 20 (2 x 10), a thousand would be 1 E3 (1 x 10 x 10 x 10) and so on.
12.9-billion light years would be 12.9 E9 and 800-million would be 8 E8. We want to know how fast an object would have to travel to cover 12.9 light years in only 800-million years. It's a division problem; 12.9 E9/8 E8 = 1.512 E or 15.12 light, as the years would cancel each other out. So what does 15.12 light mean? As used in the expression it would refer to the speed of light, therefore to travel 12.9-billion light years in 800-million years an object would have to travel more than 15 times the speed of light!
Any questions?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Silver Lining - The Two Economies
The "meltdown" that we are so eagerly awaiting will probably be just another "crisis", like the Savings and Loan debacle of the 1980's, the Dot.com bubble of the 1990's, and the Housing Bubble of more recent vintage. Economists are predicting tough times ahead, but it is my opinion that these "experts" have no idea what they're talking about. They attend Ivy League universities and upon graduation go to work for major corporations, government agencies, or "think tanks" and never experience life on the street, where most of us live. Their cockamamie theories, like Arthur Laffer's "Supply Side" economics of the disastrous Reagan years, that only made the rich richer, are seriously flawed. George H. W.Bush only exacerbated the problem by ignoring the Savings and Loan disaster, and here we are. But where are we? Are things really as bad as they say? I don't think so. I'm going to ask you to think about something if you are among the many facing foreclosure of your home. If you know someone who's in that position, tell them what I am about to tell you.
Your mortgage is a fraudulent contract!
That's right. And if you're into foreclosure you can sue the bank that issued the mortgage, and get to keep the house. The explanation is based on Contract Law; ask any attorney who practices in this area of the law if what I say isn't true.
Any business transaction is an exchange of value. I pay my rent each month by check - just hand it to the apartment manager on the first of every month. In up to two weeks the check arrives at the bank and the owner of the property receives cash. The bank takes the money out of my account and puts it in his account, or just counts out the currency in that amount. In exchange I receive living a secured living space that is warm in the winter, cool in the summer, keeps my hair dry when it's raining, and is my private little domain. I'm happy; I get what I need: the owner is happy; he gets his money, and all is right with the world.
What we have is a contract. even though there is nothing on paper. Even though there is no written agreement between the owner and me (I've lived here for twenty years) a contract still exists because the three conditions essential to any contract exist;
The offer. The owner has an apartment to rent, the salesman has a car to sell, etc.
The acceptance. I agree to rent the apartment, buy the car, or the latte, etc.
The consideration. I pay for what I get. Value changes hands.
Now, let's buy a house. You can't afford the whole nut so you go to the bank and they write a mortgage "contract" that you are obliged to pay over the course of twenty or thirty years. Most folks are honest and will pay the mortgage every month - if they can afford it. But in the Housing Bubble, with it's sub-prime loans, NINA (No Income, No Assets) mortgages, HELOCs (Home Equity Lines of Credit) a lot of people got suckered into buying homes they couldn't afford on the theory that these shacks would appreciate in value and could be resold in a year or two.
Did the banks care? Actually, no. The reason the banks wrote these mortgages is because they didn't keep them longer than a few weeks. They sold the paper to Wall Street (Lehman Brothers) who, in turn bundled them into packages of mortgages (tens of thousands) and sold them to the world's central banks, insurance companies, and pension funds. The bank gets paid, you get stuck! You're in a rough spot; right?
No. For two reasons; first, the bank has no legal right to foreclose: they don't own the mortgage. Only the owner of the mortgage can initiate legitimate foreclosure proceedings. These mortgage "tranches" have changed hands so many times that in many cases no one can tell who owns the mortgage on your house.
The second reason you're off the hook (though you'll have to go to court and sue) is that the mortgage is a fraudulent contract. The reason for this is simple: the bank didn't put up any money; they created it out of thin air thanks to fractional (fictional?) reserve banking. There was no consideration, ergo no contract. It would be the same as if I paid my rent with a check when there is no money in the account.
This is just one item of the law that most people are unaware of; there are many more. And economists are right up there with John Q. Citizen when it comes to knowing anything about real economics. Let's have a Quickie Quiz, OK?
How much is the Dollar worth to you?
Ask forty economists what the value of the dollar is and you will get forty different answers. Oh, they'll refer to their charts and tell you the exchange values against the Euro, Yen, Pound Sterling, Franc, Peso, or whatever. All wrong! The answer?
The Dollar is worth whatever it will buy. Simple. It's called the Exchange Value. Because I know this I bought an $85,000 bicycle for $13.00 ten years ago and spent about $100.00 a year on it. What made this bicycle worth so much? I didn't own a car all that time and rode the bike everywhere, or used Public Transportation (ride all over town for a month on $30.00 - a monthly pass). To run and maintain a car over that period was averaging about $8,500.00 per year. Ten years: $85,000.00 in savings.
And that's not mentioning the health benefits that allow me to approach the age of 71 without doctors, prescription drugs, or any health aids whatsoever. Most folks take me for early fifties. When I tell people my true age they ask me if I'm retired. My reply is, "I'm not old enough to retire."
Go to a men's store and buy a good suit off the rack. How much will you spend? Four or five hundred? More? I'll get a suit of the same quality for $70.00 - tailored! I get shirts that cost $30.00 to $50.00 retail for $3.69 apiece. I took out a small signature loan a week ago at 3½% interest. I am a smoker but unlike most people who are paying nearly $7.00 a pack with the latest tax hike, I get away for about $2.60, and the tobacco is organically grown and has no additives. I spent $50.00 for an injector machine two years ago: it has paid for itself many times over. I share some details of how I do these things on earlier blogs.
What I am practicing is laissez faire, economics, what Adam Smith wrote about in the eighteenth century. It's pretty simple, simple enough that most economists have some idea what it's all about. Then there's the economic theory introduced by John Maynard Keynes, about which most "Keynesian" economists don't have a clue. Another Quickie Quiz.
What is the economic theory that our economy is based on?
a) Adam Smith's laissez faire
b) Keynesian economics
c) Both
If you chose c go to the head of the class!
We all have heard, at one time or another, about the New Economy. Oh, it's called a Capitalist Economy, an Information Economy, a Consumer Economy, and there's a theory that supports every one of them touted by one of the Greats of Ivory Tower babble. The fact is an economy is an economy; if you earn more than you spend you are solvent, no matter if you're an individual, a mom-pop store, a major corporation, or a government. If you spend more than you take in, you're bankrupt. Period. End of discussion.
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, at the time we were having our Revolution. In those times economies were all largely agrarian with some industry that by modern standards would be very primitive. Labor was mostly unskilled and semi-skilled and was thus highly mobile and easily transferable. Workers of average intelligence could be quickly trained in simple, usually repetitive tasks. Wages followed prices. Normal business cycles (not the boom and bust, roller coaster kind authored by the Fed)caused some minor dislocations; a company experienced a setback and laid off a portion of their work force. Since there was no unemployment insurance the laid off worker took whatever job he could find, usually willing to work for less. In this way laissez faire always tended toward full employment. In better times wages rose as there was competition for labor, and it was possible for a worker to advance himself according to his background and experience. In contrast with today's economy, background is not nearly as important as it was in Smith's time. Today it's all about education and ability.
John Maynard Keynes introduced his theory of economics in the 1930's and many modern economists seem to believe that this theory replaced Smithian Classical economics. It did no such thing, rather it brought that theory into modern times. Most economists and government officials seem to believe that Keynes endorsed government spending to stimulate the economy: to deal with depressions, boom and bust cycles, and inflation. It is quite clear that rampant government spending creates depressions, recessions, and those cataclysmic shifts in the markets that have plagued us so much over the past three or four decades.
The reason, and Keynes saw it, for these dramatic shifts in the economy is that with a growing technological base comes specialization in a given field. As specialization becomes more intrinsic to an economy the mobility of labor is severely restricted. The labor in not readily transferable, thus periods of unemployment are protracted and the unemployed person must wait out the slump, taking menial work in the interim, or seek training in another field. Out of all this came assistance programs and jobs sponsored by the government during the Great Depression the most productive of which was the Civilian Conservation Corps, a programs that put people to work building roads, dams; planting trees and building national parks, and other infrastructure projects. It worked!
I read Keynes many years ago and suspect that since then the basic texts have been "bible-ized": edited and altered to say what a small faction of power brokers wished it to say. My recollection are quite different from what I presume to be Keynes' true arguments.
For one thing there's the matter of government spending and the creation of wealth through debt. Keynes endorsed the exact, diametric opposite! Keynes saw the role of government as "lender of last resort" to areas of the economy needing financial support. These funds would come from the General Fund, money actually in existence, not cranked out of thin air as the Fed presently does. These loans would be paid back with a nominal low interest.
Also, Keynes held that the proportion of the total money supply as capital be around 10%. The rest out in the society to fuel commerce and create jobs. The so-called "capitalist' economy is exactly what Keynes did not propose as I recall from reading about the British economist's view. But in the intervening time this fact has been obscured by know-nothings who proclaim a "new" economy, implying that their ersatz "Keynesian" economics replaces that of Adam Smith. It does no such thing; rather, it expands and modifies Smithian doctrine. Adam Smith is alive and well on Main Street.
This brings us to the question of dollar value. The dollar is in a steep decline with respect to other currencies, the comparison that most pundits refer to. But what does that have to do with you and me? The value of a dollar to me is what it will purchase at any given time. I have a French ten-speed bicycle, a Gitane that I bought for $13.00 twelve years ago. It needed some work and I spent about $200.00 getting it restored: $213.00 for a bicycle that I probably couldn't sell for $50.00, but I didn't buy it to sell. I bought it to ride, and ride it I did; to work, shopping, for recreation - everywhere! For ten years I did not own a car and rode the bicycle and public transportation. Can you understand me when I say I that the value of that bicycle over the ten years was $85,000? A conservative estimate held that to operate and maintain an automobile averaged about $8,500.00 a year. Ten years? $85,000.00.
That's value.
I bought a car from a lawyer friend fifteen month ago; it was his late mother's car.
He wanted me to buy it and even gave it to me to drive for a month. He needed money and offered it to me for about $6,000.00 - Blue Book had it listed at $6,600.00 at the time. I made a firm counter offer of $5,000.00 and he took it. Today I still owe the credit union $3,000.00 but the book value is $6,000.00 - twice what I owe on the car. It is also one of the best cars made over the past twenty years; I have had no trouble with it, and a mechanic friend of mine remarked one time, "You'll never wear it out." Plus I can take it to the dealer and get it washed for free! That's value. Do I still have the bicycle? Sure, and I still have the vibrant good health that riding it for ten years helped me to attain. I still ride it, though not as much - still much farther than most people. That's value! The Gitane also has 24,000 miles on it and still gets compliments from tome to time. It's a cool bike.
What will you pay for a suit of clothes, even at a discount superstore? You can pay $600.000 to $800.000 for a suit of average quality; I can get a suit for less than $100.00, same quality, good label - and if anyone asks I can say, "My tailor." This technique is described in one of my earlier submissions; no need to go through it again.
There are many ways to cut corners and spend less, often far less than you otherwise would at straight market prices. What's the big deal about buying new stuff? Think about this: New goods are only new until you pay for them - after that they're second hand before you even leave the store or lot!
The message is simple: People need money even in good times. In hard times even more people need money, and a lot need more money. Save, eliminate credit, and pay only what bills are absolutely necessary. Then looks for bargains. They're out there!
Your mortgage is a fraudulent contract!
That's right. And if you're into foreclosure you can sue the bank that issued the mortgage, and get to keep the house. The explanation is based on Contract Law; ask any attorney who practices in this area of the law if what I say isn't true.
Any business transaction is an exchange of value. I pay my rent each month by check - just hand it to the apartment manager on the first of every month. In up to two weeks the check arrives at the bank and the owner of the property receives cash. The bank takes the money out of my account and puts it in his account, or just counts out the currency in that amount. In exchange I receive living a secured living space that is warm in the winter, cool in the summer, keeps my hair dry when it's raining, and is my private little domain. I'm happy; I get what I need: the owner is happy; he gets his money, and all is right with the world.
What we have is a contract. even though there is nothing on paper. Even though there is no written agreement between the owner and me (I've lived here for twenty years) a contract still exists because the three conditions essential to any contract exist;
The offer. The owner has an apartment to rent, the salesman has a car to sell, etc.
The acceptance. I agree to rent the apartment, buy the car, or the latte, etc.
The consideration. I pay for what I get. Value changes hands.
Now, let's buy a house. You can't afford the whole nut so you go to the bank and they write a mortgage "contract" that you are obliged to pay over the course of twenty or thirty years. Most folks are honest and will pay the mortgage every month - if they can afford it. But in the Housing Bubble, with it's sub-prime loans, NINA (No Income, No Assets) mortgages, HELOCs (Home Equity Lines of Credit) a lot of people got suckered into buying homes they couldn't afford on the theory that these shacks would appreciate in value and could be resold in a year or two.
Did the banks care? Actually, no. The reason the banks wrote these mortgages is because they didn't keep them longer than a few weeks. They sold the paper to Wall Street (Lehman Brothers) who, in turn bundled them into packages of mortgages (tens of thousands) and sold them to the world's central banks, insurance companies, and pension funds. The bank gets paid, you get stuck! You're in a rough spot; right?
No. For two reasons; first, the bank has no legal right to foreclose: they don't own the mortgage. Only the owner of the mortgage can initiate legitimate foreclosure proceedings. These mortgage "tranches" have changed hands so many times that in many cases no one can tell who owns the mortgage on your house.
The second reason you're off the hook (though you'll have to go to court and sue) is that the mortgage is a fraudulent contract. The reason for this is simple: the bank didn't put up any money; they created it out of thin air thanks to fractional (fictional?) reserve banking. There was no consideration, ergo no contract. It would be the same as if I paid my rent with a check when there is no money in the account.
This is just one item of the law that most people are unaware of; there are many more. And economists are right up there with John Q. Citizen when it comes to knowing anything about real economics. Let's have a Quickie Quiz, OK?
How much is the Dollar worth to you?
Ask forty economists what the value of the dollar is and you will get forty different answers. Oh, they'll refer to their charts and tell you the exchange values against the Euro, Yen, Pound Sterling, Franc, Peso, or whatever. All wrong! The answer?
The Dollar is worth whatever it will buy. Simple. It's called the Exchange Value. Because I know this I bought an $85,000 bicycle for $13.00 ten years ago and spent about $100.00 a year on it. What made this bicycle worth so much? I didn't own a car all that time and rode the bike everywhere, or used Public Transportation (ride all over town for a month on $30.00 - a monthly pass). To run and maintain a car over that period was averaging about $8,500.00 per year. Ten years: $85,000.00 in savings.
And that's not mentioning the health benefits that allow me to approach the age of 71 without doctors, prescription drugs, or any health aids whatsoever. Most folks take me for early fifties. When I tell people my true age they ask me if I'm retired. My reply is, "I'm not old enough to retire."
Go to a men's store and buy a good suit off the rack. How much will you spend? Four or five hundred? More? I'll get a suit of the same quality for $70.00 - tailored! I get shirts that cost $30.00 to $50.00 retail for $3.69 apiece. I took out a small signature loan a week ago at 3½% interest. I am a smoker but unlike most people who are paying nearly $7.00 a pack with the latest tax hike, I get away for about $2.60, and the tobacco is organically grown and has no additives. I spent $50.00 for an injector machine two years ago: it has paid for itself many times over. I share some details of how I do these things on earlier blogs.
What I am practicing is laissez faire, economics, what Adam Smith wrote about in the eighteenth century. It's pretty simple, simple enough that most economists have some idea what it's all about. Then there's the economic theory introduced by John Maynard Keynes, about which most "Keynesian" economists don't have a clue. Another Quickie Quiz.
What is the economic theory that our economy is based on?
a) Adam Smith's laissez faire
b) Keynesian economics
c) Both
If you chose c go to the head of the class!
We all have heard, at one time or another, about the New Economy. Oh, it's called a Capitalist Economy, an Information Economy, a Consumer Economy, and there's a theory that supports every one of them touted by one of the Greats of Ivory Tower babble. The fact is an economy is an economy; if you earn more than you spend you are solvent, no matter if you're an individual, a mom-pop store, a major corporation, or a government. If you spend more than you take in, you're bankrupt. Period. End of discussion.
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, at the time we were having our Revolution. In those times economies were all largely agrarian with some industry that by modern standards would be very primitive. Labor was mostly unskilled and semi-skilled and was thus highly mobile and easily transferable. Workers of average intelligence could be quickly trained in simple, usually repetitive tasks. Wages followed prices. Normal business cycles (not the boom and bust, roller coaster kind authored by the Fed)caused some minor dislocations; a company experienced a setback and laid off a portion of their work force. Since there was no unemployment insurance the laid off worker took whatever job he could find, usually willing to work for less. In this way laissez faire always tended toward full employment. In better times wages rose as there was competition for labor, and it was possible for a worker to advance himself according to his background and experience. In contrast with today's economy, background is not nearly as important as it was in Smith's time. Today it's all about education and ability.
John Maynard Keynes introduced his theory of economics in the 1930's and many modern economists seem to believe that this theory replaced Smithian Classical economics. It did no such thing, rather it brought that theory into modern times. Most economists and government officials seem to believe that Keynes endorsed government spending to stimulate the economy: to deal with depressions, boom and bust cycles, and inflation. It is quite clear that rampant government spending creates depressions, recessions, and those cataclysmic shifts in the markets that have plagued us so much over the past three or four decades.
The reason, and Keynes saw it, for these dramatic shifts in the economy is that with a growing technological base comes specialization in a given field. As specialization becomes more intrinsic to an economy the mobility of labor is severely restricted. The labor in not readily transferable, thus periods of unemployment are protracted and the unemployed person must wait out the slump, taking menial work in the interim, or seek training in another field. Out of all this came assistance programs and jobs sponsored by the government during the Great Depression the most productive of which was the Civilian Conservation Corps, a programs that put people to work building roads, dams; planting trees and building national parks, and other infrastructure projects. It worked!
I read Keynes many years ago and suspect that since then the basic texts have been "bible-ized": edited and altered to say what a small faction of power brokers wished it to say. My recollection are quite different from what I presume to be Keynes' true arguments.
For one thing there's the matter of government spending and the creation of wealth through debt. Keynes endorsed the exact, diametric opposite! Keynes saw the role of government as "lender of last resort" to areas of the economy needing financial support. These funds would come from the General Fund, money actually in existence, not cranked out of thin air as the Fed presently does. These loans would be paid back with a nominal low interest.
Also, Keynes held that the proportion of the total money supply as capital be around 10%. The rest out in the society to fuel commerce and create jobs. The so-called "capitalist' economy is exactly what Keynes did not propose as I recall from reading about the British economist's view. But in the intervening time this fact has been obscured by know-nothings who proclaim a "new" economy, implying that their ersatz "Keynesian" economics replaces that of Adam Smith. It does no such thing; rather, it expands and modifies Smithian doctrine. Adam Smith is alive and well on Main Street.
This brings us to the question of dollar value. The dollar is in a steep decline with respect to other currencies, the comparison that most pundits refer to. But what does that have to do with you and me? The value of a dollar to me is what it will purchase at any given time. I have a French ten-speed bicycle, a Gitane that I bought for $13.00 twelve years ago. It needed some work and I spent about $200.00 getting it restored: $213.00 for a bicycle that I probably couldn't sell for $50.00, but I didn't buy it to sell. I bought it to ride, and ride it I did; to work, shopping, for recreation - everywhere! For ten years I did not own a car and rode the bicycle and public transportation. Can you understand me when I say I that the value of that bicycle over the ten years was $85,000? A conservative estimate held that to operate and maintain an automobile averaged about $8,500.00 a year. Ten years? $85,000.00.
That's value.
I bought a car from a lawyer friend fifteen month ago; it was his late mother's car.
He wanted me to buy it and even gave it to me to drive for a month. He needed money and offered it to me for about $6,000.00 - Blue Book had it listed at $6,600.00 at the time. I made a firm counter offer of $5,000.00 and he took it. Today I still owe the credit union $3,000.00 but the book value is $6,000.00 - twice what I owe on the car. It is also one of the best cars made over the past twenty years; I have had no trouble with it, and a mechanic friend of mine remarked one time, "You'll never wear it out." Plus I can take it to the dealer and get it washed for free! That's value. Do I still have the bicycle? Sure, and I still have the vibrant good health that riding it for ten years helped me to attain. I still ride it, though not as much - still much farther than most people. That's value! The Gitane also has 24,000 miles on it and still gets compliments from tome to time. It's a cool bike.
What will you pay for a suit of clothes, even at a discount superstore? You can pay $600.000 to $800.000 for a suit of average quality; I can get a suit for less than $100.00, same quality, good label - and if anyone asks I can say, "My tailor." This technique is described in one of my earlier submissions; no need to go through it again.
There are many ways to cut corners and spend less, often far less than you otherwise would at straight market prices. What's the big deal about buying new stuff? Think about this: New goods are only new until you pay for them - after that they're second hand before you even leave the store or lot!
The message is simple: People need money even in good times. In hard times even more people need money, and a lot need more money. Save, eliminate credit, and pay only what bills are absolutely necessary. Then looks for bargains. They're out there!
Monday, March 9, 2009
Open Letter to the Republican Party
I am interrupting the series Silver Lining to write this open letter prompted by a headline on Yahoo!'s homepage this morning (March 9): Republicans See Their Party as Leaderless. The content of this article was just too much to pass up, so here goes.
Dear Members of the Republican National Committee,
So you think your party is leaderless? In my opinion you're being too modest. If you were only leaderless then that problem could be easily solved. But since you are also soulless and brainless, your lack of leadership is a minor point. What leadership have you had or shown over the past eight years? Starting from the top with George W. Bush, a brainless, gutless moron who lied us into two losing wars on false pretenses: let's call a spade a spade, Bush lied to the people and a lot of innocent people died. And you lied to us too; you tried to lead us to believe that this ol' cowhand from New Haven, Connecticut, was actually our president. No he wasn't, he relinquished any claim to that post when he called the US Constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper"; the same document that he swore to uphold, protect, and defend. He tried to shred it, all with your unswerving complicity. You are not only leaderless but rudderless as well.
You're the same slime balls that endorsed Dick Cheney as Vice President, the puppet master who led our "wartime president" (the one who didn't have the guts to face Cindy Sheehan)by the nose as he enriched himself and his old alma mater Halliburton at tax payers' expense. It won't be necessary to go into the full list of psychopaths who infested the highest offices in the land in the worst criminal conspiracy this nation has ever faced. The whole rotten bunch will be called to account; the American people are now wide awake and we don't like what you did to us. But I offer you hope, if you're not too stupid to understand.
You have a golden opportunity to redeem yourselves. You have in your midst the finest statesman, Dr. Ron Paul - and you're looking around for a leader? The article said that 5% favored John McCain as party leader - he's a nut job, and let's not forget his membership in the Keating Five.
Sarah Palin? Only one percent support her. I personally like her; think she's a sweet lady but clueless. Then you tell us that 2% support Rush Limbaugh? Your party has an unenviable record of transgressions that have inspired many to the idea that you are all crazy - name "Pills" Limbaugh party leader and remove all doubt.
Want to remake your image? Good. Here's how.
Name Ron Paul as party leader. Support him in the next presidential election.
Abolish the Federal Reserve and its fiat debt money and give us honest, debt free money. It's our money; stop giving it to the Rothschilds, Bilderburgs, Warburgs, Barclays, and Rockerfellers.
Dismantle the Military-Industrial Complex that the last real president, Eisenhower, warned us about.
Tell the people the truth about 911: that it was a false flag operation engineered and carried out by elements of our own criminal government: a Reichstag Fire!
Restore our Constitutional rights before we find it necessary to do so.
Restore habeas corpus and the rule of law - or we the people certainly will.
And as it is the duty of every American to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, you'll have to excuse us if we regard police and units of the military enemies of the people when they try to interfere with the people's First Amendment right to lawful assembly and the redress of wrongs. Don't worry, we know how to deal with enemies.
So there you have it.
Do what you will.
Dear Members of the Republican National Committee,
So you think your party is leaderless? In my opinion you're being too modest. If you were only leaderless then that problem could be easily solved. But since you are also soulless and brainless, your lack of leadership is a minor point. What leadership have you had or shown over the past eight years? Starting from the top with George W. Bush, a brainless, gutless moron who lied us into two losing wars on false pretenses: let's call a spade a spade, Bush lied to the people and a lot of innocent people died. And you lied to us too; you tried to lead us to believe that this ol' cowhand from New Haven, Connecticut, was actually our president. No he wasn't, he relinquished any claim to that post when he called the US Constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper"; the same document that he swore to uphold, protect, and defend. He tried to shred it, all with your unswerving complicity. You are not only leaderless but rudderless as well.
You're the same slime balls that endorsed Dick Cheney as Vice President, the puppet master who led our "wartime president" (the one who didn't have the guts to face Cindy Sheehan)by the nose as he enriched himself and his old alma mater Halliburton at tax payers' expense. It won't be necessary to go into the full list of psychopaths who infested the highest offices in the land in the worst criminal conspiracy this nation has ever faced. The whole rotten bunch will be called to account; the American people are now wide awake and we don't like what you did to us. But I offer you hope, if you're not too stupid to understand.
You have a golden opportunity to redeem yourselves. You have in your midst the finest statesman, Dr. Ron Paul - and you're looking around for a leader? The article said that 5% favored John McCain as party leader - he's a nut job, and let's not forget his membership in the Keating Five.
Sarah Palin? Only one percent support her. I personally like her; think she's a sweet lady but clueless. Then you tell us that 2% support Rush Limbaugh? Your party has an unenviable record of transgressions that have inspired many to the idea that you are all crazy - name "Pills" Limbaugh party leader and remove all doubt.
Want to remake your image? Good. Here's how.
Name Ron Paul as party leader. Support him in the next presidential election.
Abolish the Federal Reserve and its fiat debt money and give us honest, debt free money. It's our money; stop giving it to the Rothschilds, Bilderburgs, Warburgs, Barclays, and Rockerfellers.
Dismantle the Military-Industrial Complex that the last real president, Eisenhower, warned us about.
Tell the people the truth about 911: that it was a false flag operation engineered and carried out by elements of our own criminal government: a Reichstag Fire!
Restore our Constitutional rights before we find it necessary to do so.
Restore habeas corpus and the rule of law - or we the people certainly will.
And as it is the duty of every American to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, you'll have to excuse us if we regard police and units of the military enemies of the people when they try to interfere with the people's First Amendment right to lawful assembly and the redress of wrongs. Don't worry, we know how to deal with enemies.
So there you have it.
Do what you will.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Silver Lining - Banks and Credit
Banks are necessary to any economy and were carefully regulated until the Reagan years. De-regulation was touted as a move that would stimulate the economy by expanding the role of banks; instead it led to the Savings and Loan debacle of the '80s that wound up costing the taxpayers $500 billion. The Federal Reserve is the ne plus ultra of unregulated financial institutions, and we have seen the results of placing the nation's monetary policy in such hands. From this experience we should be able to redefine the role of banks and legislate such regulatory measures that would best serve all parties alike. The previously mentioned change in the accounting method employed by banks would be among the first items on the list. Banks must not be allowed to create money from thin air as they presently do.
The freed up dollars following the dissolution of the Federal Reserve System must be funneled into state banks to restore reserves of cash to 15%; this should marginally increase the value of the dollar and so help retard inflation. Banks will issue credit and mortgage instruments but will revert to the old tried-and-true VIVA (Verifiable income, Verifiable Assets) metric to ensure the issuance of well performing loans. The role of banks as safe havens for their depositors' money must be accompanied by responsible use of that money in lending. To this end we would propose the institution of State Banks.
A State Bank would be the central repository of all public funds derived from taxes, federal grants, and other sources. From these funds would the elected and appointed officers of the state be paid and from which funds for statewide capital improvements would be secured. This would go a long way toward eliminating waste as the economic condition of the state would be reflected in the financial condition of the bank. If the governor and legislators use this public money wisely then the state would prosper, the bank would be strong, and prosperity would reign. This would not be the case in the short run for many states as the complete revamping of a state's economic base would take time, but the State Bank would support the sovereignty and self-determination of each state. The bank's financial position would also be available to any citizen's review at all times. The bank would also accept deposits from individuals and operate much like a credit union where a share of the profits is added in the form of interest over and above the base, published rate.
This set of proposals is only a sketch, much to be filled in as organization and operation, but in essence it would amount to a co-operative banking system, the components of which would mutually support one another. The Federal Bank, operated by the Treasury Department would operate as a "market maker" in addition to regular operations. In this context it would issue and call for loans to/from state banks. State bank surpluses could be loaned to the Federal Bank which, in turn could lend funds to states in need of further funding. Interest rates would be held to a modest 5% for these transactions as progress will replace greed and unfair advantage in the market place. Done well this would be a self-regulating economic system with all participants, bankers and individuals alike having complete disclosure at every level.
The freed up dollars following the dissolution of the Federal Reserve System must be funneled into state banks to restore reserves of cash to 15%; this should marginally increase the value of the dollar and so help retard inflation. Banks will issue credit and mortgage instruments but will revert to the old tried-and-true VIVA (Verifiable income, Verifiable Assets) metric to ensure the issuance of well performing loans. The role of banks as safe havens for their depositors' money must be accompanied by responsible use of that money in lending. To this end we would propose the institution of State Banks.
A State Bank would be the central repository of all public funds derived from taxes, federal grants, and other sources. From these funds would the elected and appointed officers of the state be paid and from which funds for statewide capital improvements would be secured. This would go a long way toward eliminating waste as the economic condition of the state would be reflected in the financial condition of the bank. If the governor and legislators use this public money wisely then the state would prosper, the bank would be strong, and prosperity would reign. This would not be the case in the short run for many states as the complete revamping of a state's economic base would take time, but the State Bank would support the sovereignty and self-determination of each state. The bank's financial position would also be available to any citizen's review at all times. The bank would also accept deposits from individuals and operate much like a credit union where a share of the profits is added in the form of interest over and above the base, published rate.
This set of proposals is only a sketch, much to be filled in as organization and operation, but in essence it would amount to a co-operative banking system, the components of which would mutually support one another. The Federal Bank, operated by the Treasury Department would operate as a "market maker" in addition to regular operations. In this context it would issue and call for loans to/from state banks. State bank surpluses could be loaned to the Federal Bank which, in turn could lend funds to states in need of further funding. Interest rates would be held to a modest 5% for these transactions as progress will replace greed and unfair advantage in the market place. Done well this would be a self-regulating economic system with all participants, bankers and individuals alike having complete disclosure at every level.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Silver Lining - The Regulated Economy
The role of government in economic affairs being inescapable it will be our concern to describe an ideal role for government in regulating the economy. For one thing we can recognize the importance of having a national currency, the dollar, as opposed to each state producing its own, as was the case in the early years of the republic. The government issues the currency and accepts it as payment for taxes, which the government needs to fulfill its role in the overall economy. Interstate highways, national parks and wildlife preserves, national defense (not aggression), the power grids, and other functions that are most efficiently served by a central government, should be the extent of government participation in the economic affairs of the various states. But some regulation is necessary to ensure an "orderly" market.
The ultimate collapse of the present government will undoubtedly usher in a new era of States' Rights, and the American government of the future will be a model based on the experiences of the past 100 years. The mistakes of the past must not be repeated and the technology of the present day must be utilized to its fullest to ensure the best possible results in this endeavor.
The biggest changes I see are; the restoration of the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land and the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment: Senators must no longer be elected to office but appointed by the governors of the respective states, thereby being subject to recall at any time they fail to live up to the responsibilities they assume in representing their constituencies, or bring disgrace to their persons, their states, and to the American people at large.
The Federal Reserve will be abolished and with it the enormous (illegal) debt it represents to the common weal. Elections will be held on the Internet and instead of an election day we will have an election week, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate; eligibility will be simplified - if you have a Social Security number you're eligible! The census may also be taken on the Internet by counting active Social Security numbers. Both these latter changes will result in tremendous cost savings - and they are very do-able by virtue of secured sites.
The ideal government participation in the economy would encompass three things; to ensure a consistent and proper money supply to cover the trade of the entire nation; to regulate corporate activity in such manner that such activity not create unfair advantage, and to publish reliable data on various sectors of the economy. With the elimination of the illegal tax on wages and salaries, excess IRS staff could be reassigned to supplant the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and report the true conditions (ownership, profitability, debt, etc.) of firms on the stock markets. It would have the same effect as the present audits conducted by the agency; random and unannounced audits would go a long way toward ensuring honesty and soundness of business firms in general. These are suggestions only; every safeguard is vulnerable to tampering or outright defeat, but installing regulations (term limits is a good one) that will aim at the enhancement of free domestic trade, counter the forces of political corruption, while still overseeing proper professional licensing and maintaining fair and equal labor standards.
The task appears enormous but not at all impossible. The reconstruction of the United States in societal, political, and economic terms must be carried out rationally, in non-partisan co-operation. No longer should we tolerate leaders who lust after world domination but those instead who seek to place this nation in concert with the other nations of the world. Regulation of the economy is essential to these aims and must be a two-way street: regulation of the government as well as by the government.
Next: Banks and Credit
The ultimate collapse of the present government will undoubtedly usher in a new era of States' Rights, and the American government of the future will be a model based on the experiences of the past 100 years. The mistakes of the past must not be repeated and the technology of the present day must be utilized to its fullest to ensure the best possible results in this endeavor.
The biggest changes I see are; the restoration of the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land and the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment: Senators must no longer be elected to office but appointed by the governors of the respective states, thereby being subject to recall at any time they fail to live up to the responsibilities they assume in representing their constituencies, or bring disgrace to their persons, their states, and to the American people at large.
The Federal Reserve will be abolished and with it the enormous (illegal) debt it represents to the common weal. Elections will be held on the Internet and instead of an election day we will have an election week, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate; eligibility will be simplified - if you have a Social Security number you're eligible! The census may also be taken on the Internet by counting active Social Security numbers. Both these latter changes will result in tremendous cost savings - and they are very do-able by virtue of secured sites.
The ideal government participation in the economy would encompass three things; to ensure a consistent and proper money supply to cover the trade of the entire nation; to regulate corporate activity in such manner that such activity not create unfair advantage, and to publish reliable data on various sectors of the economy. With the elimination of the illegal tax on wages and salaries, excess IRS staff could be reassigned to supplant the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and report the true conditions (ownership, profitability, debt, etc.) of firms on the stock markets. It would have the same effect as the present audits conducted by the agency; random and unannounced audits would go a long way toward ensuring honesty and soundness of business firms in general. These are suggestions only; every safeguard is vulnerable to tampering or outright defeat, but installing regulations (term limits is a good one) that will aim at the enhancement of free domestic trade, counter the forces of political corruption, while still overseeing proper professional licensing and maintaining fair and equal labor standards.
The task appears enormous but not at all impossible. The reconstruction of the United States in societal, political, and economic terms must be carried out rationally, in non-partisan co-operation. No longer should we tolerate leaders who lust after world domination but those instead who seek to place this nation in concert with the other nations of the world. Regulation of the economy is essential to these aims and must be a two-way street: regulation of the government as well as by the government.
Next: Banks and Credit
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Silver Lining - Government and the Economy
John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of the first half of the 20th Century developed an economic model for the industrial age. There are so many theories about what Keynes said by so-called Keynesian economists, most of them seriously wrong, that it behooves us to view the facts and develop a greater understanding of what it's all about. First and foremost: Keynesian economics does not replace the laissez faire model of Adam Smith; it refines it to cover a changing world of trade.
Adam Smith's model pertains to a largely agrarian society, the Keynesian model to an industrial society, and these differ from one another in a number of significant ways. An agrarian society with a small industrial base relies on unskilled and semi-skilled labor; a labor force that is highly flexible, mobile, and adaptable to changing conditions.
An industrial society relies on semi- and highly-skilled workers, specialists in fields that are not readily adaptable to other areas of the economy, and so is far less flexible, less mobile, and not readily adaptable to changing conditions. Keynes saw all this and prescribed a role for government to accommodate these differences: that of overseer and lender (investor) of last resort. The present system of government spending is an aberration of Keynesian principle. Keynes' model did not allow for a capitalist economy but one of free enterprise in which capital represents 10% of the total money supply. We have strayed far from that mark.
We might envision the role of government in economic affairs as being very much like a market maker on the trading floor of a stock exchange. This person deals with only one issue of stock and has an account containing x number of shares of this stock. Stocks are bought and sold by investors as a regular part of trading and, as is most often the case, there is some disparity between buyers and sellers; if an investor wishes to sell shares of the stock and there are not enough others willing to complete the trade, the market maker buys the excess. Conversely, if there are more buyers than sellers the market maker sells the difference from his own account. The role of the market maker is to ensure an orderly market. This is what Keynes had in mind as the role of government.
The relationship of government to economics is a precarious one to say the very least. A successful juncture of the social, legal, and economic realities of the society is a matter of critical importance and must clearly define the extent to which government should be involved in economic processes. The history of the United States over the past fifty years shows that the failure to implement proper safeguards against undue government interest has spawned corruption that has infested the halls of state like a metastasized cancer. Lobbying for special interest, pork barreling, and government spending have unleashed a Pandora's Box of evil that has all but destroyed the economy at the macro level. The current recession, bank failures, the excesses of unrestrained derivatives trading, all point to one glaring fact: that the government has utterly failed in its oversight of the economy. We are now involved in the Second American Revolution, the prime evidence of which fact is the growing number of states proclaiming sovereignty - other words it's a polite form of secession. This I believe is the prelude to the collapse of the Federal Government, a bankrupt monolith that is completely out of touch with the people it supposedly serves. They forgot that the people have the power and that power is going to demonstrate itself in no uncertain terms.
Governments collapse all the time. It happens when the interests of the government (those in power) diverge so drastically from the interests of the people they were elected to represent that the people take matters into their own hands. It will come in our nation when an informed public, fully cognizant of the crimes perpetrated in their name (undeclared resource wars, cover-ups of 911, the Franklin Scandal, the USS Cole, the influence of AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee), rigged elections, and the rest of the rot, all of which have driven the United States into unparalleled and unsustainable debt, will say ENOUGH!
"It's the economy, stupid!" This mantra from the Clinton days has always been the main concern of the people. It has now become a major concern which can only result in the collapse of the government. Not a bad thing if we think about it. For one thing the Federal Reserve would lose its best customer and the national debt would be wiped out since it was incurred by the government acting without the consent of the people. The domestic economy would still operate pretty much the same as it does now without recourse to the events in Washington DC. Federal Reserve notes would still be used for buying and selling, people would still be making a living, and the agencies of government not directly connected with the political realities of the government would still function. At the end of the day we would still have to decide, as a free people, the role of government in our economic affairs.
One thing must be made quite clear: that the excesses of government are in large part due to the unregulated monetary policy that the secretive Federal Reserve, acting without the knowledge or consent of the people and their representatives, enjoyed as they brought the republic to the verge of collapse. Regulation of the economy is the key to economic recovery on the scale that we will demand.
Regulation in economic affairs has been seen as an affront to the free flow of trade in this country, something that totalitarian governments employ to control their societies. But it's not regulation itself that is to blame, rather it is the kind of regulation in force. Up till now it had been regulation by the government in areas that allowed for taxation without representation, unbridled spending, and horrendous debt. Such regulation as has been applied by government; the wrong kind, in the wrong places, and for the wrong reasons, has been a one way street: regulation by the government without regulation of the government.
Adam Smith's model pertains to a largely agrarian society, the Keynesian model to an industrial society, and these differ from one another in a number of significant ways. An agrarian society with a small industrial base relies on unskilled and semi-skilled labor; a labor force that is highly flexible, mobile, and adaptable to changing conditions.
An industrial society relies on semi- and highly-skilled workers, specialists in fields that are not readily adaptable to other areas of the economy, and so is far less flexible, less mobile, and not readily adaptable to changing conditions. Keynes saw all this and prescribed a role for government to accommodate these differences: that of overseer and lender (investor) of last resort. The present system of government spending is an aberration of Keynesian principle. Keynes' model did not allow for a capitalist economy but one of free enterprise in which capital represents 10% of the total money supply. We have strayed far from that mark.
We might envision the role of government in economic affairs as being very much like a market maker on the trading floor of a stock exchange. This person deals with only one issue of stock and has an account containing x number of shares of this stock. Stocks are bought and sold by investors as a regular part of trading and, as is most often the case, there is some disparity between buyers and sellers; if an investor wishes to sell shares of the stock and there are not enough others willing to complete the trade, the market maker buys the excess. Conversely, if there are more buyers than sellers the market maker sells the difference from his own account. The role of the market maker is to ensure an orderly market. This is what Keynes had in mind as the role of government.
The relationship of government to economics is a precarious one to say the very least. A successful juncture of the social, legal, and economic realities of the society is a matter of critical importance and must clearly define the extent to which government should be involved in economic processes. The history of the United States over the past fifty years shows that the failure to implement proper safeguards against undue government interest has spawned corruption that has infested the halls of state like a metastasized cancer. Lobbying for special interest, pork barreling, and government spending have unleashed a Pandora's Box of evil that has all but destroyed the economy at the macro level. The current recession, bank failures, the excesses of unrestrained derivatives trading, all point to one glaring fact: that the government has utterly failed in its oversight of the economy. We are now involved in the Second American Revolution, the prime evidence of which fact is the growing number of states proclaiming sovereignty - other words it's a polite form of secession. This I believe is the prelude to the collapse of the Federal Government, a bankrupt monolith that is completely out of touch with the people it supposedly serves. They forgot that the people have the power and that power is going to demonstrate itself in no uncertain terms.
Governments collapse all the time. It happens when the interests of the government (those in power) diverge so drastically from the interests of the people they were elected to represent that the people take matters into their own hands. It will come in our nation when an informed public, fully cognizant of the crimes perpetrated in their name (undeclared resource wars, cover-ups of 911, the Franklin Scandal, the USS Cole, the influence of AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee), rigged elections, and the rest of the rot, all of which have driven the United States into unparalleled and unsustainable debt, will say ENOUGH!
"It's the economy, stupid!" This mantra from the Clinton days has always been the main concern of the people. It has now become a major concern which can only result in the collapse of the government. Not a bad thing if we think about it. For one thing the Federal Reserve would lose its best customer and the national debt would be wiped out since it was incurred by the government acting without the consent of the people. The domestic economy would still operate pretty much the same as it does now without recourse to the events in Washington DC. Federal Reserve notes would still be used for buying and selling, people would still be making a living, and the agencies of government not directly connected with the political realities of the government would still function. At the end of the day we would still have to decide, as a free people, the role of government in our economic affairs.
One thing must be made quite clear: that the excesses of government are in large part due to the unregulated monetary policy that the secretive Federal Reserve, acting without the knowledge or consent of the people and their representatives, enjoyed as they brought the republic to the verge of collapse. Regulation of the economy is the key to economic recovery on the scale that we will demand.
Regulation in economic affairs has been seen as an affront to the free flow of trade in this country, something that totalitarian governments employ to control their societies. But it's not regulation itself that is to blame, rather it is the kind of regulation in force. Up till now it had been regulation by the government in areas that allowed for taxation without representation, unbridled spending, and horrendous debt. Such regulation as has been applied by government; the wrong kind, in the wrong places, and for the wrong reasons, has been a one way street: regulation by the government without regulation of the government.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Silver Lining - Levelling Off
Up to this point we have considered the steps necessary to restore our economy to full potential. First and foremost we have to get rid of the Federal Reserve; this move will erase trillions in debt that the US government owes in interest to this patently unconstitutional central bank. Next we looked at changing the accounting methods that banks use to eliminate the multiplication of the electronic money they create. Say we did these things; now what? For starters, what shall we do with all the Federal Reserve Notes floating around - trillions of them?
Nothing. What they are called is unimportant; what they are is all that matters. If they are debt free dollars it doesn't matter what they are called as long as they are accepted in exchange for goods and services - and they always will be. The proponents of a stable currency will have to go slowly; sudden changes in monetary policy would be as disastrous in the short run as the present situation. I have $12,000 in savings; I am told that the present dollar is worth only four cents; does that mean my savings would become $480.00 in sound money? That is a big downside correction and would put me on the verge of poverty unless prices were drastically scaled back as well and across the board. That's too much to think about, so let's leave things the way they are - for now. If we can't scale back the money supply to increase the value of the dollar then the only alternative is to raise the value of the existing currency. If by now we have a debt free money supply and have cut out the multiplier that banks have cranked out, then we are halfway home with a relatively stable money supply and dramatically reduced budget deficits.
By this time the collection service for the defunct Federal Reserve System, the Internal Revenue Service would also have been abolished. The Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, the present tax on wages is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, and is further unconstitutional as it represents and un-apportioned direct tax. No more income tax. This will leave more money in the hands of the people where it belongs, and as we all know people will either spend it or save it. Either one helps the economy: spenders stimulate production and savers provide capital by way of bank loans on those savings; each has a place in a vibrant economy.
Our primary objective should not be with sound money but rather with a stable currency. Soundness is a subjective view: people have differing ideas about what constitutes sound money, usually respecting a precious metal backing but also art collections, rare coins, or anything that retains value. That defines sound money but doesn't address the matter of distribution. A stable currency, on the other hand, is all about distribution: supply and demand, full employment, fair wages and prices, and a currency that enjoys and intrinsic value of its own without regard to any other standard. This leads to the question of a managed economy.
All economies are managed. The true questions are; who's managing it? How is it being managed, and who benefits from this management? For five hundred years the economies of Europe and the Americas have been managed by central bankers, the wealthy self-interested power brokers whose only aim was to enrich themselves. A stable currency in the hands of the people and governed by sound economic principles is the wave of the future. Government plays an important role in this transformation, and its participation must be made accountable to the people. A government that regulates business must itself be run like a business, not, like at present, a drunken sailor on shore leave after months at sea.
Next: The Role of Government.
Nothing. What they are called is unimportant; what they are is all that matters. If they are debt free dollars it doesn't matter what they are called as long as they are accepted in exchange for goods and services - and they always will be. The proponents of a stable currency will have to go slowly; sudden changes in monetary policy would be as disastrous in the short run as the present situation. I have $12,000 in savings; I am told that the present dollar is worth only four cents; does that mean my savings would become $480.00 in sound money? That is a big downside correction and would put me on the verge of poverty unless prices were drastically scaled back as well and across the board. That's too much to think about, so let's leave things the way they are - for now. If we can't scale back the money supply to increase the value of the dollar then the only alternative is to raise the value of the existing currency. If by now we have a debt free money supply and have cut out the multiplier that banks have cranked out, then we are halfway home with a relatively stable money supply and dramatically reduced budget deficits.
By this time the collection service for the defunct Federal Reserve System, the Internal Revenue Service would also have been abolished. The Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, the present tax on wages is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, and is further unconstitutional as it represents and un-apportioned direct tax. No more income tax. This will leave more money in the hands of the people where it belongs, and as we all know people will either spend it or save it. Either one helps the economy: spenders stimulate production and savers provide capital by way of bank loans on those savings; each has a place in a vibrant economy.
Our primary objective should not be with sound money but rather with a stable currency. Soundness is a subjective view: people have differing ideas about what constitutes sound money, usually respecting a precious metal backing but also art collections, rare coins, or anything that retains value. That defines sound money but doesn't address the matter of distribution. A stable currency, on the other hand, is all about distribution: supply and demand, full employment, fair wages and prices, and a currency that enjoys and intrinsic value of its own without regard to any other standard. This leads to the question of a managed economy.
All economies are managed. The true questions are; who's managing it? How is it being managed, and who benefits from this management? For five hundred years the economies of Europe and the Americas have been managed by central bankers, the wealthy self-interested power brokers whose only aim was to enrich themselves. A stable currency in the hands of the people and governed by sound economic principles is the wave of the future. Government plays an important role in this transformation, and its participation must be made accountable to the people. A government that regulates business must itself be run like a business, not, like at present, a drunken sailor on shore leave after months at sea.
Next: The Role of Government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
