Americans Will Soon Be Pulling Rickshaws for the Chinese If Repugliars Waste Precious Bandwidth On Every Two Bit Failed Terror Attack
Bret Cahill
China.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
> Who won Dumbya's mideast quagmires?
>
> China.
Well sure, Brat. They know how to deal with their Muslim minorities
and other religious - not to mention, political - dissidents.
It's that free speech over there that you so admire.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
>
> > China.
>
> Well sure, Brat. They know how to deal with their Muslim minorities
> and other religious - not to mention, political - dissidents.
>
> It's that free speech over there that you so admire.
You are unwittingly helping Red China prevail.
According to libertarian - Randroid dogma, one dollar = one vote and
the Chinese will soon have all the dollars.
Bret Cahill
Werner
...
>
> You are unwittingly helping Red China prevail.
>
> According to libertarian - Randroid dogma, one dollar = one vote and
> the Chinese will soon have all the dollars.
>
> Bret Cahill
You need to educate yourself better.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Links.shtml
zzbunker
> Who won Dumbya's mideast quagmires?
>
> China.
Well, you're working with idiots the only thing they
know about economics is zero-sum Game Theory.
So the bandwidth is irrelevent, since the non-idiot
people are still working post Battleship Coding Drones, UAVs,
and Self-Assembling Robots.
> Bret Cahill
Hong Kong Independence Movement, HIM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKEQE_2Y8CE
(English version) Hong Kong Independence Movement - The Loss of
Identity
bigfl...@gmail.com
That would take care of the 'being in shape' aspect.
BOfL
Mason C
libertarian anarchist hogwash
>
Fred Weiss
> the Chinese will soon have all the dollars.
>
> Bret Cahill
Who then will they sell to?
I seem to remember that it was the Japanese who were supposed to take
over the world in the 1980's.
Then there were the other "Asian Tigers"
Then it was the Arabs.
It's always something - or someone - for xenophobes.
However if you were that concerned about the American economy you
wouldn't be advocating the lunatic reactionary looting policies you
do. You'd be embracing progressive free market policies (which btw is
the primary source of China's economic transformation over the last
10-15).
Fred Weiss
Les Cargill
Don't look directly at the "jobs lost" figure in this ( the level of
uncertainty in it is much more than advertised in the link ) but think
about the *general* effects of Chinese mercantilism:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/macroeconomic-effects-of-chinese-mercantilism/
I am less than convinced that "progressive free market policies"
are much in play. What are in play are deficits.
The figure he throws of 1.4% negative impact on world GDP sounds
about right from a macro view - IOW, it's 1.4% deflationary,
annualized. And that's probably a global phenomenon.
The more I look at this, the more it appears that there are
two kinds of people - people who embrace deflationary regimes/programs
and those who don't. In essence, what it's pretty clear we had
during Bush's presidency ( used only for time line identification
purposes ) is a gentle deflation which was masked badly by growth in
government spending and quasi-government monetary policy.
--
Les Cargill
Fred Weiss
> Don't look directly at the "jobs lost" figure in this ( the level of
> uncertainty in it is much more than advertised in the link ) but think
> about the *general* effects of Chinese mercantilism:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/macroeconomic-effects-of-...
>
You're not the slightest bit suspicious that he's pulling these
numbers out of his ass the way he does everything else?
His very argument itself is mercantilist, if you consider the enormous
benefits we get from cheap Chinese goods. I mean, there's a reason why
millions of Americans flock to WalMart.
If China itself is mercantilist (and it is, just like everyone else),
that's clearly *their loss*.
The solution is free trade - not even more mercantilism (or tariffs).
(The liberals need to point to China as a major source of our problems
when in fact it is their own economic - and environmental - policies
which are the primary cause - and Republicans are not any more
innocent on this subject).
Fred Weiss
John Galt
> On Dec 31 2009, 10:24 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> the Chinese will soon have all the dollars.
>>
>> Bret Cahill
>
> Who then will they sell to?
Themselves, actually. China's well-regarded stimulus package involved
the creation of an alternative currency (cash vouchers) that had to be
used for the purchase of Chinese goods only. They passed them out to the
rural poor, who then used them to buy the flat-panels that Americans and
Europeans weren't.
If the Chinese poor grow in wealth to the point that they have
disposable cash, then the Chinese don't need our consumption to continue
to grow.
And don't think they're not working on it. They know very well their
exposure to our economic cycles.
JG
Rod Speed
> Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> the Chinese will soon have all the dollars.
> Who then will they sell to?
Surely you can see that its just another of his juvenile trolls ?
> I seem to remember that it was the Japanese who
> were supposed to take over the world in the 1980's.
> Then there were the other "Asian Tigers"
> Then it was the Arabs.
> It's always something - or someone - for xenophobes.
Yes.
> However if you were that concerned about the American economy you
> wouldn't be advocating the lunatic reactionary looting policies you do.
We'll see...
> You'd be embracing progressive free market policies (which btw is the
> primary source of China's economic transformation over the last 10-15).
Like hell it is, most obviously with the tariffs imposed on car tire imports from china.
Rod Speed
> Fred Weiss wrote
>> Bret Cahill<Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> the Chinese will soon have all the dollars.
>> Who then will they sell to?
>> I seem to remember that it was the Japanese who were supposed to take over the world in the 1980's.
>> Then there were the other "Asian Tigers"
>> Then it was the Arabs.
>> It's always something - or someone - for xenophobes.
>> However if you were that concerned about the American economy you
>> wouldn't be advocating the lunatic reactionary looting policies you do. You'd be embracing progressive free market
>> policies (which btw is the primary source of China's economic transformation over the last 10-15).
> Don't look directly at the "jobs lost" figure in this ( the level of uncertainty in it is much more than advertised in
> the link ) but think about the *general* effects of Chinese mercantilism:
> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/macroeconomic-effects-of-chinese-mercantilism/
> I am less than convinced that "progressive free market policies"
> are much in play. What are in play are deficits.
Only in some places. Some countrys werent stupid enough to run deficits in the good times.
> The figure he throws of 1.4% negative impact on world GDP sounds about right from a macro view - IOW, it's 1.4%
> deflationary,
> annualized. And that's probably a global phenomenon.
> The more I look at this, the more it appears that there are two kinds of people - people who embrace deflationary
> regimes/programs and those who don't.
Its never that black and white. Some embrace them in some circumstances, but not others.
> In essence, what it's pretty clear we had during Bush's presidency ( used only for time line identification purposes )
> is a gentle deflation
While that may be true of the US it certainly is not true world wide.
> which was masked badly by growth in government spending and quasi-government monetary policy.
Again, not necessarily in the whole world.
Les Cargill
> On Jan 1, 8:27 am, Les Cargill<lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't look directly at the "jobs lost" figure in this ( the level of
>> uncertainty in it is much more than advertised in the link ) but think
>> about the *general* effects of Chinese mercantilism:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/macroeconomic-effects-of-...
>>
>
> You're not the slightest bit suspicious that he's pulling these
> numbers out of his ass the way he does everything else?
>
Of course I am. That's why I say "don't look at them
directly." It should be reasonably easy to see, however,
that 1) we're "beneficiaries" of Chinese mercantilism and 2)
that its net effect should be deflationary.
> His very argument itself is mercantilist, if you consider the enormous
> benefits we get from cheap Chinese goods. I mean, there's a reason why
> millions of Americans flock to WalMart.
>
Nobody said mercantilism wasn't to the benefit of some of the
participants. They just said it wasn't a free lunch. This
particular version has significant measurable benefits, but
look where the buck stops - in our ever mounting debt.
It doesn't matter whether the price distortions attendant
from mercantilism are positive or negative. What matters is
that there is error induced from them.
> If China itself is mercantilist (and it is, just like everyone else),
> that's clearly *their loss*.
>
But they manage to hide the "loss" in some manner. At present,
we have two stories for the price of labor - the Chinese story,
and the USA story ( as rough endpoints on a continuum).
If there was an actual balance to this sort of trade, if
it wasn't simply accumulated by the ... business class
in China and returned as bond purchases, I might agree.
Don't you see that this amounts to conversion of consumer
purchases to government debt?
> The solution is free trade - not even more mercantilism (or tariffs).
>
If we weren't mounting horrendous deficits, I might be more inclined
to agree with you.
Historical context makes comparisons with previous tarriff regimes
moot. Had the system simply accepted Smoot-Hawley, there would have
been no problem. But it rejected it by greatly attenuating trade.
That seems beyond unlikely now. Interdependence has reached a
critical mass. Nothing is permanent, but yegads, what a
disruption that would be. The regime in China would fall.
You can't have cheap 52" LCD TVs and a balanced budget.
> (The liberals need to point to China as a major source of our problems
> when in fact it is their own economic - and environmental - policies
> which are the primary cause - and Republicans are not any more
> innocent on this subject).
>
I don't consider the Chinese a "problem"; but they are most certainly
part of our problem, and it should be readily apparent that this is
so. Look at how the flows work; this isn't business as usual.
This isn't even "liberalism"; it's a fairly deeply conservative
premise. We can't sustain the return flows in bonds forever. We
can't *necessarily* sustain it for long.
The presumption is that government increase in the money supply is
eventually matched by production - real production, not blowing
housing bubbles. We'll end up well behind where the decade began
with respect to growth.
You won't see Social Security rolled back ( and I might argue
that you should not ), Medicare and the Health Care bill will
greatly expand the footprint of government, and will maintain
significant political support. Rolling back government is a
pipe dream and has been so since 1980. Point to a single
Republican regime since Eisenhower that didn't run the
deficit up. Never mind the generalized destruction of GDP:
<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RPTAaOI4RN8/Szi_7QCmhoI/AAAAAAAAArk/TXXOUKYwXq0/s1600-h/pres.bmp>
The end product of all this is deflationary with respect to
non-government production. You can't hide that from people.
> Fred Weiss
>
--
Les Cargill
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss wrote:
> > On Dec 31 2009, 10:24 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> the Chinese will soon have all the dollars.
>
> >> Bret Cahill
>
> > Who then will they sell to?
>
> Themselves, actually.
With dollars? You're missing a loop somewhere there.
If the Chinese have all the dollars what do they do with them?
>China's well-regarded stimulus package involved
> the creation of an alternative currency (cash vouchers) that had to be
> used for the purchase of Chinese goods only. They passed them out to the
> rural poor, who then used them to buy the flat-panels that Americans and
> Europeans weren't.
You should know better. That's zero sum like our "Cash-for-Clunkers"
program. Who after all pays for the "stimulus package" except for the
very people who are supposedly its beneficiaries.
I shouldn't have to convince you that there's no free lunch.
There's a reason why China has a chronic problem managing inflation
> If the Chinese poor grow in wealth to the point that they have
> disposable cash, then the Chinese don't need our consumption to continue
> to grow.
They are not however going to grow in wealth - not real wealth - by
giving them vouchers. Wealth is grown by *production* - and the
Chinese economy is geared to producing *for us*, e.g. WalMart.
Same as it is and was for the Japanese.
By the way, you know what the Chinese themselves themselves want more
than anything? Our goods. American goods carry cache in China. If you
want to impress your neighbors put a Buick in your driveway and
furnish your home with Ethan Allen.
Fred Weiss
Les Cargill
> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> Themselves, actually. China's well-regarded stimulus package involved
> the creation of an alternative currency (cash vouchers) that had to be
> used for the purchase of Chinese goods only. They passed them out to the
> rural poor, who then used them to buy the flat-panels that Americans and
> Europeans weren't.
>
But that *proves* they have a crummy monetary policy - why
couldn't they just use the renminbi for that?
"Please taste this and let me know what you think. I'd like to serve it
to the men."
"What is it?" asked Yossarian, and took a big bite.
"Chocolate-covered cotton."
Yossarian gagged convulsively and sprayed his big mouthful of chocolate-
covered cotton right out into Milo's face. "Here, take it back!" he
shouted angrily. "Jesus Christ! Have you gone crazy? You didn't even
take the goddam seeds out."
"Give it a chance, will you?" Milo begged. "It can't be that bad. Is it
really that bad?"
"It's even worse."
"But I've got to make the mess halls feed it to the men."
"They'll never be able to swallow it."
"They've got to swallow it," Milo ordained with dictatorial grandeur,
and almost broke his neck when he let go with one arm to wave a
righteous finger in the air.
> If the Chinese poor grow in wealth to the point that they have
> disposable cash, then the Chinese don't need our consumption to continue
> to grow.
>
Chinese GDP is about 4.3T, against a population of 1.3B. US GDP is
14.2T against a population of 0.33B. That's roughly 23:1.
At 16.9% growth rates, it'd take 20 years for parity to ensue. This
assumes that the direct financial costs of the Chinese legal &
general populace-control system don't act as a drag ( don't
bet on Chinese creativity, IOW).
At 3% growth, it'll be 100 years ( the commonly bandied figure).
> And don't think they're not working on it. They know very well their
> exposure to our economic cycles.
>
They're riding the tiger.
> JG
>
--
Les Cargill
Fred Weiss
> The end product of all this is deflationary with respect to
> non-government production. You can't hide that from people.
Far more likely inflation. It's far too easy for the gov't to try and
solve its fiscal problems with the printing press, which of course is
precisely what it is doing now.
Fred Weiss
Les Cargill
> On Jan 1, 10:51 am, John Galt<kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fred Weiss wrote:
>>> On Dec 31 2009, 10:24 pm, Bret Cahill<Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> the Chinese will soon have all the dollars.
>>
>>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>>> Who then will they sell to?
>>
>> Themselves, actually.
>
> With dollars? You're missing a loop somewhere there.
>
> If the Chinese have all the dollars what do they do with them?
>
They buy US Treasuries with them.
>> China's well-regarded stimulus package involved
>> the creation of an alternative currency (cash vouchers) that had to be
>> used for the purchase of Chinese goods only. They passed them out to the
>> rural poor, who then used them to buy the flat-panels that Americans and
>> Europeans weren't.
>
> You should know better. That's zero sum like our "Cash-for-Clunkers"
> program. Who after all pays for the "stimulus package" except for the
> very people who are supposedly its beneficiaries.
>
See where I posted the excerpt from "Catch 22". They overshot
TV production, and gave them away internally rather than
flood the US market with them. So you have the moral equivalent
of a Appalachian village in the mountains of China which may
or may not have reliable electricity or runnning water, but they
have a big screen LCD in every home.
> I shouldn't have to convince you that there's no free lunch.
>
> There's a reason why China has a chronic problem managing inflation
>
ROFL! No, they just keep two sets of books. Literally two different
"exchange rates", one for internal, another for external. They
allow massive quantities of USD to accrue to the industrial
class, which acts as the real regulator between the two.
Just imagine the potential for error there. So they can't
just go about distributing that; they need to it to
arbitrage their own non-exchange rate.
In the US's Golden Age, the excess from production was invested.
It wasn't sent back to England in the form of bonds. Of course,
they don't have to invent production - the technology is all
but public domain now.
>> If the Chinese poor grow in wealth to the point that they have
>> disposable cash, then the Chinese don't need our consumption to continue
>> to grow.
>
> They are not however going to grow in wealth - not real wealth - by
> giving them vouchers. Wealth is grown by *production* - and the
> Chinese economy is geared to producing *for us*, e.g. WalMart.
> Same as it is and was for the Japanese.
>
Emphasis "was". The Big Three were actually able to eventually
compete on both price and quality. Absent legacy costs, who knows
what would have happened? And Sony, the remaining electronics
firm from Japan now produces stuff that's *egregiously* low in
quality, when it's not harrowingly expensive.
In essence, they subsidized the lesson to America of TQM.
> By the way, you know what the Chinese themselves themselves want more
> than anything? Our goods. American goods carry cache in China. If you
> want to impress your neighbors put a Buick in your driveway and
> furnish your home with Ethan Allen.
>
All they need is cash...
Patriot Games
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>Who won Dumbya's mideast quagmires?
>China.
Liars are Exposed:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:24:14 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>The Gipster... ...as crime increased by double digits every year.
Liar: Crime NEVER increased by "double digits" ANY year.
Reagan - January 20, 1981 � January 20, 1989
Year; Total Crime; Change
1981 13,423,800
1982 12,974,400 -3.3%
1983 12,108,600 -6.7%
1984 11,881,800 -1.9%
1985 12,431,400 4.6%
1986 13,211,869 6.3%
1987 13,508,700 2.2%
1988 13,923,100 3.1%
1989 14,251,400 2.3%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
>Bill Clinton... violent crime drop by double digits every year.
Liar: Crime NEVER dropped by "double digits" ANY year.
Clinton - January 20, 1993 � January 20, 2001
Year; Total Crime; Change
1993 14,144,800
1994 13,989,500 -1.1%
1995 13,862,700 -1.0%
1996 13,493,863 -2.7%
1997 13,194,571 -2.2%
1998 12,475,634 -5.4%
1999 11,634,378 -6.7%
2000 11,608,072 -0.2%
2001 11,876,669 2.3%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Liar: Violent Crime NEVER dropped by "double digits" ANY year.
Year; Violent Crime; Change
1993 1,926,020
1994 1,857,670 -3.5%
1995 1,798,790 -3.2%
1996 1,688,540 -6.1%
1997 1,634,770 -3.2%
1998 1,531,044 -6.3%
1999 1,426,044 -6.8%
2000 1,425,486 -0.0%
2001 1,439,480 1.0%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
>W. Bush... ...violent crime once again started to spiral.
Liar: Crime NEVER 'spiraled.'
Bush - January 20, 2001 � January 20, 2009
Year; Total Crime; Change
2001 11,876,669
2002 11,878,954 0.0%
2003 11,826,538 -0.4%
2004 11,679,474 -1.2%
2005 11,565,499 -0.9%
2006 11,401,511 -1.4%
2007 11,251,828 -1.3%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Liar: Violent Crime NEVER 'spiraled.'
Year; Violent Crime; Change
2001 1,439,480
2002 1,423,677 -1.1%
2003 1,383,676 -2.8%
2004 1,360,088 -1.7%
2005 1,390,745 2.2%
2006 1,418,043 1.9%
2007 1,408,337 -0.7%
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
=== Update ==============================
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:06:55 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>On Jun 2, 10:15�am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> Liar: Crime NEVER increased by "double digits" ANY year.
>But as the figures below show, it's close enough.
Thanks for admitting YOU INTENTIONALLY LIED.
=============================
Each time I concentrate on exposing your lying the affect is the same:
2008 Mar: 504
2008 Apr: 284 -44%
2008 May: 345
2008 Jun: 602
2008 Jul: 894
2008 Aug: 742
2008 Sep: 130 -82%
2008 Oct: 345
2008 Nov: 131 -62%
2008 Dec: 404
2009 Jan: 448
2009 Feb: 673
2009 Mar: 321 -52%
2009 Apr: 63 -80%
2009 May: 390
Which leads me to conclude that your LYING needs to be EXPOSED EVERY
DAY...
Nickname unavailable
freddy used to brag how much money he made off of his investments in
MAOSIT, MARXIST, COMMUNIST CHINA. then calls others marxist, as a
smear. don't you love those hypocrites:)
Nickname unavailable
from another MARXIST, MAOIST SYMPATHIZER. he has even bragged that
america made its choice, and its products made by MAOIST slaves.
Thousands demand democracy in Hong Kong:american MAOIST sympathizers
shudder, fear loss of cheap slave sweatshop labor
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100101/ap_on_re_as/as_hong_kong_democracy_march
Thousands demand democracy in Hong Kong
line at the China's Liaison Office Friday, Jan. …
By MIN LEE, Associated Press Writer – 35 mins ago
HONG KONG – Thousands of Hong Kong residents marched to the Chinese
government's liaison office on Friday demanding that Beijing grant
full democracy to the semiautonomous financial hub.
Chanting "One man, one vote to choose our leader" and clutching signs
reading "Democracy now," the demonstrators set off from a crowded
street in the heart of the Central financial district.
Dozens of the protesters tried but failed to breach a police cordon at
the Chinese government compound. They staged a peaceful sit-in
instead, joined by hundreds of others.
The sizable turnout for the New Year's Day protest — police said 9,000
people took part — was a boost to Hong Kong's political opposition,
which is trying to re-ignite the democracy movement at a time when
locals are more preoccupied with economic issues.
Five pro-democracy legislators plan to resign later this month, hoping
to turn the special elections they will trigger into a referendum on
democracy.
At their peak, pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong drew hundreds of
thousands of people. In July 2003, half a million marched to protest a
national security bill that many considered draconian, forcing the
Hong Kong government to shelve the measure.
The former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997 under a
separate political system that promises Western-style civil liberties.
Democracy is promised in Hong Kong's constitution, but the Chinese
government ruled in 2007 that the territory can't directly elect its
leader until 2017 and its legislature until 2020.
Hong Kong's current leader was chosen by an exclusive committee
stacked with Beijing's allies, and only half of the territory's 60
legislators are elected, with the rest picked by special interest
groups.
The protesters Friday said Beijing's timetable for democracy is too
slow. Hong Kong activists have argued for years that the wealthy city
of 7 million people is mature enough to choose its own leaders.
"Hong Kong should get democracy sooner. The sophistication, the
worldliness of Hong Kong people has already reached the level where
universal suffrage can be allowed," participant Joseph Fung said.
A woman who answered the phone at the Chinese government liaison
office said no one was available for comment.
The Hong Kong government said in a statement late Friday it must
follow China's 2007 ruling and can only propose limited reforms before
2017. Officials have recently proposed expanding the 800-member leader
selection committee and the legislature for the 2012 election cycle.
"Demanding direct elections for both the leader and the legislature in
2012 is inconsistent with China's ruling," the statement said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/red.giant/prisons/wu.essay/
Labor camps reinforce China's totalitarian rule
Wu
But the longing for freedom and democracy persists
By Harry Wu
(CNN) -- Communism in China can be roughly divided into two separate
phases, one "the Mao era" and the other "the Deng era."
In some respects, Mao and Deng were different in their means, modes
and methods of rule. Deng, for example, allowed for much greater
economic liberalization than Mao, and it has provided for advancement
and a rise in the average standard of living.
On a more fundamental scale, however, the two eras differ very little.
The nation has remained consistently under the absolute control of the
Communist Party. Today's rulers clearly and continually maintain that
they have no intention or inclination of giving up totalitarian
control of the Chinese people.
Inmates work at a Beijing prison
Despite this totalitarianism, the spirit of those who long for freedom
and democracy persists. Some people have taken a stand for freedom in
events such as the Tiananmen protests of 1989, in the formation of
political dissent groups such as the Chinese Democratic Party, and in
religious activities by such groups as the Falun Gong sect and the
underground church.
Oppression and infringement
Because of their beliefs and convictions, these people face oppression
and serious infringement upon their basic human rights.
At the core of such human rights abuses in China today lies a
systemized mechanism known as the Laogai that exists for the purpose
of crushing human beings physically, psychologically and spiritually.
This system of at least 1,100 known forced-labor camps is driven by
hard-line ideology, Communist Party directives and the whims of local
cadres. It is designed as a repressive mechanism to control and, in
effect, eliminate anyone whose political, religious or societal views
differ from those of the Communist Party.
Chinese prison scene
The Laogai is not simply a prison system; it is a political tool for
maintaining the Communist Party's totalitarian rule. A fundamental
policy of the Laogai states that "forced labor is a means toward the
goal of thought reform."
Communist economic theory maintains that human beings are the first
and most basic productive force of a nation. Prisoners of course are
not excluded.
They must be utilized as part of this productive force and must submit
to Communist authorities. Submission is often achieved through
violence, but psychological and spiritual submissiveness known as
"thought reform" is considered the optimal goal.
Organ harvesting
As the Laogai crushes the human spirit and often tortures the human
body, it also becomes an integral part of the Chinese economy through
the sale and even export of products made in forced labor camps.
The execution notice of an inmate caught trying to escape is posted at
a Beijing prison
Prisoners who receive the death sentence in China also become
potential resources of government profit through a policy of organ
harvesting known as the "provisional regulation on the use of executed
prisoners' corpses and organs," which was passed on October 9, 1984.
Chinese officials admit that by 1996 around 20,000 kidneys already had
been harvested from executed prisoners. The party, judicial and penal
officials and even doctors perpetuate these inexcusable crimes through
propaganda claiming "concern for the welfare of patients needing
transplants" and "productive use of an otherwise wasted resource."
Throughout history, countless despots have killed millions for
political, religious and racial offenses. In massiveness of scale,
number of victims and cruelty of methods, the atrocities of the
Chinese Communist authorities are no less significant and repulsive
than those of any despot, including Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
Moreover, the Chinese Communists do what no other regime has done with
its program of organ harvesting.
Barrier to peace and democracy
History scornfully remembers the crimes of Hitler in Germany and of
Stalin in the Soviet Union. In China, a system exists today that is
strikingly similar to those of Hitler and Stalin, and it is the
Laogai, the world's most extensive system of forced labor camps.
We cannot condemn the evil actions of the Nazi concentration camps and
the Soviet Gulag while we ignore the continuing brutality of the
Laogai.
The Laogai is the barrier for all those who strive to promote human
rights and democracy in China. Most of the human rights abuses that
are reported in China today occur in the Laogai. If you disagree with
these human rights abuses you must confront the Laogai. If you wish to
effectively promote human rights and democracy in China and to rid
China of communist totalitarianism, you must also condemn the Laogai.
Harry Wu, executive director of the Laogai Research Foundation, is a
native of Shanghai and an activist for human rights in China. He spent
19 years in Chinese labor camps between 1960 and 1979 and became a
U.S. citizen in 1994.
Nickname unavailable
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:40:18 -0800 (PST), Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 31, 10:24 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >...
>
> >> You are unwittingly helping Red China prevail.
>
> >> According to libertarian - Randroid dogma, one dollar = one vote and
> >> the Chinese will soon have all the dollars.
>
> >> Bret Cahill
>
> >You need to educate yourself better.
> >http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Links.shtml
>
> libertarian anarchist hogwash
>
>
yet mason, werner is a MAOIST SYMPATHIZER, whom has embraced free
trade with communist china. his libertarian dogma, is because it
allows for the liberty, to exploit slaves.
Nickname unavailable
Dear Sir,
You don't know what you're talking about. The government has no
place
in preventing ISPs from raping us up the ass in the same way
the cable
companies do. ISPs should be able to limit the number of
web sights
we can access to less than 100, 50, or 5 depending on the
package we
choose. Anybody who thinks there should be a law to
prevent this is a
Communist. Corporations are our friends and the
government is always
always evil.
Sincerely,
I.M. Klueless
free market economics is a cult, and a destructive one at that. most
destructive cults fail, some fail faster than others. its their own
ideology that creates the failures. its their own ideology that
refuses to acknowledge their failures, and its their ideology that
tries to project their failures onto others.
they are in the phase where they are seeking purity, kinda like when
a star goes super nova, you know its failing then. so they are
attempting to stave that off by purging out the un-pure. but that will
only hasten their demise as they go into the next phase, which is a
black hole where none return from, then they are gone.
the american voter in most cases are ruled by superstition and the
super natural. markets are magic, and the wealthy must remain
untouched because they create jobs. we still have lots of fat cats,
the markets lay in ruins, but no jobs, there goes that fundamentalist
myth.
show me a criminal that is for regulation
" For too many of us the political equality we once had won was
meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had
concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over
other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor —
other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free;
liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of
happiness.
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could
appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929
showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the
people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
President Franklin Roosevelt "
"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of
other people." -- Abraham Lincoln
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the
fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the
higher consideration.
Abraham Lincoln
These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece
the people.
Abraham Lincoln
Using the herds already created by religion and political ideology to
sell a totally backward proposition contrived by free market
ideologues is an
act that needs a countervailing force.
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
Galbraith
"There is a great deal of psychological comfort to be found in a
fully
fledged ideology such as laissez faire because it removes the need
for
critical thought. The ideology is used as an algorithm. All the
individual has to do in any situation is to ask what the ideology
requires by way of action. The fact that the action may be harmful or
the ideology objectively at odds with reality is emotionally
unimportant for the individual. What matters is that an answer has
been
found which is compatible with the ideology. This is especially
appealing to the less intellectually curious.
Psychologically, political ideologies are akin to religion and their
practitioners behave in an essentially religious manner. For example,
in the case of laissez faire, its disciples chant "let the market
decide" in the manner of Christians saying "God will provide."
Those amongst the elite who are not true believers in laissez faire
will, in most cases, toe the ideological line because they deem it
prudent to do so for their own careers and security. The few who
speak
out against it are simply sidelined.
ROBERT HENDERSON"
Most investors still don't understand that they are gamblers and the
brokers and advisors are the casinos. In Las Vegas, I didn't see any
billion dollar casinos owned by the gamblers, although they certainly
paid for them!
ayn rand novels are not historically accurate, nor are they the
product of a stable mind.
what is the definition of a crank? one who gives out advise that
makes no sense at all.
what is the definition of a crank? one who accepts, or embraces
advise that makes no sense at all.
our state and nation have experienced major declines resulting from
contemporary conservative leaders and their simplistic ideas. their
dour polices regularly fail to connect the dots, let alone comprehend
the space between them.
richard a. swanson
definition of a cult:Confusing Doctrine Encouraging blind acceptance
and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible
doctrine, Chanting and Singing Eliminating non-cult ideas through
group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases
While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
true that most stupid people are conservative. ... John Stuart Mill
"The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
miracle
theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses of
the middle class"
Jerry M. Landay of Bristol
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial
of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. "
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US president 1801-1809
America is a Plutocracy
The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the
wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that
controls a government, often from behind the scenes.
More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the
wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether
directly or indirectly.
"Corporate Control of American Democracy
Corporations have taken over the government and turned it against its
own people."
---Ralph Nader
Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred
principles
of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not
be
restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
- Bertrand
Russell
Taxes are not "punishment for success". Nor are they "theft". Taxes
are a royalty paid commensurate to the economic benefit obtained from
a shared socio-economic system.
"Those who gain the benefit should also bear the disadvantage."
- Common Law maxim
libertarianism is the hand maiden to fascism, libertarianism is the
decay that leads to fascism.
fascism is libertarianism in decay.
"there is another view, one that may come to the
fore if the recession lingers and millions lose their jobs or homes,
while those who brought on the disaster remain wealthy beyond any
dream available to normal people. “By the time of the American
Revolution there was already a robust plebeian resentment of the
aristocrat as parasite, a privileged nonproducer living off the hard
labor of those he lorded over,” Fraser writes. It has not helped that
the financial lords have not always been subtle about their
superiority, as when Jay Gould, the robber baron who ran railroads in
the late 19th century, boasted he could hire one half of the working
class to kill the other half."
“Wall Street had proved itself not only ethically challenged and
dangerously
omnipotent but, more damning than that, omni-incompetent.” And he
continues: “During the boom years of the 1920s, the white-shoe world
of J. P. Morgan had accepted credit for the nation’s good fortune and
been portrayed as a conclave of wise men. Now, under the new
circumstances of economic ruination, that same world was treated as
criminally irresponsible, pathetic even, an object not only of censure
but of mockery. And there is perhaps nothing more fatal for the life
expectancy of an elite than to be viewed as ridiculous.”
Ideas espoused by the Democratic Party have propelled the American
economy
since 1932. Franklin D. Roosevelt used them to enable our economy to
recover from the Great Depression and Dust Bowl years, moving us
through
World War II without major domestic disruption or major inflation, and
moving us smoothly into the post-War years to a level of prosperity
and
growth unapproached in all history. At the same time, we re-built the
economies of England, Western Europe and Japan, turning our enemies
into our
staunchest friends and allies, while setting our economic policies on
a
course that would result, in 1991, in the economic and military
collapse of
the Soviet Union, with Russia now being a firm friend.
No one who has any knowledge of the American economy in the 20th
Century can
do anything but applaud the Democratic Party and long for the
reinstatement
of its economic policies after the disastrous Bush years.
Stanley F. Nelson
Dallas.
"Once you have assisted the elites to get 99%
of the world's wealth into the hands of 1%
of the world's elites, which side of the
wealth divide will you be on?"
``Capitalism sowed the seeds of its own demise because the benefits of
a decade-long boom accrued to capital, with nothing flowing to labor.
Telling workers who hadn't had a decent pay raise for years to tighten
their belts once the good times ended proved disastrous.
" It's actually sort of interesting that while some
people are putting forth theories about what has led us to these bank
failures (indy Mac), bail outs (Bear Stearns and Freddie and Fannie
Mac so far), weak dollar, and the general quagmire and impending
financial disaster - another camp seems to be very good at saying why
none of those are the cause (without a lot of data or rationale) but
have no counter explanation.
In fact this camp I think is mostly in habit mode their years of
denial that anything is wrong. Face it, we've had seven years of
(mostly partisan based) denial from this camp. The deficit was not a
problem, the rampant dereg and nonexistent enforcement was a plus not
a minus, tax cuts were a stimuli, globalization meant jobs and cheap
prices, etc. etc.
They have an excuse why every warning sign was not an issue, why every
evil was really a good (e.g., remember the weak dollar means US
manufacturing jobs), why every stumble was unrelated.
And now we are looking down the throat of full economic collapse. The
fed is bailing out private entities at $100s of billions of dollars,
the dollar is in the basement, millions are losing their homes, many
millions more are going bankrupt ( more children are living through
their parents bankruptcy than are living through their parents
divorce), millions are losing their jobs, the subprime debacle is
knocking the legs out from under our financial institutions, bank
failures are underway, the stock market has surrendered the last 2
years growth (and is down in inflation adjusted terms for over 7
years). I could go on but that gives some idea of what we're looking
at in scale.
And these folks are still saying well THAT's not the cause. Or that
theory has flaws. The closest they have to an explanation for what's
happened is blaming the victims, it's home buyers fault the
deregulated mortgage/finacial industry is in subprime collapse. It's
medias fault the public consumer confidence is at record lows, etc.,
etc. (Shit we still have the Fredi Fizz's out there saying everything
is glorious.)
They have no explanation in theory to offer for conditions. And to
them each facet is an unrelated minor detail. (Shit we're still seeing
the market corrects all things crowd out there - crowing as if that
means there's not undue suffering in lost pensions, lost jobs and lost
homes.)
SO pray tell us the Friedmanist explanation of this conflux of
disasters.
I would note the anti-globalization, anti-dereg, pro-fiscal
responsibility crowd has a coherent explanation that holds together
and explains this confluence in an Occams razor passing method."
The quibblers and deniers strike me as flat earthers with lots of
reasons why others explanations are wrong, but no explanation of their
own, To them it's just turtles all the way down. (Less this
philosophical reference throw you -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)
retro.
The biggest political story of 2008 is getting little
coverage. It involves the collapse of assumptions that have dominated
our economic debate for three decades.
Since the Reagan years, free market cliches have passed for
sophisticated economic analysis. But in the current crisis, these
ideas are falling, one by one, as even conservatives recognize that
capitalism is ailing.
You know the talking points: Regulation is the problem and
deregulation is the solution. The distribution of income and wealth
doesn't matter. Providing incentives for the investors of capital to
"grow the pie" is the only policy that counts. Free trade produces
well-distributed economic growth, and any dissent from this orthodoxy
is "protectionism."
e.j. dionne
teddy roosevelt
We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things
good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the
consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman
is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an
excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such
practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than
we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or
getting unfair advantages over business rivals.
We stand equally against government by a plutocracy and government by
a mob. There is something to be said for government by a great
aristocracy which has furnished leaders to the nation in peace and war
for generations; even a democrat like myself must admit this. But
there is absolutely nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy,
for government by men very powerful in certain lines and gifted with
"the money touch," but with ideals which in their essence are merely
those of so many glorified pawnbrokers.
That's what free trade is about. It's about
the powerful interests convincing smaller less powerful peoples to
cave into our economic might and take down their protections and
dismantle their self interest and let us obliterate them.
The US became the power it is through tariffs and intervention. It
closed out foreign finished goods and spurred the development of US
industry and manufacturing. The very strength of the US comes from its
protectionism. Read Hamilton's efforts to develop us into a
economically strong country.
Nations have interests beyond that of their businessmen. A proper mix
of measures to gain and protect those interests is essential. For
example we no longer have much in the way of ship building any more. A
WWII type war with a need for expanded naval power would not be met in
the same way it was in the 40s. A nation is right to protect it's
ability to provide certain essentials or strategically vital
interests. The Japanese subsidize rice so as not to be vulnerable to
others for their major food stock. The French place a value of the
life style of small farms and subsidize that. They are rational
choices in a national interest. There is far more to evaluating a
country, its interests and the lives of their citizens than simple
economic efficiency. Putting economic efficiency ahead of all things
as your compass is a road to a less human life.
"Just another example of the "CONservative movement" screwing over the
American people.
Deregulation is such a canard.
Remember, when a Republican talks about "Free" Markets, they mean
Free of Regulation
Free of Oversight
Free of Competition
Free of Ethics
Free of Morality
Free of Common Sense
Free of Long Term Thinking'
"disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern
conservatism."
paul krugman
Thoughts from the Great Depression
As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass
consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of
existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to
provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and
services offered by the nation's economic machinery. Instead of
achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by
1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently
produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by
taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers
denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products
that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in
new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in
the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game
stopped.
(Eccles, Marriner S. 1951. Beckoning Frontiers: Public and Personal
Recollections (New York: Alfred A. Knopf): p. 76
Economist and author Henry Liu summed it up brilliantly in a recent
article in the Asia Times:
"The collapse of market fundamentalism in economies everywhere is
putting the Chicago School theology on trial. Its big lie has been
exposed by facts on two levels. The Chicago Boys' claim that helping
the rich will also help the poor is not only exposed as not true, it
turns out that market fundamentalism hurts not only the poor and the
powerless; it hurts everyone, rich and poor, albeit in different ways.
When wages are kept low to fight inflation, the low-wage regime causes
overcapacity through over investment from excess profit. And monetary
easing under such conditions produces hyperinflation that hurts also
the rich. The fruits of Friedman test are in - and they are all
rotten."
From The Times
February 9, 2009
Now is the time for a revolution in economic thought Anatole Kaletsky:
Economic View
Consider the following passage:
"Most economic theorists have been going down the wrong track. When
economic models fail, they are seldom thrown away. Rather they are
`fixed' - amended, qualified, particularised, expanded and
complicated.
"Bit by bit, from a bad seed a big but sickly tree is built with glue,
nails, screws and scaffolding. Conventional economics assumes the
financial system is a linear, continuous, rational machine and these
false assumptions are built into the risk models used by many of the
world's banks. As a result, the odds of financial ruin in a free
global
market economy have been grossly underestimated. By using such methods
there is no limit to how bad a bank's losses can get. Its own
bankruptcy
is the least of the worries; it will default on its obligations to
other
banks - and so the losses will spread from one inter-linked financial
house to another. Only forceful action by regulators to put a firewall
round the sickest firms will stop the crisis spreading. But bad news
tends to come in flocks and a bank that weathers one crisis may not
survive a second or a third."
This uncannily precise description of the present crisis above was not
written by an economist. While some economists had warned for years
about global trade imbalances, escalating house prices, of excessive
consumer borrowing, none of them remotely foresaw the truly
unprecedented feature of the present crisis: the total breakdown of
financial markets caused by the unforced blunders by investors and
banks. Modern economists were inherently incapable of understanding
such
a problem because they assumed that investors were "rational" and
markets "efficient".
These assumptions led inevitably to disaster once they were blown
apart.
The author who came so close to understanding the true causes of the
present crisis was not an economist but a mathematician.
Benoît Mandelbrot, a towering figure of 20th-century science, who
invented fractal geometry and pioneered the mathematical analysis of
chaos and complex systems, wrote the above words six years ago in his
book The Misbehaviour of Markets. Mandelbrot's ideas found fruitful
applications in the study of earthquakes, weather, galaxies and
biological systems from the 1960s onward, but the field that
originally
inspired his ideas turns out, in this very readable book, to have been
finance and economics. Yet 40 years of effort by Mandelbrot to
interest
economists in the new mathematical methods, which appear to work far
better in modelling extreme movements in financial markets than the
conventional methods based on statistically "normal" distributions,
have
been either ridiculed or ignored.
At the other end of the academic spectrum, we find economists treating
ideas from sociology, psychology or philosophy with the same derision
and disdain. George Soros is no mathematician like Mandelbrot, but he
has repeatedly demonstrated far better understanding of how market
economies work than any professional economist by using psychological
and philosophical ideas. His books have explained convincingly how
false
beliefs among investors can create self-reinforcing boom-bust cycles
of
exactly the kind afflicting the world today. But the reaction to these
ideas has been the same as to Mandelbrot's: a complacent refusal among
academic economists, regulators and central bankers even to think
seriously about approaches that challenge the central orthodoxies of
modern economics: that "efficient" markets inhabited by "rational"
investors send price signals which, in some sense, are always right. "
Note: When I was a young man I was attacked for being too
market-oriented: from my early thirties of being too statist. The
irony is that I have held the same economic views throughout my adult
life. What has changed has been the dominant economic ideology of the
elite which was quasi-Marxist in my youth and laissez faire since
Thatcher.
My position has always been to steer a middle course between statism
and laissez faire, between autarkic protectionism and unrestrained
free
trade. Perhaps we are now approaching in my old age a situation when
this golden economic mean becomes the elite ideology.
The deepest irony of my position over the past thirty odd years is
that
my position is not a million miles removed from that of Adam Smith who
acknowledged freely that strategic industries should be protected and
that the state should undertake that which private individuals would
never undertake. About the only practical point - as opposed to his
naive belief in his Invisible Hand - over which I would have
significant differences with Smith is in the extent to which he would
allow free trade for he was in principle freer than I would be.
However,
Smith was writing before the advent of modern transport and
international trade was still tiny. He would never have envisaged
industries being exported wholesale from Britain.
Kaletsky emphasises what I always emphasise, the irrationality of
markets and the need to set economics firmly in a psychological and
sociological framework. Trying to create economic models without
taking
those realities into consideration is not merely pointless but
dangerous
if they are taken seriously by those in power.
RH
Nickname unavailable
> Fred Weiss wrote:
> > On Dec 31 2009, 10:24 pm, Bret Cahill<Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> the Chinese will soon have all the dollars.
>
> >> Bret Cahill
>
> > Who then will they sell to?
>
> > I seem to remember that it was the Japanese who were supposed to take
> > over the world in the 1980's.
>
> > Then there were the other "Asian Tigers"
>
> > Then it was the Arabs.
>
> > It's always something - or someone - for xenophobes.
>
> > However if you were that concerned about the American economy you
> > wouldn't be advocating the lunatic reactionary looting policies you
> > do. You'd be embracing progressive free market policies (which btw is
> > the primary source of China's economic transformation over the last
> > 10-15).
>
> > Fred Weiss
>
> Don't look directly at the "jobs lost" figure in this ( the level of
> uncertainty in it is much more than advertised in the link ) but think
>
> I am less than convinced that "progressive free market policies"
> are much in play. What are in play are deficits.
>
> The figure he throws of 1.4% negative impact on world GDP sounds
> about right from a macro view - IOW, it's 1.4% deflationary,
> annualized. And that's probably a global phenomenon.
>
> The more I look at this, the more it appears that there are
> two kinds of people - people who embrace deflationary regimes/programs
> and those who don't. In essence, what it's pretty clear we had
> during Bush's presidency ( used only for time line identification
> purposes ) is a gentle deflation which was masked badly by growth in
> government spending and quasi-government monetary policy.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
free trade is deflationary in nature. we are living in a world where
capitalists, have used marxism to destroy demand(wages)of the western
worker, priceless.
and they have built up a religion, to reinforce and justify the use
of deflationary, immoral polices for self enrichment.
Les Cargill
> On Jan 1, 2:35 pm, Les Cargill<lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> The end product of all this is deflationary with respect to
>> non-government production. You can't hide that from people.
>
> Far more likely inflation.
But *deflation with respect to non government production*. IOW,
the real economy. IMO, it's "and Capitalism withers away",
leaving nothing *but* government. Capitalism still
has the same levels of output, but employs fewer and
fewer.
It's a strange sort of Malthusianism. Arnold Kling
calls it "Economics 2.0".
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/12/kling_on_prospe.html
> It's far too easy for the gov't to try and
> solve its fiscal problems with the printing press, which of course is
> precisely what it is doing now.
>
Not so much, no. TARP funds are flying back to the Fed
in record quantity. Nothing in the House or
Senate now besides *maybe* Afghanistan seems to
commit much if any government growth over the next
couple years. Don't bet on the health care
bill; it's a shell. Movement within it is
towards revenue neutrality.
Ironically, with the American consumer thumb-sucking,
the Chinese can't buy as many Treasuries this year.
I would not be surprised to see either case, though -
inflation or deflation. But I'd be more likely
to bet on simple stagnation. Government
spend is projected to roll off dramatically
within a year or three. There's no
"next big thing" on any horizon, and
demography will make this difficult.
The business community *has* - *HAS* to stop
salivating at the interest rate bell. Either
that, or they have stop claiming any interest
whatsoever in the concept of free enterprise.
They act like Pavolvian dogs waiting at the Fed's
table for scraps, with the exception of those who
manage to be eligible for the whole joint of
mutton.
Nickname unavailable
> On Jan 1, 8:27 am, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't look directly at the "jobs lost" figure in this ( the level of
> > uncertainty in it is much more than advertised in the link ) but think
> > about the *general* effects of Chinese mercantilism:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/macroeconomic-effects-of-...
>
> You're not the slightest bit suspicious that he's pulling these
> numbers out of his ass the way he does everything else?
>
> His very argument itself is mercantilist, if you consider the enormous
> benefits we get from cheap Chinese goods. I mean, there's a reason why
> millions of Americans flock to WalMart.
>
spoken like a true MAOIST SYMPATHIZER, priceless.
"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of
other people." -- Abraham Lincoln
> If China itself is mercantilist (and it is, just like everyone else),
> that's clearly *their loss*.
>
> The solution is free trade - not even more mercantilism (or tariffs).
>
yep, keep the shilling up.
> (The liberals need to point to China as a major source of our problems
> when in fact it is their own economic - and environmental - policies
> which are the primary cause - and Republicans are not any more
> innocent on this subject).
>
> Fred Weiss
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
Nickname unavailable
> Fred Weiss wrote:
> > On Dec 31 2009, 10:24 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> the Chinese will soon have all the dollars.
>
> >> Bret Cahill
>
> > Who then will they sell to?
>
> Themselves, actually. China's well-regarded stimulus package involved
> the creation of an alternative currency (cash vouchers) that had to be
> used for the purchase of Chinese goods only. They passed them out to the
> rural poor, who then used them to buy the flat-panels that Americans and
> Europeans weren't.
>
> If the Chinese poor grow in wealth to the point that they have
> disposable cash, then the Chinese don't need our consumption to continue
> to grow.
>
> And don't think they're not working on it. They know very well their
> exposure to our economic cycles.
>
> JG
>
gasp, you mean that they do not believe in free market economics,
gasp, and you were going to move there to take advantage of the
liberty that they offered.
Les Cargill
They're not Maoist any more. Not since Deng Xiao Peng.
I suppose they're ... Pengists now.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> Fred Weiss wrote
Corse you can, Australia did that. It aint alone either.
>> (The liberals need to point to China as a major source of our
>> problems when in fact it is their own economic - and environmental -
>> policies which are the primary cause - and Republicans are not any
>> more innocent on this subject).
> I don't consider the Chinese a "problem"; but they are most certainly
> part of our problem, and it should be readily apparent that this is
> so. Look at how the flows work; this isn't business as usual.
> This isn't even "liberalism"; it's a fairly deeply conservative
> premise. We can't sustain the return flows in bonds forever. We can't *necessarily* sustain it for long.
Yes, but we wont see the same massive govt spending forever either.
We dont see the complete implosion of the world financial system very often, fortunately.
> The presumption is that government increase in the money supply is eventually matched by production - real production,
> not blowing housing bubbles.
Housing is real production. In fact it accounts for much more
production in the US than cheap consumer goods do now.
> We'll end up well behind where the decade began with respect to growth.
Sure, but that was the longest boom in recorded history.
> You won't see Social Security rolled back ( and I might argue
> that you should not ), Medicare and the Health Care bill will
> greatly expand the footprint of government, and will maintain
> significant political support. Rolling back government is a
> pipe dream and has been so since 1980.
Has been since long before that, since FDR in fact.
No one was ever going to roll back social security and medicare etc.
> Point to a single Republican regime since Eisenhower that didn't run the deficit up. Never mind the generalized
> destruction of GDP:
> <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RPTAaOI4RN8/Szi_7QCmhoI/AAAAAAAAArk/TXXOUKYwXq0/s1600-h/pres.bmp>
There was no generalised destruction of GDP when the unemployment
rate bottomed at 4.x% with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate.
> The end product of all this is deflationary with respect to non-government production.
That not right, most obviously with housing.
> You can't hide that from people.
They dont even notice that sort of thing. They dont even notice when
the purchasing power of the working poor ends up going backwards.
They just get into more debt and dont realise how that happens.
Nickname unavailable
we are facing a deflationary depression. as dollars become more
scarce, your type may have to sell your assets, that you over paid
for, at deflated prices to raise cash to pay your bills. you are
totally clueless as usual.
Les Cargill
No, it is not. Quite the opposite. But what we see isn't
all that congruent with "free trade".
Free trade plus industrialization during the 19th Century
led to great increases in standards of living where it was
allowed - and then the "free" wasn't all that free.
> we are living in a world where
> capitalists, have used marxism to destroy demand(wages)of the western
> worker, priceless.
Each and every person with the ability to purchase goods
under these systems *gains* significantly by the reduction
in price. Had someone intervened, this would have amounted
to (in isolation) a subsidy.
But what's really happening is that prices are
arbitrarily and artificially kept down by what
you misidentify as "Maoist" forces ( which is
simple cartelism, not particularly Maoist). Since
the stock of food production, housing and clothing in
China can still more or less be run on a
ChiCom basis (but with Capitalist inputs into
attacking costs) , they can subsidize worker cost to
attract trade.
*That* is deflationary, unless you can identify
additional consumption to prop up flows.
> and they have built up a religion, to reinforce and justify the use
> of deflationary, immoral polices for self enrichment.
This is well beyond self-enrichment - the ones getting rich
aren't necessarily the engineers of the system. This is
people doing what they think is the right thing, and there
are always unintended consequences.
"Follow the money" only works for individual cases, not
for general flows.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
Dengists, the others werent Tungists.
Michael Coburn
The proper address to the problem of Chinese mercantilism is import
tariffs with citizen rebates. And you bet yer ass there are those who
embrace and those who disdain deflation. The people that have all the
money embrace it and the people who have little money and must live on
credit hate it.
I am not real sure why these things are not obvious to "economists" but
for the fact that the people who mist live on credit do not employ the
"economists". For the most part, the economists are kept well fed by the
people how have all the money. Krugman may just be able to "bite the hand
that feeds" because of his notoriety and Nobel.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
>>
>> Themselves, actually. China's well-regarded stimulus package involved
>> the creation of an alternative currency (cash vouchers) that had to be
>> used for the purchase of Chinese goods only. They passed them out to the
>> rural poor, who then used them to buy the flat-panels that Americans and
>> Europeans weren't.
>>
>
> But that *proves* they have a crummy monetary policy - why
> couldn't they just use the renminbi for that?
Because you can use rimbies to buy stuff that wasn't made in China. They
wanted to target the stimulus.
>
> "Please taste this and let me know what you think. I'd like to serve it
> to the men."
>
> "What is it?" asked Yossarian, and took a big bite.
>
> "Chocolate-covered cotton."
>
> Yossarian gagged convulsively and sprayed his big mouthful of chocolate-
> covered cotton right out into Milo's face. "Here, take it back!" he
> shouted angrily. "Jesus Christ! Have you gone crazy? You didn't even
> take the goddam seeds out."
>
> "Give it a chance, will you?" Milo begged. "It can't be that bad. Is it
> really that bad?"
>
> "It's even worse."
>
> "But I've got to make the mess halls feed it to the men."
>
> "They'll never be able to swallow it."
>
> "They've got to swallow it," Milo ordained with dictatorial grandeur,
> and almost broke his neck when he let go with one arm to wave a
> righteous finger in the air.
>
>
>> If the Chinese poor grow in wealth to the point that they have
>> disposable cash, then the Chinese don't need our consumption to continue
>> to grow.
>>
>
> Chinese GDP is about 4.3T, against a population of 1.3B. US GDP is
> 14.2T against a population of 0.33B. That's roughly 23:1.
>
> At 16.9% growth rates, it'd take 20 years for parity to ensue.
"Parity" is not the issue. They have five times the population we do.
That means that if each citizen consumes (on average) just 10% of what
Americans do, they replace 50% of their economy's dependence on the
American consumer.
JG
John Galt
> On Jan 1, 10:51 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fred Weiss wrote:
>>> On Dec 31 2009, 10:24 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> the Chinese will soon have all the dollars.
>>>> Bret Cahill
>>> Who then will they sell to?
>> Themselves, actually.
>
> With dollars? You're missing a loop somewhere there.
>
> If the Chinese have all the dollars what do they do with them?
Stuff mattresses, if they want.
>
>> China's well-regarded stimulus package involved
>> the creation of an alternative currency (cash vouchers) that had to be
>> used for the purchase of Chinese goods only. They passed them out to the
>> rural poor, who then used them to buy the flat-panels that Americans and
>> Europeans weren't.
>
> You should know better. That's zero sum like our "Cash-for-Clunkers"
> program. Who after all pays for the "stimulus package" except for the
> very people who are supposedly its beneficiaries.
I didn't say it was a permanent fix. The point is that if you have an
enormous surplus, you can deploy it to your benefit. In this case, you
bought every one a new computer and at the same time, kept the workers
in the factories working. There's huge money being deployed in
infrastructure there, too.
>
> I shouldn't have to convince you that there's no free lunch.
>
> There's a reason why China has a chronic problem managing inflation
What is it? I go there all the time and I;m not seeing much of a problem.
>
>> If the Chinese poor grow in wealth to the point that they have
>> disposable cash, then the Chinese don't need our consumption to continue
>> to grow.
>
> They are not however going to grow in wealth - not real wealth - by
> giving them vouchers. Wealth is grown by *production* - and the
> Chinese economy is geared to producing *for us*, e.g. WalMart.
> Same as it is and was for the Japanese.
Again, didn't say it was. The *point* is that they will, inevitably and
over time, shift from producing for us to producing for themselves.
That's obvious. The variable is how much time that takes.
>
> By the way, you know what the Chinese themselves themselves want more
> than anything? Our goods. American goods carry cache in China. If you
> want to impress your neighbors put a Buick in your driveway and
> furnish your home with Ethan Allen.
The Buick was built over there, though, not here.
JG
>
> Fred Weiss
Les Cargill
This is bizarre. I didn't know such people existed. Even the
most rabid right-wing economist knows full well that
deflation is destructive. They may not write of it, but
they either know or are not really economists.
Milton Freidman *made his bones* as an explainer of deflation.
> The people that have all the
> money embrace it
Okay, so that's the top 1%. Regardless of what anybody says, they
*DON'T* run things. They wait on the system like everybody else,
and overwhelmingly populate the most progressive and left-radical
organizations out there.
Massachusetts is arguably the center of gravity of old money. Teddy
Kennedy was senator-for-life there. The new money people may or
may not have political influence, in varying parts of the spectrum.
Bill Gates doesn't exactly support libertarian causes, nor
rightwing causes.
The people who make up the righr wing are people of modest means,
either moderately wealthy "chamber of commerce" types but *mostly*
churchgoing, "prosperity gospel" types who are either
uneducated or badly educated ( one can have a PhD and still
be relatively ignorant on politics and political economy).
Geez, I get my best "political economy" from James McMurtry, a
songwriter.
> and the people who have little money and must live on
> credit hate it.
>
This is why Dave Ramsey has such a large following. He's
also more or less of the fundie stripe, but performs
a service even Megan McArdle finds valuable.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/12/mcardle_on_debt.html
I am not saying the megachurches are *bad*, I am saying
that I am not comfortable with them as an engine of
political will.
> I am not real sure why these things are not obvious to "economists" but
> for the fact that the people who mist live on credit do not employ the
> "economists".
Are you including our public servants? The free flow of credit has
done as much if not more than any other technology except perhaps
the steam turbine to make life better and freer for the average
person than any other thing.
> For the most part, the economists are kept well fed by the
> people how have all the money.
Er, they're a lot fed by selling books to *us*. To the
extent that someone becomes a tenured economist in a
university, that's dependent on how well they play in
those circles, which may or may not be all that dependent
on people who have all the money.
> Krugman may just be able to "bite the hand
> that feeds" because of his notoriety and Nobel.
>
Well, Krugman gets about 1 out of 10 articles right. He's
not a very talented polemicist. The woods are full of
people like myself who liked the old, empirically-hard-edged
Krugman much better.
But when he is good, he is very very good.
--
Les Cargill
Fred Weiss
> The proper address to the problem of Chinese mercantilism is import
> tariffs with citizen rebates.
To address mercantilism what you suggest is....mercantilism, i.e.
trade wars.
CoBart, you need to learn a little economics - and economic history.
> And you bet yer ass there are those who
> embrace and those who disdain deflation. The people that have all the
> money embrace it and the people who have little money and must live on
> credit hate it.
Of course you've got this exactly in reverse. Debtors (superficially)
want inflation because it devalues their debt and they can pay it off
with cheaper dollars.
In reality, no one really benefits from either deflation or inflation.
Or trade wars.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss wrote:
> > You should know better. That's zero sum like our "Cash-for-Clunkers"
> > program. Who after all pays for the "stimulus package" except for the
> > very people who are supposedly its beneficiaries.
>
> I didn't say it was a permanent fix. The point is that if you have an
> enormous surplus, you can deploy it to your benefit.
How about tax cuts so it can be returned to the people who produced it
in the first place.
> In this case, you
> bought every one a new computer and at the same time, kept the workers
> in the factories working. There's huge money being deployed in
> infrastructure there, too.
How about tax cuts so people can buy what they want and need. Won't
that keep workers working?
> > There's a reason why China has a chronic problem managing inflation
>
> What is it? I go there all the time and I;m not seeing much of a problem.
Because nearly everything there must seem ridiculously cheap to you.
Per capita income there is a small fraction of ours.
> > By the way, you know what the Chinese themselves themselves want more
> > than anything? Our goods. American goods carry cache in China. If you
> > want to impress your neighbors put a Buick in your driveway and
> > furnish your home with Ethan Allen.
>
> The Buick was built over there, though, not here.
You mean it was assembled over there.
Ethan Allen furniture goes back and forth to the US before it ends up
in a Chinese store.
Fred Weiss
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Jan 1, 4:47 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
>>> You should know better. That's zero sum like our "Cash-for-Clunkers"
>>> program. Who after all pays for the "stimulus package" except for the
>>> very people who are supposedly its beneficiaries.
>>
>> I didn't say it was a permanent fix. The point is that if you have an
>> enormous surplus, you can deploy it to your benefit.
>
> How about tax cuts so it can be returned to the people who produced it
> in the first place.
>
>> In this case, you
>> bought every one a new computer and at the same time, kept the workers
>> in the factories working. There's huge money being deployed in
>> infrastructure there, too.
>
> How about tax cuts so people can buy what they want and need. Won't
> that keep workers working?
>
They are giving tax cuts to special people, people that buy houses and
cars....
Because those are the markets that Democrats have destroyed With
unqualified loans to the poor and unions sweet-hart treatment by government.
Michael Coburn
Every Republican butt licker of the rich on the "cut spending" band wagon
during this recession/depression as a lover of deflation. And that
certainly includes a lot of right wing "efficient market hypothesis"
economists.
> Milton Freidman *made his bones* as an explainer of deflation.
That is pig shit. Uncle Milty "made his bones" on controlling the money
supply in order to make sure that rich people stayed rich.
>> The people that have all the
>> money embrace it
>
> Okay, so that's the top 1%. Regardless of what anybody says, they
> *DON'T* run things.
Of course not..... How utterly stupid of me to think that the most
powerful people don't care a damned thing about staying powerful and
getting even more powerful. Such a silly claim runs counter to human
nature, does it?
> They wait on the system like everybody else, and
> overwhelmingly populate the most progressive and left-radical
> organizations out there.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
The Kennedy tax cuts were not an accident.
> Massachusetts is arguably the center of gravity of old money. Teddy
> Kennedy was senator-for-life there. The new money people may or may not
> have political influence, in varying parts of the spectrum. Bill Gates
> doesn't exactly support libertarian causes, nor rightwing causes.
Bill Gates does a lot of charitable stuff. He does not fund economics
chairs, and Ted Kennedy was a total moonbat.
> The people who make up the righr wing are people of modest means, either
> moderately wealthy "chamber of commerce" types but *mostly* churchgoing,
> "prosperity gospel" types who are either uneducated or badly educated (
> one can have a PhD and still be relatively ignorant on politics and
> political economy).
People who make up the right wing are not being discussed here. We are
talking about economists that are supposedly not "wingers".
> Geez, I get my best "political economy" from James McMurtry, a
> songwriter.
That may actually be true. Because you will get no "political economy"
from most professors of economics.
>> and the people who have little money and must live on credit hate it.
>>
>>
> This is why Dave Ramsey has such a large following. He's also more or
> less of the fundie stripe, but performs a service even Megan McArdle
> finds valuable.
>
> http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/12/mcardle_on_debt.html
>
> I am not saying the megachurches are *bad*, I am saying that I am not
> comfortable with them as an engine of political will.
>
>
>> I am not real sure why these things are not obvious to "economists" but
>> for the fact that the people who mist live on credit do not employ the
>> "economists".
>
> Are you including our public servants? The free flow of credit has done
> as much if not more than any other technology except perhaps the steam
> turbine to make life better and freer for the average person than any
> other thing.
This is typical Cargill. When you get your head handed to you, just
change the subject. And tap, tap, tap, dance, dance, dance.
>> For the most part, the economists are kept well fed by the people how
>> have all the money.
>
> Er, they're a lot fed by selling books to *us*. To the extent that
> someone becomes a tenured economist in a university, that's dependent on
> how well they play in those circles, which may or may not be all that
> dependent on people who have all the money.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
The endowed chairs are totally dependent of people with money.
>> Krugman may just be able to "bite the hand that feeds" because of his
>> notoriety and Nobel.
>>
>>
> Well, Krugman gets about 1 out of 10 articles right. He's not a very
> talented polemicist. The woods are full of people like myself who liked
> the old, empirically-hard-edged Krugman much better.
>
> But when he is good, he is very very good.
He is doing what is very necessary. He is communicating with non
economists concerning the technicalities of the current hucksters even if
he is not calling them hucksters.
Michael Coburn
> On Jan 1, 4:16 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> The proper address to the problem of Chinese mercantilism is import
>> tariffs with citizen rebates.
>
> To address mercantilism what you suggest is....mercantilism, i.e. trade
> wars.
You are absolutely right. In a trade war with China, the American middle
class wins. Whether you call it "mercantilism" or hopscotch is
irrelevant.
> CoBart, you need to learn a little economics - and economic history.
I know my political economics quite well. Tariffs are inefficient but
highly effective and politically viable. Like most medicine you can
overdose and harm yourself. But taken in proper quantity the medicine is
quite beneficial. This is the difference between a political economists
and fundamentalist bat shit crazy Republican pig.
>> And you bet yer ass there are those who embrace and those who disdain
>> deflation. The people that have all the money embrace it and the
>> people who have little money and must live on credit hate it.
>
> Of course you've got this exactly in reverse. Debtors (superficially)
> want inflation because it devalues their debt and they can pay it off
> with cheaper dollars.
Yes.... That is what I said.
> In reality, no one really benefits from either deflation or inflation.
>
> Or trade wars.
Religious fundamentalism is always easy for Republicans.
John Galt
> On Jan 1, 4:47 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
>>> You should know better. That's zero sum like our "Cash-for-Clunkers"
>>> program. Who after all pays for the "stimulus package" except for the
>>> very people who are supposedly its beneficiaries.
>> I didn't say it was a permanent fix. The point is that if you have an
>> enormous surplus, you can deploy it to your benefit.
>
> How about tax cuts so it can be returned to the people who produced it
> in the first place.
We're talking about China. The people who got these vouchers don't pay
taxes, generally speaking. The money came from the surplus, which they
got from us.
>
>> In this case, you
>> bought every one a new computer and at the same time, kept the workers
>> in the factories working. There's huge money being deployed in
>> infrastructure there, too.
>
> How about tax cuts so people can buy what they want and need. Won't
> that keep workers working?
See above.
>
>>> There's a reason why China has a chronic problem managing inflation
>> What is it? I go there all the time and I;m not seeing much of a problem.
>
> Because nearly everything there must seem ridiculously cheap to you.
> Per capita income there is a small fraction of ours.
It does. I can still get a five star hotel in Beijing for about a
hundred bucks. However, I can get that in Malaysia too, and their per
capita income is 250% that of China.
>
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71e7aa2c-e613-11de-bcbe-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=f6e7043e-6d68-11da-a4df-0000779e2340.html
>
>>> By the way, you know what the Chinese themselves themselves want more
>>> than anything? Our goods. American goods carry cache in China. If you
>>> want to impress your neighbors put a Buick in your driveway and
>>> furnish your home with Ethan Allen.
>> The Buick was built over there, though, not here.
>
> You mean it was assembled over there.
No, built. GM's had a Buick factory in Shanghai since 1998.
JG
Rod Speed
> Fred Weiss wrote
>> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>>> The proper address to the problem of Chinese mercantilism is import tariffs with citizen rebates.
>> To address mercantilism what you suggest is....mercantilism, i.e. trade wars.
> You are absolutely right. In a trade war with China, the American middle class wins.
The real beneficiarys of chinese merchantilism is the real middle class,
those who are not involved at all with manufacturing and who concentrate
on the areas that the middle class has always concentrated on, retail
trade, education, medicine, engineering etc etc etc.
> Whether you call it "mercantilism" or hopscotch is irrelevant.
>> CoBart, you need to learn a little economics - and economic history.
> I know my political economics quite well.
Like hell you do.
> Tariffs are inefficient but highly effective
Smoot Hawley wasnt.
> and politically viable.
Yes.
> Like most medicine you can overdose and harm yourself.
> But taken in proper quantity the medicine is quite beneficial.
Thats very arguable. That is in fact one area where america continues
to have tariffs, most obviously with the auto industry and that has
arguably been one thing that has really fucked that particular industry.
> This is the difference between a political economists
> and fundamentalist bat shit crazy Republican pig.
And then there's failed truck drivers...
>>> And you bet yer ass there are those who embrace and those who
>>> disdain deflation. The people that have all the money embrace it
>>> and the people who have little money and must live on credit hate it.
>> Of course you've got this exactly in reverse. Debtors (superficially)
>> want inflation because it devalues their debt and they can pay it off
>> with cheaper dollars.
> Yes.... That is what I said.
Its nothing like what you said.
>> In reality, no one really benefits from either deflation or inflation.
>> Or trade wars.
> Religious fundamentalism is always easy for Republicans.
And those who cant even drive a truck for long.
Nickname unavailable
there is a fine line between communism and fascism. they have blurred
that line. but mao is being taught heavily again in the universites,
and books on marx are flying off of the shelves.
http://www.newser.com/story/55654/as-capitalism-crumbles-chinese-embrace-mao-marx.html
As Capitalism Crumbles, Chinese Embrace Mao, Marx
By Harry Kimball| Posted Apr 8, 09 12:29 PM CDT|
Share
(NEWSER) – The woes of international capitalism are fueling renewed
interest in the ur-texts of Chinese Communism, MSNBC reports. Sales of
Karl Marx’s Das Kapital and Mao’s “little red book” are skyrocketing
in China, where the publisher of Kapital has seen a fivefold increase
in sales since late last year. The German publisher of the
anticapitalist work is also doing swift business. “The financial
crisis brought us a huge bump,” he said.
“We’ve been wading across the stream by feeling the way, trying to
reach the other side of the stream in capitalism,” one Chinese
professor said. “Now the building on the bank has collapsed, and we
realize maybe we had a wrong goal.” The books by Marx and Mao, nearly
ubiquitous decades ago, fell out of favor during China’s capitalist
experiment. A return is natural “when we find what we believed earlier
isn’t always correct,” the professor explained.
> --
> Les Cargill
Nickname unavailable
sure it is. look at what it has done to the american economy.
american made products contribute twice the tax, than imported
products do. there is no such thing as comparative advantage.
the imported products have driven the wages(demand)down of the
american worker, where they can no longer consume, save, and service
their debt at the same time.
we are now seeing that the substitution of cheap slave made trinkets,
and cheap money, will no longer hide the truth, and the american
economy is deflating under a sea of debt.
> Free trade plus industrialization during the 19th Century
> led to great increases in standards of living where it was
> allowed - and then the "free" wasn't all that free.
>
it collapsed and drove much of europe into debt and war. american
agricultural products devastated much of europe after the civil war.
> > we are living in a world where
> > capitalists, have used marxism to destroy demand(wages)of the western
> > worker, priceless.
>
> Each and every person with the ability to purchase goods
> under these systems *gains* significantly by the reduction
> in price. Had someone intervened, this would have amounted
> to (in isolation) a subsidy.
>
then you do not understand debt. if i buy american made products, it
creates a profit. the profit was derived by the creation of value, and
the employment that is the results of that value. if i buy foreign
made products, it creates debt and unemployment/under employment.
Lincolns comment on"free trade" was, "If I buy $1000 of steel from
abroad, we have the steel, but foreigners have the $1000. If I buy
the steel in America, we have the steel and Americans have the $1000."
> But what's really happening is that prices are
> arbitrarily and artificially kept down by what
> you misidentify as "Maoist" forces ( which is
> simple cartelism, not particularly Maoist). Since
> the stock of food production, housing and clothing in
> China can still more or less be run on a
> ChiCom basis (but with Capitalist inputs into
> attacking costs) , they can subsidize worker cost to
> attract trade.
>
MARX, STALIN, MAO, LENIN, AND OTHERS, ARE SMILING ON YOU. one of them
said if you give a capitalist enough rope, what do you think the
MAOIST in china are doing. and the results are:)
> *That* is deflationary, unless you can identify
> additional consumption to prop up flows.
>
there is none in asia, africa, south americda, the antartic, it just
leaves the western world, which is drowning in deflation right now.
> > and they have built up a religion, to reinforce and justify the use
> > of deflationary, immoral polices for self enrichment.
>
> This is well beyond self-enrichment - the ones getting rich
> aren't necessarily the engineers of the system. This is
> people doing what they think is the right thing, and there
> are always unintended consequences.
>
you mean we let cranks take over our country.
"There is a great deal of psychological comfort to be found in a
fully
fledged ideology such as laissez faire because it removes the need
for
critical thought. The ideology is used as an algorithm. All the
individual has to do in any situation is to ask what the ideology
requires by way of action. The fact that the action may be harmful or
the ideology objectively at odds with reality is emotionally
unimportant for the individual. What matters is that an answer has
been
found which is compatible with the ideology. This is especially
appealing to the less intellectually curious.
Psychologically, political ideologies are akin to religion and their
practitioners behave in an essentially religious manner. For example,
in the case of laissez faire, its disciples chant "let the market
decide" in the manner of Christians saying "God will provide."
Those amongst the elite who are not true believers in laissez faire
will, in most cases, toe the ideological line because they deem it
prudent to do so for their own careers and security. The few who
speak
out against it are simply sidelined.
ROBERT HENDERSON"
"In the 1840s and 1850s the likes of Ricardo, Cobden and Bright were
arguing that comparative advantage meant that Germany should not
industrialise but concentrate on agriculture. I doubt if many Germans
living today would be sorry the Germans were not simple enough to
follow
the advice.
The concept of comparative advantage sums up the unreality of
classical
economics for it assumes that the entire world is a single market
which
will never be trammelled by protectionism, war or blockade.
robert henderson"
our state and nation have experienced major declines resulting from
contemporary conservative leaders and their simplistic ideas. their
dour polices regularly fail to connect the dots, let alone comprehend
the space between them.
richard a. swanson
definition of a cult:Confusing Doctrine Encouraging blind acceptance
and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible
doctrine, Chanting and Singing Eliminating non-cult ideas through
group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases
"The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
miracle
theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses of
the middle class"
Jerry M. Landay of Bristol
what is the definition of a crank? one who gives out advise that
makes no sense at all.
what is the definition of a crank? one who accepts, or embraces
advise that makes no sense at all.
> "Follow the money" only works for individual cases, not
> for general flows.
>
its easy to see where the money went.
> --
> Les Cargill
Nickname unavailable
stiglitz, kuttner, roubini, galbraith get it also, as well as others.
of course, they are kept at bay by the conservative media.
Nickname unavailable
milton friedmans policies were deflationary in nature. we are the
living proof.
Nickname unavailable
trade wars, what do you think has happened to the western world.
Les Cargill
There is most certainly such a thing as comparative advantage,
and it's foolish to say otherwise.
> the imported products have driven the wages(demand)down of the
> american worker, where they can no longer consume, save, and service
> their debt at the same time.
Framing this in terms of class simply doesn't help. It should be
relatively clear that if it's not globalization, it'll be
automation. We're committed to an increase in output per man hour
no matter what.
> we are now seeing that the substitution of cheap slave made trinkets,
> and cheap money, will no longer hide the truth, and the american
> economy is deflating under a sea of debt.
>
>
>
For now.
>> Free trade plus industrialization during the 19th Century
>> led to great increases in standards of living where it was
>> allowed - and then the "free" wasn't all that free.
>>
>
>
> it collapsed and drove much of europe into debt and war. american
> agricultural products devastated much of europe after the civil war.
>
>
No, fiscal mismanagement mostly did that, from John Law
onward. Once the European countries practiced empire, the
home country's economy was doomed. They should have
learned this from the Dutch, but didn't.
The American bounty didn't kick in until close to the
20th Century. It took 20 years from the 1880s settlement
of Nebraska until significant exportable quantities were
in play.
>>> we are living in a world where
>>> capitalists, have used marxism to destroy demand(wages)of the western
>>> worker, priceless.
>>
>> Each and every person with the ability to purchase goods
>> under these systems *gains* significantly by the reduction
>> in price. Had someone intervened, this would have amounted
>> to (in isolation) a subsidy.
>>
>
>
> then you do not understand debt. if i buy american made products, it
> creates a profit. the profit was derived by the creation of value, and
> the employment that is the results of that value. if i buy foreign
> made products, it creates debt and unemployment/under employment.
>
It only creates debt if debt is the preferred return flow.
> Lincolns comment on"free trade" was, "If I buy $1000 of steel from
> abroad, we have the steel, but foreigners have the $1000. If I buy
> the steel in America, we have the steel and Americans have the $1000."
>
>
So Lincoln didn't understand the difference between a stock and a flow.
>> But what's really happening is that prices are
>> arbitrarily and artificially kept down by what
>> you misidentify as "Maoist" forces ( which is
>> simple cartelism, not particularly Maoist). Since
>> the stock of food production, housing and clothing in
>> China can still more or less be run on a
>> ChiCom basis (but with Capitalist inputs into
>> attacking costs) , they can subsidize worker cost to
>> attract trade.
>>
>
>
> MARX, STALIN, MAO, LENIN, AND OTHERS, ARE SMILING ON YOU. one of them
> said if you give a capitalist enough rope, what do you think the
> MAOIST in china are doing. and the results are:)
>
Arbitrarily keeping down wages would be 180 degrees the opposite
of "Maoist". Besides, for the Chinese involved, it looks
like wealth relative to peasant farming, just as it did
in the US in the 19th Century.
>
>> *That* is deflationary, unless you can identify
>> additional consumption to prop up flows.
>>
>
>
> there is none in asia, africa, south americda, the antartic, it just
> leaves the western world, which is drowning in deflation right now.
>
Africa to the side, most places around the world have higher standards
of living than they did ten years ago.
>
>>> and they have built up a religion, to reinforce and justify the use
>>> of deflationary, immoral polices for self enrichment.
>>
>> This is well beyond self-enrichment - the ones getting rich
>> aren't necessarily the engineers of the system. This is
>> people doing what they think is the right thing, and there
>> are always unintended consequences.
>>
>
>
> you mean we let cranks take over our country.
>
More like *their* country. We simply have people who use theories
which don't hold up well. Which get patched. That's why it's
called "science."
> "There is a great deal of psychological comfort to be found in a
> fully
> fledged ideology such as laissez faire because it removes the need
> for
> critical thought.
Wa-rong-a - lassez faire does not allow for any handwaving, ever.
> The ideology is used as an algorithm. All the
> individual has to do in any situation is to ask what the ideology
> requires by way of action. The fact that the action may be harmful or
> the ideology objectively at odds with reality is emotionally
> unimportant for the individual. What matters is that an answer has
> been
> found which is compatible with the ideology. This is especially
> appealing to the less intellectually curious.
>
The only possible justification for any such "ideology" is that it's
empirically defensible. Being empirically defensible never appeals
to the intellectually incurious.
> Psychologically, political ideologies are akin to religion and their
> practitioners behave in an essentially religious manner. For example,
> in the case of laissez faire, its disciples chant "let the market
> decide" in the manner of Christians saying "God will provide."
>
> Those amongst the elite who are not true believers in laissez faire
> will, in most cases, toe the ideological line because they deem it
> prudent to do so for their own careers and security. The few who
> speak
> out against it are simply sidelined.
Odd, because there's no real evidence of this.
<snip>
>
>> "Follow the money" only works for individual cases, not
>> for general flows.
>>
>
> its easy to see where the money went.
>
The "money" was never there to begin with, so....
>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
--
Les Cargill
Fred Weiss
Basic economic principles are easy if you bother to learn them.
Try getting to the moon and back without physics "fundamentalism".
In contrast you seem to think that "wishing will make it so".
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss wrote:
> > How about tax cuts so it can be returned to the people who produced it
> > in the first place.
>
> We're talking about China. The people who got these vouchers don't pay
> taxes, generally speaking. The money came from the surplus, which they
> got from us.
No, they got "the surplus" by producing things we wanted and bought
from them.
Someone produced those things and it was not "generally speaking" the
Chinese gov't.
Furthermore, if the name you have chosen for yourself means anything,
then you should know that whatever the Chinese gov't still does in the
economy, e.g. manufacturing - as a vestige of its socialist past - it
should stop doing and turn it over to the private economy (and then
get the hell out of the way).
(One problem China still has because of its continual involvement in
the economy is massive corruption).
> >>> There's a reason why China has a chronic problem managing inflation
> >> What is it? I go there all the time and I;m not seeing much of a problem.
>
> > Because nearly everything there must seem ridiculously cheap to you.
> > Per capita income there is a small fraction of ours.
>
> It does. I can still get a five star hotel in Beijing for about a
> hundred bucks. However, I can get that in Malaysia too, and their per
> capita income is 250% that of China.
That doesn't change the fact that *for the Chinese* inflation is a
serious problem.
For that matter, it's a problem in Malaysia as well
Fred Weiss
John Galt
> On Jan 1, 7:31 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
>>> How about tax cuts so it can be returned to the people who produced it
>>> in the first place.
>> We're talking about China. The people who got these vouchers don't pay
>> taxes, generally speaking. The money came from the surplus, which they
>> got from us.
>
> No, they got "the surplus" by producing things we wanted and bought
> from them.
That's what I said. You just added more detail.
>
> Someone produced those things and it was not "generally speaking" the
> Chinese gov't.
Well :-), the Chinese government owns stakes in most corporations. How
deep do you want to go, here?
>
> Furthermore, if the name you have chosen for yourself means anything,
WTF does THAT mean? Does that mean that I have to have some sort of
predefined kneejerk opinion on all matters economic?
> then you should know that whatever the Chinese gov't still does in the
> economy, e.g. manufacturing - as a vestige of its socialist past - it
> should stop doing and turn it over to the private economy (and then
> get the hell out of the way).
OK, you're turning into a prick. Let's get a few things straight, bubba:
I'm a free marketer. You're forcing me into a position of defending the
Chinese government's actions. I'm not doing that. I simply said that
their STIMULUS PACKAGE THAT THEY RAN, IN THE CONTEXT OF CHINA, WAS MORE
EFFECTIVE FOR THEM THAN THOSE OF OTHER NATIONS. That's a RELATIVE
statement that does not in any way suggest that I support or approve of
the activity.
However, let's take matters a little deeper, because you seem to be
dancing around the tree on something more critical: The purpose of any
economy is to deliver a highest possible standard of living to those who
choose to fully participate in it. If it fails to to that, it fails. I
personally believe that in a developed economy like the US, you CAN and
SHOULD lower taxes and unshackle businesses from onerous regulation,
because if you do, they will deliver an even higher standard of living
than they do today.
However, China, with its political history, massive and poor rural
population, and a host of other sociological differences, is not the US.
It is VERY possible that small-goverment, free-market policies that here
would unleash nacent productivity and potential in our businesses
leading to higher outputs and higher standards of living would lead to
death and destruction over there.
Economics does not work in isolation from sociology, in other words.
Because I'm a free marketer, you seem to think that I have to take the
position that any intrusive governmental policies are all bad all the
time. That's a position that's ideological, extremist, and quite
frankly, a little bit stupid, especially in an example like China's,
which is still struggling from its past. China's not the US. If we don't
have a "stimulus", the unemployment rate maybe goes up another 1%, and
more people take advantage of charities. In a place like China, if you
don't inject cash during a recession, people die.
If that doesn't concern you, or you consider your ideologic purity to be
more important than human life, then you're not a person of character.
>
> (One problem China still has because of its continual involvement in
> the economy is massive corruption).
No shit. That's part of the sociology issue above. They're used to
getting elected, hiring all your relatives, and then funneling cash to
them. Hell, one of the last times I was over there, the central
goverment said they were actually considering having two or three party
elections for local goverments, to let the people weed out the most
corrupt through an electoral process.
>
>>>>> There's a reason why China has a chronic problem managing inflation
>>>> What is it? I go there all the time and I;m not seeing much of a problem.
>>> Because nearly everything there must seem ridiculously cheap to you.
>>> Per capita income there is a small fraction of ours.
>> It does. I can still get a five star hotel in Beijing for about a
>> hundred bucks. However, I can get that in Malaysia too, and their per
>> capita income is 250% that of China.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that *for the Chinese* inflation is a
> serious problem.
>
> For that matter, it's a problem in Malaysia as well.
From that standpoint, inflation is endemic to a growing economy.
Malaysia's inflation rate kicked up in 08, but averaged 2% for the seven
years prior. Their wage inflation was much higher than that, however.
It's quite a nice place. Love going there.
JG
3877
That is wrong on the fully.
If it fails to to that, it
> fails. I personally believe that in a developed economy like the US,
> you CAN and SHOULD lower taxes and unshackle businesses from onerous
> regulation,
Not when the lack of regulation allows them to completely
implode the entire world financial system. That does not
allow your previous purpose of the economy.
because if you do, they will deliver an even higher
> standard of living than they do today.
Not when they can completely implode the entire world financial system.
> However, China, with its political history, massive and poor rural
> population, and a host of other sociological differences, is not the
> US. It is VERY possible that small-goverment, free-market policies
> that here would unleash nacent productivity and potential in our
> businesses leading to higher outputs and higher standards of living
> would lead to death and destruction over there.
Talk about a copout...
> Economics does not work in isolation from sociology, in other words.
>
> Because I'm a free marketer, you seem to think that I have to take the
> position that any intrusive governmental policies are all bad all the
> time. That's a position that's ideological, extremist, and quite
> frankly, a little bit stupid, especially in an example like China's,
> which is still struggling from its past. China's not the US. If we
> don't have a "stimulus", the unemployment rate maybe goes up another
> 1%, and more people take advantage of charities. In a place like
> China, if you don't inject cash during a recession, people die.
Like hell they do.
> If that doesn't concern you, or you consider your ideologic purity to
> be more important than human life, then you're not a person of
> character.
>>
>> (One problem China still has because of its continual involvement in
>> the economy is massive corruption).
>
> No shit. That's part of the sociology issue above. They're used to
> getting elected, hiring all your relatives, and then funneling cash to
> them. Hell, one of the last times I was over there, the central
> goverment said they were actually considering having two or three
> party elections for local goverments, to let the people weed out the
> most corrupt through an electoral process.
>>
>>>>>> There's a reason why China has a chronic problem managing
>>>>>> inflation
>>>>> What is it? I go there all the time and I;m not seeing much of a
>>>>> problem.
>>>> Because nearly everything there must seem ridiculously cheap to
>>>> you. Per capita income there is a small fraction of ours.
>>> It does. I can still get a five star hotel in Beijing for about a
>>> hundred bucks. However, I can get that in Malaysia too, and their
>>> per capita income is 250% that of China.
>>
>> That doesn't change the fact that *for the Chinese* inflation is a
>> serious problem.
>>
>> For that matter, it's a problem in Malaysia as well.
>
> From that standpoint, inflation is endemic to a growing economy.
No it is not.
> Malaysia's inflation rate kicked up in 08, but averaged 2% for the
> seven years prior. Their wage inflation was much higher than that,
> however. It's quite a nice place. Love going there.
Pity about the race riots.
> JG
Nickname unavailable
then your response is that of a crank.
Nickname unavailable
fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong. you simply cannot understand
that your fundamentalism is crank science.
Les Cargill
>
> then your response is that of a crank.
>
I am not the one who continues to persist in error
against all evidence.
--
Les Cargill
Michael Coburn
YOUR "fundamentals" are wrong. And no _evidence_ or data or historical
fact will alter your beliefs. And even if the basic foundations of
political economics are correct (which they are only in part). Your
cherry picked interpretations are pig shit.
Bret Cahill
>
> > > Or trade wars.
>
> > Religious fundamentalism is always easy for Republicans.
>
> Basic economic principles are easy if you bother to learn them.
GOP "market" economists haven't learned how to stop dodging the most
basic economic principle of all time:
Bret Cahill
Dave Heil
Nickname unavailable
ok les, i will take that back. at least you are trying. but, you
still embrace crank science. comparative advantage is crank science.
and the american economic situations proves it.
Nickname unavailable
we know how america was supposed to be run before the freds of
america got their feversih grips on the throat of america.
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_dec2000.htm
Philosopher of the Month
December 2000 - Thomas Paine
Robin Harwood
The great and glorious Thomas Paine was a political theorist who tried
to put his theories into action. His aim was to free human beings from
oppressive government, oppressive religions, and oppressive poverty.
His method was to appeal to reason, so that all people could recognise
truth and justice. His achievements were spectacular. Paine invented
America, took part in the French Revolution, and inspired
revolutionary movements in Britain. The American Revolution was a
success, the French revolution was a disaster, and the British
Revolution never happened. Even so, Paine's ideas of democracy and
social welfare have been at least partly realized not only in these
countries, but in many other countries as well.
He was born in England, but his life there was difficult, and on
Benjamin Franklin's advice, he emigrated to the New World. Paine
arrived in Philadelphia in 1774, and took a job as editor for the
Pennsylvania Magazine. One of his first essays was a call for the
abolition of slavery. Inspired by the first moves of the American
Revolution, he wrote the pamphlet Common Sense (1776), in which he
argued that independence was both morally justified and the only
practical option for the American Colonies. The book was massively
influential, and converted many waverers, including Thomas Jefferson
and George Washington, to the idea of the United States of America
(Paine coined the name) as an independent nation.
After the War of Independence was over, he went to France, and then to
England, where he wrote The Rights of Man. Paine's message was clear
and powerful.
All individual human beings, he argued, are created with equal rights.
However, human beings do not live as isolated individuals, but as
members of society. In society we flourish fully, both because we can
enjoy the company of other people, and from being able to gain help
and support from each other. Nonetheless, human beings are not perfect
and so sometimes infringe each other's rights. As individuals we may
not have the power to exercise some of our rights, such as the right
to protect ourselves. Thus, we create the state to protect those
rights, and the individual's natural right is transformed into a civil
right of protection. Also, as members of the state, we gain additional
rights, such as the right to vote, and the right to run for office.
The only legitimate form of state is a democratic republic. Hereditary
monarchy is morally illegitimate, since it denies the current
generation the right to choose their own leaders.
Of course, Paine held that we also have duties. We have a duty to
protect the rights of our fellow citizens, and to maintain society,
but we also have to improve, enrich, and benefit society. This
includes the duty to eliminate poverty as much as we can. Paine
proposed a system of welfare to do just this. This welfare was not
charity, but a civil right.
The popularity of the book frightened the British Government. Paine
was outlawed for treason, and he fled to France. The British
revolutionary movements were squashed.
The French elected Paine to a seat in the National Convention. During
the Terror he was imprisoned and came close to being executed. After
his release, he took little active part in French politics, and
concentrated mostly on writing, particularly on religion and
economics. He produced The Age of Reason, arguing for Deism, and
against atheism and Christianity. He demonstrated that Christian
theology was unreasonable, and the doctrine of redemption was immoral.
He also showed that the Bible cannot be divine revelation, and
condemned it for its portrayal of God as cruel and vindictive.
In Agrarian Justice, he returned to the question of rights and social
justice. Civilization, he argued, should not throw people into a worse
condition than they would be in if they were uncivilized, and yet in
Europe many people were poorer than American Indians. The Earth had
been given by God as common property to all men, but the system of
land ownership meant that only some could use it. Paine argued that
they should compensate the others by paying a ground rent to society.
Also, he argued that no-one could produce riches without the support
of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits.
When Paine finally returned to America in 1802, his writings on
religion had made him an unpopular figure. Nonetheless, Paine did yet
another great service to his ungrateful country, in proposing that the
U.S.A. buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon. Jefferson took
Paine's advice, and thus more than doubled the size of the United
States.
Paine carried on writing to the end, but his old age was miserable,
and he died in obscurity. Officialdom has preferred to ignore him,
even when carrying out his proposals, and his name is seldom on the
lists of great men, and yet many of his ideas are common currency now.
However, much of the world is still not completely free from political
oppression, organized religion, and poverty. We can still learn from
him.
Suggested reading
Thomas Paine, A. J. Ayer, (Secker and Warburg)
The
Thomas Paine Reader, ed. Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick (Penguin)
Tom
Paine: a political life, John Keane, (Little, Brown and Company)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://21stcenturycicero.wordpress.com/fraud/how-benjamin-franklin-made-new-england-prosperous/
How Benjamin Franklin Made New England Prosperous
The following historical story is taken from a radio address given by
Congressman Charles G. Binderup of Nebraska, some 50 years ago and was
reprinted in Unrobing the Ghosts of Wall Street:
Colonies More Prosperous Than The Home Country
Before the American War for Independence in 1776, the colonized part
of what is today the United States of America was a possession of
England. It was called New England, and was made up of 13 colonies,
which became the first 13 states of the great Republic. Around 1750,
this New England was very prosperous. Benjamin Franklin was able to
write:
“There was abundance in the Colonies, and peace was reigning on every
border. It was difficult, and even impossible, to find a happier and
more prosperous nation on all the surface of the globe. Comfort was
prevailing in every home. The people, in general, kept the highest
moral standards, and education was widely spread.”
When Benjamin Franklin went over to England to represent the interests
of the Colonies, he saw a completely different situation: the working
population of this country was gnawed by hunger and poverty. “The
streets are covered with beggars and tramps,” he wrote. He asked his
English friends how England, with all its wealth, could have so much
poverty among its working classes.
His friends replied that England was a prey to a terrible condition:
it had too many workers! The rich said they were already overburdened
with taxes, and could not pay more to relieve the needs and poverty of
this mass of workers. Several rich Englishmen of that time actually
believed, along with Mathus, that wars and plague were necessary to
rid the country from man-power surpluses.
Franklin’s friends then asked him how the American Colonies managed to
collect enough money to support their poor houses, and how they could
overcome this plague of pauperism. Franklin replied:
“We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there
would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a
single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps.”
Thanks To Free Money Issued By The Nation
His friends could not believe their ears, and even less understand
this fact, since when the English poor houses and jails became too
cluttered, England shipped these poor wretches and down-and- outs,
like cattle, and discharged, on the quays of the Colonies, those who
had survived the poverty, dirtiness and privations of the journey. At
that time, England was throwing into jail those who could not pay
their debts. They therefore asked Franklin how he could explain the
remarkable prosperity of the New England Colonies. Franklin replied:
“That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is
called ‘Colonial Scrip.’ We issue it in proper proportion to make the
goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this
manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its
purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one.”
The Bankers Impose Poverty
The information came to the knowledge of the English Bankers, and held
their attention. They immediately took the necessary steps to have the
British Parliament to pass a law that prohibited the Colonies from
using their scrip money, and then ordered them to use only the gold
and silver money that was provided in sufficient quantity by the
English bankers. Then began in America the plague of debt-money, which
has never since brought so many curses to the American people.
The first law was passed in 1751, and then completed by a more
restrictive law in 1763. Franklin reported that one year after the
implementation of this prohibition on Colonial money, the streets of
the Colonies were filled with unemployment and beggars, just like in
England, because there was not enough money to pay for the goods and
work. The circulating medium of exchange had been reduced by half.
Franklin added that this was the original cause of the American
Revolution – and not the tax on tea nor the Stamp Act, as it has been
taught again and again in history books. The financiers always manage
to have removed from school books all that can throw light on their
own schemes, and damage the glow that protects their power.
Franklin, who was one of the chief architects of the American
independence, wrote it clearly:
“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other
matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the
English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies
hatred of England and the Revolutionary War.”
This point of view of Franklin was confirmed by great statesmen of his
era: John Adams, Jefferson, and several others. A remarkable English
historian, John Twells, wrote, speaking of the money of the Colonies,
the Colonial Scrip:
“It was the monetary system under which America’s Colonies flourished
to such an extent that Edmund Burke was able to write about them:
‘Nothing in the history of the world resembles their progress. It was
a sound and beneficial system, and its effects led to the happiness of
the people.’”
John Twells adds:
“In a bad hour, the British Parliament took away from America its
representative money, forbade any further issue of bills of credit,
these bills ceasing to be legal tender, and ordered that all taxes
should be paid in coins. Consider now the consequences: this
restriction of the medium of exchange paralyzed all the industrial
energies of the people. Ruin took place in these once flourishing
Colonies; most rigorous distress visited every family and every
business, discontent became desperation, and reached a point, to use
the words of Dr. Johnson, when human nature rises up and assets its
rights.”
Another writer, Peter Cooper, expresses himself along the same lines.
After having said how Franklin had explained to the London Parliament
the cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, he wrote:
“After Franklin gave explanations on the true cause of the prosperity
of the Colonies, the Parliament exacted laws forbidding the use of
this money in the payment of taxes. This decision brought so many
drawbacks and so much poverty to the people that it was the main cause
of the Revolution. The suppression of the Colonial money was a much
more important reason for the general uprising than the Tea and Stamp
Act.”
Today, in America as well as in Europe, we are under the regime of the
Scrip of the Bankers instead of the scrip of the nation. Hence the
public debts, everlasting interest charges, taxes that plunder
purchasing power, with the only result being a consolidation of the
financial dictatorship.
There is only one cure for America’s ultimate financial collapse and
that is for Congress to exercise Clause 30 of the “Federal” Reserve
Act, buy the outstanding shares of stock, shut down this
unconstitutional system and sell off their assets to reimburse the
people of this nation for this unspeakable theft of their wealth. This
is the first installment of postings on this issue, new ones will be
put up as soon as manpower allows.
Copyright © 1941 by Congressman Charles G. Binderup
Les Cargill
> On Jan 2, 2:13 pm, Les Cargill<lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>> then your response is that of a crank.
>>
>> I am not the one who continues to persist in error
>> against all evidence.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> ok les, i will take that back. at least you are trying.
Snrkkk. I'm *so* glad you approve, considering there's very
little economics you're not on the wrong side of.
Uttering the words "political economy" does not absolve
someone of empirical justification for positions. The
truth will end up being more complex and richer than you
or I can imagine, and it'll be a while before it gets here.
But presuming that the productive victimize the unproductive,
even as shoddily as those terms are assigned at the present
time is simply out of bounds. Parts of the game are rigged,
but that'll decline over time. It already has.
Decent book, *lousy* title:
<http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11156/Obamanomics+How+Barack+Obama+Is+Bankrupting+You+and+Enriching+His+Wall+Street+Friends+Corporate+Lobbyists+and+Union+Bosses.aspx>
> but, you
> still embrace crank science. comparative advantage is crank science.
That opinion is patently ridiculous. Krugman's Nobel was
for work explaining that C.A. is more complex than we
might like, but that's hardly "crank science."
> and the american economic situations proves it.
It proves nothing of the sort. We face challenges. That's all
it means.
--
Les Cargill
Nickname unavailable
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 2:13 pm, Les Cargill<lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >>> then your response is that of a crank.
>
> >> I am not the one who continues to persist in error
> >> against all evidence.
>
> >> --
> >> Les Cargill
>
> > ok les, i will take that back. at least you are trying.
>
> Snrkkk. I'm *so* glad you approve, considering there's very
> little economics you're not on the wrong side of.
>
> Uttering the words "political economy" does not absolve
> someone of empirical justification for positions. The
> truth will end up being more complex and richer than you
> or I can imagine, and it'll be a while before it gets here.
>
> But presuming that the productive victimize the unproductive,
> even as shoddily as those terms are assigned at the present
> time is simply out of bounds. Parts of the game are rigged,
> but that'll decline over time. It already has.
>
> Decent book, *lousy* title:
>
> > but, you
> > still embrace crank science. comparative advantage is crank science.
>
> That opinion is patently ridiculous. Krugman's Nobel was
> for work explaining that C.A. is more complex than we
> might like, but that's hardly "crank science."
>
> > and the american economic situations proves it.
>
> It proves nothing of the sort. We face challenges. That's all
> it means.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
yea right les, in 2006, i and others said a free market blowout was
in the near future, and that the blowout will open a few eyes, even
yours. i remember how shocked you were in the fall of 2008, over the
behavior of wall street and the banks. i was not shocked of course,
because i said what they were doing will implode the worlds economy.
so as far as being on the right side of economics, lets say i am
towering above you.
comparative advantage is crank science, and the germans were smart
enough not to fall for it. again les, you are siding with bankers.