tagged w/ Philosophy
-
-
At this point in history, a war is just beginning.
Not a war of ideals, nor one of class.
This is a battle for legacy.
Those without legacy, fighting to assure it.
Against
Those with legacy, trying to preserve it.At this point in history, a war is just beginning.
Not a war of ideals, nor one of... more
-
-
Whoever would have thought in the 1980’s that a free market capitalist and a KGB agent would have arrived at the same conclusion being from opposite views and backgrounds? When I was pinging emails back and forth with Igor Panarin, I was attempting to find out more details on how he predicted the collapse of the U.S. Empire in 2012 – a stance he took as a KGB agent in the 80’s. What I found most interesting was that his claim was based largely on our economic policy combined with our foreign policy.
He mentioned that it was during the 80’s that the loss of economic power in Russia was realized due to the centralized monetary policy, and foreign policy of Russia. While Panarin is definitely no fan of free market capitalism (a fact he makes plain in his writings and speeches), he at the very least made it clear that a nation that employs a centralized monetary policy in the hands of private banks, will always carry negative impact to the host nation. And for the record, the free market capitalist was a much younger Ron Paul (and yes, they laughed at him then to).
One primary reason for this is that the banks that control the economic policies of the host nation have no real loyalty to that nation – their one goal will only be to bleed it dry before moving onto the next up and coming nation.
It always starts the same way. The banking board will assume control of the nation’s money policy claiming that they will both provide stability to its currency, and maintain a stable market atmosphere. Typically the nation that allows this has a good supply of gold. The banking board (in our case the Federal Reserve), will start out by basing the value of the nation’s currency off of the supply of gold it has (being that gold is the most highly valued of all common commodities). This is the beginning of what is known as a specie backed currency.
Over the following decade(s) of its implementation, the central banks realize that they will not be able to make much more profit should the fiat currency remain based on a set amount of specie. After all, specie itself is rare, and not easy to come by. So they tout to the host nation that for its lending to expand (and thus produce growth) to a meaningful extent, that a new economic policy must be adopted. The only way for the central board to maintain its hard valued income, is to use fractional reserve banking. This means that it no longer lends out only the money it has, but adds more money to the books, and only requires that the branch banks have 10% in reserve. Put even more simply, it means that for a branch bank to get 10,000 dollars to lend, it only needs 1,000 in its reserves.
Most people never even bother to think about this, and then wonder why this technique faces so much opposition. After all, they are told that the central banks allow for lending needed for economic growth. They are told that with this system, companies and individuals alike may borrow money, and use it to invest in a potential increase in productivity. Indeed having such available credit with little money down seems like a dream come true. Increasing the false feeling of prosperity is the rapid expansion that follows – usually due to a new technology or booming market sector. Thus people accept it as being the perfect system that allows a people to live civilly and comfortably at the same time. When this mindset is adopted, the damage starts and never ceases – here’s why.
People overlook the fact that in such an economic scenario, that the money lent out does not physically exist – and is nothing more than some entries on a ledger. These entries are not available for public view, and are only able to be tracked on the website as to the money supply in general. It is important to note that the amount of currency printed differs greatly from the money supply on the books. Our Federal Reserve is the perfect example of this full scenario.
Over this time, the host nations gold supply dwindles to a fraction of what it once was. War expenditures, payments to the private central bank for its services etc, have all contributed to this. Thus the next problem is realized for the red flag it should have been all along – that is the host nation now only has paper to pay its debts. Being that the gold supply is now insufficient to payoff these debts, the government of the host nation makes the blunder of taking the last remnants of its wealth off of the table completely, and bases its currencies value off of the nations productivity in general. It then crosses its fingers and hopes that the productive capacity of the nation stays high and maintains growth in line with the inflation of its paper currency. This is where things grow from bad to worse.
In a nation where people are comfortable in the idea that the government is comprised of worthy leaders, and looks to them to solve every problem under the sun from poverty to obesity to regulating entertainment, this gets very bad very quickly. As the host nations money is worth less, foreign goods that the people have come to value so much goes up in price. Ditto with energy as the nation relies on foreign oil etc. The people of said nation love their environment and equality regardless of merit, so they refuse to drastically cut taxes on businesses, as well as regulations on energy production here at home. After all, without all that funding, how on earth could their government continue to be benevolent to the poor and oppressed by the greedy capitalists here at home and the evil warlords overseas? Also the environment is in great danger, so we cannot possible allow for private entities to see to our energy needs on our own soil. So people do as they believe is right, and turn to their elected ‘leaders’ to help.
The leaders help alright. They cannot tax people enough to meet their current demand (let along future expenditures) without inciting a full blown revolution and wide spread riots, so they increase their amount of debt. Because the central bank has its false wealth tied up with the governing bodies, the lending in the private sector continues to lag – which is not usuall.....
.........Funny how we have claimed a free market system for nearly the last hundred years, but have actually had a de facto nationalized banking system at its core.....
http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5562/ecomomic-suicide-why-easy-money-ends-up-being-worthless-money/Whoever would have thought in the 1980’s that a free market capitalist and a KGB... more
-
-
ThinkProgress filed this report from the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, IA.
Late last week, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) told Iowa fair-goers during a question-and-answer session about his belief that “corporations are people.” Romney, who earned a reputation in 2008 as a flip-flopper, was loathe to back down from the misstep, doubling down on his comments over the weekend. Other conservatives also rushed to his defense, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), both of whom told ThinkProgress they supported the idea that corporations are people.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who placed second in the Ames Straw Poll over the weekend, took a far different view when speaking with ThinkProgress. Unlike Romney and his own son Rand, Ron Paul argued that corporations are “obviously” not people. “People are individuals,” Paul affirmed. “They’re not groups and they’re not companies.”
KEYES: What did you make of Mitt Romney’s statement that “corporations are people” yesterday?
PAUL: Obviously they’re not. People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual....
Continued at:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/15/295646/ron-paul-mitt-romney-corporations-people/ThinkProgress filed this report from the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, IA.
Late... more
-
-
Dagum
-
added this
-
10 months ago
- |
-
Though many still like to scoff at the idea of a complete economic collapse, it does not change the reality that it will happen as no one in congress, the senate, or presidency will ever admit to the people that they messed up, and will have to drastically cut their payouts. In their eyes, it is the knowledge that it is either a major economic collapse, or a severe civil uprising. In the case of the prior, the blame game option is still on the table and more plausible. In the latter, it will have to admitted that it was the cause of the whole mess – a political mass suicide that none of them will ever want to go through.
First of all, we need to be honest with ourselves as a nation, and admit that what we are going through now is the general sum of failure in all systems; failure in economic, foreign, military, educational and domestic policies. If this can happen, the even more important question can be addressed – what now?
Well it’s actually pretty simple, and we can start with the idea of centralization. People tend to gravitate toward a centralized entity as it as seen as being the calm in the storm so to speak. This holds true in small meetings just as it does in presidential elections (as far as group thought anyway). In small arenas there is nothing wrong with centralizations as the collective is small and interests limited. This means that you have simplicity which makes any policy emitted as being understandable and thus easy to follow.
Expansion of either the size of the collective or its interest is where things start getting complicated. People can only have a reasonable understanding of so many various topics before they run out of room so to speak. For instance a laborer will understand labor, but would not be suited well towards building a communications network. Likewise a network engineer will have little understanding of how to lay a solid concreted foundation. Hence the more items or services you have used for the ‘good of the collective’, the less understanding the collective will have as to how things work. The one and only solution to this is by committing to expansion very slowly, so that the individuals that make the collective have time to develop an understanding of the new interest or social group.
In the interest of the above two points, there is nothing small minded or unenlightened about bending ones focus upon their locality. In actuality, it is the globalists who think themselves wise to the world that continue to overlook the obvious sink holes in their own backyard. The fact of the matter is that I cannot think of a single locality that is not only self sustaining but more than capable of establishing itself and prospering. The reasoning here is simple as well. In most localities you can have farmers markets, a local sewage treatment plant, etc. What one locality may lack in terms of natural fuels or other resources, they could easily trade to another locality for something else. It really is not hard at all.
As to money, it would take some time to adapt to a new system, but it is still easily possible. Everyone complains about the big evil banks, so why have them? Seriously, why have them? If local banks were in place, and you could use any currency you wanted to (or not all for those gifted in trading), then their failures would not have to translate into a tool of fear that can be used against you. In addition it..................
http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5479/s-p-downgrades-us-treasuries-dow-gets-pummeled-solution/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o
http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=210&pictureid=4877Though many still like to scoff at the idea of a complete economic collapse, it does... more
-
-
This post, the problem... next post, the solution.
http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5474/s-p-downgrades-us-treasuries-dow-gets-pummeled-problem/
Last week was a bad one for Wall Street. The DOW got pummeled by over 500 points, Standard and Poor’s downgraded the rating on US treasuries, and now no one is quite sure what will happen. Now this is only the tip of the iceberg that many of us have been talking about for almost a year now, but I highly doubt most people even seem to understand the implications involved. Not being satisfied with third hand reports, I downloaded Standard and Poor’s report, and began to see just how messed up things really are.
First of all, the report often makes three assumptions to prevent further downgrading of debt. The first is that the bush tax cuts are removed (or rather allowed to lapse) in 2013. The second is that government spending slows down even more then the new so called budget deal. The third is that the fed raises interest rates. Unfortunately the main body of the report focuses on these things happening to bring forward a ‘best case scenario’. Unfortunately, neither can happen at this point.
To start with, congress didn’t have the backbone to cut spending before. Sure they slowed down the amount of spending taking a savings off of the proposed deal, but it was not nearly enough to meet the bond rating agencies wishes. This happened for two reasons. The first was that the immediate effect of a meaningful cut in deficit spending would mean that many people would not get the government hand outs they were promised – something no one wants to do on a good day – let alone so close to an election. The second was an equal method of political suicide – decreasing tax cuts to increase revenue enough to meet the promised expenditures. This will not change in the future either, so S&P’s idea that it is possible is naïve at best.
As to raising the interest rate, the SP report is very skewed within itself. It states that a plus would be to have the fed incur a loose money policy in a time of monetary tightening (their words not mine). This is foolish because by enacting another round of QEx, the easy money allowed to maintain what the SP sees as a good monetary policy during tight times, will mean an insane amount of money being injected into the bank balance books – on top of the QE2 which has still yet to take full effect as the bankers keep raking it in. Contrary to popular belief, the banks are not only tying up more money than all of the private corporations combined, but and even worse is that government has even more money tied up in promised payouts. This is something Standard and Poor’s did not address in their report.
What I take issue with the most is Standard and Poor’s inferences. It takes into account the slower than expected GDP growth and the increased debt burden. However instead of urging the government to reign in its spending, it encourages it, and follows through with a hint that we need to raise taxes. This is their biggest mistake of all.
What the SP either is forgetting or deliberately leaving out, is that many of our economic woes are from taxes – both corporate and private alike. If these taxes where ever raised to meet government expenditures, then the rate would be far higher than it is now – almost double; and that still would not cover everything. In addition, many businesses have moved their bases of operations overseas just to make it affordable to operate. Should taxes be raised yet again, then even more will go overseas – this creating an even bigger drop in job loss. Less jobs here is less tax revenue, thus making the idea of raising taxes undoable right out of the gate.
However damaging this news is to our bond holders (especially in the future when it gets downgraded again, which will happens as democrats will promise more spending as republicans sign off on it without allowing taxes to go up), it is still pretty petty compared to the much larger issues that will be adding fuel to this fire.
You see as government is able to fund less and less through bond sales, it will need money to cover the difference. QE1 and 2 have already aided in this effort, but still fell drastically short. In addition, the money has not gone to any productive source, but rather into government and big bank balance sheets so that they can keep the toxic assets on their books in an effort to maintain their high prices. This of course is very foolish, and has already allowed money to leak into the private sector allowing the prices to rise across the board. Once QE2 begins to finish piddling out over the next 3-4 months, QE3 will be enacted, and it.................
http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5474/s-p-downgrades-us-treasuries-dow-gets-pummeled-problem/This post, the problem... next post, the solution.... more
-
-
-
In a society where property rights are undermined by legal plunder in the name of equality and safety, it is of no small wonder why people have taken leave of their senses. For freedom to work, people must be entitled to use what they have rightfully earned as they see fit. This is an idea that is highly misunderstood, and even demonized as society continues to allow itself to be governed by fear and ignorance for some misplaced sense of security and prosperity.
First of all, freedom to earn is needed for the individual themselves to prosper. If an individual is failing in a certain area, they receive no meaningful benefit by having their resulting downturn subsidized. Doing so only encourages them to continue failing instead of trying another route, and dependency is not a measure of success. Subsidizing failure grants the false sense of success where none exists. However if an individual is succeeding, then it means that they have figured out something that they can do that is appreciated by enough people to grant them a better means of living. It also means that they need no subsidies.
Second, if an individual who succeeds is forced to give a portion of their earnings to pay for a failure, then they have less means to help those who they know will truly benefit from it. In the middle class, success is not measured by mansions or boats, but rather a steady flow of income, a roof over their heads, food on the table, and the occasional splurge. Yet they have succeeded nonetheless. It then stands to reason that though they have made enough to get by fairly comfortably; they have little means to support the failures of anyone else. If forced to do so, they are then made poor as their ability to maintain what they worked so hard to obtain is taken from them. Therefore in order to maintain freedom (keeping in mind the previous point), a person must be allowed to keep what they earn to use as they see fit.
Finally you have the property aspect. Property is nothing more than a measure of success in a particular arena. If someone is a janitor their whole lives, then chances are they will live a humble existence with little property. If a person is an engineer of sorts, then chances are they will live a fairly middle class existence – their property increasing over time as their experience and ideas bring more value to the companies they choose to work for. If you are a financial wizard who is sensible and maintains a good relationship with your clients, then you can live far more comfortably, however you also have more to lose as you have far less room for error. In the end you have a choice of what path to take, and therefore your own ability to bring enough value to society to obtain the level of property you want. This is the very essence of merit which is the pillar of any free society. The more value you bring to society, the more you earn, and the more property you may acquire.
The essence of a good investment then comes in terms of time, money, and effort. You can give two people a million dollars. One may blow it in under a year and find themselves poor again, and at the expense of your million. The other will save, come up with a good business idea, and use the funds to start a successful business. A wise investor uses money that they earned to benefit society by granting x amount to produce something that society will value. This does come with risk which is why investments are never made lightly. However if their investment was sound, then they reap the rewards by getting their money back with either interest or a portion of the new business.
Unfortunately we live in a society that sees things a different way. Let’s start with the legal side.
The law recognizes natural rights only in terms of living, breathing, and eating. It views property as an acquired item which I can find no fault with. However it then goes on to claim the right to your acquired property by saying that it is a privilege the state grants you to use your acquired property as it is not something you were born into this world with. In some cases the state does not bother to regulate your acquired property as an item it grants you the privilege to use. This is both hypocritical and misguiding to the individuals understanding of both property, and the regulation thereof.
The state does not regulate the jewelry you own, nor does it regulate the books you buy – yet. Therefore most people think of privileged property as only being the things not necessary for life in general. This is why the ones dependant on government handouts and subsidies (even if only as a perceived benefit ) feel that the rich should have to give more to them, and why it is the states job to make it happen. After all, it is perceived that the rich have all this money and property that is not regulated (as are other items understood by the common man), therefore they must be cheating the poor and have no real right to the ‘ill-gotten’ gains.
This of course of nonsense, and here is why it is also hypocritical.
Let’s start with something that even many poor people have on some level – cars. The state considers a car to be acquired property, and therefore sees itself as having control over it. Because the state has the overall control over the car, you are privileged to use it as long as you meet the mandates placed upon its use by the state. Failure to meet these mandates results in the state revoking your rights to use your own property, and all too often lead to its confiscation or neglect. Oh, and this is not because you are driving on the ‘state owned roads’. You pay for gas and its taxes, so you paid for the roads making them yours – not the states.
Because these mandates are made on the poor and rich alike, it is seen as a social norm, and therefore rarely an object of inequality in reference to cars. But by failing to apply the same legal controls on jewelry, fine clothes, and other luxury items, there is a both a disconnect and a contradiction in the freedom to ones justly acquired property. This problem is created because of two reasons.
The first is that the state believes its number one duty is to control it subjects…err, I mean citizens. Cars are needed to get one from point a to point b in the most expedient manner. Guns are needed to ensure one’s own defense. Electricity and running water is needed to provide some comfort enjoyed by all classes of people, rich and poor. Food is needed just to live. By controlling these most basic of things, the state effectively controls everyone. As always the states reasoning for this is that people cannot be trusted to uses these most basic of things in a non destructive manner, and certainly not in a fair manner. We will cover the prior first.
In the name of safety, we have the DHS, DMV, DoD, NSA, CIA, FBI, DOT, DOA, DOJ, SEC, a host of local law enforcement agencies, and over 20 other entities to make sure the subjects behave themselves. To fund all of these protective measures that everyone swears is necessary to the survival of a civilized society, costs a boatload of money. Money that is paid for by the government issuance of debt, and taxes. I am no fan of Ben Franklin, but boy did he call this one...............(continued below)...
http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5459/freedom-property-and-capitol-why-is-the-law-stealing-them/In a society where property rights are undermined by legal plunder in the name of... more
-
-
In his first-ever public address at a music festival, the Australian WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange has made an address to the SPLENDOUR FORUM audience as part of a discussion panel that lifts the lid on the powers struggling for control of the internet - and what they don't want you to know.In his first-ever public address at a music festival, the Australian WikiLeaks... more
-
-
The night sky is a time machine. Look out and you look back in time. But this "time travel by eyesight" is not just the province of astronomy. It's as close as the machine on which you are reading these words. Your present exists at the mercy of many overlapping pasts. So where, then, is "now"?
As almost everyone knows, when you stare into the depths of space you are also looking back in time. Catch a glimpse of a relatively nearby star and you see it as it existed when, perhaps, Lincoln was president (if it's 150 light-years away). Stars near the edge of our own galaxy are only seen as they appeared when the last ice age was in full bloom (30,000 light-years away). And those giant pinwheel assemblies of stars called galaxies are glimpsed, as they existed millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of years in the past.
We never see the sky as it is, but only as it was.
Stranger still, the sky we see at any moment defines not a single past but multiple overlapping pasts of different depths. The star's image from 100 years ago and the galaxy image from 100 million years ago reach us at the same time. All of those "thens" define the same "now" for us.
The multiple, foliated pasts comprising our present would be weird enough if it was just a matter of astronomy. But the simple truth is that every aspect of our personal "now" is a layered impression of a world already lost to the past.
To understand how this works, consider the simple fact, discussed in last week's post, that all we know about the world comes to us via signals: light waves, sound waves and electrical impulses running along our nerves. These signals move at a finite speed. It always takes some finite amount of time for the signal to travel from the world to your body's sensors (and on to your brain).
A distant galaxy, a distant mountain peak, the not very distant light fixture on the ceiling and even the intimacy of a loved one's face all live in the past. Those overlapping pasts are times that you — in your "now" — are no longer a part of.
Signal travel time constitutes a delay and all those overlapping delays constitute an essential separation. The inner world of your experience is, in a temporal sense, cut off from the outer world you inhabit.
Let's take a few examples. Light travels faster than any other entity in the physical universe, propagating with the tremendous velocity of c = 300,000,000 m/s. From high school physics you know that the time it takes a light signal moving at c to cross some distance D is simply t = D/c.
When you look at the mountain peak 30 kilometers away you see it not as it exists now but as it existed a 1/10,000 of a second ago. The light fixture three meters above your head is seen not as it exists now but as it was a hundred millionth of a second ago. Gazing into your partner's eyes, you see her (or him) not for who they are but for who they were 10-10 of a second in the past. Yes, these numbers are small. Their implication, however, is vast.
We live, each of us, trapped in our own now.
The simple conclusions described above derive, in their way, from relativity theory and they seem to spell the death knell for a philosophical stance called Presentism. According to Presentism only the present moment has ontological validity. In other words: only the present truly exists; only the present is real.
Presentism holds an intuitive sway for many people. It just feels right. For myself, when I try and explore the texture of my own experience, I can't help but feel a sense of the present's dominance. Buddhism, with its emphasis on contemplative introspection, has developed a sophisticated presentist stance concerning the nature of reality. "Anyone who has ever mediated for anytime" the abbot of a Zen monastery once told me "finds that the past and future are illusions."
Yes, but ...
The reality that even light travels at a finite speed forces us to confront the strange fact that, at best, the present exists at the fractured center of many overlapping pasts.
So where, then, are we in time? Where is our "now" and how does it live in the midst of a universe comprised of so many "thens"?The night sky is a time machine. Look out and you look back in time. But this... more
-
-
Sometimes we are so involved in something that we sacrifice almost everything for it, be it social life, be it spare time, be it vacation, yet it continues to elude us. On the other side, there will be so many unwanted things coming your way, I call them distractions because if you chose to be part of this so called distraction your path changes and it leads to some other unknown door, which is far from where you wanted to be.....
Read more-
http://paragonist.blogspot.com/2011/07/one-door-one-path.htmlSometimes we are so involved in something that we sacrifice almost everything for it,... more
-
-
Guantanamo Bay continues to wreck lives, despite President Obama's pledge to shut the notorious prison. RT spoke to one former prisoner, Murat Kurnaz, who says the US has not issued even a simple apology for his years of torment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYxtm1jfatoGuantanamo Bay continues to wreck lives, despite President Obama's pledge to shut... more
-
-
-
After watching Bernanke’s testimony this weekend to the various oversight boards, it become even more clear that the economies fate is sealed.
For starters, Bernanke made it abundantly clear to everyone on the board that would listen, that to not raise the debt ceiling would be irresponsible. He emphasized that if the debt ceiling was not raised, that the government would default on some of its obligations which would in turn lead to a massively degraded bond rating from Standard and Poor’s etc. Several of the democrats on the board had a field day upon hearing this, and proceeded to go on and on about how those who voted against an increase in the debt ceiling were obviously ignorant of the effects of not doing so – mainly those like Pat Toomey.
There is an interesting point that was never discussed that I think it irresponsible of the board to avoid. In a way, Bernanke was right (mark your calendar folks). Our bond rating will decrease minus new cash flow into the treasury due to unfunded debts in the short term. You see Toomey made some great points, yet unfortunately overlooked the massive amounts of carryover debt from last year’s spending (see http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5403/the-irrelevance-of-the-debt-ceiling/ ). Minus all that rollover debt, Toomey would have been correct. Yet the debt is there, and is impossible to meet when coupled with the new debt added on by this year’s expenditures.
Yet what Bernanke failed to mention that only one board member even bothered to address, is the even greater long term damage that would be caused should the government actually take on the new debt. Bernanke gave the shortest answer of the whole night – ‘it’s possible’. This was a very telling moment, and it was made even worse given what Bernanke would say to the next board inquiry.
He was then asked if the Fed would be able to buy any of the resulting new bonds needed to fund a raise in the debt ceiling -he gave no solid answer, but rather two hypothetical’s. Instead of taking this as Bernanke having no clue, the board seemed to appreciate the two vague answers. At this point, we need to remember that Bernanke does not see the buying of US Treasuries as a furthering of debt of the US treasury to the FED, despite the fact that it’s precisely what it is. Treasury issues bonds, the FED buys them to provide short term liquidity to the Treasury, and the Treasury pays them back with interest when the call date comes – or defaults.
So did Bernanke tell the senator that they were not willing to purchase any more US Treasuries so that the government could avoid a major tax increase? Nope. Here’s why.
The FED though not a government entity, needs the government to exist – without the US governments sponsorship (being its largest customer as a board) – the FED would be worth very little. They know that the only way they can maintain this codependency is to continue buying debt that the US government is responsible for paying them (not my idea – blame the overzealous morons who believe that money is the key to solving the ills of the world).
In this particular case, the FED knows that if the debt ceiling is not raised, and the Treasury not allowed to create more debt, that the government will not be able to meet both this years and last year’s interest on the debt to the point where the bond rating will not take a hit. This is why Bernanke came out and said that they are closely looking toward enacting QE3 – it will simply print the money the government needs on the books to meet this debt obligation (ie the interest on the past due bonds, and the interest on the upcoming ones). Minus this new money, the government would have no means to meet these and still pay all of its obligations at the same time.
Since 2008, unemployment is still high – very high. Sure we had a short term drop due to the injection of over 600 billion dollars, and a short rally in the stock market when gas prices dropped due to a temporary release of oil reserves, but when you talking about a multi-trillion dollar economy, that’s just a drop in the bucket, and far from sustainable. The truth is that for all the new regulatory bodies made, for all the trillions of dollars in various stimulus packages spent, and despite the many promises made by both the republicans and democrats, our economy is far worse off than it would have been minus any government or FED action at all.
QE2’s effects have yet to hit full swing as the money is still making its way into the private sector, but that really doesn’t matter because it will not go to any of the poor directly, or even those who would use the money to employ them – no, it’s going to government so that they can continue to provide ‘aid’ to those who have been victimized by the evil private sector, and continue to pay off the large federalized institutions and their buddies who caused the problem to begin with. Well, I take that back, a large amount went to paying off the major banks which over extended their lending in the first place.
Now there is no conspiracy here, nor is there some big plot to secretly bring down the US. The people elected Obama, Obama appointed Bernanke. Had the people taken two seconds of their time to check the facts already out there before voting, this would not have happened. Instead they called those who opposed Obama a racist – that or say that he was better than McCain, despite their remarkable voting similarities while in office. A democracy works when the people are educated – it fails when their indoctrinated. Sorry for the tangent, back to the main point.
During the inquiry, Bernanke was asked about the danger of inflation which he claimed to be minor. Yet if you look at the money supply added by the fed and injected into various institutions, the number is alarmingly high. We often are told that inflation is measured in prices – that is wrong though as prices are a lagging indicator – not the actual occurrence of it. The truth is that if inflation were nothing to worry about, then prices would have had to come down somewhere else because the money would not be available to maintain the price range across the board. After all, supply side economics only goes so far. However prices have stayed high (and even gone up), and yet the people are not earning more than they were before. Therefore, we know the money is out there, and now must ask where it went to.
Simply put, the left loves to blame the big evil companies for holding almost 1.6 trillion in their pockets. Even if it were as simple as all that, they fail to mention the 1.75 (up from 1.1 trillion in 2007) trillion + small businesses expend each year meeting regulatory requirements of the government. They also fail to mention the 2.2 trillion collected in taxes. In short, the 1.6 trillion the companies use to help maintain flexibility and provide for worst case scenarios is nothing compared to the 3.9 taken up by the government and its mandat...After watching Bernanke’s testimony this weekend to the various oversight... more
-
-
"Boredom is an integral part of the human condition that has vexed philosophers since the Enlightenment. But why is Britain one of Europe's most bored nations, and has boredom been given a bad press? Yes, says a new book, which argues that lying around staring at the ceiling can be a vital spur to creativity"
Andrew Anthony
The Observer, Sunday 17 July 2011
[For anyone who is unfamiliar with The Observer - it is the Sunday edition of The Guardian]"Boredom is an integral part of the human condition that has vexed philosophers... more
-
-
Kathleen O’Dwyer asks if we can learn how to love, with Erich Fromm and friends.
Philosophy Now is a great monthly magazine, and this particular article is very insightful.Kathleen O’Dwyer asks if we can learn how to love, with Erich Fromm and friends.... more
-
-
-
Using his law enforcement experience and data drawn from the FBI's behavioral analysis unit, Jim Kouri has collected a series of personality traits common to a couple of professions.
Kouri, who's a vice president of the National Assn. of Chiefs of Police, has assembled traits such as superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others.
These traits, Kouri points out in his analysis, are common to psychopathic serial killers.
But -- and here's the part that may spark some controversy and defensive discussion -- these traits are also common to American politicians. (Maybe you already suspected.)
Yup. Violent homicide aside, our elected officials often show many of the exact same character traits as criminal nut-jobs, who run from police but not for office.
Kouri notes that these criminals are psychologically capable of committing their dirty deeds free of any concern for social, moral or legal consequences and with absolutely no remorse.
"This allows them to do what they want, whenever they want," he wrote. "Ironically, these same traits exist in men and women who are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including political officeholders."
Good grief! And we not only voted for these people, we're paying their salaries and entrusting them to spend our national treasure in wise ways.
We don't know Kouri that well. He may be trying to manipulate all of us with his glib provocative pronouncements. On the other hand ...
He adds:
"While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their similarities with serial killers and other career criminals, it is part of a psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing the behaviors of many officials and lawmakers at all levels of government."
-- Andrew Malcolm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/politicians-and-serial-killers.htmlUsing his law enforcement experience and data drawn from the FBI's behavioral... more
-
-
In my last article “Why The Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Removed From Schools”, I got a lot of feedback saying what a crock it was, and that somehow it was a statement against America herself. Many seemed to get the idea that the article was about how I am so disappointed in America that I believed that the Pledge of Allegiance to it should be removed. Though I believe the pledge of allegiance should be removed, it is not because I hate America as so many seemed to believe.
The first and most common argument was that the Pledge of Allegiance to our country was a good thing because it taught kids and adults alike to take pride in our nation. I will address this one first as the revolution was not fought to create a new nation or empire, but rather to free themselves from the one they already had.
1 – The creation of America was not the dream of the common man at the time, or by many of the so called founders. On the contrary, most people just wanted to live their lives without the interference or burden of government regulation or taxes with no perceived benefit. They knew that should a nation be created, that what little taxes and regulation they did have would grow in kind. They even feared that should it happen, there would not have been a point to the revolution (see Radicalism of the American Revolution by Tom S Wood, and Glorious Cause by Robert Middlekauf).
2 – At the end of the revolution (and with the newly found freedom), the middle class began to flourish, the abolitionist movement grew rapidly, the States made great strides in paying off war debt, and advocating women’s rights. Of course the States in those days were nothing as we have today. There were very few governing bodies, and thus few laws to govern the people. This suited them just fine.
3 – Yet the federalists in congress realized that if things continued in that manner, then their wishes for a glorious empire would not be realized. So after years of haggling and hot debating, the Constitution was drafted. To those like Jefferson, it was to limit the government so that the people could continue to flourish. To those like Hamilton, it was a means to build a new nation. The end result was a small federal government that the people at the time paid little mind to as it had no real power to affect them in any real way.
4 – Hamiltons efforts at granting the new federal government more power were virtually ineffective until he was made Secretary of treasury. Being a sharp minded individual, he used his knowledge of debt based economics to appeal to the states to buy their debt, and thus alleviate the burden from the states. Many of the people saw no need for this and petitioned their elected leaders to just let it be. However once in the audience of Hamilton, they were unable to make solid arguments against his proposed system. So Hamilton simultaneously increased the debt (by a wide margin), used the funds to build an army that he could control, and used the army to support the federalist system.
5 – Adams then signed the Alien and Sedition Acts rendering Jefferson (or anyone else for that matter) unable to speak out without being thrown into prison. This however did not prevent Jefferson from making his thoughts on the subject known at a later date. At this point, the federal government now had the control that Hamilton wanted.
So far I am seeing nothing here at all to be proud of. In addition to breaking the Constitution almost before the ink was even dry, Hamilton paved the way for holding the people to the law, but not the government. Because Hamilton’s system endures today, people seem to see it as something to be proud of despite its lies and law breaking ways. After all, they live well, so the ends justified the means.
To many on the comment string, this was a good thing. They believe that without the Federal Government, and strong state governments, that society would be in chaos, and that we would still be in the stone age. I find this hard to address as such commenter’s belay their ignorance of the cycles of nations, empires, and civility as a whole. It also tells me that not one of them ever bothered to read any real literature on what happened immediately following the war, to the creation of the powerful federal government we know today. So far all its led to is a bunch of people being proud of lying cheating politicians who they refuse to even do their research on before declaring their pride in it, but I digress.
1 – To build an empire you need to expand. During the age where land ownership was highly prized and hotly debated, this was problematic at best. The French owned much of the middle land and the land to the north, the Spanish held what is now Texas and California. They held it somewhat loosely having figured out that the best way to deal with the native Indians was to do so peacefully and as rarely as possible. Seeing an opportunity, the Louisiana Purchase (and a few other land deals) were made, and the land was acquired so that the rapidly growing population would have a place to settle. It needs to be kept in mind that there was a major difference between what the colonists thought of the new land, and what the natives and other countries did. To the colonist, it was as simple as buying the land and making it produce. Not so for the natives.
2 – When the French sold the land to Federal government (paid with debt and taxes from the people, who by the way were made to pay for it yet again if they hoped to by it), they washed their hands of the mess and moved out for the most part. The natives on the other hand had lived there their whole lives, and did not expect the land prospectors to just move in and try to settle it. To be blunt, it was a mess. Between the friction and the less then favorable land conditions, it turned out to be a major cost burden to the Fed as not to many buyers wanted it at the price offered (sound familiar?). The federal government that people praise so much, then pulled another trick.
3 – They claimed that the natives were uncivilized, and that is why there was so much friction. They claimed that they were not ready to become civilized, and that instead of learning peaceful methods of interaction, that force should be used to remove them – after all, they were not viewed as the rightful owners of the land. This added even more cost because soldiers had to be called in to accomplish this task.
So up to this point, the federal government had not only lied and cheated, but swindled the people. It sold them land whenever possible that it used their money to buy in the first place, and then left them to deal with the upset natives. Then when the beleaguered settlers called for help, the federal system added taxes and debt to cover that cost as well. And still somehow, many people who claim to be knowledgeable ,comment on how great the federal government is; that without it, chaos would reign.
Now I can do this all night, but will end with one last example of how our countries founding is nothing to be proud of. Its actions set the standard for the expansion of its empirical interests rendering the republic irrelevant.
In his memoirs, Grant said “Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not con...
http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5393/follow-up-why-the-pledge-of-allegiance-should-be-removed-from-schools/In my last article “Why The Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Removed From... more
-
-
The pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist by the name of Francis Bellamy in 1892. The original gesture to be made was a Hail Hitler like salute (it’s actually where Hitler and Mussolini got it) – and this is why we now use the hand over the heart instead. The best part is that it all began as a sales campaign to help sell magazine subscriptions – selling flags to schools to increase visibility. The pledge was later added to aid in the process, and has been in place since. The original pledge was “”I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all“”
It has children pledging allegiance to an entity they know nothing about making it the most powerful indoctrination tool ever devised in our nation. Following this – children learn summed up history of our nations founding, and little more from there on in. This does them a great dishonor because the only thing they have to correlate this bit of knowledge to, is the world as it is today. Given the lack of in-depth knowledge covering the creation of the US, and how it came about, this makes such times and events appear as meaningless in today’s world.
First of all, republics are not by nature unified nations – that comes later when a Republic decides to expand its interest to become an Empire – something many of the founders including Jefferson stood very much against. In fact we did not even have a truly unified nation until the end of the civil war. However up to that point, our nation committed many acts in complete disregard to the intent of the original revolution. We gained expansion by War – war is economically damaging (unless your a Keynes sympathizer – in which case there is nothing i can do for you), politically chaotic, and socially damaging. Those who believed that a limited republic was as far as the new nation should go knew this all to well having seen it throughout history over and over again.
Second, by teaching the kids that we are a united country in spite of the fact that is not what were trying to be when we broke from England, it teaches them that centralization is a good thing. This wrong is only eclipsed by the fact that they are pledging allegiance to it. Funny how when religious sects do this they are called cults, yet when government does it, it is called law.
Finally, children are taught that the law is the law, and they must obey it. At such a young age, they have little knowledge or experience to tell them whether it is a just reasonable law or not.So it comes about that indoctrination begins when children say a pledge to something when they are still learning how to read and write properly. I am truly sad that so many people see this as correct and justifiable. That’s like forcing someone to swear an oath, telling them that it is for a good cause, and yet enacting a myriad of evils paid for by their labor and never being honest with them about it. Come to think of it – that’s precisely what it is.
Indoctrination – to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments; to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle. By very definition, our children are indoctrinated before they are taught anything.
It is sad and utterly pathetic that we employ such nonsense on our children. Bastiat and Jefferson alike warned of this, and yet modern society in all its wisdom continues to ignore such warnings. They never tell the kids about them – and blithely continue on to inflict one social evil upon another in the name of their more ‘enlightened’ teachings. As a result, many people haven’t the faintest clue on why the economy is getting hammered, why we have ongoing wars in nearly every corner of the globe, and why poverty at home continues to rise with the price of everyday goods. In addition it is almost impossible to argue such points, for the masses have been indoctrinated since they learned to read, and can’t bear the idea that there is more out there then what they are told. Indeed, many argue that the old antiquated ideas of those like Spooner, Jefferson, or Bastiat are just that, and that the new way is far more enlightened and rosy.
It is things like this that have caused our empires creation. It is also because of things like this, that its collapse is ensured.
http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5390/why-the-pledge-of-allegiance-should-be-removed-from-the-schools/The pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist by the name of Francis Bellamy in... more
-
