(Click title above)
Marketplaces of Ideas:
For more than 30 years, sentiments and word usages for re-modeling American ideals have been transmogrifying our media and academia, under a steady drip of communist influence. Meanwhile, Conservatives have been oblivious, operating on autopilot, entranced under an idea that everyone is interested in only one kind of marketplace game: getting the biggest ship for floating on a tide that raises all boats.
Conservatives have thought a capitalistic marketplace of evenly competitive ideas and businesses to be best for supporting individual freedom, dignity, responsibility, and initiative. But, what happens when markets become monopolized, when capital becomes leveraged out of all sense of proportion, and when financiers become free of national boundaries and constraints?
How, then, does capitalism avoid jumping the shark, to become the tool of pirates of international volatility? How, then, do small businesses and even large nations preserve parameters of freedom, once most of influential media, academia, politicians, regulators, and military-industrial complexes are bought and brought under control of a cohort of international, big-money pirates?
Democrats have been conditioned and deluded to idealize socialism, while Republicans have been conditioned to idealize capitalism. Meanwhile, such idealistic bubbles have been brought under reflexive control of financial, bubble-mastering pirates.
But, there never has been idealistically pure socialism or capitalism. Rather, there has always been a blend of disproportionate, opportunistic, individualistic competition (will to power) and communitarian cooperation (empathetic will to math).
Democrats and Republicans, alike, have been diverted, entranced, or asleep. Meanwhile, Western Civilization has become enshrouded under a cloak of international piracy.
Western Civilization will not regain freedom and dignity by inciting quarrels about whether capitalism is better than socialism. Rather, neither capitalism nor socialism will well survive power being monopolized in a cohort of international pirates.
Nations of peoples must reassert physical, moral, and financial boundaries. Progressive consumption taxes must be applied to reduce influence of international money-pirates. Human freedom and dignity depend upon it.
Otherwise, we shall continue to see: international monopolization of media, academia, politicians, and generals; invasive indoctrination of politically correct thought and expression; reign of terror and extra-national W.M.D. bandits; and abject surrender of individual free will.
Pirates who have become adept in crossing national boundaries tend hardly to be challenged to sidestep mere rules of law --- especially when peoples, to defend their own liberties, have been rendered oblivious to the need to define and enforce boundaries and laws.
.
*****
.
TO REGULATE MARKETS, EVEN CAPITALISTS MUST IMPOSE LIMITS AMONG PARAMETERS, AS FORMS OF ROUGH EQUALITY:
Socialists desire evenness in material equality among individuals. Capitalists desire evenness in business opportunities, for preserving competition among markets.
Socialistic nomenklatura desire to regulate and control markets, in order to impose hegemony over, and equality among, individuals. Money mastering capitalists desire to monopolize and control markets, in order to impose hegemony and opportunities borne of volatility over inferior individuals and businesses.
Either way, Overlords (nomenklatura and money masters) enforce control, either by socialistic regulation, to force equality among subordinates, or by capitalistic monopolization, to force hegemony over equally impotent subordinates.
So, between nomenklatura and money masters, how can human freedom and dignity best be maintained?
Answer: (1) Preserve competitive markets by protecting against forcible, disproportionate deprivation of human freedom and dignity, by taxing money masters on their rates of consumption, progressively; (2) forbid political contributions by businesses; (3) allow individuals to make political contributions, but tax all political related expenditures as forms of consumption, subject to progressive taxation.
Danger: Absent action to restore some semblance or balance of power to the working class, human civilization is coming soon to a Point Of No Return.
The power of nomenklatura and money masters to control entire nations and spheres of influence is keyed to lock humanity into serfdom, from which there can be no likely escape.
Such key consists in controlling media and academia, indoctrination of youth, bribery of politicians, and threats against regulators. Once an international cohort of financial pirates of volatility has purchased and consolidated such control, it becomes, in essence, Ministry of Truth.
The path to such consolidation of control consists in erasing a nation’s physical borders, un-assimilating and rendering its social values and traditions impotent, insinuating its double-speakers and new-speakers into media and academia, and dumbing down or corrupting the general electorate. At that point, “government of the people” is reduced to farcical fraud.
Alert: To preserve any semblance of human freedom and dignity, it becomes ever more imperative to enact and enforce a system of progressive taxation on consumption, to prick the bubble of international monetary piracy.
.
****
.
****
Feasibility of a Progressive Consumption Tax --- see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112492381500022421.html:
AUGUST 25, 2005
A Consumption Tax
By ALAN J. AUERBACH
Some consumption taxes, like the retail sales tax and the value added tax, are best imposed with a single rate because taxing different commodities at different rates is a limited and inefficient approach to achieving progressivity. But there are other approaches to consumption taxation that would allow much greater progressivity at both ends of the income distribution, protecting the poor and imposing a higher rate of tax on the well-to-do.
****
Fed's Chief Gives Consumption Tax Cautious Backing --- see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/politics/04tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin:
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: March 4, 2005
WASHINGTON, March 3 - Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, cautiously endorsed a shift in the nation's tax system on Thursday from one that primarily taxes what people earn to one that taxes what they spend.
Published: March 4, 2005
WASHINGTON, March 3 - Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, cautiously endorsed a shift in the nation's tax system on Thursday from one that primarily taxes what people earn to one that taxes what they spend.
****
???? HOW COULD THE PROBLEMS BELOW BE RESOLVED? BY SOME COMBINATION OF CONFISCATORY PENALTY TAXES IF CAUGHT, AGAINST ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN MAKING UNRECORDED TRANSACTIONS? SHOULD GIFTS BE TAXED AS CONSUMPTION? HOW???
PROBLEM: A progressively confiscatory tax on accumulating consumption would encourage criminal, bookie, private coupon, and black market transactions among agents and subordinates.
http://townhall.com/columnists/BruceBartlett/2002/04/05/the_founders_and_the_consumption_tax:
Experience shows that general sales tax rates much above 10 percent are very hard to collect. They encourage smuggling, black markets, evasion, production for personal use, substitution for untaxed commodities and other activities that erode the tax base.
18 comments:
Marketplace of Ideas:
Snippets from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=060E3DCD-B9B7-47BF-9F17-4542E46C3C92:
The Real Meaning of the Right to Vote
By Alex Epstein
FrontPageMagazine.com
November 04, 2008
....
Unfortunately, with each passing Election Day, too many Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Americans. Our politicians promise, not to protect the basic rights spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but to violate the rights of some people in order to benefit others. Today’s politicians want capital for failing banks--by forcing non-failing Americans to pay for them; subsidies for farmers--by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly--by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless--by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more “democratic” our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all.
This Election Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom.
****************************
TOLERANCE OF IDEAS:
Snippets from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8AD98FE9-E3D7-42DA-ADBB-625012404322:
Treasury Sells Out to Shari'a
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
FrontPageMagazine.com
November 04, 2008
....
“Islamic banking” is a euphemism for a practice better known as “Shariah-Compliant Finance (SFC).” And it turns out that this week the Treasury will be taking officials from various federal agencies literally to school on SFC.
The department is hosting a half-day course entitled “Islamic Finance 101” on Thursday at its headquarters building. Treasury’s self-described “seminar for the policy community” is co-sponsored with the leading academic promoters of Shariah and SCF in the United States: Harvard University Law School’s Project on Islamic Finance. At the very least, the U.S. government evidently hopes to emulate Harvard’s success in securing immense amounts of Wahhabi money in exchange for conforming to the Islamists’ agenda. Like Harvard, Treasury seems utterly disinterested in what Shariah actually is, and portends.
Unfortunately, such submission – the literal meaning of “Islam” – is not likely to remain confined long to the Treasury or its sister agencies. Thanks to the extraordinary authority conferred on Treasury since September backed by the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the department is now in a position to impose its embrace of Shariah on the U.S. financial sector. The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Treasury’s purchase of – at last count – 17 banks and the ability to provide, or withhold, funds from its new slush-fund can translate into unprecedented coercive power.
“FAIRNESS DOCTRINE”:
In respect of marketplace of ideas, an effective fairness doctrine could require: that only corporations be permitted to own public utility broadcast companies; that the stock be owned only by individuals; that no one person or family own more than 5 % of the stock; and that each identified owner or aggregate owner(s) of 5 % have a right to broadcast at least one 30 minute prime time show each year.
Compare:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/schumer_fairness_doctrine/2008/11/04/147565.html?promo_code=2A89-1.
Religious dialogue:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081104/wl_nm/us_religion_dialogue
The loyal opposition has its work cut out for it.
See http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/would_you_hire_this_man.html.
Mining revenue to fund any nation requires a dance, both delicate and rough, harmonious and conflicting, among various ideals and methods for taxing occupants.
To counter or reduce the undemocratic exercise of disproportionate wealth and political power, a progressive consumption tax is recommended. Businesses should be precluded from making political contributions. Political contributions made by individuals should be taxed to them as forms of consumption.
To counter the rise and establishment of stubborn, undemocratic aristocracies, progressive death taxes are recommended.
To facilitate governance of inducements and discouragements of various forms of production and consumption, various sales and transactions taxes are recommended, for imposition both on individuals and businesses.
To reduce temptations for black markets and tax evasion schemes, various forms of gift taxes may be recommended.
To preserve a viable, competitive nation, protect industry, reward allies, and discourage enemies, national taxes on various imports and exports may be recommended.
Comment by Dlanor, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obama_declares_war_on_conserva.html:
Re: "Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses. "
Even Bill Clinton has occasionally noted the importance of developing a "worldview" and reasoning in respect of it --- even with regard to local issues. Obviously, talk radio relates to worldview.
However, I can see how idiots and control freaks could argue that discussions about national or world topics cannot serve local concerns.
There may be "fairness" in requiring some time to be dedicated to discussion of local issues. To require more than that is to impair the exchange of ideas among folks who listen to talk radio on their way to work. That is, to enfeeble communication among those of us who are actually responsible enough to have real world jobs.
Way to go, libs! Bite the ankles of those who are trying to ensure for you a decent country!
FAIR TRADE:
See http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/11/19/obama_to_usher_in_major_shift_in_trade_policy:
“Obama's win marks the first time in modern American history "that a candidate advocating a shift in our trade policies in a decisively pro-worker, pro-consumer, pro-environment direction has been elected president," Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, an advocacy group that is critical of free trade agreements, said in a report.”
Comment by Dlanor:
Most policies of both Dems and Repubs have been calculated to advance ninny globalism while undermining national integrity.
But, most of the world is not ready for American style freedom. So, in pursuit of globalism, both major parties have been: undermining American style freedom; sacrificing freedom to political correctness; relieving Mexico from worker despair and internal corruption; and advancing feminine desires for seeking good will from Euros.
These sort of policies are recipe for worldwide gulag. I despair about who is worse for leading us to worldwide gulag, Dems or Repubs. But, if Obama takes on fair trade, that may be OBAMA'S ONE SAVING GRACE.
We need either to kick godforsaken bluebloods out of the Republican party or to start a new, American Voyager Party (or Barracuda Party).
We have submitted to ignorant leadership for so long that things may have to get a far sight worse before they get better.
****
Mainly, Blueblood Republican men fear Palin because she has bigger balls.
RAPIDLY DIMINISHING RETURNS ON DISPROPORTIONATE INCOME:
See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/opinion/20ariely.html?th&emc=th.
Comment by Dlanor, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/a_damned_defeat.html:
RE: "There is no secret any longer about the ideology of these people, or about their close alliances with Islamic radicals, destructive Leftist billionaires and Saudi influence buyers."
Yes, we should now know enough to apprehend that the coming consolidation of governmental control will be a rape of American style freedom.
It is tragic that a majority of women, Jews, and Catholics swooned for this. It is reprehensible and scurrilous that a majority of journalists, academics, and wall street players furtively abetted. But, at least the masks are now off (and also off the Republican Bluebloods), so we know who are sheep and who are corrupt opportunists.
Knowledge is power. Now we must marshal and use it.
******
Legalize and regulate pot. Leave regulation of abortion up to the States. A federal candidate ought not be pro-choice or pro-life, but pro-Constitution. Judeo-Christian traditions and values should be relatively unhindered and respected, but not enforced as such by secular authority. For goodness sakes, don't mess with marriage.
Bluebloods only show their ignorant asses when they hold their noses around moral believers. We can go into the wilderness for awhile and emerge stronger, without Blueblood ninnies (who stand in fear that Palin's cajones are bigger than theirs).
We are going to have to get strong enough to reassert adult supervision and, when needed, to get back in the faces of socialist-moral-anarchist-mental-adolescents (aka, "smama's," or "faux elites"). Put "return to sender" on their dead fish.
******
See http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/11/rahm_emanuel_and_the_classless.html:
I can see rewarding voluntary public service with college assistance incentives. I do not see the point of taxing folks like myself to guarantee 4 years of college for every derelict. For many people (like a lot of Democrats), formal education beyond high school just avails them with educations that are too much for their intellects. That, and more time to sponge off the State while making contacts with community organizing rabble-rousers. Take these folks' dead fish and send it "return to sender." My goodness, isn't it time yet for these 40 some year old's to G-R-O-W U-P!?
Snipped comment by ev, at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/11/obama_is_hitler_hold_on_a_seco.html:
“As is the case at AT, it is the witty, insightful, and logical argument that carries the most weight and accomplishes so much more than the irrational, illogical, and petty one (read : Daily Kos/HuffPo). "Wit without discretion is a sword in the hand of a fool." and yet as too often the case "Against logic there is no armor like ignorance."”
Comment by Dlanor, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/the_testosterone_crisis.html:
Re: "Are we raising a generation of "girly men"."
The Cold War is not quite over. Other players on the world stage are quite pleased to help turn most American men into leftist, tantrum throwing little girls (It's just so unfair!). In America, for balls, now we look to Hillary and Sarah. Look at Frank, Murtha, and Reid and see what I mean. These are our "leaders," for God's sake!
*******
Comment by Dlanor, at http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-quest-for-conservatism-20/#comment-158503 and at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/the_testosterone_crisis.html:
Feminine (leftist) compassion tends to be too emotionally drawn to universal toleration of boundary crossers to apprehend soon enough when such tolerance has led to the toleration of our own demise.
We need more balance, in respect of masculine (OOGEDY-BOOGEDY) CONSERVATISM.
Masculine conservatism knows that market freedom can more likely produce security than government regulated security can produce freedom.
Our lives are not only about what is, but also about what should be. For that, Kathleen Parker’s “Oogedy-Boogedy” piece seemed to have been written as if non-social-conservatives are uneducable. But, for teaching proper values, it hardly ever matters (AT LEAST, TO CONSERVATIVES) what your religion, political inclination, national origin, gender, or skin color may be.
A. AMERICAN MESSAGE: Rather, among social conservatives, there is a common, civilizing, “American Message,” to whit:
1) Communicating and experiencing meaningfulness necessitates a frame of reference, with coordinate definitions (modeling);
2) Definitions necessitate reference to BOUNDARIES;
3) Shaking boundaries loose in order to mix everything into a mush is often preceded by violent explosion, in respect of which little by way of meaningfulness crawls out;
4) Preserving boundaries in an unstable world implicates faith in a common direction or leader;
5) While the world’s peoples remain in disarray about their common direction, they may at least respect a de facto common leader (U.S.A., which, to large extent, had such responsibility foisted upon it);
6) Leadership that is meaningful to one’s sense of autonomous-self is guiding, not totalitarian;
7) BOUNDARIES (physical, political, financial, cultural, and moral) of the U.S., as a non-dictatorial leader, should be respected and not, without careful reason, subjected to violent change; and
8) The preserving of identifiable parameters of America, as America, remains essential to worldwide confidence, faith, assurance, and meaningfulness.
B. EMBODIMENT OF MESSAGE: In seeking to embody such a Big Idea, America:
1) Nourishes respect for ideals of individual freedom, dignity, self reliance, initiative, creativity, self expression, and autonomy (i.e., pursuit of happiness);
2) Seeks continuously to re-normalize or regulate MARKETS, such as markets of influence, of trade, of goods, and of ideas, in order to reduce the disproportionate trappings of monopolists, abusers, seditionists, enemies, psychopaths, and pirates;
3) Seeks to provide a practical social safety net, to preserve MARKETPLACES of workers --- in respect of health, education, and population replenishment;
4) Resists faux messiahs’ Orwellian calls for forced economic equality (as opposed to economic opportunity);
5) Avails means for reducing Orwellian and monopolistic abuses of speech by governments, politicians, media, organized religion, private monopolies, and international pirates;
6) Seeks ways to minimize disproportionate leveraging of legislative influence;
7) Resists Big Government intrusion and dictation into people’s autonomy (MARKETS are the alternative to intrusive government);
8) Stands against false prophecies of world peace based on surrender of initiative of individuals and nations to international controllers of world government; and
9) Mutually respects all spiritual models WHICH THEMSELVES RETURN RESPECT for the seeking of moral guidance and the promotion of charitable works.
C. ORIGIN, RACE, GENDER, RELIGION: The American Idea about Conservatism neither favors nor disfavors anyone purely on account of national origin, race, gender, or religion, but instead cares about whether loyalty to the idea of conserving America as it engages with the world is returned in kind.
America should care when people try to undermine Essential Components of the American Idea by the monopolizing, precluding, or prescribing of:
1) The erasing and replacing of America, by Orwellian turning of America’s best values against itself (masked tolerance of the intolerable);
2) The politically correct collaring of free expression of ideas (masked totalitarianism);
3) The path for destroying those family values that are foundational to Western Civilization (anarchic hedonism);
4) The destruction of faith in any higher Source of meaningfulness (“oogedy-boogedy” psychopathic despair of the godless against empathy).
D. WILDERNESS: Neither Democrats nor Blueblood Republicans (and certainly not Libertarians or Libertines) are doing much at all to defend the Essential Components of the American Idea. So, Social Conservatives may need to go into the wilderness awhile, to summon inner strength, to reawaken and rejuvenate their message in respect of the American Idea. As they emerge, soon, they will need to remain much more wary of Social Liberals in Conservative Clothing.
E. SPECIFICS: The “Red Assed Moderate” wing of Social Conservatives wants:
1) Strong national defense of America (good fences make good neighbors);
2) Strong enforcement of borders and immigration policies;
3) Tax and service incentives, to coax environmentally responsible investment in American-based education and enterprise;
4) Some sort of decent, universal health care;
5) Creative destruction (i.e., progressive taxation on consumption?) of the disparities in income, wealth, and power that so disproportionately favor pirates of international finance and that so poisonously undermine MARKET-based forces;
6) Respect for essential, civilizing, family values; and
7) Engaged cooperation with other nations, while defending the integrity of the American Idea.
F. BOTTOM LINE: Kathleen Parker overstepped when she implied non-conservatives cannot or should not be exposed or educated to the worth of such values.
For Pragmatic (“Red Ass”) Modernization of Conservatism and Minimal Regulation of Non-Disproportionate MARKETS of Goods, Influence, and Ideas --- compare: http://townhall.com/columnists/MattLewis/2008/11/21/lessons_from_britain_and_canada_could_save_the_gop.
Comment by Dlanor, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/mein_kampus.html:
Trent ("It is now time to institute a rival post-secondary education system that is both cheaper and better than the traditional university system, something which will force the traditionalists to either become more politically honest, or end up financially dead."):
Suggestion: Contact David Horowitz. Ask him to shop an idea among respected, conservative, tenured professors throughout America. Have them unite to start an online campus for offering two year associate's degrees in modern political and conservative analysis. Coordinate to associate with, and coax, solid four-year universities to allow transfers of partial credit.
Even thoughtful liberals should welcome such a breath of fresh air!
******
Comment by Dlanor, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/mein_kampus.html:
Crab Bucket Professors:
To reprise a metaphor, our interconnected world has become one big crab bucket. No crab (nation) is permitted to sustain excellence or to scale to freedom from the crab bucket before many others grab and pull all back down.
How much jealous foreign money is indirectly funding the professoriate that continuously reduces each succeeding generation of American students to crab tank-think?
You've heart of research tanks? Welcome to University Crab Tank! Boolah boolah!
*****
To tc ("This is territory which the right has to fight upon. During the island-hopping battles of the Pacific, our strategy had to fight for every inch of land between Hawaii and Japan in preparation for a possible invasion of Japan. If the White House is Tokyo, then the the K-12 system is Midway, Saipan and Guadalcanal.....the public university system is now our Iwo Jima. Marines--FIX bayonets! "):
True, that!
BALANCED TRADE:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/stop_the_borrowing_theres_an_a.html:
The American Thinker
December 04, 2008
By Raymond Richman, Howard Richman, and Jesse Richman
Keynesian borrowing won't solve our economic problems
....
The central idea of monetarism is that governments are too short-term in their thinking unless they are bound by sensible long-term rules. Monetarists have always advocated the first two rules below. We would add the third:
1. Balanced Monetary Growth. Governments should maintain a steadily growing money supply, sufficient to prevent deflation, but not so fast as to cause inflation.
2. Balanced Budgets. Governments should maintain relatively balanced budgets so as not crowd-out private investment or leave a huge government debt to future generations.
3. Balanced Trade. Governments should insure that foreign trade is relatively balanced so as not to lose production jobs or leave a huge national debt to future generations.
Monetarism, even without the balanced trade rule, has been a successful economic philosophy. The Federal Reserve applied the balanced monetary growth rule during the 1980s and 1990s, keeping the U.S. economy relatively free from inflation. Similarly, President Clinton and the Republican Congress applied the balanced budget rule in the mid 1990s, producing a long period of steady economic growth.
The new balanced trade rule is necessary in order to respond to modern mercantilism, the economic policy that maximizes exports and minimizes imports in order to gain market share from trading partners. The latest evidence is the increase in China's subsidies to exporters which has not yet evoked a response from the U.S. government even though China exports four times as much as it imports from the United States and promised to forego export subsidies when it joined the WTO.
China and the other mercantilist governments have been perpetuating and increasing the U.S. trade deficits by buying U.S. financial assets with the dollars earned from their trade surpluses with the United States. For over a decade, American banks passed along the flow of foreign savings to American consumers, offering ever-riskier loans in order to get a high return. But when American consumers could no longer afford the payments, banks went bankrupt and the resulting hole in worldwide demand is causing the worldwide recession.
If the U.S. government switched to balanced trade monetarism, the U.S. could quickly recover since there would be plenty of demand for American products if foreigners bought as much from the U.S. as the U.S. buys from them.
One definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and again, but expecting a different result. Washington seems to be stuck on borrowing foreign savings. But borrowing from abroad exacerbated this recession, has already bankrupted many U.S. banks, and is starting to bankrupt U.S. manufacturers, including Detroit automakers. It's time to stop the borrowing by bringing trade into balance!
*****
Raymond L. Richman is a professor emeritus of public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. The three Dr. Richmans are three generations of economists from the same family and co-authors of the 2008 book, Trading Away Our Future published by Ideal Taxes Association. They blog at tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com.
Info provided by a Commenter at the site listed in the comment above:
The authors are right that Keynesianism will not save the economy. We got into this mess because of excessive borrowing and spending. We won't get out of it by substituting government borrowing and spending for private. There has been some research into the effectiveness of Keynesian spending and the results are what you would expect. See this post: [alhambrainvestments.com]
Friedman monetarism is not the answer either. What we need is sound money not a constantly growing money supply which as someone else pointed out is the definition of inflation. See this article: [www.realclearmarkets.com]
Finally, our trade deficit is not China's problem and won't be solved by manipulating our currency or enacting trade tariffs. The answer is not surprising; we need to increase our savings rate: [alhambrainvestments.com]
Comment by Dlanor, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/stop_the_borrowing_theres_an_a.html:
George S (“Now ask yourself: are you just as motivated to work harder to benefit retired autoworkers, brokerage houses and the careers of Congressmen with the same zealousness as warding off invaders looking to enslave you? This is one reason why we gladly engaged in the all out effort to thwart fascism. This was not a result of deficit spending, but the cause.”)
I like your method of abstracting back, from the symbol to the more immediate source. If what ails us were primarily lack of social confidence, then politicians’ playing with money symbols may help trick us into a substantive cure, sort of like a shaman dancing around to give us confidence that “something is being done.” For example, were one’s immediate problem caused by constricted blood flow brought on by situational stress, shaman’ship may help.
But, what of when the main system for producing blood has been shipped overseas, locked down by international pirates, or compromised by socialists with ulterior purposes? How can Keynesian shock treatment help then?
An old adage suggests that 95% of problem-solving consists in identifying the problem. If so, to rely on the other 5% is to wait for a cure to occur by random chance. That may happen, but it may take a good while.
****
Snipped comment by Anthony, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/stop_the_borrowing_theres_an_a.html:
Your assumption that Obama and the Dems want to solve this crisis is your first mistake. Sure, leftists have a knee jerk reaction to Keynesian economic theory, it goes with the mindset, however, these folks want to ratchet things up a notch. Obama and friends want real change that only a government sponsored meltdown will bring about.
***
Snipped comment by George S, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/stop_the_borrowing_theres_an_a.html:
I'll take a stab at the question of why the deficit spending of World War II did not bankrupt the country and took us out of the Depression.
From an economic standpoint it doesn't appear to make sense; yet it makes perfect sense if you answer the question of why do people engage in labor. The answer is to benefit themselves and their families. Normally, the benefit of our labor is money so we can use it to buy things that make our lives better. But, doesn't keeping the forces that want to install world-wide fascism at bay in order to protect our lives and freedoms entail a benefit also? I would say it offers the ultimate benefit. Banding together to thwart invaders is as old as civilization itself. Economics is just an invention of the human mind to explain things.
Now ask yourself: are you just as motivated to work harder to benefit retired autoworkers, brokerage houses and the careers of Congressmen with the same zealousness as warding off invaders looking to enslave you? This is one reason why we gladly engaged in the all out effort to thwart fascism. This was not a result of deficit spending, but the cause. Even children were rounding up pots and pans for scrapmetal (an economic activity also).
The reason the war also brought about the end of the Depression is the technological advances it coaxed from our exceptionalism. From cloth-covered 90 mph airplanes to auto-piloted pressurized long-range IFR capable heavy bombers ushered in the age of air travel. From munitions productions came automated assembly lines that enabled the mass production of durable consumer goods such as washing machines and vacuum cleaners (saving lots of household chore time). From battlefield medicine came a new age of health care therapies. Advances in the internal combustion engines gained from tank production gave us more reliable trucks to deliver goods. These are but a few examples but they brought about a better quality of life and the economy bounced back as peoples needs changed dramatically in the post-war period. It gave people additional means of providing goods that were never before possible. And the constant meeting of new needs of people is the only way an economy grows. Deficit spending during the war, per se, did no such thing.
There may be other factors, but I think that no way in hell would these advances have come about if the war didn't light a fire under the collective asses of the American people.
Suppose a foreign government wanted to subvert and demoralize America. In what way would they behave any differently than our MSM? Our established press, whether out of ignorance, corruption, or disloyalty, have become agents not just against truth, but against America. Often in unison, they distort context, publish our secrets, hamstring our defenses, undermine our morals, dissolve our traditions, and dis-inform our electorate.
Now, we are so demoralized, we routinely see treason in our media, but have no hope that any authority will call them on it. Indeed, to do so would incite yelps of political incorrectness, hate speech, invasive personal abuse, or investigations unleashed by the secret service.
Meanwhile, our leftists seem to think this is just great, because "America is evil," "capitalism has failed," and "Bush and the neo-cons have it coming."
There comes a quickening, and there appears no way to avoid it. Either leftist minions, to consolidate the rule of thier owners, will eliminate the independent intelligentsia, or all who think more with their brains than with their hearts must rise to speak and act truth to ravening idiocy.
Comment snipped from AT:
Joseph Hill ("The job mess had been building for some time now, along with the crash in housing, layoffs, foreclosures etc. To blame a president who is not even as yet seated is simply to try to play a blame game instead of facing the Greenspan debacle that has been building over the past 8 years, and earlier under Clinton.")
******
Question: Regardless of who has been President, on account of what sort of policies has the job mess been building?
Answer: Policies for feeding massive governmental interventon and regulations, calculated to anyone other than a blind squirrel to distort all aspects of our economy.
Question: Who, other than blind squirrels, fails to see how Obama's plans will bring the curtain down on a grand finale?
Answer: Democrats. (Oops --- that was redundant.)
Question: Who is aiding and abetting Democrats towards their grand finale?
Answer: International Birds of Prey.
Question: Who is facing the Greenspan debacle?
Answer: Not blind squirrels.
Comment on A.T.:
Larrey,
I admire your ability to clearly express your insights.
It may be worth your time, sometime, to consider writing a piece about the roles of stare decisis and burden of proof for helping us navigate between needs for change vs. conservatism.
Humanity shares an exhilarating bubble that is both rapidly changing and in danger of changing too rapidly.
For example, some want to indulge radical change to discard tried and true traditions, religions, and family values, even as they advocate extreme efforts to conserve our environment. Are they radical nihilists or stodgy conservators?
Regardless, Big Science will bring us Big Change.
So, regarding Change vs. Conservation: When should our opinions turn based on emotion and when on reason?
Quite often, we have insufficient facts and data, and some problems likely defy being reduced to comprehension. Yet, we have no choice but to make or rationalize choices (like when best to design one’s Capital One Credit Card).
History shows how our bubble is both exhilarating and fragile; how our world is self-healing at times and at other times like a beaker of nitroglycerin.
So, for one wanting to be both decent and reasonable, how may a philosophy for how to place the burden of proof help — if at all?
Without vision a people are lost. So, who has vision?
Maybe none of us has a quite good enough answer. Maybe all of us need to remain humble enough to listen every so often to the still, quiet voice upon which everyone's "religion" seems to be based --- howl though they may to the contrary.
Comment at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/a_scheme_with_no_off_button_1.html:
Brian ("They top 1% of tax payers already pay 40% of the income taxes in America.")
Look, I loathe entitlement theory --- both on the left and the right.
But don't forget the contributions to maintaining an orderly society, such as made in blood, sweat and tears by firemen, police, and our troops.
Sorry, but play me the world's smallest violin while I shed a few tears about how those most opportuned are also expected to provide the most financing.
*******
Alliance of Obama and Bush:
Perpetual Check or Checkmate?
Our problem is to design and preserve systemic checks that will tend to optimize the accumulation of capital for use in investment by those with civilizing vision, without undermining representative civilization.
The answer to every economic problem is not merely, as the Obama-left would say, (1) to spread the wealth, nor as the Bush-right would say, (2) to proportionately lower taxes on the investing class.
Overemphasis on (1) kills incentive to work harder or to create much that is new, while overindulgence on (2) tends to create work more of ostentation than of substance.
Only with an optimizing mix of (1) and (2) is civilization pulled to new heights and greater skills for confronting unavoidable challenges. But, we are not getting an optimizing mix or check of (1) and (2). Rather, we are getting their unholy alliance, now materializing in an Unholy Emperor and His Train of Cohorts.
While our society (1) promotes Obama-equality by stagnating any work ethic and stifling creativity, how shall we hope to propagate civilization beyond a narrow and short eclipse of space and time?
While our society (2) promotes Bush-investment by decreasing representative governance while increasing ostentatious aristocracy, what of worth shall we have accomplished or created?
While we turn all effective political power over to an unholy alliance of (1) Socialistic Leftists (Obama) and (2) Blueblood Aristocrats (Bush), what will become of government of free people?
Presently, our politics is monopolized by (1) Obama Leftists seeking to equally spread wealth among the working class (even as they kill free expression with p.c. speech codes) and by (2) Bush Bluebloods seeking aristocratic control over the politics that rules the working class (even as they kill competitive markets needed for free enterprise).
ENTER UNHOLY EMPEROR, GEORGE SOROS --- (1) propagandizing socialism, while (2) expecting to rule it.
In Soros’ train slavishly follow MSM, academia, Socialistic Leftists, and Blueblood Rinos. His “Christmas gift”: Curtailment of freedom, both of expression and of enterprise. This is the gift of the present unholy alliance among Socialistic Leftists and Aristocratic Bluebloods. Caught in the vise of this unholy alliance are Moderates and Conservatives.
For government of free people to survive, Moderates and Conservatives must get "the royal mad" and unite:
To restore toleration for freedom of expression and religion (hint: one-way speech codes and intolerant religion need not be tolerated);
To restore some semblance of equality of opportunity and representation (hint: stifle favoritism-by-regulation);
To restore some semblance of competitive markets (hint: stop regulating minutia of small businesses);
To reduce the power of centrally removed government (hint: central government is grossly overinfluenced by specially empowered interests);
To check against excessive political influence by aristocrats of wealth (hint: end income tax, while progressively taxing individual yearly consumption); and
To restore the nation as a viable entity with defensible boundaries (hint: don’t tolerate one-sided, hate-America versions of history).
Bottom line: If you don't like Obama enforced equality, stop feeding Bush Bluebloods.
Isn't there some kind of law of diminishing returns on being a bully? After awhile, doesn't the value of seeking to avoid the bully marginalize the value of tolerating the bully? When other places have lower rates, won't businesses just vote with their feet? Actually, that does appear to be part of the Agenda: spread economic activity away from the U.S. and towards the third world. Even though much of Third World is primed by history to dimmi-diminish humanity into serfdom. What you want less of, you tax. If you want less production in free countries, you increase their tax rates.
Shouldn't the goal of a tax for a rational and free society be to increase revenue without disincenting production and industry? Some say the middle class has too much consumption and not enough savings. Well then, why not do away with taxes on production (income taxes and domestic corporation taxes) and instead tax domestic consumption, progressively? (Capture taxes on export-transfers of dollars from the U.S. by taxing such exprts as if they constituted a form of consumption.) Wouldn't a progressive tax on consumption be as simple to implement, calculate, and collect as to require that all retail purchases be made by each person from his assigned retail account?
Post a Comment