View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:54 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley

 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2009/3626brits_hook_zhou.html

The remedy for the present economic situation, throughout the world, is to reverse these physical-economic trends, measured as both physical output per capita, and also capital-intensity, and energy-flux density of sources of power applied.
That link and that quote flows from the source to this node on the net. Is that link an example of accurate currency? I see evidence supporting that hypothesis; yes, that is accurate currency. I have yet to read the rest of the link, and I will comment as I read.

I read the rest of the article. The recipe for reform, to me, appears to be another case of employing the cause of the problem as a means to fix the problem. Hamiltonian debt based financial systems; it seems to me, is as big of a problem as is the current regiment labeled as: The Dollar Hegemony.

I may have missed something in the text.

This: 

This urgently needed reform can be effected only by eliminating entirely the existing world monetary system, and replacing it with a general agreement on partnership among sovereign nation-states operating through a credit-system, rather than a monetary system. The role of the U.S.A. as presently a net debtor nation, but with a Hamiltonian tradition and a very large debt to work off, is the essential platform on which to base both a global fixed-exchange-rate credit-system and half-century uttering of debt as credit for the crash-program type of re-energizing the world economy.

Without such a reform now, the situation for every nation of the world is presently imminently a hopeless one. Therefore, end the existence of the British empire, now.
Whenever someone claims such a claim as the one above, where "only" one possible thing can be done to fix the problem, I see a problem.

The fix, it seems to me, is to stop fixing that problem with the one and only cure, which is almost always some version of crime, some version of making plans to injure innocent people for profit, and then executing those plans.

The fix whereby all competition is eliminated (only one fix is planned on and executed by the "fixers") is the fix that destroys the natural force of nature built into the natural system of self-fixing, which is by any other name, the same thing i.e. competition.

Competition (instead of the one and only fix - fix - where competition is destroyed, on purpose, for profit), competition is many fixes, not just one, and each fix, each competitor, in nature, is working the fix, working to be more better, working to increase quality, working to reduce cost, because failure to do so, removes the power to do so, and that power is supplied by all the customers who demand higher quality and lower cost.

Who desires lower quality and higher cost?

If you don't know the answer to that question, then my offering for a competitive (and accurate) answer is: Monopolists (with their one and only one fix).

That one and only one fix, it seems to me, is the same thing over and over again, as if doing the same thing over and over again, one more time, will result in a better (and lower cost) result this time, despite the fact that every other time, for as far back as human's have been recording these things (accurately, not "spun"), that fix, that same fix, has always ruined the thing it was intended to fix - that one and only fix, the fix that plans on and then executes the plan to eliminate competition.

I can search for more data on that author of that article since that article does offer some very interesting text, on history, and other things.

Like this: 

Since 1789, there have been only two leading financial-economic systems in the world. The one has been the European system, which has been dominated by the British Empire since the February 1763 Peace of Paris, and the challenger, the American System as designed under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, an American System built into the relevant provisions of the U.S. Federal Constitution.

However, treasonous, post-Franklin Roosevelt developments within the U.S. political-economic system, prepared the way for the post-1968 developments since the catastrophic developments, led by the United Kingdom during the 1968-1973 interval. By March 1, 1968, the U.S. dollar was already degenerating, under the influence of the Trilateral Commission, into a mere auxiliary of the Anglo-Dutch-Saudi international monetarist system based on the long-standing role of the hegemonic, London-created petroleum spot market. The ensuing wrecking of the U.S. economy and dollar under David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission sabotage of 1977-1981, as combined with the lunatic and ruinous "green" policies launched during the 1970s, destroyed the U.S.A. in its former role as a true sovereign nation-state, and turned it into an increasingly decadent role as a pawn of London, via London's Wall Street swindlers.
Note the link between "The Dollar" and "London-created petroleum spot market".

Petro-dollars.

Now look at the latest effort to eliminate competition in oil-currency:

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/World/Story/STIStory_417757.html

CARACAS - PRESIDENT Hugo Chavez on Sunday bridled at US plans to use military bases in Colombia, asserting that Venezuela was the top US target in the region and that Venezuelans should prepare for war.

Speaking in his weekly live radio and television broadcast, Chavez also chided US President Barack Obama for accusing leftist Latin leaders of 'hypocrisy' for demanding that Washington intervene more forcefully to reinstate Honduras' ousted President Manuel Zelaya.

Mr Obama 'is lost in the clouds. I think he is entering a terrible labyrinth', Mr Chavez said. 'Obama doesn't understand. He needs to study a bit more. He is a young man, full of good intentions.'

'Obama, we are not asking you to intervene in Honduras. To the contrary, we are asking that the empire remove its hand from Honduras and that the empire remove its claws from Latin America,' he said.
I never said that Chavez was not a dictator, but compared to what, what is the standard of excellence in that department?

Whose plans to injure innocent people for profit is the most profitable when the dust settles?

Who benefits?

Who pays?

Who is going to pay for the southern front war of aggression this time?

How about some old news on an old power employed toward competition?

File this under "things to consider in defense of liberty" - while most everyone else is employing the one and only fix (the one that never works - as advertized)?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods121.html

In 1798, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky approved resolutions that affirmed the states' right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the resolutions' authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow - regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. The Virginia Resolutions spoke of the states' right to "interpose" between the federal government and the people of the state; the Kentucky Resolutions (in a 1799 follow-up to the original resolutions) used the term "nullification" - the states, they said, could nullify unconstitutional federal laws.
Madison was the "federalist" turned "anti-federalist" once he saw the light. Once it was proven to Madison that the anti-federalists were accurate in their exposure of the crimes of "Nationalism" (spearheaded by Hamilton), once things like the "Alien and Sedition Acts" proved the point, with an exclamation point!, once the false flag of "Federalism" was sufficiently stripped from the bare naked criminals who donned that cloak, once that happened, Madison began campaigns to undo what he had helped do. 

No longer was the idea the same old, one and only fix, no, no, no, the idea returned to something more like competition; where separate and sovereign states could compete for market share and the consumers could pick and choose which state was higher in quality and lower in cost.

But I'm just a troll, so don't mind me.

The articles speak for themselves. Is it accurate currrency, or not? How is it measured - exactly?