 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Anyone,
Along the path I have been on, for decades, I once gained membership in the John Birch Society, thinking at the time that my viewpoint could be improved, made more accurate, and less costly, by that association with that group. I've since allowed my membership to lapse. I've also allowed my membership to the U.S.H.G.A lapse, my membership to the N.R.A. lapse, and so the reasons for being members of those groups are no longer powerful reasons; for me
Pat Buchanan was a name I heard a lot when I was a member of The John Birch Society, if my memory serves me, so I read what Pat Buchanan writes, this time it pays off for me.
Here is a quote:
With the World Bank, the IMF was birthed at Bretton Woods, N.H., in 1944. In the monetary order established there, the U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.
All would contribute funds in their own currency to the IMF. America would make the largest contribution. As its birthday gift, Uncle Sam gave the IMF 103 million ounces of gold.
When member nations faced balance-of-payments problems and had to devalue, the IMF would tide them over with bridge loans. The loans would be repaid as the troubled nations' reduced exchange rate led to rising exports and reduced imports.
Money is a conduit, much like a road is a conduit, and much like an ocean is a conduit. It has never made sense to me to buy something half way around the world, such as something Made in China, then shipped to America, when the shipping costs must be added to the thing shipped, and therefore the same thing could be Made in America, and sold for a price that did not have to pay for the shipping.
A. Made in China
Price of the thing plus the price of the shipping adds to total price of the thing.
B. Made in America
Price of the thing, without the price of the shipping, lower price of the thing.
There are some explanations that help explain the lower cost of a thing Made in China, plus the shipping costs, compared to a thing Made in America, without the shipping costs, priced higher - whereby a shopper in America has a choice, at the store, on the shelf, to choose something Made in China (plus the price of shipping) at a lower price, next to, something Made in America (without the price of shipping) at a higher price.
A. Made in China
Lower quality
B. Made in America
Higher quality
That is not one of the explanations that help explain the lower cost of a thing Made in China, plus the shipping costs, added to the lower quality, compared to the thing Made in America, without the added shipping costs, and the higher quality, at the store, the shopper isn't likely to choose the lower quality just because it is less expensive.
If you want to buy something you want to buy it, you don't want to buy something that pretends to be something, something that fails to be the thing you want to buy - logically, and reasonably.
What is a good reason for the lower priced thing selling in America where the thing includes the cost of shipping half way around the world?
A. Made in China
Workers are paid very little, in China, as there are very few employers (scarcity of employers) and very many workers (over abundance of workers) and therefore workers have no power to set the price of labor other than to become employers, to stop being workers, and start being employers, which could conceivably, logically, and reasonably move the power to price labor out of the hands of the employers and into the hands of the laborers as the number of employers rise and the number of workers fall as more workers become employers.
What stops workers from becoming employers in China? Is it a lack of easy access to start up capital; which isn't easy for workers on purpose? Is easy access to start up capital in China only easy if you are a member of an exclusive group, so as to keep the number of the exclusive group low, so as to retain the power to set the price of labor in the hands of the exclusive group, and so as to keep the power of setting the price of labor out of the hands of the workers? Does that sound reasonable to you?
Workers in China are beginning to be paid more and more, as more employers move from America to China - is that true?
B. Made in America
Workers are paid less and less, adjusted for inflation, in America, as the number of employers are few, as many employers move to China, and as many more workers here in America compete with more workers moving to America. The power to set the price of work is not a power held by workers as there are too many workers competing to buy too few employers. The power to set the price of work is a power held by too few employers, an exclusive club of few employers, more and more, as fewer and fewer employers have work to sell to more and more workers here in America. Employers, in the exclusive club, are moving to China.
What stops workers from becoming employers in America? This is easy. If Elon Musk has a hard time acquiring operating capital, in the form of affordable loans, in America, as he starts making affordable Electric cars in America, actually here in California where I live, with his Tesla Motors company, then what are my chances of getting affordable start up capital? What are the chances of anyone in America of borrowing a no-interest loan, let alone a Bail-Out gift of free money, in America, so as to stop being a worker, and start being an employer, so as to stop having the rate exchange of work-for-pay discounted down by the fact that there are so few employers and so many workers? The story I hear, over and over again, is a tight money policy. Tight for many, while trillions move effortlessly to a select, exclusive, few, for some reason. Not for good, unless you are reading from the false script.
That doesn't explain why someone in America will be buying a cheap, worthless, knock-off, Made-in-China, thing, at a very low price, compared to something no longer on the shelf, of higher quality, and higher cost, Made-in-America version - or does it?
Returning to the words of Pat Buchanan:
With the World Bank, the IMF was birthed at Bretton Woods, N.H., in 1944. In the monetary order established there, the U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.
All would contribute funds in their own currency to the IMF. America would make the largest contribution. As its birthday gift, Uncle Sam gave the IMF 103 million ounces of gold.
When member nations faced balance-of-payments problems and had to devalue, the IMF would tide them over with bridge loans. The loans would be repaid as the troubled nations' reduced exchange rate led to rising exports and reduced imports.
What I don't like about that story above, is the pat answer, the given, and the to-be-assumed-as-true Big Lie. That story assumes that the IMF is legitimate, as if it is a moral, legal, just, right, and good thing, and from that assumption, the story follows. They, at the IMF, do this, for good, and this happens, cause and effect, and so the story goes. If bad happens, it is an accident, they meant to do good - seriously - and there is a bridge to Brooklyn for sale.
Look at the actual things reported:
1.
U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.
2.
Uncle Sam gave the IMF 103 million ounces of gold
3.
nations faced balance-of-payments problems and had to devalue
4.
the IMF would tide them over with bridge loans
5.
The loans would be repaid
6.
reduced exchange rate led to rising exports and reduced imports
Before I am going to even begin to get any meaning out of those words I am going to build a sold foundation from which to start that process. I have to get rid of the assumption that the IMF is a force for good, which it isn't, so that has to go, and in place I can remain neutral, and then build understanding from that neutral foundation.
Starting with number 1:
1.
U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.
That is two nails in the coffin, already, since I know that Gold was confiscated from the American people during the Federal Reserve willful crime of causing a massive boom and bust cycle soon after those criminals stole the power over American money, which they perpetrate in 1913, which was followed by their BOOM part of their Business Cycle Extortion Racket Crime of the Century, which was falsely advertised as The Roaring Twenties, when the people at The FED (false name since The FED isn't, in any sense, Federal), increased the money supply (of dollars) by roughly twice what it was before they increased the supply of dollars, and they, those people at The FED, are the people who hand pick the people who get to spend the new money, and then those hand picked people get to hand pick the people who get to spend the money, as the new money is sold as loans, and the loans only go to the hand picked people, on down the line. The second nail in the coffin is the reference to the free world, which isn't free, unless by using the word free the meaning is that the legal criminals are free to torture and mass murder at will, and that is what free means - an obvious deception.
The businesses that do BOOM, are also the businesses that are tied with The FED connection of hand picked people on down the line, while some of the excess money does, eventually trickle down to the victims, as the victims are also victimized with inevitable rising prices - during the BOOM part of the fraudulent Business Cycle, in this case of this history, here in America, where then the BUST cycle was caused by the people running The FED, and make no mistake, here, the people may starting the crime of the century at The FED may be different people now, as criminals are often killing each other in their own turf battles, while the organized crime ring continues, as the BOOM is moved to BUST, as the criminals remove roughly half of the dollars in circulation, as they alone can, which isn't simple, but that doesn't stop it from happening, just because it isn't easy to take half of the money supply out of circulation: does not stop them from doing it. So the Great Depression followed The Roaring Twenties, as if everything was by accident, which it certainly, and measurably was not an accident, and during the bust cycle the so called "government", actual people, not a thing, actual people produced an order, and then enforced the order, to confiscate all the gold in America.
Look it up.
Back to number 1:
1.
U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.
The only people who have control of gold are those few people running the crime ring, and so they come up with this great idea to fix the value of the dollar based upon the value of gold which they control both values, so whose idea is this, who does this idea benefit, and who pays the price of this idea?
The one group controls the value of gold. They can let some of it flow, or all of it flow, return it back into circulation, making it less scarce, and therefore making it less expensive to buy, because, as we all know, when something is abundant, the price goes down, and then when something is scarce, the price goes up.
The one group controls the value of the dollar. They just tested their control over the value of the dollar, they added double and then they took out half of the total number of dollars to cause The Roaring Twenties, and then to cause The Great Depression, so they definitely have the power to control the value, and the price, of the dollar - no question - a measurable fact. They also have the power to write the script, as The Roaring Twenties wasn't scripted as a confession, such as, The first test BOOM by the legal criminals running The FED, soon to be followed by the first test BUST, brought to you, again, by the people who stole your money power. The headlines could have read: Thank You. The details on page one.
1.
U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.
What does it mean to say "all at fixed rates of exchange"?
I can't answer that question. I have to assume. I have to assume that a control is placed on the rate of exchange between one money supply, such as the German Mark, and another money supply, such as The English Pound; whereby the exchange rate changes as a direct result of which money is higher in quality, and lower in cost, as more people decide to pick the better money, that money becomes more valuable, and as less people begin to pick the worse money, that money becomes less valuable, and therefore the better money no longer exchanges for the same number of the worse money, if at all. A bad money may not be picked at all, compared to a good money - leading to a thing called Gresham's law. It is not likely that anyone, other than a criminal, would want to fix rates, since the force of competition works very well at fixing rates, and the power to compete is in the power of the producer, all the producer has to do is increase quality and lower cost, and the power to fail, is also in the hands of the producer, all the producer has to do to fail is to produce lower quality at higher cost, thereby producing themselves out of business; so what is this fixed rate if it isn't competition?
I can't speculate further on what "all at fixed rates of exchange" means exactly. I can say that I smell a rat. I smell a ratified control over the force of competition, which is a force that moves quality (the quality of money in this case) higher, and competition is also a force that moves price (or cost) down, and I smell a ratified control that destroys the force of competition, and it is done on purpose, so as to empower a money monopoly; which is something that cannot exist while the force of competition does exist.
Therefore "fix rates" is code for eliminate competition, as far as I can smell a rat.
Moving to 2:
2.
Uncle Sam gave the IMF 103 million ounces of gold
Why would I give myself something I already have? The only possible answer is deception. I pretend to transfer the power I have to someone else so as to hide something that I want hidden from the victims viewpoint. Ask yourself why do the same people show up with a government title, after they have moved from a corporate title, and then through the revolving door, into another corporate title, back into another government title, like a silly game of musical chairs?
The answer is simple. The criminals must create a legal fiction. The purpose of the legal fiction is to shunt any power that is meant to hold the legal criminals to account, as the victims intend to defend themselves against further victimization at the hands of the criminals. Shunting is like grounding, like an electrical circuit with a short in the circuit, as the power that normally runs the light bulb, and the motor, doesn't get to the light bulb, or the motor, and the power "goes to ground" instead of reaching the light bulb and/or motor. The legal fiction is the ground, the short circuit, the place where all the defensive effort is focused and wasted; while the legal criminals get away with torture, mass murder, and extinguishing the human species, and lesser crimes like fraud, rape, cannibalism, who knows?
They may be eating toddlers while they rape them and doing so with your money, on your dime, and you seriously can't expect them to confess as much, since you hired them to lie for you in the first place.
You find out about their latest crime, and you blame The Government, or you blame Socialism, or you blame Capitalism, or you blame The FED, or you blame the IMF, or you blame Monsanto, or you blame Halliburton, or you blame Blackwater, or you blame Goldman Sachs, or you blame U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), or you blame the Nazi's, and that works, and it works every time, since the actual criminals just move to another title (false front base of criminal operations) while you blame the fictitious being.
Every watt of power that could have been used to stop the legal crime spree is sent to ground, grounding out, and doing the job of ensuring that the crime spree perpetuates.
How neat can it get?
Gold is confiscated by one group, which was done, it is a historical fact, and then gold is transferred, for free, a gift, to another place, for a specific reason, and the reason makes no sense, unless you start from a logical foundation, and avoid starting from a false foundation, such as the false foundation that the people reporting these things are people who intend to do good things.
Onto 3:
3.
nations faced balance-of-payments problems and had to devalue
Any group of people, working together honestly, equitably, reasonably, logically, with good sense, will increase their power, as a direct result of good investments, and the proof of this is measurable, and when this does not happen, when a group of people fail at producing more than they consume, there is an exceptional cause for such an event to occur, such as natural disaster, or man-made disaster, such as war, or such as something called a business cycle which is a fraud and an extortion of surplus wealth perpetrated by a few people as the exclusive group of a few people victimize the many honest productive people, and even in these cases, the honest productive people are often able to produce more than consumption despite the parasitic force of legal crime in the form of a perpetuating, man-made, disaster, thing, crime, called a Business Cycle.
Devaluation relative to yesterday is caused by the relationship between how many units of legal monopoly money circulate relative to how many things of value (surplus wealth) circulate, and the man-made disasters occur when the legal criminals increases in the money supply, and the new money is then spent on things that make the honest productive people weaker and therefore less able to produce more surplus wealth. If the increases in legal money were spent on making the honest productive people stronger the result would be more surplus wealth produced, because honest productive people like to work and make good things, that is what they do, when they are powerful, and the criminals know that, and the criminals know that they cannot allow the honest productive people to get too powerful.
If you were a legal criminal you would also have a vested interest in keeping the victims weak, as you cannibalize them, rape them, torture them, and mass murder them for your enjoyment. If they get powerful, they are no longer easy to victimize, and worse for you, they may actually stop holding your legal fictions to account, and they may actually hold you to account, for the number of people you have tortured to death, or eaten, or whatever else you have done while you perpetrated your crimes as a member of the legal crime cabal.
4.
the IMF would tide them over with bridge loans
Why wouldn't a group of people choose a better source for money, such as their own selves, instead of choosing to buy a loan from the same people who have caused their distress in the first place?
There is an answer. Here is a short list of possible answers:
1. Fear
2. Ignorance
3. I have the power to choose to take the offer I can't refuse, because I am also a criminal, just not as high up in the pyramid scheme, so I will take the loan, and I will sell the loan to other members of my club, and we will all get our own piece of the action, so long as the victims remain fearful and ignorant, and so long as the higher up criminals pick me as their good boy, and so long as the victims, err people, remain ignorant, desperate, powerless, and fearful.
4. You tell me
Moving onto the Fifth thing reported by Pat Buchanan:
5.
The loans would be repaid
Would interest be added to the repayment of loans from those who are victimized by the money monopoly scheme as the honest productive people struggle to produce more than they consume while their power is parasitically drained from them through these crimes of legal extortion, in addition to the loan principle, that they could have borrowed from themselves, and could have become their own employers, and could therefore have employed many of the people seeking work, and could have therefore moved the power to set the price of labor from employers to employees, as the number of employers grow more and more and as the number of workers grow less and less, reaching a point at which too many people will be looking for too few workers, and therefore the workers have the power to discount the price of buying the higher quality employer?
Well, I'm the one who can't write things that make sense, so why do I keep writing nonsense?
I based my foundation on neutral ground. So it makes no sense to someone who reads from the script that says that "they" are intending to do "good", or some other fiction.
On to 6:
6.
reduced exchange rate led to rising exports and reduced imports
Which is it better to be, A or B, in your mind, if you use your own mind, and to do so you may have to stop borrowing the minds of the legal criminals.
A. China (controlled by legal criminals)
A population of too many workers and not enough employers whereby the few powerful employers darken the skies with poison, and poison the water, so as to meet a growing export demand, while the imports that do flow into the country go directly to the few powerful employers while the many workers struggle to produce just enough to stay alive, miserably, suffering from health problems caused by too much work, not enough rest, too much stress, poisonous air, poisonous water, not enough nutritional food, and little or no fun.
B. America (controlled by legal criminals)
A population of too many workers and not enough employers whereby the few powerful employers move their employment opportunities offshore, to poison the water offshore, and too poison the air offshore, so as to meet a shrinking demand for imports, and an anemic demand for exports, as the number of workers increase while the number of employers decrease, because the supply of surplus wealth flows from the honest productive population to the few employers moving their employment opportunities to China with bail-outs, and giveaways, of trillions of dollars that may someday return to America and cause massive inflation.
Number 6 of the things I took from the report by Pat Buchanan, who may or may not be associated with The John Birch Society, explains, to some extent, the reason for things Made-in-China, being shipped to America despite the cost of shipping being added to the cost of the things sold in America, in competition with things Made-in-America, things that are made in America don't have the shipping costs added, which has to be a large amount of costs, since China is on the other side of the Earth.
1.
U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.
6.
reduced exchange rate led to rising exports and reduced imports
What fixes the rate of exchange. Who has the power to fix the rate of exchange, which leads to the situation whereby things Made-in-America are no longer Made-in-America, and instead things Made-in-China are shipped half way around the world to be sold in America?
Whose story makes sense, to whom, and why?
I have yet to read the rest of the report by Pat Buchanan from the Austrian Economics web site produced and maintained under the name Lew Rockwell.
I will edit this first and post it. Editing consumes a huge amount of my very limited power.