| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|||||||||||||
| REAL NEWS | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Apr 5th, 2011 05:51 pm |
|
41st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Left, Right, and the naked Emperor I am half way through that example of News. My first comment is to say that that News could be front page news, and prime time news, if more people wanted, demanded, more accurate news, instead of more effective lies. There is power in numbers, the left know it, and the right know it. You can too. Note:
Are you baffled? Please think. Consider: Take all that money and loan it to anyone with good credit, at no interest, for a home or business mortgage, and charge those with bad credit a measure of "interest"; where the interest debt is used to cover the costs associated with loan defaults. Got that? How many U.S. citizens will turn in their current mortgages to buy a home, or even build, a new home, and in doing so, they will effectively reduce their monthly mortgage payment in half, roughly half, because a no interest loan is about half the cost to the borrower compared to an interest earning loan. Is that too difficult to comprehend? Trust me on this math problem, for now, then check out the numbers yourself. You, by that method, by that use of that money, get a new home, or get to keep your current home, and you cut your monthly mortgage payment in half, and, you can start a new business, without paying interest on your business property mortgage. What happens? Each borrower, of that new use, of that new money, can save, or use, the money saved, each month, by that means. How many U.S. citizens would get that new loan? Still confused? Mortgage interest transfers power from the working people who create wealth to the bankers who have the license to create legal money. Money, power, flows from the many to the few, by the device known as mortgage interest. That use, of that money, does the opposite. That money, by that use, allows the people who create wealth, the workers, the business operators, to keep their money, and that flow of money no longer flows from the many to the few. The opposite of this: Debt Clock That, there, turns around, by that use, of that money. 3,300,000,000,000 Not enough evidence to convince the skeptics? At the same time as no-interest home mortgages are offered to borrowers (good credit = no interest, and bad credit = an interest charge to pay for risk) there can be a second loan product, offered, with that money. The second product, the second loan, the second financial instrument offered, is a 1% interest loan to anyone, where the borrower uses the power to purchase, to purchase something that is accurately measured as being something that creates more power out of less power. Do you not understand the concept of creating more power out of less power? I can guess that you do not, because those people, in that video, don't, and if they don't, then who does? Inflation is caused when power (money) is used to create more power (production) but fails to do that feat of magic. Deflation is caused when power (money) is used to create more power (production) and succeeds. Dennis says: The money hasn't been used to create jobs... That is half true. Jobs that do not produce more wealth do not increase power, wealth, power, purchasing power, and therefore the money used does not accomplish the goal, if the goal is to gain more power. Simple? Confused? If the money is used to create a job, where a person is hired to dig a hole, or torture someone, or murder massive numbers of people, and then another job is created, to fill in the hole, or provide medical car to the torture victim, or rebuild the destroyed area where the aggressive war for profit was executed, then the total power supply goes down, not up. Still confused? 3,300,000,000,000 If product two is used for, say, the purchase of electric cars and solar panels, on the homes of the working people, which include all the business people who work, owner's of businesses, in competition with other owner's of businesses, then, what happens to total power, and what happens to purchasing power, what happens to the power of the dollar to purchase things? If that money is used to lend money (power) to productive people, so as to help the borrowers produce even more, what happens? What happens if legal money stops being the tool by which a few people exploit the many and legal money becomes the tool used by the many to make the many more and more powerful? Too simplistic for you, because you prefer over-complexity? Each person borrowing a no-interest loan, also borrows a 1 percent interest loan (or higher interest if you have a low credit rating, to pay for the cost of bad loans), and each person cutting their home mortgage in half, buys 2 electric cars, and buys enough solar panels to fuel their home and their cars, and extra, not just enough, but extra, and they can sell extra power, sell extra electric power, back to the grid, and get a check in the mail for doing so. What happens if that money is used in that way as more and more people do things that way, instead of everyone, or most everyone, doing things this same old way, where the power we create is used to keep us paying for our destruction? This is not an NEWS. Example Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. The British aren't coming, they are here, they hire the "president", and they hire the "leadership" of congress, just as those who are not yet bought out, everyone has a price, with few exceptions. One republican, and one democrat out of how many? What difference do a few zeros make?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 7th, 2011 12:11 am |
|
42nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jMoaSYTPLc Anyone, I have viewed that link up to the point at which the speakers report about the deal made between China and Russia to trade oil for money, and the money traded isn't dollars, and the news goes further to uncover that Russia is now the place where the most oil is pumped out of the Earth, surpassing Saudi Arabia. If anyone has read anything that I write, then the significance of that event, where China is now powered by Russian oil, and both countries exclude any transfers of power to the west, no oil profits, no inflation tax (no connection whatsoever with the devalued U.S. dollar in that deal), then you may now begin to understand the significance of American power flowing to China for all the past decades whereby I have been watching this happen, and questioning the reason for it. That video, at that 25% point through it point, is now offering an explanation. No one else even asks the question, as far as I have found, and I've been asking, let alone propose a possible answer. I'm going back to view the rest of that presentation. I made it to the difficult part where Glen Beck is speaking, and I have to confess a general dislike for that person, and I can use that feeling I have when watching that person to imagine what someone, anyone, might think, or feel, about me, and the things I write. Before anyone swallows whole the words of Glen Beck, which I don't, I see an opportunity to expose something false that Glen Beck says. Glen Beck says: This has been tried before, but it has never, ever, worked before. That is false. Glen Beck may be ignorant, he may not be willfully spreading falsehood. The creation of an I.O.U. is a simple concept, it can work, it has worked, and it will work again. It is important to know why an I.O.U. is made before the judge of how well or how badly it works judges that measure. If the creation of an I.O.U. is created so as to enslave the targeted person who is fooled into debt, or forced into debt, then the result of that creation, that I.O.U., as to how well, or how badly, it worked, is the measure of how much power transfers from the borrower to the lender. If total power transfers from the borrower to the lender, and the borrower must work every waking moment just to stay alive, and all the earnings of that work, except the barest essentials required to keep the worker alive, transfers to the lender, then that is absolute success, for as long as the borrower and his heirs, or her heirs, and the lender and his heirs, or hers, remains alive. If the purpose of the I.O.U. is to transfer all power to the lender, from the borrower, then it works best when all power transfers from the borrower to the lender. If, on the other hand, the purpose of the I.O.U. is to use power to earn more power, then a historical example may suffice to illustrate how that works. Here are two: Stamp Script The key to its success was the fast circulation of Scrip within the local economy, 14 times higher than the Schilling! When a power has the legal license, the legal power, to create purchasing power (it isn't money without the power to purchase, and it isn't powerful money if it can't purchase more than its weight in gold, or more than it's energy content in oil, or more than it's wattage in electricity), then a power can BOOM or BUST an economy the size of China, let alone an economy the size of America. How fast can the BOOM spread? Read the link titled "Stamp Script", and know that an economy can boom when purchasing power accelerates, where the power of money speeds up, as long as the power is employed in productive work, the power used will be used to create more power. Power is used to get oil out of the ground and into cars. How much power is used? How much power is gained? How much more power is needed to run an economy on the power of horses? A. Oil powered economy = fast = BOOM = high rate of production for a lower cost of power invested. B. Horse and buggy economy = slow = pre-oil-boom = low rate of production for a higher cost of power invested. C. Aggressive wars for profit = fast = BUST for the victims = BOOM for the legal criminals = power stolen is invested in the work of maintaining the power to steal, and torture, and mass murder, and rape, and pillage, and even end the human species - for fun, and profit, for those very few in that business. It is called the business cycle, or business as usual, or the new world order, or any name, so long as the actual thing is known, the name, by any other name, still smells like rotting corpses, and fear. So, the message may sound like a doom day parade, and I'm here to tell anyone, anyone at all, that there are easy ways out, like flipping on a light switch, just wake up, and the more the better, the power is in the numbers, and the process of waking up can be very, very, very fast, reaching critical mass, and just like waking up on a new summer day, a cool breeze, without the plutonium, and the evil genie goes back in the bottle, and the legal criminals have to find real jobs, where they have to satisfy the needs of their customers, and do so better than the competition, and they can no longer give themselves raises at will, without consequence. Example two (refuting Glen Becks falsehood): California It isn't a requirement to be stupid, to be a political economist, it just appears to be the norm, and the reason becomes obvious, if you look well enough and long enough, the pieces eventually fit together. It took me decades to get this far. I'm returning to the Lindsey Williams report, and I hope Lidsey Williams isn't swallowing Glen Beck's falsehoods whole - he appears to be much to smart for that - to me.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 7th, 2011 01:48 pm |
|
43rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Part 3Most people in rich countries are paid more than they should be Anyone, The question (statement), again, is loaded. The reason why the question is loaded requires a good guess, or a true confession. The person making that claim (statement, question), will either explain why it is so loaded down with ambiguity, and loaded down with room to make false assumptions, or that person will not confess, and if not, then the person hearing, and then considering that claim, statement, or question, will have to deal with all that ambiguity, all that baggage, the loads, and loads, of room to load up the thing with false assumptions. My guess is that the person making the claim is a person who fails, or willfully avoids, considering the measures of power involved in the human phenomenon to which the claim, the statement, or the question is targeting. The thing being considered here, is a power struggle. A rich country, for example, may be a small native tribe deep within the Amazon Forest, if the measure of richness isn't specified. If the measure of richness is specified as the richness in the richness of being able to avoid exploitation by criminals, then America must be one of the poorest countries, by that measure, therefore the statement doesn't apply to America. Which place on earth, at which time, does the statement apply, according to the person making the statement? How confused can a person be, when a statement is so heavily loaded down with dogma? We, in America, are being robbed by the legal criminals, in a big, and a very big, measurable, and accurately measurable, way. How much power do you produce? How much power do you produce over the amount of power that you consume, and how much of the power that you do produce, over the power you consume, is your personal power to control, as you see fit? How much of what power you have left after you consume your power is stolen from you, or transferred from you, to someone else? How do they manage to steal, or transfer, that power, the power you create by your own industry? If the measure of richness is a measure of units of wealth, adding up to a total amount of wealth, and dividing that total supply of wealth by the total number of people in that country, then that measure can be either very accurate, and factual, or it can be falsified, and very misleading. Who owns, and has access to, and controls, all the wealth, who, in reality, is all that wealth divided among? Total Wealth divided by Total number of people Total Wealth divided by the number of people who have power over that wealth Is America powerful, or is it powerless? By what measure? America is not a rich country if all the riches are controlled by only a few people, and those few people take those riches and move those riches to another country, to boom other countries, like China, or bust other countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Japan, Columbia, Libya, Egypt, Vietnam, Korea, etc. Boom, bust, boom, bust, boom, bust, and by that means keep the power flowing one way. If that happens, how can America be on the list of rich countries, and again, if not, then the loaded claim, the loaded question, and the loaded statement does not apply to people getting "paid" in America, certainly not to the mean average, or any calculation of average person. Unless the actual person being paid, in America, is specified, such as a corporate raiders salary, plus entitlements, plus expenses, plus commission, and plus bonuses, or a fast food cook, the meaning of the claim is relatively meaningless. One is one, and the other isn't. Who is this "expert" kidding? I will now start the Real News Report, after this, my brief, introduction. Exactly. You know, I mean, we have been brainwashed, this idea that whatever market decides to pay people, we have to accept. You know, so if Mr. Blankfein at Goldman Sachs gets paid $50 million per year, it must be because he's worth it. You know, if people are poor in developing countries, it must be because they have low productivity. There it is, a specified example, of someone being paid. The reason why that person can raise his own pay, or have his co-workers raise his pay, as much as they please, please consider: that has more to do with who has the power to add zeros to the legal bank account, than it does to any other thing, they have that power, and they do things with that power, including the use of that power to brainwash their targeted victims, or hire flunkies to go around raiding corporations, to eliminate the competition, and to amalgamate all the power from everyone else, to them. If you have the power to add zeros to the legal bank account, or subtract zeros, then you have the power to make things, or brake things, big things. The people who make up that legal culture, in this case of that legal culture is America,those people who have the legal power to make, or brake big things, is a few people, not many, as is the legal culture, another culture in control of the power, by which things are made, or broken, and those few people, are in their own group, and they use The Federal Reserve franchise, the license, to move the power of wealth, to them, so as to keep that flow of wealth going to them, and they use the business cycle, to do it, and they use that power to eliminate all competition, as they must do, or failing the work of eliminating all competition: they have to increase quality, and lower cost, or fail to keep the power flowing to them, because failure to increase quality (the quality of money is the power that money has to purchase), and failure to lower cost (the cost of money is interest, or the measure of total increase or total decrease in power to purchase as a result of what is done with that power to purchase), and failure to compete in that way, will cause the target market, the consumers, to select the better money, and stop using the worst money. A. Failure to eliminate competition results in competition B. Failure to produce better money at lower cost is failure to compete C. Failure to compete is powerless, power then flows to the better competitor Failing to accurately identify that real problem, where an effective monopoly power manages to siphon all the wealth by that means, will fail to justify, the supposed validity of the statement, as the statement applies to any other worker, or any other "earner" of pay in America. A. Corporate raider (legal criminal) B. Not A The thing the "expert" says next is a magic act, a bait and switch, and a very troubling employment of willful falsehood, as this "expert" can't be both stupid and smart, at the same time. The bait is to claim the finance industry worker is in view, and things apply to him, and the switch is any other worker, and the same things don't apply to him, or her. What things? The finance industry worker does not face a scarcity of power, all the insider finance industry worker has to do is add zeros, and then the finance industry worker has abundant power. Is that a significant distinction, or a powerless one? Any other worker has to make more power out of less power, or manage to exchange human labor, or human ideas, for more power produced by other people who also make more power out of less power, or someone steals power. Which is it? If power is stolen, by trickery, or by threat of violence, or actual violence, who pays that bill, power is consumed in the process of stealing, stealing requires work, thought, action, expense. Who pays the bill? But is it really the market that's deciding? And, I mean, that's my point, because, you know, for example, if you liberalize that in terms of immigration, probably 80, maybe even 90 percent of people in the rich countries can be and probably will be replaced by cheaper immigrants. And we are not just talking about cleaners and taxi drivers; we are talking about medical doctors [inaudible] engineers. Bait: Market forces work this way on a Wall Street Banker "employee" Switch: Market forces work this way on people who are not employed in the Wall Street, insiders, club. They don't work the same way. The insider club steal all the wealth created by all their targeted victims, which include everyone who uses that monopoly legal money, and the measure of theft is as exact as it needs to be, if the idea is to know, exactly who are the criminals, and who are the victims. Just follow the money back to the source. Who has the legal power to increase the supply of money from what it is today, to 3.3 Trillion more dollars 4 months later, in 2008? Who did it? Why did they do it? Where did that money go? Who benefited by that purchase, and that use, of that money? Who paid the bill, or who is paying the bill? Stealing costs something, it doesn't fall from the sky. Did that money, stolen in 2008, 3.3 Trillion dollars, buy things that make more power? Did that money buy things that destroy things that make more power, like people, and hospitals, and farms, and bridges, and power plants? How much does it cost to bomb Libya? How much power does it cost, if money is worthless? Where does the power come from, who makes the power? Who makes the money? Who is credited with the power of earning? Do you need 8 by 10 glossy photos of how a bomb destroys a person in reality, how a bomb destroys things that can, and do, make more power out of the power consumed by them? How about a bridge, a hospital (full of people), a power station (full of more people)? I don't. If that power, such as that 3.3 Trillion dollars, was distributed among the powerful (productive, not destructive) people in America, or just never stolen from them in the first place, then it is very likely, provable, that the biggest scarcity in America, would be a lack of laborers, not enough of them immigrating, here, to fill the demand for them, and they could then name their own price. A. Power is stolen from the only place power can be stolen, from those who produce power, and then power is transferred to the people who use that power to destroy all competition that threatens their power to steal, and perpetuate their power to steal. B. Not A, and therefore there is more power, and therefore more power is used to create more power, and therefore workers become higher in demand, and therefore workers become scarce, and therefore the power to price the price of work transfers from the criminals to the workers. Why must these "experts" lie so much, as they justify the up-side-down world, as if there could be no other, as if the right-side-up world can't exist? What is the supposed solution? Higher taxes flowing from productive people to the legal criminals, to "create jobs"? The right side up world does exist, and all you have to do to see it, is look, but you have to look past the drama that is written in the script, the huge thing called falsehood, where the constructors of that drama use all the power they can steal to keep it real, and it costs a whole lot of people a whole lot of their power to keep it going, and going, and going, like a demonic electric bunny. Failing to measure the power at play, is a huge failure. Who controls the power, what does the power do as it flows to where it is directed by those who control it? Failure to know that, is not an oversight, so much as it is a goal. CHANG: Exactly. You know. And, you know, I personally replaced a British guy 20 years ago when I got my job in Cambridge. So it's not like--. Well, I don't know that whole story, but perhaps the British guy wasn't reading, as well, from the script, perhaps he was blowing the whistle, confessing the truth? Can't have that running rampant, so, you're fired. Who will read from the script? Ah, you, good, you're hired. Here is your script, don't ever say that, here, here, say this, yes, that, say that a lot. I mean, it is that our productivity, individual productivity, is largely collectively determined, and therefore you cannot have these people argue that, well, I get $50 million because I'm worth it--no, because his $50 million earning is supported by the whole society. Again, that is measurable as power, and I can explain. A single person working alone has an amount of power, some individuals have more power, more brain power, more physical power, compared to another person, but alone, their power is limited to whatever they can produce (or destroy) alone. When the "expert" says "collectively determined" the actual measure of that "collectively determined" power is determined by agreement between individuals to combine power and make use of tools, just like a wheel is a powerful tool, just like oil and electricity are powerful tools, and a lever, or inclined plane, is a tool, or even math, or science, ideas, are tools, and in the case of "collectively determined" measures of increasing power, the tools are: 1. Division of labor (you do that job while I do this job) 2. Specialization (while you get better at that job, I get better at this job) 3. Economies of scale (the work load, cost, is divided by more workers, therefore each worker pays less, the more the better, as each individual worker has to work less and less to get the same, or more, productive, or destructive, output) Those tools are not available to the single person. A single person can't divide labor, a single person has to do every job himself; hence a "collectively determined" power increase is not possible by the single person working alone and unconnected to anyone else. A single person can specialize in one thing, and then specialize in another thing, but the power of specialization only works to the limit of the single person's capacity (power) to work, there can be no "collectively determined" increases in power gained by specialization, since the single person has to stop doing what he is doing, and then start doing the next thing he is doing, or she, and two people combining specializations don't have to stop and start, and that saves, or divides, a whole lot of costs, the entire cost of stopping and starting each job is avoided, traveling to each source of raw material by both is avoided, storing materials by both is avoided, and there are many, many, many costs that are divided through specialization when one single person no longer has to do everything alone. Economies of scale, the word, does not do the process justice, the actual phenomenon, of "economies of scale" can be understood by measuring the actual things produced "collectively" such as, an Egyptian Pyramid, where they didn't even have oil power to use, as a cost saving tool, a labor saving tool, back then. Someone claiming to earn a high pay rate for taking all the credit for building the Pyramid, is someone failing to understand political economy, or that is someone using lies to cover-up that tool, falsehood, which they wish to keep as their exclusive tool, a secret tool, and a tool that must be made as scarce as possible to everyone else: do as I say not as I do. Falsehood and violence must be scarce, because too much of it will completely eliminate productive human activity. Criminals, legal or otherwise, can't allow too many of the workers converting to their religion, the crime God. I alone have the license to lie, you must obey, not me. I alone have the license to print money, you can't. I alone have the license to torture, you would abuse that license. I alone have the license to benefit from double speak, you must be victimized by it. Obey, there is no: "or else". This is an offer you can't refuse, you don't have enough power to refuse, and you don't have enough power to disobey, not alone. So...go build me a pyramid, and get me a drink of water, and tomorrow, just for fun, and profit, I think we will begin an aggressive war, be ready, ahhhh, after you build my pyramid, and after you get me that drink, or do I have that order backwards? Back to the drawing board? Another example of economies of scale, the power of it, as illustrated with real world examples, are the prices of personal computers, or things mass produced, and things in high demand, things that start out small, and expensive, and then they become big, big business servicing big markets, competitive business, higher quality, and lower cost. What explains the lower cost? A single person alone could not make a modern personal computer, not enough power, not in a century of life times. Who get's the credit for making personal computers so cheap? Socialism? Capitalism? "Collective determined" dogma? Power? If so, what form does that power take? Division of labor Specialization Economies of scale Competition (forcing quality up and cost down) Credit, or reason, or cause for the effect, goes to those powers. That is the answer to the question: What power causes an increase in the human capacity to create power? Who gains control over that surplus wealth, that "collective determined" increase in total power? What is the process by which those people gain that control over that power? Well, that's--then you could go to my point 25 would be: if the whole society is producing the wealth of the society, why are we still living with forms of private ownership that come from the 1500s? But--. But...: There is no "whole of society", the measure of "collective" power is a sum of all the individual powers, using tools, using "leverage", to gain more, and more, and more, power, power enough to travel to the moon, if that is the goal, if the goal is to go to the moon, then there is enough power potential to do so, with the tools, to get to that goal. There is no "state'. All there are are individual people. The "State" or "Society" can't, ever, decide to go to the moon, or conduct an aggressive war for profit, or tax the rich, or give to the poor, since no such "thing" exists. Collective sums of power are aggregates, totals, sums, or measures, of all the individual powers, and an individual person can see how many other individuals add to that collection of total power, the sum, doesn't become a thinking being, a being capable of thought, a being capable of responsibility, a being that has an "interest", such as a "National Interest" or a "Social Interest", or a "Collective Interest", to think so, to dream up that imaginary being, that Man of Straw, is false. It does not exist as a being unto itself, capable of responsibility, and therefore it is incapable of accountability, which is why it is created, as such, in the first place. The Bank did it. The Government did it. The Corporation did it. The gun did it. Bad, bad, bad Bank. Bad, bad, bad Government. Bad, bad, bad Corporation. Bad, bad, bad gun. Bad, bad, bad lie. While the victims, or the witnesses, are blaming the Bank, the Government, the Corporation, the gun, and the lie (the Man of Straw), the criminal picks up another Bank (name), another corporation (name), or another gun, or another lie, and moves on, as planned. Isn't that game tiresome by now? How much does that game cost, and who pays the bill? What is the process by which the many focus their power in the work of accomplishing the things that are produced, such as aggressive wars for profit, or defensive wars for defense, or Pyramids, or Trips to the Moon, or Personal Computers, or legal fictions? There must be a process, even if the process is totally random, which may be a claim someone makes, and which may be a claim that someone else may want to question. What is the process? There is one. There is a process by which someone, or some group, will determine what the group does, and if the group doesn't decide to employ the power they have into the work of creating more power, then there won't be more power. What is the process? If the process is ambiguous, or "left to someone else to figure out", then for that single person, accomplishing that failure to know what the process is, gives up on that power of knowledge, and without the faintest shadow of doubt, someone else will specialize at that job, and it is a very powerful job to have, by hook, or by crook. Which process? Socialism? Capitalism? You don't know? You didn't do your homework. I did. The job was, and is, ignored by most people, say, 99.999% of the population, including both the "expert" and Pal Jay, and the remaining .001% of the population are on that job, they do that job, that is their job, they are employed in that work, they are the workers of that goal, and the job they have constructed, the form of it, the actual product they have in place, should not be a surprise, to all the people who have failed to take on that job. The process isn't capitalism. The process isn't socialism. In one word, the process is, crime. In two words, the process is, legal crime. Those are sound bites. In three words, the process is, The Business Cycle, Legal Money Monopoly, Falsehood and Violence. Confusing the process that is working with other things, like socialism, and capitalism, just so happens to keep the actual process going, and it is working as it is designed to work now; while the ignorant, and the confused, are doing the job they have to do, to keep that process going. Who is telling the truth? You are not. I am. When will you begin telling the truth? How many people must get on the job of knowing and then producing the process that uses power to make more power, instead of the process that is in operation now? Answer: more than one. You may think that I (I can imagine, I have an imagination), you may think that I am a megalomaniac, for claiming such things. The proof is in the pudding. How is capitalism working for the capitalists? How is socialism working for the socialists? What can you guys do to make those processes work better? If you think that the socialists are in your way, when criminals are really in your way instead, and if you think that the capitalists are in your way, when the criminals are really in your way, then might it occur to you that you may want to find something about socialism, or capitalism, that agrees with the other? Do you know what Hegelism is, or do you know what is meant by Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis? Do you know that some people work toward the goal of getting one group of people to fight another group of people, trick, and arm, both sides, so as to profit from their fights, to sell them what they must have to defeat each other, and then, they get, for themselves, no bid contracts to clean up the mess when it is over? They destroy things and then they give themselves bonuses for doing so? Is that a news item? Is that a surprise? No, you don't know that, it is absurd to you, unthinkable? Unspeakable? Really, and I am the megalomaniac (if that is what you think)? Yeah. No. You know, I mean, on this I can only agree with Gore Vidal, who some time ago famously said that the American economic system is capitalism for the workers and socialism for the rich. So there you go. The idea that all economic activity is based upon scarcity, and that "every individual will" profit, by "excluding" all others, comes from Karl Menger, the Austrian Economist. That is dogma. The famous "profit motive" and the "invisible hand", and all the other dogma, pertains to falsehood, and is used by those who use falsehood, and so why would anyone read from that script, unless the idea is to follow the script, and therefore, the idea is to keep things going as they are going? Yes or no? If someone is greedy, their profit is not simply a gain, the gain must be a measurable gain, that is gained, at the expense of someone else, or the satisfaction doesn't materialize, if I understand the concept of greed. Not just gain, that is not the goal, the goal is gain, at the expense of someone else, that is the goal. Get it? Are you getting it? Are you being screwed? Do you think it is random? Do you think that the people you hire to protect you are screwing you by accident, and next time they will do their job better? Really? That is not the same thing as someone who thinks that a short term sacrifice is worth a long term gain, such as, volunteering to repel an aggressive army of criminals, repeal an army of criminals who are bent on torture and mass murder, an army of criminals who want torture and mass murder for their exclusive sense oppf profit, at the expense of the target market, the target victims, or the target natives, not the same thing as the goal of repelling those criminals, so as to gain the future profit, the possible future profit, of freedom from victimization by people conducting aggressive wars for profit, or less crimes, or greater crimes. The gain in view, by the soldier volunteering, is the gain in view by the soldier volunteering. Ask one. Ask what gets him, or her, up in the morning? What drives him, or her, each moment, any moment, to find out what drives him, or her, according to him, or her, and don't rely upon a talking head, with an axe to grind, or a lie to perpetuate. What keeps them moving from point A to point B? Ask anyone. What causes you to move out of bed, ask yourself? If the motive isn't self-motivation, what is it? If you decide to sacrifice for others, and that is what you decide to do, then why don't you decide to gain at the expense of others, why do you decide one path, and not the other, at any moment, at any time, during the process of living? A person who will consume himself, or herself, in the work of helping someone else, is driven to do so by some power. What is that power? If it isn't self generated, then it is externally generated, if it isn't a choice made by the individual, then it is a choice made by some other power, and if the individual decides, despite all external powers, to go ahead and consume his, or her, life to help others, then how can that not be his, or her, profit, by his, or her, exclusive measure? Capitalism is defined by a capitalist. What do they say? What do they do? Do they consume less than they make? Do they profit at the expense of other people? Socialism is defined by a socialist. What do they say? What do they do? Do they consume less than they make? Do they profit at the expense of other people? Do other people give willingly, to expend their power in service of others? Do other people transfer power un-will-ingly? What is that process?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 8th, 2011 05:16 pm |
|
44th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Part IVSo the argument is, if we control inflation, we control the world economy, and everything will just be prosperous. Anyone, I just started the Real News Report and I am going to introduce my viewpoint before I comment on the viewpoints reported in that report. That quote above is a confession. CONTROL INFLATION and CONTROL THE WORLD ECONOMY In your face. There is no "if" and the "we" is exclusive. One power controls inflation, not two, not three, and certainly not "we". To understand this, please, I am begging, please, please, please, use an illustration by which these facts can be easily understood. In 2008 the ONE power that can inflate did inflate and the reports I get, and the reports reported by the ONE power report, confess, a significant event, in 2008, where that ONE power inflated, on the books, and perhaps that ONE power did some extra, off the books, or on the second set of books, inflation, then, and up to today, now. The event is recorded in history, and it illustrates that exclusive power: the power to inflate. The event can be roughly illustrated, quickly, so as not to get bogged down with exact numbers, and dates, and to get to the point, get to the principles involved. Early 2008 the total number of legal dollars were X (a known quantity). Late 2008 the total number of legal dollars becomes 2 times X (twice the earlier known quantity). The principle here is factual. One legal license enfranchises ONE legal entity with the exclusive power to add (or subtract) from the number of legal dollars, in this case U.S.A dollars, or American money. Those are the facts. The illustration is factual. The one legal entity, run by an unelected, or quasi-elected, ambiguously elected, appointed, person, or a few people agreeing upon decision making, but none-the-less, ONE group, doubled the number of legal dollars in 2008. Suddenly adding double the total number of dollars to THEIR bank account is a powerful, exclusive, power, a power "we" don't have. For the sake of understanding, it can be offered, put on the table, that the actual number of the actual increase, in 2008, was 3.3 Trillion dollars. The principle here is called Monopoly Power, exclusive power, and the reason why this is a principle, is the cause and effect force that works against Monopoly Power, which is competition. A. Monopoly power (no force forcing quality up and cost/price down) B. Competition (forcing competitors to satisfy consumers or go out of business for failing to do so) If there were two franchises, and not one, then the force of competition would force quality up, and cost down, and without two franchises, and without the force of competition, the Monopoly Power has no force forcing quality up, and cost down. If you have a brain left in your head, see this, please. If the U.S.A., America, were in competition with China, to see which money was better, than we would spend that new money, created in 2008, at home, by using that money, to make more power here at home, to make us more powerful, and therefore our money empowers us to use money to make more wealth, at home. We would use that money to improve transportation, for example. How? Could that money be used to subsidize the production of Electric Cars, here, not China, and could that money be used to decommission the entire fleet of government gas guzzling cars, and have all government employees driving electric cars by Monday? Could that money be used to subsidize the production of Solar Panels, here, not China, and could that money be used to add to the electric power grid power, by installing Solar Panels on all government buildings, where all the government employees could charge their government cars, and pay less per mile (80% less) compared to using gas guzzling cars, by Monday? 3.3 Trillion dollars went somewhere. Did it go to the Middle East to bomb innocent victims in the effort to control vast fields of sweat crude oil? If it did, wouldn't the ONE monopoly power want to keep that a secret from you? No, you don't care? OK, I'm going to imagine, I'm going to use my power of sympathy, to get in your shoes, and I'm going to imagine that you have no problem with aggressive wars for profit, so long as you don't have to pay so much for gasoline. If the aggressive war for profit works, and the excuse for it allows me to avoid guilt, then I get to pay less at the gas station, and I can upgrade my T.V. with that savings. I have news for you. The bombing in Libya is done to stop, not add to, the flow of oil. The result will be higher gasoline prices. You have been had, again. Is it about time that you questioned your own confidence in knowing the truth? The ONE monopoly power has to destroy the competition, failing to do so, forces quality up and cost down. Islamic finance may be the only competitor feared by the ONE monopoly power, and therefore, it may make sense, that the targets are now the Muslim people - with their no-interest mortgage systems. Perhaps not. There is a need to know, where the 2008 dollar double down power went, for any rational human being, who may want to know what will happen soon. On to the Real News Report, for me. But as you try to bring it down from, you know, 5 percent to 2 percent, 4 percent to 1 percent, we have to do a lot of things which depress demand, which translate into job losses. And, you know, of course, I mean, everyone as a consumer might benefit, because their grocery bill is 1 percent smaller, but don't forget that a lot of people are paying for this in the form of being unemployed. If that confuses you, or even if my words confuse you, then your power to avoid having your power stolen from you is measurably powerless, by that confusion. That quote confuses me, as to why those words are chosen by that person, the subject does not confuse me. Inflation is simple, but to know the simplicity of it, the viewer must understand the difference between inflation during an enforced monopoly and inflation during a competitive force. Falsehood, lies, deceit, secrets, double dealings, threats of violence, and actual examples of brutal violence upon the innocent, are the necessary things required to enforce a monopoly. Higher quality and lower prices (more benefit for less cost) are the forces that force competition in force. If you do not understand that distinction, you may very well be very confused, because you may very well confuse a monopoly force (falsehood and violence) with competitive forces (higher quality and lower cost = more benefit for less cost). A monopoly force moves power from the many to the few, that is the object, the goal, and the design, the purpose, and the effect, of a monopoly force, and it works that way measurably, when it works. Competitive forces move benefits up and costs down for all the competitors. Which is better? Which is better for whom? Monopoly forces are better for the very few who profit by their enforcement, as they trick other people into enforcing them, for a low wage for their work in enforcing them, and monopoly forces are something for nothing schemes, pyramid schemes, frauds, cabals, organized crime rings, for the few who receive the benefits at the expense of the victims who work to perpetuate them. Competitive forces are better for both producers and consumers, at the expense of no one, except the criminals who no longer have their monopoly power in force. Those are the two discriminatory distinctions that accurately identify which path can benefit which people and who has to pay for their share of surplus wealth. Surplus wealth is created as people agree to work toward that goal. Competition forces people to improve quality and lower cost, failing to do so does not destroy anything, a failure by one is a success by another, and anyone failing at one thing, may then move to another thing, and succeed at the new thing, since surplus wealth becomes abundant, and since labor becomes scarce, that type of systematic focus reaching for the goal of more benefit, for less cost, increases the opportunities available to work toward that goal, since no one is left working in the work of eliminating competition. If the Real News Report is focusing attention upon monopoly power systems, then that is what it is doing. If it is focusing attention on a free market, where competition is the power in force, then that is what it is doing. If the Real News Report is confusing one with the other, than that is what it is doing. Inflation, in a free market, must improve benefits (higher quality) and lower cost, or that example of inflation will go out of business, because some other producer will improve benefits and lower costs. Which leads to the question, the answer is vital, as to why the inflation was ordered, and then produced, and what was purchased with the purchasing power created by that inflation? Did China inflate? If so, then what did China purchase? Why did they inflate? Did The Federal Reserve inflate, as they did in 2008? What did they purchase with their exclusive increase in the power to purchase? If the Real News Report is suggesting that the people at The Federal Reserve inflated for a reason, then what is the reason? What was purchased? Why proceed with any "theory" on politics or economics, without the vital facts? If the money created, the inflation, is invested productively (creating more power, more wealth, more purchasing power), then aggregate (average) prices go down, not up. If the money created, the inflation, is malinvested, used in the work of destroying wealth, then aggregate prices go up, not down. Is that too simple? If China invests while The Federal Reserve malinvests, then China wins that competition, and The Federal Reserve people may be out of a job, because China increases quality and lowers cost, while The Federal Reserve people lower quality and increase cost. Does that sound too simple? So if you're sitting on assets, if you have a lot of money and a lot of ownership of things, you want to protect the value of those assets. You don't want them to depreciate through inflation. And so if people lose their jobs, that's not your problem I suppose. An asset is valuable as wealth. A barrel of oil, for example, contains power in it, measurable as power, watts, or measurable as force, newtons, or measurable as energy, joules. The asset is valuable, or the asset isn't valuable, and the money value of the asset is a separate thing. Paul Jay should know that fact. The change of value of a money can change the value of an asset for reasons that are specific to the money and the asset. Example: Gold prices tend to go up as malinvestment occurs with legal money value. The change of the value of gold is minor compared to the change in value of the legal money value because the change in the value of the legal money (caused by malinvestment) is inversely proportional to the change in the value of gold, because the change in the value of money causes the change in the value of gold. To see that more clearly, the viewer can look at actual current reality. China is inflating their legal money and using that legal money to buy up as much gold as they can. The Federal Reserve group of people are inflating their legal money to do secret things that may include aggressive wars for profit, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. If China buys all the gold in the world, then they can demand payment for gold in Chinese legal money, and by that strategy the gold they have monopolized will add to the power their money has, as a power to purchase, because anyone who needs, or wants gold, in the world, has to buy Chinese dollars first, before they can buy gold next. If the Federal Reserve group of people gain control of all the oil in the world, they can demand payment for oil in dollars, and then anyone in the world that needs oil, will be someone needing dollars first, so as to buy oil next. As soon as China starts selling gold, gold flows to other people, and then other people can buy things with that gold, or use that gold to make things, and then sell things. What happens if someone uses the power they have to find a new gold mine, where the cost of mining the gold is minimal, suppose someone on an island just happens upon a gold source that is the size of a mountain, and all that is needed is the work of chipping the gold off the side of the mountain, and packaging it up, and selling it for money, selling it for a new money, a money demanded by the new gold producer, call it gold island mountain dollars. Imagine that, a new Country called Gold Island Mountain, a new Central Bank printing new Gold Island Mountain Dollars, and anyone wanting to buy new gold has to buy new Gold Island Mountain dollars first, and the illustration works if you imagine that the pile of gold is twice the amount of gold already known to man. The one guy, and a few employees, on the new Gold Island Mountain, a new country, a new Federated Republic of one person, and a few low wage workers, doubles the supply of gold over night. The illustration is useful. The people at the Federal Reserve would hire people to advertise an excuse for invading gold island mountain, supposedly to find the weapons of mass destruction, to help or aid the terrorists, to spread democracy, and, of course, while "we" are there, we get the gold, in our national interest - of course. I can then upgrade my T.V. The barrel of oil, unlike the gold island mountain, actually contains real power, and that real power can actually be consumed in the process of making more power, such as the production of food, which is also a power product, a product that has a measurable quantity of power within it, measurable as calories, or newtons, or watts, since power, force, and energy are all measurable with measurements that can be converted to the other measurement - one way or the other. The point here is to point out how the power of legal money is different from the power of actual power. Actual power remains actual power even if a person chooses not to appraise it as high as someone else. This point is well illustrated in Joe's Law. Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. Gold is not a power product when compared to oil, and therefore oil is a much more competitive currency compared to gold, but not as competitive compared to a more powerful source of power. Illustrate the difference with Joe's Law, and see for yourself, and I hope that Paul Jay is reading my work here. Try out five things, and plug these five things into Joe's Law, and see if political economy becomes much more understandable and much less confusing: 1. Chairs 2. Gold 3. Oil 4. Solar Panels 5. Accurate knowledge Start with chairs, and plug chairs into Joe's law, and then understand how things work with Gold. Chairs produced into oversupply, reduce the price of chairs, while purchasing power decreases (inflation), because chairs do little to reduce the cost of production. What happens if chairs are produced too much? The condition of oversupply, or too many chairs, is reached soon, and if everyone kept producing chairs, no one would have time and energy to produce anything else, and so the power supply would be all used up in chair production, and food supplies would drain out, and only chairs would be available, and chairs would be worth nothing, and although you could buy a chair for nothing, you may even have to pay someone to store chairs that are in the way, but the price on everything else would go through the roof, because all the power available would be spent on making chairs, and no power is left to make anything else, and all the money in the world couldn't buy a hot dog, since no one had any time or energy left to make one hot dog, because everyone spent every once of power on making too many chairs, and, or but, people had to also make more money, print more money, and print enough money to buy all the chairs, not much money at all, but they had to print enough money to by everything else wanted, or needed, and no matter how much money they printed, and no matter how many chairs they made, it was never enough money, and never enough chairs, because the price of all the things not made, with the scarce power available, had been priced out of reach for everyone, including the people who make and sell dollars, and including all the people making and selling chairs. Everyone has nothing but chairs and money, and no one has enough power to make a hot dog, because chairs, and money, does not lower the cost of producing chairs, or money, or hot dogs. So chairs can be overproduced, reasonably, measurably, obviously, and logically. Don't ever do it, there's no money in overproducing chairs. Who would ever want to overproduce chairs? Who would ever want to stop someone from producing too many chairs? Who would ever make a law that forced people to stop producing too may chairs? Who would ever make a law that forced people to stop looking at the sun? Who would ever make a law that forced people to stop sticking their hands in the fire? Who would ever make a law that forced people to stop being stupid? Now plug in Gold into Joe's Law. Gold produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of gold while purchasing power decreases (inflation) because gold does not reduce the cost of production competitively. Compared to chairs, gold can certainly be produced more toward overproduction, from now on, until gold reaches closer to overproduction. Gold is now being produced, but gold is very scarce, gold will not reach overproduction soon, compared to chairs, but compared to oil, or compared to solar panels, or comparing gold production to the production of accurate knowledge, gold will reach overproduction very soon, because gold does not contain actual power. Oil contains actual power. Solar Panels convert actual power. Accurate knowledge is actual power. Gold does have a power called conductivity, but the point here is a competitive power scale. At some point: gold reaches an obvious over-supply, too much gold, too much power misused unproductively, and not enough power used productively, when too much power is used in producing gold, there is not enough power left over after consuming scarce power in the work to get too much gold, not enough scarce power left to be used to make other, more valuable, things; as gold becomes worthless, as more and more gold is produced after that point, when overproduction of gold is reached, as gold is not a competitive power product. Too much gold, like too many chairs, is bad, measurably bad, stupid, worthless, a malinvestement, poor. Not good. Now compare oil. Oil produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of oil while purchasing power increases (DEFLATION) because oil, unlike chairs, and unlike gold, contains actual power, and actual power actually reduces the cost of actual production - competitively. A gold miner must use labor, or gasoline, or a more beneficial power, a lower cost power, to mine, to transport, and to produce gold. Gold doesn't power up, or fuel, the dump truck. Chairs don't fuel the dump truck, or the other equipment, or the other people, used to make chairs, or mine gold. Oil can be forced out of the competitive power business by a better source of power, but oil remains a source of power, even if a better source of power takes over the power business. A. Non-power products (no power, not competitive in the power product business) B. Power products (the best power product is more powerful and therefore more competitive) One oil producer can be forced out of business by a more competitive oil producer if one oil producer charges more for the same thing compared to the more competitive oil producer, but both are in the power business, not in the chair business, and not in the gold business. Competitive oil power businesses increase wealth, and power, by producing and selling more power, more power flowing into the economy, and if it is competitive it will be flowing into the economy at the lowest price, lower than the competition, so long as there is no monopoly on that oil power, no cabal, no consortium, no lies, no force, no legal crime. Oil power increases total power, total wealth, it does so itself, therefore purchasing power increases (deflation) accordingly. Oil remains a power product,and therefore oil is a more powerful backing for monetary currency, oil is a monetary currency, because oil is power. Oil power can even increase the power of legal money even if a competitor has a more powerful source of power, just not as much of an increase in legal money power (deflation). Power produced into oversupply INCREASES purchasing power. Power produced into oversupply causes DEFLATION of the monetary currency. You have just used Joe's Law to accurately identify the difference between a power product and a non-power product. A power product produced closer and closer toward overproduction does not result in a decrease in the power to purchase, the opposite occurs, and that is significant, and that is overlooked, and that is confused, and that is important, and that is powerful, because the goal can be to reach for more, and more, and more power, until such time as power is abundant, and therefore the price of power is as low as it can get, and at that time money purchasing power increases (deflation) to the limit it can get. A non-power product that is overproduced will not increase the power to purchase with money, and that is because actual power reduces the actual cost of production, and things that are actually not powerful don't reduce the cost of production. Still confused? What happens in America if chairs or gold become so abundant that the price of chairs and the price of gold is negative? People are paying other people to store unwanted, and unused chairs, and people are paying other people to store unwanted and unused gold? What happens to the economy in America when those non-power products are overproduced? What happens in America if oil becomes so abundant that the price of oil is negative and people are paying other people to store oil, so much oil is everywhere, so much that the price goes negative, and oil runs like water or oil runs like sunlight on a cloudless summer day? Obviously the price of a barrel of oil goes to the floor, but what else happens? Chair and gold overproduction causes chair and gold prices to drop to nothing, and what happens next, as a result of that overproduction? Oil overproduction causes oil, and gasoline prices, to go down to the bottom, the minimum, down to the cost of bringing the product to the consumers of the product, and what happens next? Today chair prices are 100 dollars a chair, and gold prices are 1000 dollar an ounce, and gasoline prices are 4 dollars a gallon. Tomorrow chair prices fall to 1 dollar per chair, gold prices fall to 1 cents an ounce, and gasoline prices are down to 50 cents a gallon, or less. What happens? If you see food prices going down, while your monthly pay stays the same, and you no longer spend 100 dollars to fill up your truck, to get to work, then your cost of living goes down, considerably, and your work load stays the same, and the cause was an increase in power flowing into the "economy", not more money, more power. Now plug in Solar Panels, or food, or any competitive source of actual physical, measurable, power into Joe's Law, and see what happens? Power is abundant, overproduced, and deflation occurs. When actual power becomes scarce inflation occurs. What happens if accurate knowledge, brain power, reaches a condition of oversupply? Would anyone vote for a liar again? Would anyone ever send another watt of power to a torturing and mass murdering cabal of legal criminals again? What happens to the amount of benefits earned when the expense, or costs, of producing those benefits lower? Power reduces the cost of production. Are costs going up or down? Are benefits going up or down? How much power do you have, what does it cost you to get more power? In whose best interest is it to keep you from gaining power? What is a powerful way to move toward progress? What is needed? There is power in numbers. Free-market policies rarely make poor countries rich. I covered that too. Confusing crime with the free market process is a choice, or a plan of attack, and that plan, that choice, to confuse crime with the free market process, when executed, will transfer power from the confused to those who profit from those who are confused, or from those who are ignorant, from those who are powerless. Why do it? There is an obvious answer. Capital has a nationality. Capital can be understood as physical matter, of, and belonging to, the physical world, and the concept of economy can be understood in the same light, as physical, measurable reality - separate from perception. Objective reality. Capital is a barrel of oil, for example. A chair is capital. A bar of gold is capital. A solar panel is capital. An asset is a assessment of capital. A judgment. A perception. Subjective observation. Nationality can be understood to be psychological matter, of, and belonging to, the world of ideas, perceptions, judgments, evaluations, assessments, etc. A Nation is the way someone views a place on earth. If a person claims a place on the moon, or a place on mars, is a part of a place on earth, a person does so with ideas, not physical matter. If the place on the moon, claimed to be a part of a place on earth, belonging to China, or belonging to America, and in doing so, the next thing done is to connect the place on the moon to the place on Earth, by sending people and machines there, and by removing, say, a quantity of gold, or a quantity of matter, a new powerful substance, He-3, from the moon, to the Nation, on earth, then there is a combination of physical matter along with psychological matter, or economy and politics mixed, subjective and objective connections, the earth connected to the moon. The idea drives the work that causes the physical matter to move from one place to another place, and the perception can be such that the Moon is now a part of the Nation, if that is what the person claims. A person may claim that it is in the Nation's interest to claim the moon as part of the Nation. Other people may believe that claim. Why? Capital has a nationality. Capital = physical matter = economy Nation = law = psychological matter = perception = politics. Capital can exist within a geographical place on a planet where people share an idea that the place claimed is a nation. We live in this Nation. They actually live where they live. What they agree to call it, is what they agree to call it. A Nation is a legal fiction, as is a corporation. Nationalism, like Fascism, and like Despotism, is a political idea, one I do not share. I know why they are created, and I know why they are maintained, I know the purpose, and I know the consequences, and I call them what they are, with a more accurate term, a term that exposes their true color, their true purpose, which is crime, so I call nationalism, fascism, and despotism by the accurate term Legal Crime. Capital has a nationality according to the legal criminals and their ignorant, or confused, victims. I mean, you know, the World Bank every year publishes these statistics showing the proportion of high-tech products in your export. According to this number, the Philippines is second most high-tech economy in the world after Singapore. But why then does the Philippines have only $2,000 per capita income? Does the above intend to quantify something worth knowing? A group of people cooperate and intend to produce wealth. That combination of effort consumes wealth and the end result is either more wealth or not. Is that what is being reported? the Philippines is second most high-tech economy in the world What does that mean? What is the intention of reporting that measure of things? Is that not the same thing as saying that a group of people agree to cooperate and use their power to create more power, and that plan succeeds, and those people are the second most successful in the world, by that measure? Who is credited with that accomplishment? "The Philippines" The actual people who have actually agreed to begin working toward that goal where those people succeed in reaching that goal are not listed, rather, the whole of them, they, are credited with the credit of having done something. Who is credited with that success? Whose bank account increases? What is the process by which power is used to create more power? What is the process by which power flows from the many to the few, and then to even fewer? And also, don't forget, I mean, the countries like Switzerland that you think live on taking care of dirty money deposited by Third World dictators and selling things like cuckoo clocks and cowbells to American tourists actually, in per capita terms, is the most industrialized economy in the world. It literally has the biggest manufacturing output in per capita terms. Of course, they're only 7 million people and they tend to specialize in--. The Swiss Republic was the example used by the people who removed the British Monarchy, as the goal to reach, to reach the goal of a Swiss Model Republic, by getting rid of the British Monarchy, get rid of the control by the British Monarchy, over the "colonies", and start using a Swiss model Republic instead. That was the plan back before The U.S. Constitution. It was a political and economic plan shared by many volunteers. A Swiss model Republic was tried, in the form of The Articles of Confederation, where separate and sovereign State governments voluntarily combine into one Federated Republic, and that was the form of government in mind during the defeat of the British military invaders, the invaders who invaded to enforce a Monarchy, and the defenders began to use a Swiss model republic, and a volunteer army, and use help from the French military, and that group of people, working toward that state of abundant power, to be powerful enough to no longer be overpowered by the British Monarchy, could have kept the legal criminals out of business, after they threw out the legal criminals, but it failed to work, when more legal criminals, such as Alexander Hamilton, and Robert Morris, to name just two, set about to overthrow that voluntary association, and place a Nation, using nationalism, in place of the federated republic that was based upon the Swiss model. In a federated republic, the separate and sovereign State governments compete against each other for the favor of the tax payers, by offering the best government, at the lowest cost, and so the people can vote with their feet, from one Canton, to the next State, if one State begins to move toward despotism, and if voting by ballot doesn't work, the citizens within, and protected from without, can move, they don't have to love it or leave it. Each state, in a state of competition, must deliver the best government, at the lowest cost, or their citizens walk over to the next state, where they can get the best government, at the lowest cost, and everyone knows that this will work, because it does work, and it does work, because people know that governments are best when they are forced to compete, by the force of competition, to deliver the goods, or else, they go out of business, for lack of customers. They don't have to love their chains, and they don't have to lick the boots of their oppressors. And such a model, as the Swiss model, avoids the leap from defensive power to offensive aggressor power, no crime power, no legal crime power, because the states are not conglomerated into one single monopoly power, and the federated republic becomes the most powerful defensive power, having not wasted valuable power on failed aggressive wars for profit, as proven by the Swiss model, note, the Swiss managed to stay out of both WWI, and WWII, as those examples of legal crime went on all around them. Which model is the most stable economically? Which model is the most stable politically? Which model is the most stable militarily? The Nation State model, the one Alexander Hamilton and his cabal coerced into existence instead of the working Swiss model federated republic, is, as anyone can now see, exactly what the opponents of it said it would become, which it did become, and it became a legal crime business before the ink was dry on the last signature on that legal crime recipe. The nation state was formed, and the Swiss model form was overthrown, and now the citizens are all slaves, party to aggressive wars for profit, doing the same crimes perpetrated by the Nazis, and believing in the same lies that perpetuate the same, or worse, legal crimes. The power that boomed the Nazi power, was the same power that busted the Nazi power, and that same power boomed Stalin's version of communism, absolute despotism, and it is the same power that busted Stalin's version of communism, and that power is the monopoly legal money power, even if you refuse to know that fact. There is a gorilla in the room, and pretending not to see the damage done by it, doesn't make the damage any less damaging, the effect of willfully ignoring it, empowers it, and perpetuates it.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 18th, 2011 01:51 pm |
|
45th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Part VHa-Joon Chang: US Does not Have the Highest Living Standard Anyone, Statistics, like any other tool, can be used to accomplish a specific task, and there are at least 2 major categories that the many possible tasks fall under. A. To increase the accuracy of human perception B. To willfully misinform a targeted group of people There are many people within the boarders of the Nation State, or State Corporation known as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) whose living standard is regressive, whereby this group of people are starving to death, for lack of power. While people within the boarders of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) are starving to death there is a group of people who are in command of so much power that this group can, and does, conduct aggressive wars for their exclusive profit, at the expense of all the people who are not in this exclusive group. A. The group on the far end of the low standard of living (powerless) B. The group on the far end of the high standard of living (powerful) Any statistic that combines those two groups into one group, as if a person in one group is no different politically, or no different economically, than a person in the other group is a misleading statistic - yes or no?
It is past time to abandon the practice of reading from the false script. If someone within the legal boundaries of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) will succeed in moving from the far left, or starving, or low standard of living end, to the opposite end, or the rich end, or the powerful end, then someone living in the legal boundaries of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) has to get power to do so, and there are few free market options. There may be many Free Market tm (trade mark) options. A very talented person is born with power, while someone not born with a great supply of talent power is out of luck. A very hard working person, someone who earns power by producing more power than they consume, and then uses that surplus wealth earned in the work of creating even more power can accumulate more and more power within the legal reach of the law enforcers who run U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), and there are many good examples, such as Elon Musk. How much of that power is talent, how much is hard work, effective work, and how much of that power, controlled by Elon Musk, is spent by Elon Musk, in the work of avoiding a loss of power resulting from crimes perpetrated upon Elon Musk, or anyone within the legal reach of the enforcers who run U.S.A. Inc. (LLC)? In context, could an Elon Musk, produce more power, and consume less, if Elon Musk was no longer effected by the actions of the enforcers who run U.S.A. Inc. (LLC)? Would an Elon Musk, hard worker type, high producer type, low consumer type, fare better in another country or not? What happens if the answer to the above question is provided by a careful look into the record of monetary exchanges between Elon Musk and all the people connected to him, as Elon Musk moved from a low standard of living to a higher standard of living - follow the money? One of the things Elon Musk was able to do, in his short history, is to cause money to flow from people he contacted to him, as that flow of purchasing power flowed from investors to Elon Musk, so as to empower Elon Musk with the necessary power required to move Elon Musk from a low standard of living to a high standard of living, rather than Elon Musk having to sell things to get the start up money, Elon Musk sold ideas, sold investment plans, to get the power needed to start up the projects that produce more power, and more power, so as to move Elon Musk from a lower standard of living to a higher standard of living. Recently Elon Musk had to find sources of investment money outside the legal boundaries of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), on that money trail, so those facts measure the competitive differences between U.S.A Inc. (LLC) and other legal competitors in the sphere of economic surplus wealth creation. Since Elon Musk had to get credit off-shore, so as to have enough power (credit) to produce more wealth on-shore, that fact is worthy as significant data in the task of measuring which legal system works better (the U.S.A. Inc. system or a competitor) in the work of allowing human beings to produce more surplus wealth, and therefore increase the standard of living, so this illustrated, real time, example, provides accurate data so as to reach a reasonable conclusion - when looking for a higher quality system, at a lower cost. You can call the U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) system an example of a Free Market System (tm), but what does that mean? It is not a free market system if credit is supplied by one, and only one, legal supplier, and members of the system have to go outside the system to get credit, the opposite is true, the facts show that the U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) system is a closed system, a monopoly system, and not a free market system. Calling it a free market system is akin to calling a lie a fact. A lie is a lie. A fact is a fact. Confusing the two makes a lie look factual, and a fact appear less factual, so why do it? Is the goal such that the participants desire confusion, on purpose, for some, secret, reason? A. Free Market (tm) U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) system of extortion operating under the false flag of a free market system. B. U.S.A Inc. (LLC) in competition with other competitive closed, exclusive, systems, constitutes a free market, so long as people in one closed system retain the power to choose products from another closed system. Pointing at a legal extortion racket and calling it a Free Market is false. Pointing at competition between rival legal extortion rackets and calling that a free market is less false, closer to the truth. A free market can be a human social structure that suffers a minimum cost associated with crime, legal or otherwise, as the free market participants retain the power to choose who they choose to connect with, what they choose to transfer among their chosen associates, and by what methods the exchanges are conducted, voluntarily, without willfully causing injury to innocent victims, against the will of the victims, or even against the knowledge of powerless victims within a free market defined by the people in that free market in that specific way. Criminals define a Free Market as a market in which the victims are free to exploit in any way imaginable. How Free can a Market get? Torture, mass murder, and threats to the survivability of the human species reaches the limit of that Free Market defined in that way by those who define torture by torturing, and those who define mass murder by mass murdering, and those who define threats to the human species by causing things that do threaten the human species, even if they say they are cooking fried chicken. They lie, and the victims don't have to believe the lies if they gain the power to choose something other than believing in lies. In the U.S.A Inc. (LLC) power struggle, the credit for producing more surplus wealth, and the credit for increasing the human standard of living, flows from those who produce surplus wealth to those who operate the legal money monopoly business, and they are no longer investing that power here at home - obviously - measurably by following the (dollar) money flow. That can hardly be called a Free Market. The power to produce surplus wealth, credit, and money (purchasing power), is taken from those who produce surplus wealth (the only one's that pay positive tax payments), here in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), and then that power is sold back to those producers of wealth, or not sold back to those producers of wealth, depending upon which part of the business cycle the operators of the legal money monopoly (Dollar Hegemony) are currently enforcing. The paper trail documents the fact that the legal monopoly money power (The Federal Reserve Dollar Hegemony) is currently enforcing the bottom part of the business cycle, neither busting the business cycle more, nor booming the business cycle, here in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC); however there does exist evidence, in various forms along the paper trail (or digital trail), when following the money, that indicate that the operators of the legal money monopoly within the legal reach of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) are well prepared to boom an economy somewhere, since those operators have doubled the number of dollars in 2008, therefore there is a great potential for those legal criminals to boom an economy somewhere, by causing all that purchasing power to flow to specific people they decide to transfer that power to, for whatever reason they alone dream up, in secret. That is hardly a case of a working Free Market. The script these people are reading from is false, by a wide margin - perhaps sarcastically, by some measure. The Swiss have a higher health standard, I mean, judged in terms of life expectancy and so on. The US is a very unequal society. It has a much higher crime rate. On per capita basis, the United States have 12 times more people in prison than in Japan, eight times more people in prison than European countries. So this is a consequence of, you know, unequal society. I would like very much to spend a lot of time on the concept of Purchasing Power Parity, because that is a measure of the quality (and cost) of the various competitive monopoly monies. A monopoly money is a monopoly only within the legal reach of the producers of that example of legal monopoly money power. Illustration of two Examples may suffice to show the difference between a working legal money monopoly and a working competition between legal money monopolies. A person living in China does not have to pay taxes to the legal fiction known as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC). A "citizen" of China does not pay U.S.A. income tax directly, and therefore a wealth producer (the only source of tax power) producing wealth in China has no need to acquire dollars to pay off a U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) tax debt. The opposite is true. A surplus wealth producer inside U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) does not have to possess Chinese legal money to pay Chinese income taxes. Chinese people have to get Chinese monopoly money to pay Chinese tax debts. American people have to get U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) money to pay U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) tax debt. The Chinese producers of wealth are required to produce enough surplus wealth to get enough Chinese dollars to pay their taxes; by whatever means that is now being accounted in China - I don't know how their tax system works. A U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) producer of wealth is required to produce enough surplus wealth to get enough U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) dollars to pay income tax; failing to do so will result in punishment and a loss of productive power that exceeds the loss of the productive power known as income tax. In other words: OBEY The wealth producers must transfer productive power called TAX or the wealth producer will pay even more productive power called PUNISHMENT for TAX EVASION. A. Rock B. Hard Place And the wealth producer must use the legal monopoly money to pay the TAX, or failure to use the legal money is the same thing as failing to pay the TAX at all. A. Pay up B. Pay up with dollars C. Failure is not an option So people under the punishment mechanism within U.S.A Inc. (LLC) are captive within that monopoly money system of fraud, having no choice to use any other currency, they must use The Dollar, or else they are guilty of Tax Evasion, and the people of China must use the Chinese money or something similar happens to them. That shows how a legal money monopoly avoids the force of competition within their own legal boundaries, as each victim is forced to use whatever money the legal power produces, no matter how low the quality of the money, and no matter how high the cost of the money may be within that legal enforced money monopoly extortion racket. But, and here is the ugly head of competition, from the viewpoint of the legal criminals, The Dollar Hegemony must compete for market share against other legal money enforcers and the winner of that competition is measurable as Purchasing Power Parity. A. Dollar quality (power to purchase) and cost (interest rate) is X B. Chinese money quality (power to purchase) and cost (interest rate) is Xy Who wins? This can be known easily. If both China and U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) changed their laws to allow all tax payers to pay with either/or Chinese money or Dollar Hegemony money, then what happens? You have to use your own brain for awhile, and you may have to stop reading from the script to do so, but that question above unravels much confusion, if you want to unravel much confusion. If both countries changed their laws to allow all tax payers to pay with either the local monopoly money or the foreign monopoly money there would no longer be a monopoly, and purchasing power parity would quickly reach equal purchasing power; assuming, of course, that people do what is in their own best interest, and people no longer choose to do things that cause injury to themselves while they can easily avoid such injury to themselves. All the tax payers would choose to be paid with the higher quality (more powerful) money (at the lower cost) and therefore the force of competition would force the producer of the lower power money (at the higher cost) to either increase power (and lower cost) or go out of business for lack of market share. A. Better money (more power and lower cost) wins = higher purchasing power parity B. Worse money (less power and higher cost) loses - lower purchasing power parity Less bang for the buck loses More bang for the buck wins If the Dollar Hegemony money is much higher in power (and lower cost) compared to the competition, in this case the Chinese money, then all the tax payers in China would demand payment in the higher quality, and lower cost, money, and there would be no one left on Earth using the Chinese money so long as the Chinese money remained lower in power and higher in cost. The fact that the Dollar Hegemony legal monopoly extortion racket people have used their power to gain exclusive control over the price of oil, and they have done so through the investment of a very powerful criminal military force, is not NEWS, it is fact, and it cannot be overlooked if the idea is to understand political economy on a Global scale, and therefore understand how, and why, The Dollar Hegemony has managed to keep their monopoly legal money more powerful than all the competition, whereby all the competitors have lower quality monopoly money, and higher cost legal extortion racket money. That is called The World Reserve Currency competition and the old winner may soon become the new loser, and that, by all information I have found so far, is on a schedule, it is being planned to occur, on purpose, because failure to maintain control of The World Reserve Currency (monopoly) will usher in a new age of prosperity, a sudden and rapid surge in total surplus wealth, and abundant power world wide, so much excess power, in fact, that the victims will have enough power to avoid being victims, and the legal criminals are thereby overpowered, the legal criminals will then be rendered powerless, and the legal criminals are no longer powerful enough to eliminate competition when that happens, and therefore all forms of currency will be forced higher and higher in quality and lower and lower in price, because no force will be forcing one single low quality and high cost money upon the clueless, hapless, and powerless victims. One of the costs of monopoly money enforcement is the transfer of surplus wealth from those who create surplus wealth to those who operate the legal money supply, as those legal criminals perpetuate a planned, scheduled, enforced business cycle, where the insiders know when to buy (at the bottom of the bust) and when to sell (before the top of the boom); which has been the method by which all surplus wealth has moved from the control of those who produce surplus wealth to the legal criminals who operate their extortion rackets. Another cost of monopoly money enforcement is torture and mass murder. Another cost of monopoly money enforcement is the measurable move toward extinction of the human species. It can't get any worse than the willful extinction of the human species, unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible, therefore anyone else can chime in here, and help me see my errors. JAY: Yeah. I mean, it's a combination. In the first years after World War II you have the Cold War put in kleptocracies and dictators, 'cause the only issue that the West cared about in Africa, that there wouldn't be national liberation movements that somehow would be allied with socialism. And now you have the IMF and structural adjustment policies. That is a prime case of reading from the (false) script, like saying: "We failed to spread democracy in Vietnam" when referring to that aggressive war for profit which did help manage to perpetuate The Dollar Hegemony power flow as power did continue to flow from the victims of The Dollar Hegemony to the operators of The Dollar Hegemony. They won the Vietnam war, it is proven along the paper trail, if the money is followed, if the account is accurately known. What you must understand, in my view, is that the power struggle is a power struggle between people who produce power, and people who steal from people who produce power, and the proof is measurable as surplus wealth flows in real time. When the people who produce power are able to avoid having their power stolen, less power flows to the legal criminals, the total amount of surplus wealth increases, and increases in inverse proportion to the rate of power flowing to the legal criminals. The legal criminals use the power stolen in the work of eliminating competition, which is, by definition, destruction, such as aggressive wars for profit, such as environmental pollution, such as punishment and imprisonment of non-criminals for the crime of competing (thought crimes, victimless crimes, tax evasion, etc.), and the legal criminals use the power stolen to recruit larger numbers of criminals who join the legal crime business, through subsidy, tax breaks, bail-outs, munition industries, no-bid "reconstruction" contracts, political "contributions", etc, and all that power could, and would, have been used to make more power instead of having all that stolen power consumed in the work of perpetuating destruction. To parrot the lie that the operators of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) were once fighting socialism, or communism, or defending against the evil enemies during the Cold War, or the new evil enemies in the War on Drugs, or the War on Terrorism, is a subsidy, or a tax payment, a political contribution, a form of welfare to the rich, and that choice actually transfers power to the legal criminals, as that choice, to read from that false script, covers up the truth, and hides the facts, and empowers, and facilitates, and encourages, and emboldens, and enables the legal criminals to continue their perpetual crimes. The Dollar Hegemony is a legal money monopoly, a crime, it is extortion, and it is well past time to know this fact, and well past time to work toward avoiding victimization from it. The Dollar Hegemony has competitors, other similar criminal extortion racket operators, and it may well be a good idea to know that criminals can agree to combine their forces, instead of fight among themselves, and then the once competitive criminal powers form a cooperative larger consortium of criminals, where all the separate opposing criminals join together into one homogeneous criminal cabal, and in so doing they are no longer expending much of their stolen power in the work of destroying each other, and therefore they have more stolen power to employ in the work of destroying all competition everywhere that competition may arise, so as to be able to ensure that the power supply remains scarce, and therefore they alone have control over the price that everyone who needs power will have to pay to get control over the scarce power supply. Knowledge is power, why do you think lies are produced in such great quantities? To maintain a scarce supply of the power of knowledge. Too much knowledge renders the legal criminals powerless in their work of stealing power. Oil is power, electricity is power, law is power, why do you think that lies are produced: to cover-up all the actions that are being executed in the work of monopolizing the supply of oil, electricity, and law? What happens when oil flows like water? Would anyone purposefully make oil power scarce? The price goes down when the supply reaches abundance. Money power goes up (you can buy more with one dollar) when oil prices go down; because power reduces the cost of production. What happens when electricity becomes much more abundant, flowing from home based Solar Panels, farm based Wind generators, water based tide generators, etc.? What happens when knowledge is no longer trapped within a closed system of false reality? What happens when people are no longer left with one false script to read?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 18th, 2011 05:41 pm |
|
46th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism Pt.5Governments can pick winners. Anyone, The false script imagines into being two fictitious enemies. Socialism Capitalism Please step back. A lie has a purpose, and knowing the purpose leads to knowing that a person volunteers to work toward that purpose, a person invents the lie, and this must be known. The lie doesn't happen by accident. The criminal will invent a diversion during the crime so as to capture the attention of any power that could otherwise stop the crime in progress. The thief my yell "Thief" and point at some innocent person during the crime as the criminal steals, the victim of theft may be looking where the thief is pointing, while the thief steals from the victim, and all the people who could be in a position to stop the crime are looking where the thief is pointing, and thereby the thief invents the lie, fabricates the false story, so as to make crime pay. Who pays? That is a low level fabrication of one false entity used by criminals to perpetuate crime. How much more effective is it to create two imaginary beings, point to those fabrications, and cause other people to focus attention upon an imaginary fight between those two imaginary combatants? In the case of the thief inventing an imaginary second thief, an innocent victim is rendered powerless. In the case of a more complex lie, whereby two imaginary foes are fighting each other, the criminal inventor can recruit fellow criminals into the scarce supply of criminals, and thereby reduce the power of the potential victim group. In order to know of which I speak the reader must learn from history. This criminal tactic, of inventing fictitious combatants, has its roots in logic, along the lines of theories published by a man named Hegel. Hegelism observes thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis, whereby the goal is synthesis, and the means of arriving at the goal is to create a thesis, to create an anti-thesis, and to arrive at the goal of synthesis. I will offer a general description along with two links that intend to support the validity of the general description. The criminals, legal or otherwise, decide that they want to eliminate competition, and they want to make certain that power remains scarce, and they want to make sure that the supply of scarce power remains within their exclusive control, they control power, and their target synthesis, is to keep that power. In order to get that power to control power they decide to use the power they have in the work of creating, out of thin air, a fictitious power, by hiring a leader of the fictitious power, and then funneling money to that leader, of that fictitious power, and inspire that leader to use the power given to him, to gain more power with that power, and at the same time, nearby, another leader, and another leader, are also given power, and also tasked with the power to empower this new fictitious being, and the idea is to finance both sides, and all sides, in a new power struggle, where each new leader works to gain all the power available, and each new leader is then set against each other new leader, so as to cause a very destructive conflict, and once it is over, the criminals enforce debt payments from the survivors, and the criminals sell "reconstruction" to the survivors, and the criminals gain control of all the various channels and methods by which surplus wealth is accounted for and controlled. Not too distant past examples: WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER The creation of a new fight between the Terrorists against the Anti-Terrorists cause the creation of what new synthesis? Can you guess? If you don't see it, it doesn't disappear. If it doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that a common belief of the fiction isn't real. Actual criminals actually exist and they actually plan, and they actually perpetrate those plans, and actual innocent victims die miserable deaths by the millions and millions perpetually, or until the time at which the innocent victims are clued in, and then they do something effective in avoiding victimization. Not seeing that does not make that go away. Fictitious beings are created, to take credit and blame, so as to allow the actual people who produce these fictitious being to cover-up their crimes, during these crimes, and when these crimes become obvious crimes, eventually, as the screams of torture reach volumes that can no longer be ignored, and as the piles of murdered bodies clog the rivers and roads of commerce, the criminals can blame the legal fictions and the legal criminals are thereby free to create new legal fictions, or rotate the employees holding the offices of the current legal fictions, so long as all defensive power is used up on wasted effort channeled toward the imaginary beings. National interest did it, nothing personal, business is business. Still skeptical? I have Real News for you. Socialism and capitalism are both fictions that can be measured physically, as a consequence of a belief in those fictions, and the physical measure is done in financial accounting of surplus wealth. When surplus wealth flows from those who create it to a central location the financial account proves that surplus wealth exists, and the financial account proves that surplus wealth flows from those who create surplus wealth to the central location. Those are the facts, just like the fact that early human societies consisted of many farmers creating surplus wealth in the form of food, and the food traveled from the farms to a central location called a granary. A person can view such transfers of surplus wealth, measurable, and accurately measurable, physical, transfers of surplus wealth' by any name they can invent, and any name that other people agree to use, when people use the name to describe the physical transfers of surplus wealth from those who create it to the central, collective, physical, places, where surplus wealth is stored, and controlled. A person can choose to call the practice of moving surplus wealth from those who create it to a physical central collective collection place with the label Socialism or Capitalism. A rose by any other name, smells like a rose, yes or no? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is a duck, does it seem silly to call it fried chicken? If the process by which the surplus wealth flows from those who create it to the central storage place is accomplished by way of deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence by the people who seize control over that flow, and that store of surplus wealth, then the accurate name for such a condition of life, social life, is an involuntary association, or crime, or extortion, or any number of words in any language where the word means the same thing. A process by which a powerful few seize control over surplus wealth flowing from those who create surplus wealth to a single controllable power place, and that process proceeds against the will and/or against the knowledge of the creators of that surplus wealth - is what it is - by any other name, it remains the same process. If the criminals can convince the creators of surplus wealth that they are two groups instead of one group, and thereby perpetuate conflict among the creators of surplus wealth, things may occur, as a result of that imaginary, fictitious, conflict, that is only a conflict when the victims are convinced of that false, fabricated, belief of that lie, perpetrated by those who divide and conquer, by that knowable, and known, process. 1. The rate of increase in production of surplus wealth is controlled by the criminals. 2. The power to avoid victimization is lost; for lack of power. 3. Competition is reduced, eliminated, and willfully made powerless 4. Conflict replaces competition, by fraud, and by force 5. Destruction replaces production, production is consumed in the work of destruction 6. Power flows from those who create it, to those who steal it, perpetually From a simple lie, as the thief points and calls out "thief", to divert defensive power, to shunt it, to waste it, to ground that power, unload it, from that simple crime, crime has evolved into more complex structures. Wealth producers are convinced of the need to fight each other, to conflict with each other, instead of competing with each other, and the complexity of this process can be narrowed down to an easy, and obvious, litmus test. 1. Competition is voluntary 2. Conflict is involuntary Do you know that you are being had, do you know that you have a choice, are you powerless to avoid victimization? Criminals know the secret, knowledge is power, and until the victims gain that power, uncover that secret, they will remain victims, and they will continue to send surplus wealth to those who use that power to perpetuate conflict, and to eliminate competition, and to ensure that power remains scarce, and that the scarce supply of power remains within the exclusive control of the criminals. If that is news to you, and you see it now, like the sun rising on a new summer day, remember where you once were, because that place is where many other people are still, and getting from A to B requires much work, it is not something for nothing. Knowledge does not arrive on a silver platter. Liberty isn't purchased by abject obedience to falsehood; because, unfortunately, there are criminals among us, and many of them gave themselves the license to commit crime perpetually. Liberty is a voluntary association, among those who do not resort to crime, as a means of "gaining liberty", by false construction of language, by excuse, by apology, by self-deceit, or by targeting victims with deceit, by threats of violence for failure to be subjected to injury, or by actual violence resulting in victimization of the innocent wealth producers who do manage to voluntarily associate. What is the use of fighting between voluntary capitalists and voluntary socialists, compared to the necessity of all volunteers, all competitors, to work toward the avoidance of victimization, avoidance of contact to criminals, legal or otherwise? In whose interest do people read from the script that says criminal capitalists are better than criminal socialists or visa versa? I will return to the Real News report - seeking accurate data. So these people actually use these things to justify whatever is convenient for them. You know, I mean, I just think this argument that government is always unsuccessful and the private sector always is successful--. The fight is not between which criminals are the most effective at lying, cheating, torturing, mass murdering, and doing what ever is required to eliminate competition, and limit the production of power to level that ensures criminal control over scarce power. That is the criminal fight. Are these guys criminals, asking each other which crime gang is the best crime gang? Who is the most benevolent dictator? The fight is between voluntary producers of surplus wealth and the criminals who work to gain exclusive control over that surplus wealth. If a person is holding a title, in an office, that has the name "Non-profit Government Public venture" on it, or if a person is holding a title, in an office, that has the name "Profit Private Business venture" on it, the success or failure of either isn't measured by the name plate. The success or failure is measurable as an increase or decrease in the quality of life divided by the cost of life, as an aggregate. Person A succeeds when human life improves and human costs decrease. Quality goes up. Price goes down. Person A succeeds at the expense of injuries to other people. How can that be the measure of success, regardless of what label is stamped on the stationary? How about the following two examples of competitors working toward success: Competition for success Competitor A produces a high quality and low cost money, and the rate of success is a measurable increase in the quality of life, an increase in the supply of surplus wealth, and the price, or cost, is measurable relative to the competition, whereby competitor B resorts to threats and violence as a means of eliminating competitor A. If competitor B agrees to not resort to violence as a means of eliminating competitor A, then competitor B would be forced, by competition, to increase quality and lower cost, and thereby offer, voluntarily, the consumers a more competitive product. Those two examples are examples of supposedly "socialistic" producers of money, or "government" money producers, and the challenge there is to introduce, and to offer, a competitor representing the capitalist group of monetary producers. Such as: The Liberty Dollar Where is the capitalist forms of competitive money products that arise as a result of free market forces as free market competition forces quality up and price down? Will a capitalist form of money, such as the Liberty Dollar, out compete, in a free market, the stamp script form of money, negative interest money, or the Islamic Finance form of money, no-interest money, or will some form of money not yet invented prove to be the most competitive, highest quality, and lowest cost money, if competition avoids elimination by criminal forces? The whole capitalist dogma routine falls apart on the measure of the cost of money, actually currency, in seems to me, and that cost is also called monetary interest, interest is cost, interest is price, and interestingly enough, the vocal capitalists measure monetary interest as a benefit, not a cost, which begs the question: in whose interest is it to make purchasing power scarce, whose interest is it to make money scarce, whose interest is it to make currency scarce, on purpose, for profit? CHANG: Yeah, there is that political [crosstalk] issue. But this is a political issue. It's not inherent in the government policy. You know. I mean--and especially in these days, when half the US financial companies are--I mean, that should have been technically bankrupt without this bailout, someone saying that private sector is better at pick winners, I mean, it's [crosstalk] Now they are getting down to the base, root, of the political economy power struggle between those who produce surplus wealth and those who steal it. It matters not what label is on the stationary, if the power to control surplus wealth is purchased by way of willful deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence, then that is the destructive method, the criminal method, the method that makes power scarce, and the method that destroys competition, and therefore that is the method that renders the power to increase quality, and the power to lower cost, power-less. The socialists, here, appear to ascribe to the falsehood whereby government is justifiably involuntary - obey or get out, pay taxes, or be punished - and as such it is principally criminal. From that principle there can only be more crime. That is the criminal method. I say that they appear to ascribe to, support, encourage, defend, the criminal method, because they illustrate criminal examples of socialism, and they do not clarify those examples as being criminal examples. A wealth producer moving to one of those example places, illustrated by these people, would either be forced to pay taxes or forced to move out of the reach of that criminal government - yes or no? The taxes collected by those criminal governments are powers that are used to reduce the total rate of power being produced, on purpose, and so as to eliminate competition - or not. Which is the case? I am not familiar with the cases those people use as example illustrations; but I can quote their own words: Singapore Airline, which is one of the most kind of highly rated airline companies in the world, is actually a fully state-owned enterprise. In the nearly 40 years of its operation, it has never made one penny of loss. In contrast, all the free enterprise American airline companies live on government subsidies. What does "fully state-owned enterprise" mean? What does "government subsidies" mean? Where does the power to purchase in either case come from, where are the start up costs earned, how do the people producing the new airline service manage to gain the power to purchase, how do they get the credit needed, where does that power used to make the airline service originate from, as that power flows from the control of someone who has that power before that power is then controlled by the "fully state-owned enterprise" or the "American airline companies"? Where does that power used in that investment originate from, before it is moved and then used in that investment; what is that process called? Who controls the decision to move purchasing power from where that power was before that power went to those people running those air transport services? Socialists appear to be claiming that "government" is a person, and this person, this entity known as "government" is credited with the good sense of moving scarce power from those who make it, the only place it can come from, to people who then produce air transport services. High quality air transport services do not increase total wealth without integration within a larger network of cooperating, and competing social groups, within that connection of those many people. How is any single person's contribution to the increase of total wealth determined, and accounted for accurately? What is that process, what is the name of that process; capitalism, socialism, meritocracy, what? If the wealth producers, working in concert, do increase total wealth, measurably, and they do lower their transportation costs, measurably, then it is because the price of air transportation decreases; because lower air transportation costs lower the costs of producing everything that requires air transportation, therefore total surplus wealth increases, by that measure. Who is credited with that decision to move power to that investment? Government? What ever happened to the person who made that decision, he, or she, or they decide by some process of decision, do they, or does he, or does she, not get the credit they deserve for making that decision? If they get the credit, and socialism doesn't get the credit, and capitalism doesn't get the credit, how is that credit measured as that credit flows to those specific people who caused the lowering of transportation costs and thereby those people, by those decisions, and those actions, increase surplus wealth - how is their increase in credit accounted for accurately, and what is the name of that process? The opposite is true. Who is blamed for failures caused by the American airlines whereby the American airline people produce lower quality air travel at higher prices? The corporation is blamed? The government is blamed for bailing out the corporation. Governments, and corporations, are, in their own fine print, legal fictions. People create legal fictions, and guns, and money, and pointed sticks, so as to succeed at doing what they want to succeed doing, with those tools. The tools don't do things. The tools can't get credit for doing things. The tools can't be held accountable for doing things. Crediting and blaming tools for the things people do is a choice, a false choice, and an irresponsible choice, and a method by which accountability is avoided, on purpose, for profit. People profit, not governments. Socialism can't take credit. Capitalism can't take credit. Socialism will never be held to account for anything - ever. Capitalism will never be held to account for anything - ever. Socialism will never realize the truth. Capitalism will never confess true motive. JAY: So join us for the next segment of 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. And we're going to be talking about the idea that making the rich richer makes everybody else richer. Or does it? Thanks for joining us on The Real News Network. I want to review that Real News report, when it is published, and I can say beforehand that surplus wealth cannot be allowed to pass a level that can no longer be controlled by the legal criminals, they must throttle down the production of surplus wealth to a level that is below a manageable level for them. If they fail that necessary work then the whole "trickle down economics" dogma will become real, a fact of life, as power will then flow to those who are best at making more power, and more power, and a new age will dawn, and the legal criminals will be out of business, because there will be so much power available to so many, that the victims will then have the power they need to survive well, and the former victims will have enough power to avoid victimization. Competition over how best to adapt to a power abundant world will include new methods, new inventions, of which mankind, generally, haven't even begun to imagine. Increases in the quality of life and decreases in the cost of life is inversely proportional to increases in the effectiveness of legal crime, as the legal criminals use scarce power to make power scarce, and use scarce power to eliminate all competition where ever, and when ever competition arises.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 21st, 2011 12:47 pm |
|
47th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, The socialism versus capitalism conflict serves those who support it, and it may be a good idea to employ limited power working on more productive projects. Then again, it may be a good idea, to resolve some of the destructive affects of that socialism versus capitalism conflict which serves those who support it. Resolve 1: Power flows to those who support that socialism versus capitalism conflict and that same power flows from the honest productive people who are the only ones who produce the power that flows to those who support that socialism versus capitalism conflict, and those who support the socialism versus capitalism conflict can be accurately known if the paper trail is accurately followed as the power flows from those who produce the power, to those who support, and perpetuate, the socialism versus capitalism conflict. Resolve 2: Socialism is one thing according to one type of socialist. Socialism is one thing according to a opposing type of socialist. Capitalism is one thing according to one type of capitalist. Capitalism is one thing according to a opposing type of socialist. There are at least 4 major groups involved in the socialism versus capitalism conflict, each group is specifically not each other group, there are 4 different groups, and among the socialists there are 2 diametrically opposed separate groups, and among the capitalists there are 2 diametrically opposed groups. I can show you the facts, written by the actual people claiming to be opposed to the opposing groups, but will refrain from that lengthy report for now. The voluntary socialism group is diametrically opposed to the involuntary socialism group. The voluntary capitalism group is diametrically opposed to the involuntary capitalism group. The involuntary socialism group is diametrically opposed to the involuntary capitalism group. The voluntary socialism group is fully supporting the voluntary capitalism group, in principle, if not in interests. Resolve 3: What group, if there is one, anywhere, does not resort to premeditated willful designs, plans, thoughts, that result in willful injuries to innocent victims, on purpose, for profit, among the 4 separate, and distinct groups in Resolve 2 above? Which group do you support? If the group that does not resort to willful injuries to innocent victims, by deceit, by threats of violence, and by willful acts of direct violence against innocent victims, exists, if that group exists, what do they call themselves? Raise your hand, please, and let me know where you stand, and from those resolves, I think the conflict can be understood to be what it is, instead of it being a tangle web of deceit.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 22nd, 2011 01:16 pm |
|
48th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism Pt6Number 13: Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer. Well, even if you accept their theory, who says the capital has to be private capital? Who says it can't be public capital that creates the jobs Anyone, Discussion can be a process by which ideas, persepctives, plans, and actions, compete, whereby the purpose of the competition is to lay bare, before all eyes having an interest in seeing, and all minds having an interest in knowing, which idea, which perspective, which plan, and which action is better, and which one is not as good. What is the higher quality one? How can you answer that question without knowing which is the higher cost one? How can you answer that question without knowing who pays the cost and who receives the benefit? Discussion can be a process by which one person, or one representative of one group, intends to misinform a targeted victim, or misinform a group of targeted victims, and the idea can be known as a one way communication, a dictatorship, a subject who is subjected to the false information, and a dictator who dictates the false information; thereby subjecting the subject to the one way, dictatorial, communication. Why does my above viewpoint work to explain the "us" versus "them" argument? Is my viewpoint competitive? Does my viewpoint offer a higher quality viewpoint, at a lower cost to you? Well, again, do you earn your living at the expense of someone else? Do you depend upon lies to keep your victims unaware of their condition of victimization? If so then my viewpoint does not represent a high quality, low cost, viewpoint to you, because it is true, and truth sets your victims free from your victimization, and that may never do, that may be a very low quality, and high cost, perspective to you, you may have to actually produce something that someone else wants, something higher in quality, and lower in cost to them. Involuntary socialists steal surplus wealth from stupified victims, and the victims are made up of all the people who produce surplus wealth, the only place surplus wealth comes from, originally, and fraudulent acquisition of surplus wealth from those who create it, can only come from those among that group of surplus wealth creators who are stupified into a belief, and a condition, that they are powerless to avoid being, or even knowing that they are, victims. Take that paragraph above and take out the words involuntary socialist, and place in the words involuntary capitalist, and you have the same social arrangement. Involuntary socialists and involuntary capitalists fight each other to gain the larger share of surplus wealth that is stolen, by way of fraud, extortion, lies, threats of violence, and demonstrations, got thet, DEMON-strations, of inhuman, immoral, violence, against the innocent victims they target and subject to involuntary association, also known as, with the moral sense added: slavery. If these guys in the REAL NEWS Report are arguing against involuntary capitalism while they are supporting involuntary socialism, you may well have guessed it by now, they represent half of the two heads of the same coin, and it matters little which lies are used to subject their victims to victimization, the transfer of earnings, from those who produce earnings, goes to either one of the victimizing groups. The masters share the rewards gained by deceit, threats of violence, and demonstrations of violence. Who really cares if your hard earned earnings go to legal criminals who call themselves socialists or legal criminals who call themselves capitalists? If, on the other hand, these people are discussing voluntary socialism, and how voluntary socialism compares, competitively, along side of voluntary capitalism, then the idea can be to see which good qualities ( and for who) exist in the practice of voluntary socialism, and which bad qualities (and for who) exist in the practice of voluntary socialism, and the same accurate power of judgment, discernment, and discrimination, can be focused on that which is good (and for who) and that which is bad (and for who) within the practice of voluntary capitalism, which is all a moot point, for anyone who cares not to volunteer to do one of the other, as they alone see fit, without suffering from victimization at the hands of those who willfully deceive, and those who willfully threaten violence, to get what they want, power don't you know, and without subjection to demonstrations of violence, even when those demonstrations are claimed, by the criminals, legal or otherwise, to be "for your own good", take your punishment, and shut up - an offer you can't refuse. I can offer a very good example of what happens when a person does accomplish the work required to know the differences between capitalism and socialism, the voluntary processes, and the involuntary processes, and you can understand those things too, if you do your homework, otherwise you may be stuck listening to those who may not have your best interests in mind. I'm not saying that I have your best interest in mind, either, you have to figure that out yourself. Capitalism first, with a relevant quote: Karl Menger ...every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others. That is the basis behind capitalism, and to understand how that could work, if it ever does exist, there would only be capitalists, there would be no one who ever expended a moment in the service of someone else, no charity, no transfers of power willingly from the giver to the receiver, none whatsoever, and therefore all the capitalists would be attempting to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others. When I read that, I thought, "really", and what does he think I'm smoking? What becomes of the people who are fully capable of producing surplus wealth, good working people, good honest people, people who consume less than they produce, and then they give away some, or even all, of their surplus wealth, to someone else, not excluding others, in fact, that is what they volunteer to do, what happens to them, in this thing called capitalism; are they magically disappeared from view, fro some reason? Well, they don't exist, generous people don't exist in capitalism, there is no such thing as a generous person in capitalism. Either you are a capitalist, in capitalism, or you don't exist. Does that sound too convenient? I didn't write the capitalist manifesto, so don't blame me, read the whole thing, see what you think. The idea may become even more convoluted as you read further on, and to me, it is all a justification, an apology for that single quote above, and as far as I am concerned, a capitalist is nothing more, and nothing less, than someone you need to avoid, because their purpose is to connect to you, and then their purpose is to get from you whatever they can get from you, and the methods by which they will invent, to get things from you, are secret, on purpose, because if you knew how they get power from you, you would, more than likely, avoid that loss of power that you once had, and that now flows to that capitalist, the one you didn't avoid connecting to, or the capitalists as a collective group such all your power out of you, because you have failed to avoid connecting to the lot of them. If the capitalists are telling you something along the lines of, this is for your own good, such as the whole "trickle down theory", then you may want to avoid that, like you may want to avoid someone showing symptoms of the plague, who is spitting as they speak, at you, selling you something you must have, according to them, and you may not want to get too close, for fear of getting some of that on you. That is my viewpoint, my words, my opinion of capitalism, and I hope that you judge I can't speak for the capitalists, but they, more than likely, think the same thing, about each other, since they are privy to the game, so they know better than to be victims at that hands of a fellow capitalist who will, as they themselves confess, in the fine print, "attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others". That is not to say that a capitalist isn't an example of a very powerful force that can employ scarce resources efficiently in the process of producing more, and more, and more, surplus wealth, and if they produce vast quantities of surplus wealth, by hook or by crook, there can be a whole lot of economic activity for those who have little, or no, interest in inventing new ways to use scarce power in the work of creating more, and more, and more power. They have more power, isn't that nice. Whatever trickles down, could be better invested by those who earn their share, in charitable investments, or not. Perhaps the problem with capitalism is such that everyone isn't a capitalist, and therefore the non-capitalists among the social structures that combine capitalists and non-capitalists, give up, voluntarily, more of what they earn, charitably, to the capitalists, without a fight, without resorting to secret deals, without resorting to exclusionary tactics, without excluding all others. A. Capitalists excluding all others B. Non-capitalists including all others C. The legal criminals When the capitalists and the non-capitalists exclude the legal criminals, then the non-capitalists become, by that measure, capitalists, yes or no? How does one go about excluding all others? Where are the capitalists who are willing to divulge their secrets? They are as scarce as the socialists who are willing to divulge their secrets. No one is confessing, unless a curious individual sets about to uncover the fine print. Moving on to socialism, from a self confessed socialist, a person that wrote a history of socialism, a book I have yet to find, and avoiding a definition of socialism that is written by a confessed opponent of socialism, which would likely include some errors, I offer, straight from the horses mouth: Stephen Pearl Andrews What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all. Stephen Pearl Andrews was an abolitionist before the not so civil war of aggression for profit, by greedy capitalists, or greedy socialists, depending upon which cover story works best at the time. The cover for the war, after it started, was "anti-slavery", and those who have a special place in their hearts for Abraham Lincoln may want to know that he suggested shipping all the "Negroes", his words, back to Africa, presumably, not asking for permission, don't you know how that works, it is called deportation, you are not welcome, get out, now, not to be questioned, just get out, and what method do you think will be used to ship those "Negroes" Mr. Lincoln, the same luxury liners used to ship them from Africa to U.S.A. Inc. (LLC)? Not likely, Lincoln was bought and paid for by the Rail Road "interests", and the newly forming military industrial complex, soon to be redirected solving the Indian Problem, with the all to familiar Final Solution. So, if you can, think, and come up with a few ideas on your own, using your own sovereign power, your individual power, and think, which methods work best for you, which methods of social structure are more likely to allow you to keep the power you were born with, and which social structures may work against you as you may want to keep the power you earn? Which social structure is most likely going to result in the most surplus wealth that can be produced, and who will get control of it, in that social structure? Which social structure is most likely going to result in the equitable distribution of the most surplus wealth that can possibly be produced? Are you out of ideas, wanting someone to hand the best idea to you on a silver platter? Which social structure liberates each individual so as to avoid power wasted in the process of defending against those who authorize themselves to gain at the expense of others? Does that make any sense, or did I jump to far in one leap? I will listen to the rest of the Real News Report, then I have a few chores to complete, efficiently. Number 14: US managers are overpriced, you say. Look, people, they are caught up in the quagmire. If socialism is supposed to be this "public" ownership concept, then how is that any different from corporate share holders? Many people send their power to a central collective point, place, fund, thing, where then that central power is controlled by a few people. Why mince words? Why make that which is obvious, measurable, into something covered with smoke and mirrors? Who benefits by covering up the facts? If socialism is a concept whereby no one owns the air, then that is what socialism is, a concept whereby no one owns the air. Air, or oxygen to be more specific, is not owned by anyone, do you understand this factual measure of reality? That is what is meant by the concept of pubic ownership, or collective ownership, or that which is not owned, controlled, and used to gain profit, by a division of the whole human species less than the whole. What happens if a division of less than the whole of the human species gains control, or ownership, or private ownership, of the stuff called air, or more specifically the stuff called oxygen? Do you want to know the concept of "public" ownership, or do you prefer to be stupified by the lies produced by the people who profit from lies, at your expense? A. Knowledge B. Ignorance Which do you prefer? Which is more powerful, to who, at the expense of who? When you give up your power to veto any law, then your masters can tax you for your use of oxygen. They own you. Learn the facts, or suffer the consequences. I have to get to work, but I do want to listen, and then comment on, the rest of this Real News report.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 25th, 2011 11:39 am |
|
49th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Back to Part 6 To summarize: Power flowing from those who produce power goes to a few of the most powerful, and then those people use that power to accomplish one of two things: 1. The total measure of power increases 2. The total measure of power decreases As a secondary concern the following 2 possibly results of moving power from those who create power to the few who then spend (or don't spend) that power: 1. The average person gains more power (benefits) 2. The average person loses more power (pays more cost) I'm returning to the Real News Report I returned, I tried to find Real numbers, and I didn't. My guess is that the total measure of power has increased, but perhaps not much, the rate of increase is difficult to know, perhaps impossible, unless the power increase counts things like nuclear bombs, nuclear power plants, air craft carriers, bombs, missiles, and these things are then used, and then the result of their use is destruction, so total power actually goes down, not up, over time. As a secondary consideration the shift of scarce power (a rate that may actually be negative and therefore power is becoming even more scarce) may be shifting more toward the few who use power to make power even more scarce, and the power shift may be moving away from a flow of power that ends up with power being used to increase power. Since I don't read from the Socialism (involuntary) versus Capitalism (involuntary) script, my viewpoint may be difficult to understand, to someone who is caught up in that mire. On to the next subject:
That is code, or double speak, for a measurable accounting of power production. A. Where power is scarce people produce more power at a faster rate B. Where power is abundant people produce more power at a faster rate Why would anyone ask such a question? Is there a plan by which the process of producing more power at a faster rate is discovered and then emulated? I will listen to find out why such a question constitutes Real News. Some people have [incompr.] this idea and have tried to help them by providing small amount of credit. This is known as microcredit. Now, unfortunately, a lot of this microcredit is these days provided by glorified loan sharks, people charging 90, 100, 120 percent interest rate--can you believe it? But even the good guys do not really lift many people out of poverty, because they are on their own. They have a bit of money; that's it. I mean, if you really want to help these people, you need to give them training. If you want to, say, help--. Wow, there it is, who can say it better? If power is to be produced at a faster rate: then the people who can, will, and do, produce power at a faster rate will be the ones who get the credit needed to accomplish that specific goal, and then, having credit, they set about, and accomplish that goal, which is the goal of producing more power. The good guys do not give themselves credit (120 percent interest) for doing nothing, so that method of taking credit, a cost, is no longer a cost, and the result is, without question, more power flowing to those who produce more power, causing the total supply of power to increase at a faster rate. How simple can it get? Why make that which is simple into that which is complicated? Why increase costs, whereby the cost increase does nothing to increase the benefit? Who would do such a thing, what is the point of doing such a thing, as to increase costs, whereby the choice to increase costs, results in no increase in total power, whereby, the increase in cost results in less power produced? What is the motive behind such a thing? Why would someone willfully choose to set in motion actions that are designed to make sure that power production reduces, on purpose; who profits from such a power-less decision to expend power in the work of creating less power?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 25th, 2011 01:45 pm |
|
50th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Part 7Despite the fall of communism, we are in fact living in planned economies. Anyone, What I just heard bears repeating. What I will quote, now, is very interesting stuff. When Karl Marx was writing about central planning, there was actually no centrally planned economy. Where did he get the idea? He got it from corporations. So corporations might look free, kind of, when it interacts with other corporations, but internally it's a very hierarchical organization. When false information, or dogma, is produced there are inevitable contradictions that arise; and the above is an example. The involuntary capitalists are apt to sling mud at the involuntary socialists, and inevitably, since they are both founded upon the same principle, the mud splashes back to the source of it - and visa versa. All these companies are planning things more and more. I mean, not just--we are not within national borders anymore. I mean, they are transnational and there are a lot of planning elements. Now, therefore, I argue that the question is not whether to plan or not, because we are already planning. The question is what to plan, exactly, at what level. I can add something I found in a book titled: The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness The author of that book quoted Karl Marx (explaining the quote): For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. Fromm, 1961, 1968) I prefer to measure the differences between a socialist based ideology and a capitalist based ideology by illustrating how the two ideologies work in combination, and I can do so by an illustrated example in history, and an illustrated proposed hypothetical example. History example: Give away the razor, to sell razor blades. The costly negative profit gift of producing and then transferring a razor to people who will use a razor is, by itself, a very charitable, and definitely non-profit (actually negative profit) social investment, to give, to serve, to expend personal power in an effort to empower everyone else, by that personal gift. That is the socialist ideology at work, as an example of a socialist idea, followed by a socialist act, a plan, and then following through with the plan. Working, expending personal power, personal cost, with the idea of making other people more powerful. In combination with that socialist idea, and that socialist act, is an additional attachment to that socialist, planned economy, whereby another amendment to that socialist plan, is a capitalist fine print clause. The plan continues past the personal sacrifice, to the benefit of all, into a personal gain, whereby the person following through with this combined socialist and capitalist combination, sells razor blades at a profit to the people who have been given a razor. Does that make any sense? My proposed hypothetical combination of socialism and capitalism is a familiar story for me, because I've written extensively on this idea in the past. Product 1 represents the socialist part of the plan, or the giving away the razor part of the plan, whereby this product is given away by the producer of it, which is a voluntary government agency type thing, an agreeable law, a lawful money product, and it is a non-profit product, that takes the form of an interest free home mortgage loan. The gift is a gift to anyone who needs the credit needed to purchase a home, and once the person has that credit, the person buys a home, and moves into a home, or the person can pay off an existing interest bearing mortgage, with the Product 1 gift, that isn't a gift, it is merely a loan that does not charge interest. The person getting the gift does have to pay back the entire loan back, but the gift part, is the part where the person getting the gift, doesn't pay interest. Product 1 is permission from all the other volunteers in the voluntary government, to go ahead, and borrow from yourself, and the job of accounting is awarded to the person, or company of people, who are awarded the contract to produce Product 1, and Product 2. That is the socialist part, and that is the part that is the same thing as selling the razor. The capitalist part is the part where the legal loan license, given by the socialist government law enforcement central planning department, is a license to profit at a rate of 1 percent, for a second product that can be sold, and the second product is another loan, where the loaned credit is only used to purchase things that produce more power, such as a Solar Panel, or an electric car whereby the cost of running the car is, so far, about 80% less than a gasoline car, even before the price of oil goes up. I can add that to the discussion offered in the Real News report - so I did. No. I mean, you know, there are certain things that we really need central planning for. That is a case of false choices. There is a plan, and a plan is executed, whereby a few people gain power and then a few people use the power they gain in the work of limiting choices. A part of that plan is to create false choices such as: 1. A planned economy 2. Not 1 There are many choices, not just those two, and the Real News here is that there are two opposite choices at work in reality, and it is important for anyone, anywhere, to be aware of these two opposing categories of choices as such: 1. Voluntary associations (with or without agreement to use plans) 2. Involuntary associations (where one plan is followed or failure to follow the one enforced plan includes the one planned act of punishment for failure to obey the one plan) One plan, the involuntary plan, uses power to enforce the one plan, and the same power is used in the work that is necessary to eliminate all competitive plans, so as to enforce only that one plan. If there are more plans than one, and the power of voluntary association remains a workable power, then the better plan, the least costly plan, the most beneficial plan, will be the winning plan, until such time as a more beneficial plan, at a lower cost, is planned into existence, or just happens to fall out of the sky. CHANG: No. I mean, you know, there are certain things that we really need central planning for. That is code, or double speak, for a troubling problem, and a false solution. The troubling problem is the problem that keeps on troubling mankind. Some individuals, within the group that is mankind, plan on, and then enforce their plan, whereby innocent people are victimized, on purpose, for the benefit of the few who come up with this plan, and the few who execute this plan, and as always, the only ones who pay for this plan, are the honest people who produce wealth, which is measurable as power, as anyone with a brain can know, the criminals with this criminal plan, don't waste their power stealing from people who have nothing, they target people who have something to steal. The false solution is to become a criminal so as to fight crime. 1. Voluntary associations are required in order to produce power, or wealth, and if a voluntary association is incapable of using the power that is created in the work of defending against crime, then crime will occur. 2. Involuntary associations are examples of crime, the definition of crime, therefore an involuntary association is a false solution to the crime problem. If criminals admit that they are criminals, the victims then know who to avoid. If the criminals can convince the victims that crime is a solution to crime, guess what happens? Legal crime. JAY: Okay. Moving on, Number 20: Equality of opportunity may not be fair. What's that mean? I stopped at the announcement of that statement and I'm going to guess at what that means. That is another very loaded series of words. What that loaded series of words brings to my mind, is a situation whereby credit is distributed within a social structure that is both voluntary and heavily involuntary in form, purpose, structure, and in actual operation. If credit flows only to those who earn credit, is that fair? If the answer is no, then the word fair must be explained in order to explain why the answer is no. If the answer is yes, a fair distribution of credit is a distribution whereby credit flows only to those who earn it, then I can report that such a place as that, where credit flows only to those who earn it, is the place where the least crime occurs, and such a place will be the place where the most power is produced, and such a place will be the place where the average person is almost as powerful as the exceptionally powerful person, and the least powerful person is almost as powerful as the average person. If credit flows to people who steal credit, then what does that measure, if that is an example of "fairness"? Who has the power to define the meaning of fairness, and how is fairness measured by that definition, as that person, or that group of people, define the meaning of fairness? Do they have the exclusive power to define the meaning of the word fairness, and do they impose that definition, in measurable ways, upon people who don't define fairness in the official, authoritarian, and criminal, way? I am returning to the Real News report. But it is not because these kids are, you know, inherently incapable. It's because they were not properly catered for. If you have a disabled kid, then, you know, you have to have a program to fit an artificial leg to this kid so that he can actually run. That can be just about anything, but I think that the above falls into two major categories: 1. Charity 2. Not 1 If that is charity, then that it what it is, and many people are charitable, so long as there is enough power to be charitable, and if there isn't enough power to be charitable, then how can more power be produced, so as to reach a level of power, whereby charity is once again possible? If a person with one leg can begin producing much more with an artificial leg, more power production is possible compared to the rate of production with only one leg, then power flowing to the person with one leg, so as to purchase and gain an artificial leg, is an example of power (or credit) flowing to someone who can earn power, and earn even more power with two legs, and not someone who is in need of charity. What is the mechanism by which power flows to the "disabled" (less powerful) person? A. An involuntary mechanism B. A voluntary mechanism If an involuntary mechanism is used then crime is the solution to the disabled problem, and it is therefore possible, if not likely, that the person who was unable to produce more power with one leg becomes someone who produces even less power, consuming more power, with two legs, such as having the innocent one legged person employed in work that reduces power further, in some way. 1. Charity (the flow of power flows voluntarily to people who cannot produce power) 2. Crime (power is taken from people, by fraud, by threats of violence, and by examples of violence, that may include chopping legs off of two legged people, creating a whole lot of one legged people, and then power is transferred to an army of one legged people, who are employed in the work of enforcing the involuntary association, whereby they chop legs off of people who don't obey, and they attach artificial legs to the people who learn to obey) Choosing the voluntary solution to the one legged problem becomes a situation whereby credit flows voluntarily to those who earn credit and therefore a third option comes into view: 1. Charity (assuming that there is enough power available to be charitable) 2. Crime (assuming that the power available has already transferred from those who create power to those who steal it, and then the criminals use that power to chop off legs, and attach artificial legs in the effort to keep the power flowing to the criminals from those who produce power) 3. Investment (assuming that power does flow voluntarily, by some means, to those who earn credit, including honest working people who can, will, and do produce more than they consume with or without an artificial leg, and if they can produce more with an artificial leg, then, with their credit that flows to them, they buy an artificial leg, or make one, or make more than one, store one, or make more than two, and sell the extra one) I have to divert attention elsewhere at this time, and I intend to return to this Real News report.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 26th, 2011 01:51 pm |
|
51st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism Pt.7JAY: Okay. Number 21: Big government makes people more open to change. How's that? We're told big government destroys innovation. That exposes, more so than almost anything, the true destructive power of legal crime. If the law is criminal, or involuntary, then the law is a method by which power flows from those who create power to those who steal it, that is a physically measurable fact, and one way, but perhaps not the best way, perhaps not the highest quality way, and not the lowest cost way, to physically measure the flow of power from those who create it to those who steal it, causing Big (criminal) Government to get Bigger, and Bigger, and Bigger, is this: How Big can it get, physically? So number 21 on the list of things that "they" don't tell you is, again, more importantly the same lie, where the criminals (they) don't tell you that government is organized crime, and failing to know that makes all the rest of this stuff a very poor investment of power (time and energy). Crime destroys, that is what crime does, that is the purpose of it, and when it is organized crime, it becomes very innovative, actually the people running it become very innovative, at the work of stealing all the power, all the power that can be stolen, and then using that stolen power in the work that must be done to keep the organized crime business "flourishing", which is certainly not good for the victims, who are no longer able to use their power in the work of "flourishing", since all their power is not only stolen, but all their power is being used to steal more. What exactly, and without smoke and mirrors, and without lies, and without threats of violence, and without examples of violence, is government? If that question above is left unanswered, or ambiguous, then it is ignorant to suggest that a qualitative or quantitative question concerning government can be answered intelligently. So what is the point in dodging the obvious error, and moving onto ignorant questions that lack intelligence? The obvious answers, just to begin listing possible competitive answers, seeking the highest quality answer, at the lowest cost, are: 1. Willful deceit 2. Ignorance 3. Willful ignorance (stupidity) 4. Misplaced and misguided applications of productive power, whereby the power spent is misspent and the goal of knowing becomes less possible. 5. Other obvious answers I do not have enough information to know the truest answer. I will guess that the answer is 4 above, and that these guys are struggling to understand things, but missing the Elephant in the room, as the Elephant eats up all the resources, space, food, air, etc., and the Elephant excretes piles upon piles of putrid poisonous waste which further encroaches upon scarce resources, and that Elephant is, in every single example whereby a supposed agent of government willfully employs the power of government in the perpetration of injury to innocent victims, which includes any involuntary tax whatsoever, criminal. Is government synonymous with crime, and if so, why speak of it as if it is anything but crime? If there is a non-criminal government, where is it, what distinguishes the non-criminal government from crime, exactly? One lone gunman, lone assassin, single individual criminal, is one thing, but to have almost every elected and almost every unelected, government agent stupefied into willfully enforcing a false belief in the legitimacy, and the moral correctness, of stealing, this involuntary tax confidence scheme, is all together different, whereby the force that could be use to avoid crime is almost entirely turned into the force that ensures that crime will grow, and grow, and grow, until everyone becomes a criminal and a victim, and all power is consumed in the work of perpetuating crime. Read Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, wise up, before it is too late. Wake up now, or tomorrow morning, sooner rather than later, and refuse to participate in crime, no more lies, no more plans to injure innocent victims, and no more executions of those plans to injure innocent victims, including the enforcements of involuntary tax payments. At some point each member of that involuntary association will run out of power and expire, because that is how involuntary associations work, as each member of an involuntary association is hell bent on consuming a steadily declining power source, to consume before someone else will, until all power is gone, leaving the last, most innovative, and most powerful, legal criminal, left, or, moving in the opposite direction, the honest productive people figure out how to avoid the criminals and set about using the power they have to make more power. A. Chose the criminal method B. Reject the criminal method I'll listen to more of the Real News report, as those people obviously fail in fundamental accounting. Do they really think that the legal criminals are trying to do the right thing but failing, each time, over, and over, and over again? Real News:
There is no doubt, not in my experience, that many people are stupified into accepting falsehood, and then defending it, often vehemently, but who is doing so now? "They" don't know any better. "They" think government is bad. Which government? "They" think that socialist government is bad? Which socialist government? "They" don't understand that socialism is good. Which socialism? Is it, or is it not, a good idea to plan on, and then execute the plan, that results in the transfer of power, by deceit, by threats of violence, and by executions of violence, from those who create power, to those who receive that power by those methods? If the answer is yes, that is a good idea, then the person answering that question is "they", the mysterious "they", the stupfied "they", the criminal "they", the ones who support, and perpetuate, the flow of power from those who create it, to those who steal it, by way of deceit, by way of threats of violence, and by way of executions of very destructive violent acts. Why ignore the Elephant in the room? Who benefits? Who gains, by that willful ignorance. "They" can't see the crime factor? Really? Is that Real News or something less real? Sure the criminal socialist democrats tell lies, in the effort to get their victims to accept those lies, and render their victims powerless to avoid victimization. I read that loud and clear as the criminal capitalist republicans report such truths. Sure the criminal capitalist republicans tell lies, in the effort to get their victims to accept those lies, and render their victims powerless to avoid victimization. I read that loud and clear too. When are the non-criminal honest productive people going to recognize a common bond? Never? Never may be a much shorter span of time than we may be led to believe, if never is the answer to the question of when the non-criminal honest productive people will recognize a common bond. If the answer is soon, or now, what form will that common, agreeable, common bond take, what will constitute that bond, how can that bond be qualified and quantified, and how can that form of that common bond be improved in quality and how can that form of that common bond be reduced in cost? It can't, ever, because it never will be recognized by anyone? The opposite of the Elephant in the room, that many people willfully ignore, is the common bond that empowers honest productive people with the power needed to move away from legal crime and toward higher quality life, at a lower cost, for all, even the criminals. Back to the Real News for me.
That dogma belongs in the falsehood pile that it is within, it belong in the falsehood that it is of, within the involuntary association connection, the common bond between people, in that involuntary association network, which is crime, that is what that is, and that is what belongs in any accurate appraisal of what happens within such a network, such a social structure. If the form of the connection is involuntary, the output will be determined by the powers that gain power by that form of connection, and it will be a one way street, power will flow from those who create power, and power will flow to those who steal it. Look at the measure of that type of connection, that type of bond, and see what happens when a criminal, involuntary, form of connection is enforced, or tolerated into being the form of connection that is the dominant form. The Debt Clock shows what happens in real time. Power flow from the only place power comes from, which, obviously, intelligently, logically, and reasonably, comes from the people who do manage to produce power (despite having much of the power produced stolen), and that power flows to those who steal it. How is that not obvious? What is the point of ignoring that very significant factor? The form of the involuntary connection includes such things as the form of money that is produced, but not the only thing, and that form of money thereby measures the factual transfer of power from those who create it to those who steal power. Once the criminals have the power that is stolen, do you really think that they will spend that power in any way that may reduce their power to keep stealing? Where are the smart people who once populated this planet? Sure, there is a need to invest some of the power stolen in the work of making sure that there continues to be some power produced, failing in that work would result in no more power to steal, everyone at that point, again, is either a criminal or a victim, or by act of God, or willful application of intelligence, the honest productive people figure out how to separate from the criminals, and begin using power to make more power, without an official order to do so, handed down by way of dictate, from a criminal with a badge, or a license to steal, torture, and mass murder, and, lets not forget, the legal criminals have even given themselves the license to threaten the survival of the human species. The Elephant in the room has grown very, very, large, and some people are waist deep in the bowels of it. How about a visual: Searching for an Honest Politician
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 7th, 2011 08:45 pm |
|
52nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Capitalism, Chinese StyleAnd they will continue to do so not because they aren't bothered by what they see, by the fragility of our own system, but because there's no other place for them to put it. Anyone, Can you see a glaring omission? Power becomes so tremendously abundant that a situation comes into being whereby there is a high demand for places to send the excess? Someone, somewhere, or some group, somehow, accumulate such a vast and gigantic sum of surplus wealth that the supply of places to spend it, or store it, pale in comparison? A. Growing, vast, and gigantic, sums of surplus wealth (purchasing power). B. Shrinking, scarce, and miniscule, places to hide (launder) money. I have people tell me that my words are unreadable. Can you believe that? Here are supposed experts, or authorities, or supposedly knowledgeable people, reporting the facts concerning a global human condition whereby millions of people are starving, millions of people are being tortured, and millions of people are being murdered, lies, frauds, threats of violence, and acts of inhuman violence, radioactive plutonium, and other man made pollutants are reaching toxic levels globally, and some people, some groups of people, are claiming that they have too much purchasing power with no place to put it? Who is getting the short end of this stick, where the language appears to be favoring one set of people, at the expense of another set of people? The language is scripted, it is code, it is double speak, it is falsified, and it is fictional. How can the powerful group claim to be broke, and in dire need of larger flows of power transferring to them, in the form of higher prices, higher interest rates, higher taxes, higher fees, higher, and higher, and higher, demands of surplus wealth, money, flowing to them, from those who create that surplus wealth, and at the same time, those same people, those same groups, claim that they have too much surplus wealth, such vast quantities of surplus wealth, so overburdened with too much surplus wealth, that they no longer have safe places to put it? You complain about my writing, as my writing is unreadable, and you swallow this garbage whole? A. We are broke (legal criminals demanding more power) B. We are running out of places to hide our stolen wealth I may not have read, or communicated, the meaning of the words spoken in this Real News report well enough, accurately. So...
Please note that the dollar money supply total in early 2008 was increased to twice the total supply and then that new power to purchase went somewhere. Are you capable of understanding the significance of that news, without the falsified background noise that is produced by the same criminals who stole that power? A. We are broke, send us more power or else. B. We can spend on one day more money than the entire global supply of money if we decide to, so long as we can find ways to spend that much money. Who is too stupid to add simple math here, people? You may be better advised to consider looking in the mirror before you point your finger at me. I will listen further to this Real News report and continue to offer comments. SCHELL: [incompr.] they're collecting huge amounts of foreign exchange, and they've got to park it someplace. And in a certain sense there is a kind of a symbiotic relationship that's almost like some drunk and their spouse, which is they lend to us, we borrow, we spend in a profligate manner, but we buy their stuff, they make the money, get the foreign currency, and give it back to us so that we can go deeper in debt to buy from them. That's what's been going on until the financial crisis. How wrong can something get? A group of people based in China collect power and now they have vast sums of power. What is the connection between this powerful group based in China and all those poor desperate people in China who are willing to work for less than a living wage? A. The powerful people in China (legal criminals) B. The rest of the people in China (honest productive people) Group A gains power by collecting power from group B. What does the powerful group do when the powerful group gains too much money, too much surplus wealth? Put on your thinking caps. Lend the money to another powerful group? Does that really make any sense to you? The Federal Reserve group, or the Wall Street group, or whatever group is connected together by the dollar unit of currency, The Dollar Hegemony group, whereby power flows from those who create power to those who create and maintain The Dollar Supply of legal money, borrow power from the powerful Chinese group? Do you really buy into that legal fiction? The Chinese powerful group can add, certainly, they manage to add well enough to know when to demand more power from their victims, or subjects, or tax payers, or whatever word they use to label the sources of their power, and so, knowing that the Chinese powerful group can add, it can then be understood that they can add up all the Aircraft Carriers with U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) stenciled on the sides of those big ships, or some other label, some other flag, some other means by which anyone can know who owns those ships, who uses those ships, and what those ships are doing here and there, what those ships intend to accomplish, etc. It takes power, and lots of it, to sink into Aircraft Carrier production. Lots, and lots, and lots, of power, sunk into producing lots of Aircraft Carriers, for some reason. Where do the owners of all those military ships, and all those military planes, and all those military man hours, get the power they get to sink into those types of investments? Do the Chinese powerful people add those figures up, something not added up in this Real News Report? Now that's got to change. China recognizes it, and I think we do, too. They can't just be an export economy. They have to start generating a greater level of consumption within China. But there the Chinese run into a structural problem of their own, that they have a very high savings rate, which means people don't consume as much as they could. Why? Because they don't have a welfare system and a health care system that provides for people in their old age, so people lock up their money. So it's only to say--and one of the reasons why China comes up every other sentence here in Bretton Woods and everyplace else is because the US and China are insolubly locked together now with one set of sort of economic internal organs. Who controls the money supply in China? What is the interest rate charged to any Chinese person if a Chinese person seeks to borrow from their own capacity to create wealth? How much power is transferred from the honest productive workers in China to the legal money suppliers through the money system, as interest, in China? What is in place, in China, that moves the power that the honest Chinese workers, or business people, produce, from them to the powerful people who end up with so much power that they lack places to invest that excess power? Where do the powerful people in China get their power, how do they get it, and why don't they stop taking so much, if, as this story goes, they get it from the only place that they can get it, which is from the honest productive working population who produce surplus wealth? Why take so much that the powerful group has too much and the powerless group doesn't have enough? Why do the Chinese powerful people take more than they can ever spend from those who produce surplus wealth? Answer the same question about the American powerful people. What do you get? A. American powerful people (take surplus wealth from the source of surplus wealth, and take more than they can ever spend) B. Chinese powerful people (take surplus wealth from the source of surplus wealth, and take more than they can ever spend) C. American producers of surplus wealth (send their hard earned power, by whatever means it flows, to the American powerful people) D. Chinese producers of surplus wealth (send their hard earned power, by whatever means it flows, to the Chinese powerful people) What do the Chinese powerful people and the American powerful people have in common? What do the Chinese producers of surplus wealth and the American producers of surplus wealth have in common? The powerful people know how the game works and they no better than to let everyone know how the game works. It is crime, and they know it. The producers of surplus wealth, once they know, stop being victims, and since they continue to be victims, they are obviously ignorant, concerning how the game, the fraud, the legal crime, works. My words are unreadable? Seriously?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 10th, 2011 11:44 am |
|
53rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
What would happen if a person could offer for sale an insurance policy that pays the beneficiary in case the beneficiary cannot afford the price of a home? An insurance policy called Homelessness Insurance. Can you connect those dots? If you can't, do you know someone who can? If you don't, do you think that someone can? If you do, who? I can. The insurance business can only exist when competition is eliminated. What stops you from printing your own money? Do you even know what money is? What stops you from printing your own insurance policy, of any kind, whereby you pay yourself in case of any injury you suffer? If you can't do that, you have to explain why you can't do that, if you want to know what I know, as I can connect the dots that are explained above. If there were no forces forcing someone to refrain from printing their own money, what happens? The answer is, even if you refuse to know the answer, competition happens. Whose money will be good money, the highest quality money, and whose money will be not good, the lowest quality money? Whose money will be transferred from the producer to the consumer at the lowest price? If you can't conceive of such a thing, then you are exemplifying why a monopoly exists; there is, by your measure of it, a monopoly of ideas, whereby you, by your example, define that monopoly, and you can't even conceive of what it means when a money competition exists. If you, and everyone else, can't conceive of something, it doesn't exist, for you, and everyone else, who are as limited as you. A money competition causes, by the forces that exist when competition exits, higher quality money production, and lower costs of money - to the consumers of it. Money quality is what it is. Money cost is what it is. Would you buy money that is more or less powerful, if you have the choice? Would you choose to be paid, for your work, or for the things you sell, with powerless money, or powerful money, if you have a choice between powerless money or powerful money? If you are going to borrow money, from yourself, or from someone else, which money will you borrow, if you have a choice, will you borrow money that cost you a lot, or will you borrow money that does not cost you a lot, if you have a choice, if competition exists in money markets? If you don't have to pay twice the cost of a home, where you pay the previous owner of the home, or the builder of the home, the price of the home, and, in addition to that cost to you, you also pay the same amount you pay to the previous owner, you pay double the price of the home, as you pay an entire home price, a home that does not exist, to the people who run the Bank, or the people who run the Mortgage Company, as you pay mortgage INTEREST. Prices on homes are now low. Is that bad? Why is that bad? If you think I'm stupid, because I know that low housing prices are not (necessarily) bad, then back up your opinion, put your money where your mouth is, and challenge my viewpoint, offer a competitive viewpoint. Which will be the higher quality viewpoint. Which will be the lower cost viewpoint. Who produces the quality? Who pays the cost?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 14th, 2011 12:49 pm |
|
54th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Part II Anyone, The discussion starts out as an exercise in finding the right label to pin to China. Is it capitalism? Is it socialism? They fail, as do most people reading from the false script, to accurately report on the true nature of all involuntary associations. They fail to accurately report the true characters of political economy. Is it voluntary socialism? Is it voluntary capitalism? Is it involuntary socialism (crime)? Is it involuntary capitalism (crime)? The accurate answer is: China is run by legal criminals, it is crime, whereby the honest productive people in China, within the legal reach of the legal criminals running China, must obey. There is no other choice. China is no different than U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) from that base, foundation, of political economy. China is not voluntary socialism. U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) is not voluntary capitalism. There is no free market within the Chinese legal crime enforcement network, the network that connects the legal criminals to the honest productive people, in China, in direct proportion to the flow of power from those who earn that power, involuntarily, to those who steal that power, and then use that stolen power in the work of eliminating competition. The free market is not free when it is no longer free as a result of people willfully making the free market no longer free, and that is self-evident. There is no free market within the U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) crime enforcement network, by the same accurate, self-evident, measure applied to China. It is not free, each time it is involuntary, in each case, where by a force would have forced quality up, and the same force would have forced cost down, had the involuntary force not prevented the voluntary force to be in force, in each case. Examples abound, following the actual money trail, whereby money (purchasing power) is stolen from those who produce the power, and then the stolen power flows to the thieves, and then the thieves spend the stolen power in the work of eliminating competition, such as a subsidy, or exclusive license, or whatever word excuses, or "explains", the transfer of power from those who produce power to those who use that power to out-produce the competition. I have to make higher quality stuff at a lower cost than my competitor in a free market. That is the working definition of a free market, that is how it defines itself, as it works, and as it works that way. When a competitor forces me to pay him, he force me himself, he gives me an offer I can't refuse, or he hires someone to take "protection money" from me, and then my competitor uses the money he takes from me, to make higher quality things, at lower prices, then that is the opposite of a free market, defining itself, working opposite a free market, as that works that way. One is one thing - free market The other is the opposite thing, even if you call it a "Free Market". I don't know how it works in China. I can illustrate how it works in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) with many examples not limited to the paper trail that documents the flow of power from tax payers, like Elon Musk, and from the people employed by Elon Musk, in the Electric Car "Free Market" business, and then that money is then spent on subsidizing the competition - bailing out General Motors, or flowing to Chinese Electric Car Companies, so as to make Elon Musk pay to strengthen his competitors, while Elon Musk's own Electric Car Company struggles for needed credit, becoming even weaker, as he is forced to use his own power to make his competition stronger, instead of using his own power to make higher quality electric cars at lower costs. That is not a free market. A free market is defined as a force by which competitors are forced to produce higher quality stuff, at lower costs, or be forced out of the market by someone who can produce higher quality stuff at lower prices. The opposite, may be a "Free Market"; whereby the social network is free from moral conscience, and free from competition, as power flows from those who create power to those who steal power, and then as that stolen power is used to make thieves and liars more powerful, and used to make the victims powerless. Why act as if a competitive free market is the same thing as an enforced reduction in competition? A free market is competition. Power used to end competition is not a free market, so why pretend, or act, as if one was the same thing as the other, when one is the exact opposite of the other? I hear: "Now, after we've come full circle around, after the economic collapse." That is an accurate, and concise, description of the legalized crime known as The Business Cycle. A monetary monopoly power increases the supply of money to cause an economic boom on schedule, and then the monetary monopoly power decreases the supply of money to cause an economic bust, on schedule, so as to be in command of the exclusive knowledge of when to sell (at the top of the boom), and when to buy (at the bottom of the bust), so as to transfer surplus wealth from those who produce wealth, to those who run The Business Cycle. Why does anyone act, anyone who supposedly knows something, as if The Business Cycle was some kind of accident of nature? Why does anyone ignore, anyone who supposedly knows something, the fact that The Business Cycle is created and maintained by actual people who plan for, and then execute, The Business cycle on their schedule? Can you guess? How about asking? Why do you, anyone, ignore the fact that The Business cycle is a serious crime in progress? Paul? Anyone? I hear "by not letting market forces run so free" Why do people confuse one thing with the opposite of the thing? A market force is not a crime. A crime is not a market force. If a crime is committed, then a crime in committed. Why would someone blame a crime on a market force? Example: If the "expert" authority on political economy is concerned about criminal cases of pollution, which I hear is a growing problem in China, why would said "expert" want to blame such crimes on the "Free Market"? Answer: Said expert confuses crime with the free market. Said expert thinks that crime is the Free Market. Said expert does not know that the free market is just a term that accurately identifies the process by which quality is forced up, and cost is forced down, by competitors competing for the scarce supply of consumer purchasing power. Said expert wants victims to think that the lie is true. Take your pick? A. free market = working competition B. Free Market = crime (people willfully injuring innocent people by way of pollution) Why confuse one with the other, what is the point of confusing one with the other? Confusing one with the other makes the good one appear to be less good as the bad one dilutes the power of the good one. Confusing one with the other makes the bad one look better as the bad one appears to be diluted by the good one. This is a function of the power of falsehood. The liar knows the truth, the victim of the lie is ignorant of the truth, otherwise the lie is harmless, and therefore powerless, and therefore not an effective lie. When the truth is shared, when the truth is no longer an exclusive property of the criminal fraud, the power of the lie is rendered powerless, a fable, a story, a joke, a fools errand that no longer has a fool to fool. Do you want to be a fool? I hear this "expert" claiming that the U.S. (open market) suffers, while China (authoritarian) wins, as a result of this recent crisis. How convenient can lies be? In the case of the example of Elon Musk, a producer of Electric Cars here in California, before the BUST of 2006/2008 (roughly), Tesla Motors was on track to begin producing a new Sedan model, in addition to their sports car already in production, and they then crashed along with everyone else. Tax payer money goes from those productive people, and many others, to "Washington" in this supposedly "open" market, and then that money flows where? They don't say. Mums the word. There are clues. Warren Buffet Did Warren get a bail out? Did Warren choose to invest in California, like Elon Musk, while paying all the costs required to meet stringent air pollution standards in California, or did Warren choose to invest in exploiting (criminalizing) honest Chinese productive people? Did some of the money go to General Motors so as to make more gasoline powered cars, or to make competitive Electric Cars, as power flows from Elon Musk, and his employees, to Washington, or The FED, or U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), and that stolen power is then used to subsidize the competition, effectively eliminating the force of competition. Money taken from a competitor, Elon Musk, and then spent on making another competitor more powerful, Chinese Electric Cars, and General Motors Electric cars, built in China, where the workers are paid less than a living wage, less then enough to pay for their own medical costs that they will suffer as a result of increased pollution, is not a free market, it is the opposite. This guy, in this Real News Report, is sounding more and more like a Snake Oil Salesman. I just heard something that stinks, as in: I smell a rat. Paul Jay asks something along the lines of: Why doesn't the Chinese leadership use all that power (capital) they have in the work of empowering the honest productive people in China. The reason why I smell a rat is because I have a good answer to that question. The good answer to that question is this: If the Chinese leadership invests the power they get from the honest productive Chinese people into empowering the honest productive Chinese people, then they will very soon be less powerful than the honest productive Chinese people, therefore they do not empower the honest productive Chinese people. There are very many honest productive Chinese people, so each of which having a little more power, is a whole lot of collective power, and there are very, very, very, few members of the Chinese Elite, "authorities", so one must be careful, no, in where one allows power to flow, if you have the power to allow, or not allow, power to flow. The Dictator's Dilemma is not a new thing. The smelly rat answer to the power flow question was something along the lines of dollar denominated capital has to be spent outside China, not inside China, which is stupid. If, for example, the Chinese leadership did want to empower the honest productive Chinese people, they could take those billions of dollars, and offer the honest productive Chinese people interest free home mortgage loans, and interest free business property loans, for farms, shops, offices, anything, and then the honest productive Chinese people can pay back the loans, in dollars, or in Chinese currency, either/or, and that would then begin an age of monetary competition in China, instead of a monopoly money extortion racket in China, which could be the answer, if the question really was asking for an accurate answer. Since the answer was a smelly rat answer, a political lie, and economic cost, the question remains unanswered, at least in The Real News Report. I'll listen further. I heard something along the lines of Chinese factory workers moving from the cities to the countries, and, here is another rat I smell, the next thing I hear is that food prices around the world are going up. So there you have more people ready and willing, able, to produce more food, as they move back to the farm lands, from the cities, while food prices go up? Why do food prices go up, if there are too many people ready and able to make more food? More rats. The expert says that Chinese food prices are going up due to inflation, or some other supposed fact. If food prices go up, then food producers can sell more food, hire more food workers, and meet the obvious demand for more food, and that is separate from the price or demand for money. If the money supply is being inflated, which is a major cause of inflation, the definition of inflation depending up how the word is used, then the additional money, the newly created money, the inflated money supply money, isn't going, obviously, to finance new farms, to make more food, or new water wells, to irrigate more food, because if there is too much food, the price goes down, not up. Who would pay for food if food rained down like sunlight? Who pays for sunlight? If a Chinese city is no longer getting any sunlight, in the middle of the day, because the legal criminals are pumping out enough pollution to block out the sun, then some people may move out, and pay the price they are then forced to pay for sunlight. When honest productive people, in China, or anywhere, learn to disconnect themselves from the legal criminals: power will no longer flow in the direction that makes honest productive people weaker, while that power flow makes the legal criminals stronger. It is not a capitalist versus socialist power struggle, it is a crime versus victim struggle. Confusing one with the other moves power from the victims to the criminals, it is a process called fraud. The victims are confused, not the criminals.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 24th, 2011 01:12 pm |
|
55th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
How to Fix It Anyone, I am an example (perhaps a very poor example) of a modern day Journalist. I have spent about 3 decades working on Journalism, if, and only if, the term Journalism has a specific meaning. In the report by Real News there is information offered by someone to anyone. That means that someone has consumed their life, their power, their time, their energy, and their resources to gain the information and then to publish, or offer, the information that they have gained, and that means that there is a reason, a motive, for spending that power of life to accomplish that goal. 1. A choice is made to expend effort in the necessary work required to gain specific information. 2. The motive behind the choice to expend effort in the necessary work required to gain specific information is specific in each case that the choice to expend effort in the necessary work required to gain specific information is made. What is the motive behind the choice, in any case, to expend the necessary work required to gain specific information? I can assume a few things about motives in specific cases that I will offer as a response to this Real News report on journalism. 1. Paul Jay has a motive. 2. Dahr Jamail has a motive. 3. I have a motive 4. Alex Jones has a motive 5. Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn had a motive. 6. Edward Bernays had a motive. 7. Thomas Paine had a motive. 8. Opra Winfrey has a motive 9. Bob Dylan has a motive 10. Glen Beck has a motive In order to begin understanding the nature and purposes that exist in the decisions to expend human effort in the work required to gain information it may help to expend some work toward the accurate identification of the most common motives. Examples: 1. For fun. People decide to expend the work that is necessary to gain information because it is not work for them, it is fun for them. 2. For equitable monetary gain. People decide to expend the work that is necessary to gain information because it is work that produces something that can then be offered to someone else, or many other people, in exchange for money, or something of value, such as the value in money called Purchasing Power. 3. Necessity. People decide to expend the work that is necessary to gain information because people become aware of the necessity of gaining information, to avoid potential injury, or to gain necessary power, to know how to survive, and to know how to prosper while surviving. 4. Crime. People decide to expend the work that is required to gain information because people decide to target other people so as to exploit other people, to get something from other people inequitably, to gain at the expense of the targeted victims. 5. Generosity. People decide to expend the work that is required to gain information because people decide to use their own power so as to make other people more powerful. While listing many possible common motives a significant understanding emerges as the majority of reasons can be understood as reasons that are either productive reasons or reasons that are destructive reasons. A. Productive (equitable, defensive, productive) B. Destructive (inequitable, offensive, destructive) A few other obvious characterizations become apparent: A. Productive, equitable, and defensive reasons for gaining information tend to be open, public, free (open source), distributive (able to flow to anyone at any time and from anyone at anytime desired, or two way, not one way), voluntary, honest, accurate, desired, welcome, agreeable, reasonable, understandable, scientific, universal, competitive, inspiring, hopeful, concerned, sympathetic, empathetic, and subject to rigorous, and intense, scrutiny. B. Destructive, inequitable, and criminal reasons for gaining information tend to be closed, private, costly (for the victims, while profitable for the criminals), secretive, false, dishonest, inaccurate, fictitious, duplicitous, unreasonable, exclusive, monopolistic, apathetic, fearful, paralyzing, hurtful, torturous, murderous, and ignorant. Therefore the decisions to gather information can understandably belong to one of three possible general categories and those specific examples sited above are specific examples that can fall into these categories if the idea is to choose to gather information so as to know something. A. Productive reasons B. Destructive reasons C. Unknown reasons (not obviously productive or destructive reasons) Paul Jay, by his own words, reasonably falls into the category of productive reasons. The decision to gain information is decided upon so as to offer the information to anyone else, to give it away, so as to accomplish that goal, to give away the information, to make the information available to anyone, anytime, and to thereby help other people know specific things that Paul Jay thinks that other people may want, or may need, to know. The costs, or expenses, Paul Jay assumes, or consumes, in the process of gathering, and then publishing, information is paid, in part, by voluntary donations from other people who also give, generously, to help keep the information flow going, in the direction the information is flowing, in that network of people who make up The Real News Network. Voluntary, welcome, universal, networked associations. Moving down the list to Edward Bernays, by his own words, and his own deeds (when his words did not match his deeds), the obvious, reasonable, and understandable, category that Edward Bernays belongs in, is the criminal category, as his decision to gather information is a decision by which the information gathered will then be used in the process of exploiting a targeted group of victims. Anyone reading my words, here, may not yet understand this fact, and this forum isn't the place for me to cover all those facts, I'm just linking one source to the readers who may have an interest in knowing a criminal version of journalism. I can move then to my own reasons. My reasons for deciding to expend my limited power in the work that is necessary to gain information are selfish in the long term, and generous in the short term, a balance of reasoning, and one that I can honestly, and accurately, report to be productive reasons, and measurably not criminal reasons. I have worked, and I have found, for example, the information that clearly identifies two diametrically opposing forms of government, and now that I have this provable, supportable, reasonable, accurate, and useful information, I have decided to publish this information, to make it available to anyone, any time, for their own good, without any short term compensation from anyone to me, in return for my effort. In the long term I can profit as the power of criminals governments lessen in proportion to the power gained by honest productive people who may, or many not, decide to invest, voluntarily, in honest, and productive, forms of government. It has become clear to me that the decisions I make to publish information that uncovers the crimes being committed by the people running criminal governments is a decision that may expose me to some risk; risk that I can avoid having to face if I decide to keep the information I have found secret, in the short term, while in the long term my decision to keep the information that exposes the criminals governments a secret, are decisions that aid, and abet, and offer measurable support to the criminals governments, empowering the criminals, at the expense of the victims, including me. This is not news, this has been covered before: Thomas Paine: Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Moving then to Dahr Jamail the case can be made that the decision to blow the whistle on criminals running governments is life threatening, as the decision goes well beyond short term self enriching monetary gain, obviously, and much closer to some unexplained reasoning for exposing one's own life to extreme hazard, so as to gain first hand, timely, on the scene, information - and then use that information to accomplish another goal, such as the goal of informing other people. If the people running the governments are criminals, committing crimes, then the people deciding to gather information for generous reasons, to help other people, even while risking personal injury, are going to be subjected to laws, and actions, aimed at anyone making those decisions to expose the people who are criminals who are running governments, and aimed at them to make them less powerful, such as gag orders, and such things as Alien and Sedition Acts. At what point does a government turn from a productive one into a destructive (criminal) one? The answer is found inside the Real News Report. The idea is to demand, by way of deceit, and by way of threats of violence, and by way of acts of violence, payment from the targeted victims, a demand made by the criminals who run the criminals governments, in a word: subsidy, so as to get power flowing from those who create power to those who steal it. Involuntary taxation is the source of subsidy, and taxation, if it is involuntary (gained by deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence0, is deceitful, a self contained confession of deceit, since the accurate word is crime, not taxation. Where does the stuff that makes up a subsidy come from? If the source of the subsidy is the honest productive people who produce surplus wealth, and if the power that is employed in the work of transferring that subsidy from the honest productive people, to the government people, is a deceptive power, and a power that is made up of threats of violence, and a violent power, so as to move the productive power from those who produce it, to those who steal it, then, as that power flows from those honest productive producers, it flows to the criminals who employ deceit to get the power stolen by deceit, and it flows to the criminals who employ threats of violence to get the power stolen by threats of violence, and it flows to the criminals who employ violence to get the power stolen by violence, and it does so even if the criminals call themselves presidents, and congressmen, and journalists, and even if the victims call the criminals, presidents, and congressmen, and journalists. If the subsidy flows from the people who produce surplus wealth, the stuff of subsidy, the tax stuff, if the money stuff flows from the honest productive people voluntarily, without deceit being employed to cause the flow of power, then the subsidy flows without deceit being employed to cause that flow of power. Why call it subsidy if it is charity? Why call it subsidy if it is short term investment? Why call it subsidy if it is long term investment? Why call it subsidy if it is voluntary exchange between people who willfully decide to exchange, or donate, and do so without being subject to deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, false advertisements, subliminal messages, behavioral modification, lies, half truths, falsifications, hidden agendas, response conditioning, false propaganda, brainwashing, threats of violence, and acts of violence? Who is inventing, employing, supporting, and perpetuating subsidy, and what is it, exactly? That is all I have to say at this time.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 28th, 2011 11:37 am |
|
56th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
worcesteradam, I am interested in knowing the truth; or, if you prefer, a different wording, intending to mean the same thing: I am interested in improving the accuracy of my viewpoint. I can also report a progression of my viewpoint from what it was to what it is now, along a path that included much interest in Austrian Economics, since that group includes the work of Ludwig Von Mises, which helped me greatly in forming my current understanding of political economy. Within the Austrian group there are two factions. If I speak to someone who claims to be an Austrian Economist, proponent, or professional, whatever, I can begin to qualify, and quantify that divide between that group. Let me back up some. Most of the information that appears to me to be of any value, on political economy, is information written by dead people, or people who are not accessible to me. Some of the best stuff I've found so far was written in the 19th century. Very few living people are working on political economy, that I can find, to explain, better, how political economy works. I found out about the Austrian Economists and then I began to seek them out to ask them questions and, as it turned out, as far as I can tell, they are not answering questions, unless the questions are filtered. In the words attributed to Patrick Henry, I smell a rat. I think that the Austrian group has been infiltrated, and to say as much, to confess my thoughts, brings down upon me the force of fashionable knee jerk reactions known as "kill the messenger" as my confession inspires thoughts of "conspiracy theory". Just as the Federalists, back in the days after the American Revolutionary War, were infiltrated by the Nationalist, so have, apparently, the Austrian Economists, today, are infiltrated by their legal crime loving imposters. And you may have already stopped reading. It isn't as simple as my words may have the power to expose - accurately. Case in point: A person named James Madison, according to the source I have so far, appears to have been one of the people who were duped into a false belief that was generated by an imposter group; so if he, James Madison, an intelligent person, could be duped, then who else can be duped? You? Me? Who else? Pick anyone, anywhere, where the person is harboring a belief in something, and then ask questions, and find out if there are unresolvable contradictions in their beliefs? What does that indicate? Are you curious? What do you ask the Mormons or other religious people when they knock on the door? I've found out some very interesting, and unresolvable contradictions. Examples: Mormons think that their leadership have direct connections to God, and are infallible, while they claim that other religions have been influenced by evil forces, the Devil, and they are doing bad things while the Devil makes them think they are doing good things, and I'm paraphrasing, so I ask the Mormons, good young lads, my questions. Such as: If your Mormon leadership tells you to go to Iraq and fight the native population, will you do so? The answer was a surprise to me, considering all the information I know about why American military people are conducting these aggressive wars for the very few people who profit from them, since, the answer from the Mormon I asked, was an enthusiastic yes. So, to me, the Mormons are measurably infiltrated, as their leadership is, in a measurably way, convincing their followers to do evil things, based upon obvious lies. I can't conclude such a viewpoint, I'm reported my progress to date. Other religious people stop by, give me books, pamphlets, for free, and I ask things about war, and I get answers that indicate the same thing, someone at the top is filling these, otherwise good people, with lies. Lies that purport to excuse torture, mass murder, and all the things done with aggressive wars for profit, such as "giving" the land in Israel back to those who God says belong on that place on this planet. I can ask where God says that, and the answer is "The Bible" and I can then ask: What if the Devil wrote the Bible. They say: "God wrote the Bible". I ask: How do you know? They say: "It says so in the Bible." Mormons don't make that mistake, at least. So, I see all these people harboring all these obvious, measurable, inconsistencies, and unresolvable contradictions, and I want to know which lies I harbor still. Does that make any sense to you? It is clear to me. Are you friend, or are you foe? If you harbor lies, you may be your own worst enemy - or so I think about me. I'm curious about that, and I need help figuring out that, since if I were my own worst enemy, who could help me know that fact?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 28th, 2011 11:50 am |
|
57th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Cut and Pasted from Here Rebelitarian, Thanks; I am looking into that now. I know that help is needed for this crime spree to end, and for honest productive people to regain a measure of liberty, to slow down the rate of acceleration toward absolute despotism, stop that progress, and then begin moving the other way. I don't think that my viewpoints are going to work well with the Constitutional Party, since I know enough history behind The Constitution to know that it was, and is, a very bad thing. I can agree that the people using The Constitution, to do very bad things, is the real problem, not The Constitution. I'll shut up and get to work. Thanks again. Progress: I found an E-Mail Contact page and I submitted this:
To anyone: How do you know what is possible, if you do not do something to find out?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 2nd, 2011 01:27 pm |
|
58th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Can we expect reform in all these area (see above) or will it require something more profound from "We the people"? HCKaos, There are two fronts, basically, and at each front there is a power struggle over the numbers of people who are intimately connected on both fronts. A. Political (or the Psychological) Front B. Economic (or the Physical) Front On both sides are the criminals on one side and the honest productive people on the other side, and so as to remove any ambiguity passing from me to anyone else, there can be discussion, or a transfer of data along a connecting medium, in this case this forum and the World Wide Web Network. Along the lines of removing ambiguity I will define the difference between the criminals on one side, and the honest productive people on the other side as such: 1. Criminals People who willfully plan and then execute their plan to injure honest productive people for profit (transfer power from the injured to the criminal), employing deceit, threats of violence, and violence upon their targeted victims. 2. Honest productive people People who produce more than they consume through the use of specialization, division of labor, and economies of scale. On the Political Front the criminals gain power by deceiving the victims into a belief that only the few (criminals) are capable of commanding legal power. When the honest productive people are made to believe in that lie, they become victims. On the Economic Front the criminals gain power by creating a law that enforces a legal money monopoly and once the victims begin using that money the economic power created by the honest productive people begins to flow to the legal criminals through that single medium of exchange, as the legal criminals employ something called a business cycle. Honest productive people can regain control of legal power, with their own minds first, then with Trial by Jury, or with force of arms, or with honest legal representation, and then having regained that power, people can regain the economic power they create and do so by inventing, and maintaining a competitive honest legal currency. I plan on attending the upcoming Liberty Conference in Reno Nevada this September, so as to be in a better position to measure how well the power is currently shifting away from the legal criminals, and back in the hands of the honest productive people. Ron Paul is a scheduled speaker at that 4 day event. Ron Paul has been working on both the political and the economic front for as long as I've known, which is over 25 years, when I first saw his work on a newsgroup in the 1980s, and at that time Ron Paul was speaking like every other Conspiracy Theorist at the time, but oddly enough, he was, and still is, an elected Member of the House of Representatives. My questions, which most likely will not be answered at the upcoming conference, I've been at those things, and voices like mine are censored, but my questions concern what form of money will be legalized once the legal crime money is no longer enforced? The Dollar is on the way out, at least the current Federal Reserve System "Dollar"; and the new World Reserve Currency will either be better or worse for the legal criminals, and it will either be better or worse for the honest productive people, and the measure of how much better or how much worse will be easy to see, once the new regime takes over. Soon If that is too much to read, you are effectively out of the debate, I can't help that, since that is outside the range of my power.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jul 11th, 2011 01:01 pm |
|
59th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Credit is given me by the bankers to incur debt based on the ability to repay that debt within the time frame they've set. HCKaos, Lies are invented by the legal criminals, and they higher bankers to lie for them, and where do you think those legal criminals get the money to hire bankers to lie for them? They say that there is such a thing as The Good Faith And Credit of The American People. Where do those legal criminals get the power they use to make their lies work? Credit can be anything you invent, not something given to you. Debt is the percentage of daily income I keep in my pocket. If you earn something, how do you measure such earnings? Enlighten if you can, but I am coming to the realization that no matter how it is explained, it's all a pile of BS. When something is created out of nothing, it is contrary to the most basic princples of life and science. Suppose you have two choices: A. Die for failing to gain help from someone else. B. Get help from someone else. Which do you choose? When you answer that question, we two will be in a position to help each other, as we solve this problem that appears to be just a pile of BS. I've read and re-read these posts Joe and I feel you've a breadth of knowledge I am striving to obtain for myself. It strikes me that you too understand as a whole that the monetary structure is inherently flawed, why is it you would propose restructuring loans to honest hardworking citizens? That must be understood from my viewpoint first, before the answer will make any sense to someone who does not understand my viewpoint. Example: the monetary structure is inherently flawed No, I do not measure such things that way, the opposite is true, since the monetary structure is working exactly as it is meant to work, it is flawless. The legal criminals invent that flawless monetary structure, and the legal criminals thereby gain the power to enforce the perpetuation of that very fine, perfect, flawless monetary structure. If you go on with this belief that the monetary structure is inherently flawed, you will fail to see how flawless the monetary structure is for those who invent it, and then maintain it. Once you do see how flawless the monetary structure is, in fact, you can then see why so much power is consumed in perpetuating it, and you may then no longer fall into the trap of thinking that someone else will fix it. It isn't broke, so it certainly won't be fixed. You have to fix it, because you are one of the victims, and therefore you see it as being flawed, but that is your mistake. Not mine, and certainly not a mistake made by the legal criminals, they know a good deal when the see one, invent one, and perpetuate one, especially when all they do is collect power at the expense of everyone else, and then use that collected power to keep the power flowing to them, from everyone else. It is a sweat deal, not flawed. why is it you would propose restructuring loans to honest hardworking citizens? Power flows from those who honestly produce power. Is that true? If true, then: power flows from those who honestly produce power to those who steal it with a legal system of extortion. Is that true? If that is true, then: it may be a good idea to stop that flow of power before that flow of power ends up causing the extinction of the human species. Is that reasonable, measurably factual, and worth considering? Does that answer the question? why is it you would propose restructuring loans to honest hardworking citizens? Is the question still unanswered? Power earned by most Americans flows to legal criminals through the mortgage system of extortion. Why not stop that flow? Why not stop making American earners less powerful as their earnings flow to the legal criminals at a rate that is roughly equal to the average cost of shelter? An average American earner pays double the cost of a home, one entire home cost (price) goes to the builder (or previous owner), and an entire extra price goes to the legal monopoly money extortion racketeers. That is a lot of power that continuously flows from the people who create power to the people who steal that power - legally. Why not stop feeding all that power to those criminals? You ask why? I ask why not? You may insist upon an answer. I can answer with the measurable fact that it is the right thing to do, and I can confirm, measurably, that it is definitely the wrong thing to allow that power flow to continue in that very way. Who would finance that loan when given the opportunity to make much more from a higher percentage loan? Who gives whom the power to increase the price of credit? What are you talking about, are you talking about the current legal money monopoly system of extortion combined with the current legal monopoly National government despotic State apparatus? Why allow the legal criminals to continue committing their crimes, perpetually, and with impunity? Why pay for it? How can someone sell a loan at a higher interest rate if a competitor offers a lower interest rate, you explain your own question to me. What do you think is the force that forces the current mortgage interest rate in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC)? If a person does not qualify for a loan, someone who has a long, long, history of defaulting on every single penny borrowed, then, that person is not what I refer to as Honest Productive Americans, and that type of person will find it very difficult to get a low interest rate, from anyone, unless someone is in the business of breaking the legs of those who default. If Product 1, and Product 2 are made legal, who would be able to sell loans at a higher interest rate, and who would buy those loans at higher interest rates when they can get lower interest rates? Not me. I have a good credit history, so far, despite many forces working against my capacity to maintain a good credit history, and if I do default, then, it is right that I should pay that cost, by having a lower credit rating, and therefore by having an increased interest charge charged to me, because of my past failures to pay back loans borrowed. Currently those who default are given bonuses, rewarded, and those who have good credit ratings are made to pay for those defaults. Are you looking through the false filter at this? I would never claim to be an authority on any subject, as that implies I am better than the conversants, I am merley trying to unlock my family and I from this flawed system. I am going to attend the events in Reno Nevada, whereby The Liberty Crew, or whatever they are calling themselves, are holding a 4 day conference. In the old days they held a congress, and at the congress they would decide what must be done, and what must not be done, to solve these problems. Now there is only one congress, and it is a legal crime organization, and any competitors are dealt with effectively. I can return here and let you know how far my perspective gains currency during those 4 days, at that event. I've been to one of these things before, I paid to go to the event, and I asked a lot of questions, and they dodged every one of my questions. Falsehood runs very, very, very deep. You have to find it yourself, no one else can help you. You have to be diligent, constantly diligent, and persistent, and resolute. Do not settle for lies, ever. How do you know when someone is lying? I don't know. I ask. If the answer is dodged, I can guess. What else can I do? One person at the last convention I attended answered all my questions, in a general way, and that person said, verbatim: If you can't beat'em: join'em. That is a false answer.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 12th, 2011 09:06 am |
|
60th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I choose B. HCKaos, You choose to accept help from someone else, and let's please work this two ways, from this point. A. Only one other person B. All other people willing to help You accept. One person offer's help, and you accept. More than one person offers help, and you accept. They offer help because you, according to them, earn credit. You are a source of credit, you produce credit, you earn it, and one other person recognizes that fact, and that one other person gives you credit. You accept. What transfers? How does the transfer happen? What happens if you default? The people helping you are in your debt when they help you, when they credit you, you place them in your debt. What do you do? Is this confusing you? Now add many people offering you help, many people that you place in your debt, they offer you help, you accept, they credit you, you place them in debt. Is that confusing? Why? Figure it out, find where you are confused, and then answer for yourself why you are confused. Go step by step. You will die or you get help. You are offered help. You accept. The first person offering you help credits you as being credit worthy, as you earn his help, and help is transferred to you, it is help, it is not a loan, it is help, they are weaker after they help you, you are stronger after they help you, they sent you needed help, you now have their power, they don't, what do you call it if you spend that power injuring the people who help you? Default? Question all things. You need help, you will die without it, you are offered help, where does the power you need to survive come from, if it does not exist, you are doomed, if it does exist, you live, how do you get it? If someone else has it, and they voluntarily transfer that power to you, you are the source of credit, and they are rendered in debt, as the power they had now flows to you. Now that time passes. You now have their power. What do you do with that power. You live. You survive. You don't consume the power to buy a lap dance, you use the power to preserve life. Why did the person help you? You needed help. The person helped you because, according to that person, you earned that help, somehow. What happens if the person demands repayment? That changes things. The first transfer from someone to you, as a loan, now, isn't a case where only you earned credit, you did earn a reasonable measure of credit, in the mind of the person helping you, but now, as a loan, the transfer is entirely different, now you are borrowing power from someone who has power, and you are now making a deal to return something, the whole amount borrowed, or even more than the whole amount borrowed. You are no longer the only source of credit, you are one source of credit, you are now worthy of a loan, and the lender is worthy of repayment. Who is in debt? Does that help in the work necessary in realizing the full measure of credit and debt? I think it does, and my thinking is based upon the concept that life is a power struggle. I'm going to leave that thinking alone for now, let you work on it some, and I'll move to the next exchange, the next transfer of stuff, as words are being transferred. The monetary system dictates what my "skill" is worth, I would value it much higher than it's monetary value. I thought nursing would be a "noble" profession, it has become a tool to dispense needless intervention. Get some sunlight, it really is good for you. I have a niece who is a nurse, and her future husband, or boy friend was a nurse, and I hear you loud and clear, but, you are expressing a measure of falsehood. The monetary system is a way of looking at a whole bunch of people doing individual things, it is not capable of any thought, and it is not capable of any act, it cannot dictate what your "skill" is worth. You now know how to help people who are injured. That is as valuable as life itself, precisely that valuable in fact, in each case where you do, in fact, help someone remain alive. How much someone will pay you is determined by many competitive forces, including how much you demand as payment for helping someone who needs help that you can supply. How much a hospital employer will pay you hourly is how much a hospital employer will pay you hourly to do whatever the employer may agree to pay you hourly to do, which can include helping a person survive, a person who is injured, or dig a ditch, and fill in the ditch, and do that many times, for your pay. My niece just switched from a paid nurse at a hospital to a paid job working hospice. My nieces boyfriend was forced out of nursing, fraudulently, and is now working in Real Estate, helping people move from house to house, for pay. Much of their valuable power is being transferred to legal criminals by way of taxation and by way of the monopoly money extortion racket, so they struggle. They are credit worthy, valuable people, as measured by that transfer of stolen power, and that power is then used against them, to make them pay even more. If they were not credit worthy, they would not have anything to transfer to the legal criminals. How can I respond better to what I read as a measure of falsehood in your words? What is the higher quality response, at a lower cost to both of us? Is that true? Ideally, yes Wrong. I'm not communicating fantasy, idealism, utopian-ism, I am reporting the accurately measurable facts, as they exist in reality. Honest productive people are defined exactly in that way, they are honest, because honesty is necessary for trust, which is necessary for production, and they are measurable exactly by their production, and they are people. Where do the legal criminals get their power? Do you think that they produce their power? Is that what you think? Does that answer the question? No, I applaud your idea but, unless you have the wealth to personally finance the products, who in this culture of greed is going to lend at such a discounted rate? What idea? Product 1 and Product 2? Applauding is worth what? Your failure to realize the answer automatically makes the answer moot in your mind? That is happening in your mind, as your idea, your way of perception, and that is, by your own power of will, disconnected from the answer to the question. The answer is Product 1 and Product 2, which do exist, but not as such, they exist at other prices, or in other places, because people like you refuse to even entertain such viable answers to the question. Absent an answer you have no answer. Once offered an answer you refuse to even see it, and then you willfully ignore it, as you decide, by your own power of will, that the answer doesn't exit, because you ignore it. Does that answer the question? No, I applaud your idea but, unless you have the wealth to personally finance the products, who in this culture of greed is going to lend at such a discounted rate? Who has the power to set the price? You claim that no interest is a discount? You claim that 1% is a discount? Where do you get the power to decide what is or what is not a discount? Am I talking to a member of the FOMC, or their employers? The top down perspective considered, the monetary system is flawless, thank you. A victims perspective. How does it work for you? You are not, then, a member of the FOMC. I knowingly took a >30% wage decrease in my move from CT to FL, any rationalization for that. (Not for the move itself). I'm guilty of rationalization, for having spent my time writing to you? I can reason out my choice to write to you, if for no other reason, I exercise my fingers. Rationalization, it seems to me, is a victims choice to remain one, when other choices are offered.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 01:20 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 |
| Power Independence > Good News > Good News > REAL NEWS | Top |
