| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|||||||||||||
| REAL NEWS | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Feb 23rd, 2011 12:59 pm |
|
21st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Austerity And The Budget WarsWell, in truth, the government--the deficit that the federal government has been running in the United States is pretty much entirely the product of three things. Anyone, I am very interested in fleshing out, or flushing out, all the stupidity here, seriously, there are very few words I can choose from, and by my choice convey an accurate message, the message being broadcast in this Real News report is stupid. The "deficit" is a device by which the victims of legal crime are rendered power-less, stupefied, and unable thereby to defend against victimization. The deficit is therefore, in actual reality, a product of one thing: Legal crime; where the legal criminals seize the power to take surplus wealth from those who produce surplus wealth and then the legal criminals employ that stolen surplus wealth in the necessary work that is required to keep that surplus wealth flowing to them. If anyone has an interest in knowing the truth in greater detail, and therefore anyone has an interest in knowing how legal crime is facilitated into being, and perpetuated, then such an interest in knowing would accurately identify one more thing on this paper trail. The "deficit" device is produced by the legal criminals through the willful crime of seizing the legal license to produce and maintain the one and only (monopoly) legal money supply used by all the targeted people who use that money to create surplus wealth, and once that legal power to add or subtract from the numbers of legal money units, dollars in the case of the American "deficit" crime, is stolen, the legal criminals use that power to increase or decrease the money supply to buy political power, and then spend the surplus wealth, and then profit from the expenditures of surplus wealth, and then make, physically make, the victims pay all the costs that are collected as a result of all the expenditures ordered by those legal criminals who have seized the power over money and then the power over political power. A. No deficit B. Legal criminals seize the power over the money supply C. Legal criminals now have unlimited purchasing power D. Legal criminals buy political power, they employ "representatives" in the work of passing laws, whereby the laws out-law competition, and specifically the laws out-law competition in money markets, and out-law competition in political markets, making it impossible for The People to use better money, instead of the legal crime money, and make it impossible for The People to hire better politicians, because the laws purchased with the money stolen subsidize legal crime. E. The legal criminals hide the profits, by creating and maintaining 2 sets of books, one ledger is complete and accurate, where all net receipts and all expenses are recorded, and the total income is known and divided among the legal criminals only, while the second set of books are "for public consumption" whereby a "budget" is advertised and when the "budget" is exceeded there is an advertised "short fall" which is done so as to inspire the "tax payers" (victims) to send more money to the legal criminals, rather than have the victims clued in, knowing the truth, and avoiding victimization. This isn't a new thing. This is an old thing. Here are the words from the people who have gone there, done that, and for someone to repeat this, is for someone to be, as the saying goes, insane, for doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. Common Sense in the past 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 calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! This Real News report is pure fiction, it is false propaganda, these people are reading from a script written by legal criminals. If the people reading from the script are unaware of their part in this crime, then they are unaware, and innocent, merely clue-less victims, like many of us. If they know the truth, then they are no longer innocent, they aid and abet legal crime. They are speaking about this: U.S. Debt Clock crime in progress Any rational human being, one who has not been brainwashed, can add, and use the tool known as math, and use math effectively, and use math accurately to solve math problems, and thereby be armed, armed with math and armed with rational thought, and the human being can see through that charade on that "official" web page linked above. How much surplus wealth can all the people in America produce? Where does all the surplus wealth produced by all the people who produce surplus wealth in America go? What is that number? The total amount of surplus wealth produced by all the people in America who produce surplus wealth is x. What is x? If you have a brain, us it, look at the Debt Clock, and answer the simple math question. How much is x? How much surplus wealth is created by all the people who create surplus wealth in America? If you can get that far, if you can get at least a shadow of an understanding of the answer to the question asked, then you can be in a position to know the ugly truth, and you can be in a position to shed the shackles of falsehood, the same dire misery facilitated through the dissemination of lies such as the lies being broadcast in this Real News report. To be specific: Well, in truth, the government--the deficit that the federal government has been running in the United States is pretty much entirely the product of three things. Lie one: One of them is our continued expenditures on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who is this person speaking for, and about? Who does this person think we are - who is within the set of "our" people? Who ordered the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? Who profits by those expenditures? Who pays the bill, who pays the costs of those investments? The people who create surplus wealth are not stupid, the people who create surplus wealth are not criminals, and the people who create surplus wealth are not stupid enough to spend their hard earned power to purchase, waste it, on aggressive wars for profit, where the investments will become negative numbers, and the only ones who can, remotely, skim off the top of the product of those wars, the actual goal behind the order to go to war, are the very, very, very, few people, and the same few people, who get the gravy, the profits, the goal, the gold ring, the power to move the oil, or not move the oil (to keep prices high), and these few people are the very same ones who order the war into being, the same one's who profit, the same one's who make it happen, a very short list. The one's who pay the price, the long list, are the victims. Just follow the money, if you are interested. A. Surplus wealth = x B. Expense of 2 aggressive wars for profit = y C. Total net gain after expenses flows to whom? X - Y = -Z The supply of surplus wealth is spent on sending money to the enemies of "our" enemies, literally financing both sides, and the net result of that investment is millions of dead innocent victims, and thousands upon thousands of tortured and murdered American service men and women, men and women who are fooled into thinking they are serving their country, when in fact they are serving legal criminals who use surplus wealth to conduct aggressive wars for profit, and rake in the cash, as their cronies send the bills, to be paid or else, to Uncle Sam. The people who create surplus wealth would not look at the "investment" of an aggressive war for profit, on the table, in the discussion room, the discussion room where the "investment" is proposed, and add up the numbers, and advocate, and finance, and expend all the costs, so as to increase the supply of surplus wealth by that "investment", that abomination, that legal crime, that, or those 2, aggressive wars for profit. It does not add up without fraud, it does not add up without lies, and it does not add up unless a very few people skim off the top of the business venture in progress, no bid contract, no competition whatsoever, prices jacked up to the roof, low quality, or no quality, salaries raised to the moon, and the scum of the earth cash in, fold their hand in it, at just the right time, every time, and give the bill to the people who create wealth, the only one's who can pay the bill, and demand payment - or else. Who is stupid here - come on people? The ones who profit from those aggressive wars for profit, do. They cash in. Finding them is easy. The money trail leads right to them. Finding the victims is as easy. The bill is paid by the victims. Why is this hard to know? This is as easy as apple pie. What has happened to us, to you? Look in the damn mirror. Lie #2: The second is the Bush tax cuts, particularly tax cuts for the wealthy that you were mentioning. There is, has been, and always will be, a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why someone blames everyone for the deeds of a few people. The few guilty people are thereby seen as less evil, less bad, as the few guilty people are falsely associated with the non-guilty people, and to add insult to injury, the innocent people are made to share in the guilt, by that false, close, proximity to the guilty. How convenient can falsehood be for the criminals? How destructive can falsehood be for the victims? A. Guilty people are guilty as sin. B. Innocent people are not guilty - by definition C. A person willfully produces a report whereby the person knows, beyond a shadow of doubt, that one set of people, a list of actual names of people, are guilty, and no one other than those people are guilty, and the report blames a larger set of people, including innocent people, for the crimes committed by the guilty people. The report, willfully produced by C, now causes this: A. Guilty people are now perceivable as being less guilty (if you fall for this con game) as this group of guilty people are placed in the same group as the innocent people. B. Innocent people are now seen as being guilty, as innocent people are falsely, and closely, association with the guilty people. The guilty are aided in that manner, and they are now more able to perpetuate their victimization upon their targeted victims. It is an old gag, the criminal shouts "thief" during the crime and the criminal points at innocent people. It works, all to well. It only works on people who don't know how the crime works. The innocent are injured in that manner, and they are now less able to avoid victimization. How bad can it get? This bad It can get: Worse Lie #3 And the third is the effects of the economic crisis itself, the loss of revenue due to mass unemployment and the increase in expenditures due to things like unemployment benefits and health care for the unemployed. If surplus wealth is extreme, beyond the imagination of most people, then a whole lot of people don't need to work including but not limited to: 1. Children 2. Old people 3. Sick people 4. Politicians 5. Soldiers 6. Police officers 7. Lawyers. 8. Judges 9. Jurors 10. Criminals 11. Legal criminals If surplus wealth is extreme, many, many, many, many people can kill each other in aggressive wars for profit, and there are still many, many, many, people able to survive and live a good life. Wars waste a whole lot of the power that could have been used to make even more surplus wealth, so why, and use your own brain, and use math, is there not enough surplus wealth to lower the cost of living, for those who actually create wealth? There is, and has been, so much surplus wealth available, so very much in fact, that wars can be fought, burning up unimaginable amounts of surplus wealth, and still the average standard of living increases for the average human being. Take one minute to contemplate what would be done with all that wasted surplus wealth had it not been spent in the work of making a very, very, very, very few people "supper" wealthy? Can you add? What do you see when you see this: Someone get's this much Are you brainwashed into only seeing half the truth? The choice to be a criminal, or be a legal criminal, is a choice to do what with the total supply of surplus wealth? Simple answer: Steal it. Is that choice an investment? Who pays the bill of that investment? How can a legal criminal manage to convince his mark, his targeted market, to pay the bill? You don't know? Why not? How does that ignorance you have work for you? Could the reasoning for your lack of understanding be a lifetime of exposure to lies? Do you believe in lies? I am going to restart the Real News report, the one that regurgitates some very destructive lies. If in fact these aren't his policy objectives. Like, I'm--well, giving my personal opinion here--I'm not so persuaded that he's so committed to those policy objectives. He seems to give up on some of these policy objectives rather easily. Paul Jay, to me, knows what is going on, and he appears to be doing as much as he can to call for a Reality Check on these lies that are pouring out of this "expert" or this "authority" on economy. If the president has the power to start, or continue, three, or more, wars by "executive order" then the president can do anything to anyone whenever he wants, and that has to be a lot of power. Use your brain here people. If you can spend as much money as you want, whenever you want, then you have the legal license taken by the people running, and perpetuating The Federal Reserve; but if you have the power commanded by The President of U.S.A. Inc. LLC, you can threaten anyone, anywhere, with torture, and murder, you can send whole families, whole cities, to hell on earth, and after reading that you may jerk your knee, and you may disbelieve these facts, you may want to remain stupefied, and that power to stupefy you may win that battle, again. I suffered through to the end of that report and I can say that this report offers, by example, a clear message. If honest working people want a real union they can watch this report and know that joining the AFC-CIO is a very poor investment, the "leadership" has been corrupted - a very familiar story.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Feb 24th, 2011 01:36 pm |
|
22nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Wisconsin's Billionaires Make a Sacrifice? Paul Jay, I am going to comment on the above Real News commentary report. My inspiration to address Paul Jay, specifically, is derived from the following challenge spoken by Pal Jay during the report: For the libertarians in the audience consider this: if you believe that capitalism works when it's truly the survival of the fittest, doesn't such concentrated wealth handed down from generation to generation defeat that objective? The short answer is "maybe" - because the question is loaded. First off, I ran for congress in 1996 registered as a libertarian. I do not speak for anyone other than me; which means that I take full responsibility for what I say, and I do not blame anyone else for what I say, and therefore I represent only me, and anyone who may agree with what I say is someone who would have to volunteer to do so, and therefore any thing that I say that is wrong, or inaccurate, is fully my responsibility, and is not the responsibility of any registered libertarian, or anyone at all, unless they volunteer to take on any responsibility whatsoever. Secondly, a libertarian, such as myself, is not a capitalist, many are not, and therefore a question about capitalism may be better answered by a capitalist, and therefore a question asked about capitalism may be better addressed to capitalists and not libertarians. Thirdly, the phrase "the survival of the fittest" is misinterpreted from Darwin's work by some people, including capitalists, so as to apologize for legal crime, cover-up legal crime, perpetuate legal crime, and the false interpretation is nearly opposite in meaning from Darwin's work. Darwinism measures a phenomenon by which organisms that are capable of reproducing, and adapting, will survive while organisms that are incapable of reproducing and incapable of adapting will not survive; hence the phrase "survival of the fittest". If an organism is fit, in the sense that the organism can reproduce, the organism will survive past one generation. Is that not easy to measure scientifically? The false interpretation, done on purpose, or the misinterpretation, done by way of regurgitation (someone merely repeats the false interpretation without thinking about it, without questioning it), is an interpretation that suggests, or even confesses precisely, that might makes right. Survival of the fittest: A. Reproduction and adaptation survive, failure is extinction B. Might makes right, or kill or be killed, or do unto others before they can do unto you, etc. If someone is employing the second version, the false version, my guess is that someone is planning on injuring some poor innocent victim, and they will execute that plan, or perpetuate an ongoing crime, and the false version is used to "justify" such acts, driven by such motivations, such as crime driven by avarice. Criminals, especially the legal ones, are very good at adapting to the changes in their environment, as their victims learn to avoid the latest method by which the criminals commit crimes, and the victims are often very slow at discovering, and then avoiding, the latest crimes, and the victims tend to forget, from generation to generation, and the criminals tend to pass on, and inherit, the tricks of the trade. The victims tend to number 90% of the human population, and are much more able to reproduced, if for no other reason than their numbers are larger, and therefore their gene pool is much larger. The criminals tend to number 10%, less reproductive and less adaptive by sheer numbers, if for no other reason. The false interpretation of Darwinism's survival of the fittest slogan is not reasonable. It cannot be reasoned out logically, as it applies to one species, on purpose, and it does not apply to the adaptability all species must have to the entire universe known as "nature" or "the physical world". The false adaptation is meant to justify the thoughts and actions of human beings in reference to what is done, or not done, to other human beings as in: a more powerful human being will kill a less powerful human being and therefore it is OK for me to kill this guy or steal from this woman, or torture, or rape this child while eating him, or her, or whatever crime is on the table, not limited to putting on the table the threat of destroying the entire human species by starting WWIII. Criminals will find whichever words work to facilitate and perpetuate their crimes - especially the legal ones. That is the unfortunate falsehood produced and disseminated by legal criminals as Darwinism is discredited, misunderstood, and legal crime is credited, and empowered, by that smoke screen, with or without the mirrors, that confidence scheme, that bait and switch, that lie. If someone, libertarian or otherwise, is using the Darwinist based phrase (survival of the fittest), then they would have to explain what they mean, why they say what they say, and if there is truth to what they say, then they can explain the truth of what they say. My guess is that the reference by Paul Jay is in response to something said by someone who either does not understand what they are saying, or someone who does understand what they are saying and they are lying. Here is the Paul Jay reference again (for those who may be reading this who are not Paul Jay, as I address my response to Paul Jay, and anyone else): For the libertarians in the audience consider this: if you believe that capitalism works when it's truly the survival of the fittest, doesn't such concentrated wealth handed down from generation to generation defeat that objective? If someone has become a millionaire, from my viewpoint, as a libertarian who signed the pledge, a libertarian who ran for congress, and a libertarian who re-registered as an independent, so as to run for congress a second time, then someone who has become a millionaire is more than likely someone who has a political advantage over the competition. A political advantage over the competition isn't, per se, a reproductive and/or adaptive genetic capability. How did said millionaire, or billionaire (adjusted for inflation) managed to accumulate that much power? Not knowing anything specific is not having the necessary data required to answer the question. If the billionaire could not have accumulated billions of surplus wealth into one fund, his fund, or her fund, without political subsidy of some kind, which could include a law that somehow made the competition less competitive, then those billions flowing into that fund are, by that measure, forms of government charity, or subsidy, or whatever word best, and most accurately, identifies the flow of surplus wealth from those who create surplus wealth, to the government fund, and then from the government fund to the people who are given that power to purchase. In a word: welfare A clear example would be a land purchase whereby the government owned the land and two bidders, both competitors for the same market, are seeking control over that land, and one bidder is given the land, and the price of the land is lower for the winning bidder, and the losing bidder bid a higher price, a political deal, a behind closed doors deal, a "subsidy", and a gift from whomever controls the flow of government land titles to whomever wants control of that land. A. The higher bidder, but the person who lost the bid, because he didn't "know" the government agent who awarded bids on government land, is no longer competitive. B. Lower bidder but winning bidder, because he cut the government worker "in" on the deal, is by this measure running a monopoly power. Now, at the very start of the potential billionaires accumulation of surplus wealth, is a start of surplus wealth flowing from those who create it, to him, or her, and there is a measurable destruction of competition, and a measurable flow of surplus wealth from the government fund to the "welfare recipient", the one who was awarded the bid below cost, or at least awarded the bid at a price that was less than the market price. That is a precise, and not ambiguous at all, measure of government welfare passing from the tax payers (the only ones who can create wealth, the "government" doesn't tax criminals in prison, unless they are made to work at producing wealth, and "government" doesn't "tax" soldiers, since soldiers only job is to kill or be killed, and government doesn't tax anyone who cannot add to the total supply of surplus wealth, it isn't possible, to say that government taxes people who steal, is to fail to understand actual reality), passing from the taxpayer to the person who receives that tax money. If the billionaire in question received welfare, a lower price on the land, to start his business then the obvious conclusion is that the billionaire is a government employee, a member of the social organization that can best be described as fascist. A private business that gains a competitive advantage over other private businesses by way of government welfare, tax money sent to that private business in any form whatsoever, not limited to actual money, in the form of land titles, in the form of any competitive advantage whatsoever, given by the power of government to one private business, and not the competitor, is fascism, or the combination of business and government into one cabal. Example 2: A corporation, a fictitious legal entity, and one of limited liability no less, is another example of fascism, and another example of government welfare passing from those who create surplus wealth, to the government fund, and then to one competitive business operator, or group of operators, and not all competitive business operators in each case where one person, or one group, is awarded something that a potential competitor cannot get, and therefore competition is destroyed, and the tax payers (the one's who create wealth) supply the means by which they suffer, as their power to protect themselves from harm, is sent to someone who uses that power to harm them. The destruction of competition destroys the force that forces quality up and price, or cost, down. How can it be any other way? Without the force of competition working there will be higher costs of living as the creators of wealth send their power to the people who destroy competition. Score board to date: This is what you get when competition is destroyed Again: For the libertarians in the audience consider this: if you believe that capitalism works when it's truly the survival of the fittest, doesn't such concentrated wealth handed down from generation to generation defeat that objective? Take anyone of those names on those lists and find out how those Billionaires managed to move all that surplus wealth from the people who create wealth and to them, exclusively them, and my guess is that there will be many, many, many instances of government subsidy, or "corporate welfare", or fascism, occurring on paper, precisely, and those will be the cases that are right out in the clear light of day, and easy to find, and there will most likely be many hidden deals, secret deals, behind closed door deals, under the table deals, whereby a government agent of some kind, a government "worker" or "representative", is dealing with someone employed by that billionaire, or the billionaire himself, or the billionaire's grandma, and if such a secret deal is discovered, then, again, there is a measurable amount of surplus wealth flowing from the government fund into the billionaires fund. Welfare All of which is denominated in dollars, and to ignore that fact, is to remain ignorant of the most significant factor causing the flow of surplus wealth from those who create wealth to those who steal it. For the libertarians in the audience consider this: if you believe that capitalism works when it's truly the survival of the fittest, doesn't such concentrated wealth handed down from generation to generation defeat that objective? If the interpretation of "survival of the fittest" is not "kill or be killed" or "do unto others before they can do onto you" and if the interpretation of "survival of the fittest" is "the highest quality at the lowest cost will gain market share in competition with lower quality at a higher price" then someone, perhaps only me, is failing to make a reasonable connection. Darwin is connected, reasonably, to the slogan "survival of the fittest" even if Darwin didn't say that slogan. Capitalists, some of them, are connected, reasonably, to the slogan "survival of the fittest" as they apologize, or rationalize, their might makes right dogma, as did Machiavelli in his book: The Prince. Libertarians, me being one, employ words that intend to convey how competition works and I for one have no intention of connecting how competition works in political economy with Darwinism, unless someone wants to make that connection, and then I can work on making that connection, otherwise there isn't one - not made by this libertarian, me. Competition simply works. That is what it does. Competition works. Competition works, as a force, by which, the quality of things produced increase, and the cost, or price, of things produced go down. That is what competition does, and it doesn't matter if I say so. It does. It doesn't matter if you see it. It still does. Competition is not one thing, it is not the word, it is the process, it is a phenomenon, it is what it is, and it does what it does, and it does what it does even if the people involved ignore, or fail to recognize, what it does, while it does what it does. There is no need, from my seat, to connect competition working in political economy to Darwinism, or, to connect competition with the slogan "survival of the fittest", so why would someone do that, I don't know. Someone who does that would have to confess why they do that, not me. The obvious other objection to my plan is that these billionaires will take flight to parts unknown to avoid the tax, somewhat the way they threaten to pull their companies out of Wisconsin... Many libertarians, certainly not all, consider "absentee ownership" as a form of government subsidy. Here is how that works: If the workers at the factory are threatened with the threat to "pull their companies out of Wisconsin" why does that work as a threat? Why don't the workers say: "Don't let the door slam you in the rear end on the way out" and why don't the workers simply run the factory competitively against the owner of the company who pulls out of Wisconsin? Who owns the land on which the factory is built? Who owns the factory building? Does the person, or persons, making the threat to move still own the land, and still own the building, and still own the tools, once he moves out, and even if he, or they, move to Mexico, or China, they still get to exclude anyone else from every using that land, or that factory, until the end of time? Seriously? Is that the argument? What happens if U.S.A. Inc. LLC starts a war with Mexico, or China, by way of executive order, or by way of Mexico or China invading Wisconsin, while the President is asleep at the wheel, or while Congress is on the take, or any number of possible scenarios that might alter this supposed legal right to own something while you are not in any way connected to the thing you own, other than by way of some nebulous, or fictitious, or transitory legal power? This questioning returns right back to the very beginning when a government employee may have given the Billionaire the title to the land, and not given the title to the land to the competitor. Now, just suppose, that absentee ownership is enforced (forget about workers merely taking ownership of the abandoned land and building), and The People, or the voluntary government, or even the involuntary government doesn't regain control over the land, and/or the building, and/or whatever is left behind after the Billionaire packs up and leaves, and the workers are left with nothing but their collective power of knowledge, skill, and labor. What is in place to forbid them from borrowing the money needed to start a new factory in the same neighborhood, an upgraded one, a competitive one, and make the same things the Billionaire intends to make in Mexico, or China, and what stops those workers from making higher quality stuff, at lower costs, and thereby gain market share by that force? Who tells who, who can borrow money from who? What happens if the workers, unionized well, send a good representative to the Bank. What does the Bank say to the worker? You don't have any credit? Worker: "Here are all the numbers, down to the penny, we can offer a better product for less, and here are the numbers of all the buyers we have ready to buy, at our price, when we can deliver, on this date, all we need is the start up money. Give us a head-start and we will have our products delivered to our customers before the Billionaire can corner the market from his new factory, in China, or Mexico, or wherever he went. We have to start from the ground up, since the Billionaire knows better than to sell his old factory to us, and he won't sell, his price is priced higher than cost, higher than it would cost us to build a brand new, better, upgraded, factory according to how we know things will work best, not him." How much do the workers pay the representative? Minimum wage? How much do the workers pay the one worker who best manages to secure the highest quality and lowest cost money so as to start a new factory and be competitive in the face of a Billionaire moving to a land where the workers are slave laborers, for whatever reason the workers there are slave laborers? Who is supplying the legal criminals with the most productive slaves, at the lowest cost? Who is supplying the world with the highest quality workers who charge the least, or minimum, wage? I'm not speaking about fantasy stuff. Look into the company called Tesla Motors. During the Boom years Tesla Motors began building a factory to make a competitive electric car and then The Federal Reserve cabal, Wall Street, whomever, the actual people who have the legal license to cause a Boom and cause a Bust, on schedule, after they caused the Bust we are bottoming out in now, Tesla began to run out of money. The billionaire owner of Tesla was famous for having the ability to get money, having already been involved in Pay-Pal, Solar City, and Space-X, but, for some reason, money was tough to get, and the new Sedan made by Tesla, would be delayed in reaching the market. Meanwhile Toyota is shipping, and paying all the costs of shipping, new electric cars to the same place where Tesla cars will be made, once the money, some of which is from Toyota, some of which is from Germany, flows into the Tesla circuit, and begins Booming that economy. Will the Chinese corner the electric car market, and if not, why not? Where did all the bail out money go? Where did all the money from The Fed, when The Fed doubled the U.S.A. dollar currency supply in 2008, go? Did that money go to the workers at the factories so as to Boom their economy once the owner of the factory packed up and moved to China? Are there an dots that need to be connected in this game, ones that you may not be seeing yet? I am going to restart and finish viewing the, very much appreciated, Real News report. I have not donated money. I don't have any surplus wealth to donate, and I am not wondering where all the surplus wealth went, and I am not wondering who has it, and I am not wondering what all that surplus wealth will buy, because I already know. It is all tied up in The Dollar Hegemony, the poorest quality, and the highest price money on the planet earth. I can report with confidence that the surplus wealth will be spent on everything, without moral limit, without any limit whatsoever, everything necessary in the work of maintaining the power to steal surplus wealth from those who make it. Paul Jay: But why is it that the free market demands that rights of private wealth and corporations must be protected but it's O.K. for the government to dictate to workers telling them they're not free to refuse to sell their labor even if they don't agree with the price or the conditions of their employment. The point is: when something has to give, weather it's the public debt, or problems at Koeler [spelling?], Mercury and Marine, and Harley Davidson, why is it acceptable that workers sacrifice and sacrilegious to suggest it should be the Billionaires. If someone has a point of view, then someone can express that point of view, and then someone else can inspect that point of view for validity, and if there is cause for a new point of view to emerge, as a result of problems, inaccuracies, or other deficiencies exposed during the inspection, then a better, more competitive point of view is discovered, invented, or realized. On the other hand, it is very difficult to speak for someone else, and then assume to know the viewpoint that is to be inspected for validity. If a government is strictly voluntary, then who can question the validity of what the volunteers do with their time, energy, and power? If the government is involuntary, then how is that arrangement any different than any other crime? If a criminal plans on injuring an innocent victim, and follows through with that plan, how can the victim, or any potential victim, defend against further crime? If potential victims pool their resources, voluntarily, and employ that pool of resources toward the effective avoidance of any crime, anywhere, anytime, or at least move in that direction one step at a time, and at least learn from mistakes done, whereby steps are taken in the opposite direction, and at least avoid repeating those mistakes over and over again, at least learn at some point, at least learn at some time, not to repeat mistakes whereby the power to defend against crime actually is crime, then what name is placed on that phenomenon? How about voluntary government. Potential victims pool their resources voluntarily and they manage to take effective steps toward the avoidance of innocent victims being willfully injured by criminals. If the viewpoint to be inspected for validity is one that is based upon involuntary government, then it may be a good idea to know what that viewpoint is based upon. When people pool their resources so as to employ that power in the work of taking power from a targeted population without agreement given by the target population what is the word that best identifies that phenomenon. How about crime, or organized crime, or legal crime, or involuntary government? A. Voluntary government B. Crime If the viewpoint in question, to be inspected for validity, is B and not A, then it makes no sense to inspect A so as to find fault with B, unless the idea is to discredit B by false association with A. If the viewpoint in question, to be inspected for validity, is A and not B, then it makes no sense to inspect B, so as to find value in A, since the value of A is in A, not B. The faults of B are in B, not A. I would very much like to discuss the validity of any viewpoint, so long as the discussion doesn't willfully proceed by way of willfully falsifying the information so as to hide the truth, on purpose, for profit. But why is it that the free market demands that rights of private wealth and corporations must be protected but it's O.K. for the government to dictate to workers telling them they're not free to refuse to sell their labor even if they don't agree with the price or the conditions of their employment. The point is: when something has to give, weather it's the public debt, or problems at Koeler [spelling?], Mercury and Marine, and Harley Davidson, why is it acceptable that workers sacrifice and sacrilegious to suggest it should be the Billionaires. A. Free Market: People are free from any power employed in the defense of innocent people against crime by criminals, with badges, or criminals without badges. B. free market: Competition exists because no power is stolen from anyone and then that stolen power flows to one former competitor making the one former competitor more powerful than all the other former competitors, thereby making competition powerless. If the term Free Market is defined as A, then the viewpoint to be inspected for validity is one thing, and if the term free market is defined as B, then the viewpoint to be inspected is the opposite thing. In context the viewpoint to be inspected for validity is Free Market A, whereby power flows to people who use that power to eliminate competition. People who empower that Free Market are, in a word, criminals. They steal surplus wealth from the people who create surplus wealth and then they spend that stolen surplus wealth toward the necessary work required to maintain the power to steal that surplus wealth from the people who create that surplus wealth, and they lie about it, with false names like Free Market, stolen from people who employ the same term, having an opposite meaning, and thereby gaining the power of a half/truth, a believable lie, making their crimes appear to be good, and at the same time, making what is good appear to be bad. How convenient can lies be for criminals? How destructive can lies be for victims? But why is it that the free market demands that rights of private wealth and corporations must be protected but it's O.K. for the government to dictate to workers telling them they're not free to refuse to sell their labor even if they don't agree with the price or the conditions of their employment. The point is: when something has to give, weather it's the public debt, or problems at Koeler [spelling?], Mercury and Marine, and Harley Davidson, why is it acceptable that workers sacrifice and sacrilegious to suggest it should be the Billionaires. Crime is based upon the amoral base justification, rationalization, or false advertisement campaign known as "Might make Right". The truth, the fundamental base, the core, the actual message from the criminal is one word: Obey There are no options, there is no fight, there is no power struggle, there is only one thing the victim is allowed to do once the criminal seizes more power, more might, over the targeted victim. Obey All other words falsify the fact, hide the truth, and cover up the crime, and render the victim powerless to defend against victimization. Might does not make right. A criminal reaching a state of greater power over the victim will injure the victim, the victim is injured, end of story. If one victim, or one potential victim, is to avoid victimization, it stands to reason, by way of moral understanding, that one victim agrees to combine power with another victim, or potential victim, and thereby reach a level of power that is sufficient to overpower the criminal, and thereby avoid the crime in progress, and avoid any potential crime. People do that most of the time and that is why the human species is gaining power over the forces of nature reaching an ability to create vast supplies of surplus wealth. That phenomenon, by which innocent people agree to combine power, can be called the free market, or voluntary government. A rose by any other name... A lie by any other name... But why is it that the free market demands that rights of private wealth and corporations must be protected but it's O.K. for the government to dictate to workers telling them they're not free to refuse to sell their labor even if they don't agree with the price or the conditions of their employment. The point is: when something has to give, weather it's the public debt, or problems at Koeler [spelling?], Mercury and Marine, and Harley Davidson, why is it acceptable that workers sacrifice and sacrilegious to suggest it should be the Billionaires. I have a very hard time responding directly to that statement, as that statement is so filled with indirect references to falsehoods, confidence schemes, political fraud, economic fraud, and involuntary associations - crime and legal crime. I don't read from the script. Is that a weakness of mine?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Mar 7th, 2011 07:52 am |
|
23rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Too big to not fail Failure can be known by a person who is strapped down to a table while another person, or devil in a person's form, tortures the one who suddenly realizes, with each cut, each tear, each bludgeoning injury, that total failure is upon him, or her, even if the victim is a toddler. Even toddler's can know total failure. The failure starts at one false assumption, and where does this false assumption come from, I can guess; the idea that failure is universal. Who fails? The person doing the torturing may be earning a fat paycheck. The person ordering the torture may be driving to his, or her, summer home in a long black limo, sipping champagne, eating caviar, and perhaps ogling the latest torture videos, appraising the good work personally. When almost everyone knows that the torturing and mass murdering business has grown too big to not fail, the one's who profit from it certainly do, and then who, if not you, will run to a safe haven as the behemoth falls, and crushes all who were unable to get out from under it? Who profits from it? Follow the money.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Mar 7th, 2011 08:13 am |
|
24th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Not a republic Anyone, Someone has a pretty good handle on the State of the Union, but from a false floor, a poor, shifting, and ambiguous foundation. It was never a democracy, nor a republic, unless the people who define it get to pick whichever word works best to hide the facts and figures of what is done under it. Three biggest lies (according to the speaker in the video) 1. Wisconsin is Broke 2. There is weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (Iran) 3. The Packers need Farve in order to win the Super Bowl I like a good joke. Imagine the laughs, all the way to the bank, as the legal criminals watch as their victims suffer. The three biggest lies (according to my understanding) 1. Obey - there are no other choices 2. The power to know the truth is an exclusive power, and it cannot be shared 3. We are here to help you, to protect you from yourself - stop wiggling and take your medicine - nothing personal The "we are broke" lie (see CAFR) is a cover up for "Obey, pay involuntary taxes, there are no other choices" lie. The "we are broke" lie is a cover up for "taxes are voluntary if I say they are, and taxes are involuntary if I say they are, and you can't say either, since only I can say either, exclusively, and therefore no one knows the truth, ever. Involuntary taxes cover up the truth, truth that can be shared, known by all, and the truth is that involuntary taxes are payments made from victims to criminals, just like any other robbery, the flow of power flows, and keeps flowing, even as the words used to keep it flowing change from "an offer you can't refuse" to "paying your fair share - or else". When people realize that they are not broke, they regain their power. What happens then?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 9th, 2011 09:23 am |
|
25th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Real News is currently not publishing posts from me, and perhaps anyone. I sent a letter to The Real News by way of their web contact page, letting them know that the forum was broke - on my end.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Mar 13th, 2011 12:02 pm |
|
26th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I am really dissapointed in the effectiveness of this forum. All respect to Mr.Kelly, but man your effective in killing any and all threads that arise. Anyone, To be effective, and to avoid disappointment, one might want to entertain the possibility that the power to be effective, and avoid disappointment, is internal to the individual. Blaming external forces may not be a good path to travel upon, if the idea is to be effective, and to avoid disappointment. Questions:
First:
I didn't open the oil reserves, and apparently the person asking the question didn't either, otherwise the person asking the question would know why "we" (because he is one of "we") opened the oil reserves. If the person asking the question knows who opened the oil reserves, then the question could be answered by that person, and then the answer would have to be accurate, not false, and I think the more important question is: Who has the power to open the oil reserves, or who owns the oil reserves? That is similar to asking: Who owns the oil reserves in Iraq? Who do you ask? Will the person you ask tell you the accurate answer, or dodge the question? I think that there is a very good, and very expensive, book that may help in the effort to answer the question asked, and that book is just after a repeat of the question: First:
The Energy Non-Crisis Why is that book so expensive? Question 2: 2. Why haven't HHO powered vehicles cone to fruition? The quick answer is: ignorance Too many people are ignorant concerning the economy of switching to water based fuel. A very good source of information on that question is linked below. Water as Power The more complex answer, I think, involves the explanation of how the force of government is usurped from a force of defense against crime to a force that is crime, where the legal criminals use the power of government in the work of eliminating competition. Example: The power to end competition A different reason has come to light recently and makes MUCH more sense. You see, during the 1920's America was roaring forward with easy credit. Everyone seemed to be a winner. As roads were being cut across the country side, automobile sales exploded. This is great for the Ford Motor Company, but what was not written into your government approved history book is that our ingenious and inventive grandparents were running their new cars on uncle Erny's moonshine. Ask you friendly mechanic. It is not difficult to get a car engine to run on alcohol. This situation was dire indeed to Mr. Rockefeller and his Standard Oil Company. They had just discovered (1911) a massive oil field in Drumright, Oklahoma and needed someone to buy all this black gold... Homemade auto fuel had to be eliminated. As was typical of the time, they hired the public relations (PR man) psychologist and the commercial media to create a public outcry against alcohol consumption and public drunkenness. They passed the 18th amendment and immediately sent the FBI out into the countryside to destroy all major distilling operations. At the same time, Standard Oil began construction of "gas stations" all around the country. A similar event occurred as a result of many competitive products produced by the Hemp plant. Examples: Ford hemp car Hemp based construction material
The question asked is a loaded question. The 2 party system isn't killing anything. The usurpation of the force of government, by legal criminals, is a knowable fact, once that fact is known, by anyone wanting to know, the question above can be seen as a loaded question. The victims of the crimes "killing the middle class" can stop blaming false "causes" and begin defending against further victimization - or not. ++++++++++++++++++++++ I sent the above to The Real News Network on a separate Topic, so as to avoid being falsely accused of wrong doing. I do not intend to invade someone's private conversations, but who is willing to tolerate public slander?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Mar 13th, 2011 12:11 pm |
|
27th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sunday March 13 2011 I sent a second e-mail to the people running The Real News Network I didn't copy and paste that e-mail, sent via their contact web page. I tried to submit that defense against the personal attacks, inevitable on every forum, on a second computer, failing to do so, and therefore the problem isn't a problem with one computer. The problem is probably an effort to censor, and to do so secretively, since censoring confesses that the censors censor. Censorship is the work of tyrants.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Mar 13th, 2011 05:51 pm |
|
28th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I have an e-mail from Real News and the problem may soon be fixed.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Mar 13th, 2011 06:15 pm |
|
29th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I sent the following message: Hezvo, Thanks for the response. I understand how busy things can get for everyone. I am going to try a second time to publish the following new topic: Cut and pasted (before hitting the submit button): ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Begging the question when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof I am really dissapointed in the effectiveness of this forum. All respect to Mr.Kelly, but man your effective in killing any and all threads that arise./quote] |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Mar 14th, 2011 09:45 am |
|
30th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Debate? Anyone, The people talking in that Real News report appear to be misunderstanding political economy. If I could jump into the discussion my viewpoint may lead the discussion toward greater understanding. I could report a few facts followed up by a few questions. Fact 1: No living being survives without gaining more power than the power consumed in life; and therefore there must be at least a bare minimum of power required to sustain life, and that supply of power can be accurately measured in some way. Which way? Answer: Surplus wealth, measurable as purchasing power. Once the living beings accumulate surplus wealth, more power to live life than necessary at the moment, the surplus can then be added to, stored, and increased at a rate dictated by the thoughts and actions of the living beings who now have surplus wealth. How can surplus wealth be increased above the bare minimum? Answer: When the power to purchase, the store of surplus wealth, is consumed in the process of making more surplus wealth, and the expense, or cost, does in fact result in more surplus wealth after the surplus wealth used to get more surplus wealth is used up, then there is more surplus wealth in fact. Words may fail to convey the actual physical increase in surplus wealth realized during the process of gaining more surplus wealth, and therefore an example illustration may help convey the truth. A person having a measure of power above the bare minimum can spend that power on a process by which the end result is a steady flow of power returning to the person who spent the measure of power above bare minimum. 1. A farm (organic production) 2. A factory or production facility (inorganic production) 3. A voluntary association of more than one person all working toward the same goal of increasing the supply of surplus wealth and using that supply of surplus wealth toward the goal of increasing surplus wealth. 4. Crime A farm can be one person spending a measure of surplus wealth on the process of accumulating all the things necessary to grow and then have more food. A. A measure of surplus wealth not spent on anything. B. The measure of surplus wealth spent on all the things necessary to grow food. C. Surplus wealth increases by that expenditure as the food supply increases through the process of farming. A. Surplus wealth is X B. Surplus wealth is less than X to get the farm running. C. Surplus wealth is greater than X when the food piles up in storage. If there is only one person then the one person has to do everything, every job, every thought, and every action required to turn the small supply of surplus wealth into a larger supply of surplus wealth. A factory can be one person spending a measure of surplus wealth on the process of accumulating all the things necessary to make and then have more things. If one single person made enough food to last one year and then one person stopped farming so as to make things, and if that one person made a thing that stored water, then one single person would then have another process by which the amount of surplus wealth is used to increase the amount of surplus wealth. The single person uses power to increase food power, with a farm, and the single person uses power to increase water power, with a well, a pump, and a tank. Power is used to gain more power, and then the supply of power increases as more food flows into storage, and as more water flows into storage. One person can take a vacation, having so much wealth, as wealth fills the physical spaces where wealth was once not available, not flowing, not until the person invested the power toward the creation of more power. A. No expenditure of wealth toward the creation of more wealth. B. An expenditure of wealth toward the creation of more wealth. C. Actual wealth filling up the physical spaces where once there was no wealth. A situation where wealth is filling up the physical spaces where once there was no wealth won't occur without someone, or some group, deciding to spend wealth toward the goal of making wealth flow into physical spaces where more wealth can accumulate. Even if the decision is made to spend wealth on a process by which the plan is to have more wealth flowing into a physical space where once there was no wealth, even if that is the plan, the end result may not be a flow of wealth into a physical space where once there was no wealth, and the end result of the plan may well be less surplus wealth after the implementation of the plan, as the supply of surplus wealth is wasted, and the supply of surplus wealth decreases back toward a bare minimum. How can anyone ever know if their plan does increase the supply of surplus wealth? Does a person have to ask a banker, or does a person measure their own body weight? A single person is limited in the capacity of using power to create more power, or using surplus wealth in the work of increasing the supply of surplus wealth. Is there a way to increase the power beyond the power a single person commands? Answer: Yes, any number of people cooperating toward the work of spending power to make more power can increase that power and increase that power exponentially, or much greater than the sum of one person added to another person. Person power X Person power Y Total power is greater than X plus Y Much greater power is possible when people cooperate in the work to use power to make more power because people can specialize, divide costs, and thereby more than double the rate of increase of surplus wealth flowing into physical spaces where once there was no surplus wealth. A farmer can farm while a pump and tank maker makes pumps and tanks, and another person can keep the water flowing. The farmer keeps the food flowing. The factory worker keeps things flowing. The utility man keeps the water, or the electricity, or the natural gas, or the motor fuel flowing. Each person can save a whole lot of time and effort by having someone else do one of the necessary jobs so that each person does not have to stop doing one job, start doing another job, and the savings in time and effort results as those costs are divided by the number of people working toward the same thing: to use surplus wealth toward to work of creating more surplus wealth. If one person can be wealthy alone there is no logical reason why many people can not be extremely wealthy working together. Because labor can be divided and people can specialize at certain jobs the capacity to use surplus wealth so as to make huge piles of expanding supplies of surplus wealth is a very real human capacity - a proven reality. But then there is crime. Crime is when a person expends power toward the work of extracting power from any supply of surplus wealth whereby the criminal does not add to that supply. The criminal has in mind only the work of exploitation: to take. If the number of criminals exceed the entire capacity of human activity spent on creating surplus wealth there would be no surplus wealth as all the production of surplus wealth would be flowing to the criminal and the criminals do not create surplus wealth, by definition, they have only one plan, and their plan is to take. One criminal can hatch a plan and implement that plan and the result may be a flow of surplus wealth flowing into physical spaces that are then available to the criminal to be used to increase that flow of wealth to the criminal. One criminal can thereby reduce the supply of surplus wealth. The same criminal could have that power to make more power instead. One criminal not only reduces the supply of power, the same criminal could have added to the supply of power instead. One child and one elderly person may not have the power required to add to the supply of surplus wealth, and one criminal could conceivably be consuming the last of the supply of surplus wealth leaving one child starving and one elderly person frozen to death. If the goal is to produce more wealth than the wealth consumed, by any person under the sun, then cooperative effort is the obvious solution. If the goal is to take from the supply of surplus wealth, and not add to it, when the same time and energy spend taking could be time and energy spent adding to the supply, how is that goal not the same goal as any other criminal? Answer: Don't ask the criminal - they lie. How can anyone ever know if their actions driven by their thoughts result in an increase in the supply of surplus wealth? Answer: If your plan includes a steady increase in the number of people tortured and murdered so as to reach millions of numbers of people tortured and murdered, then your plan is probably not increasing the supply of surplus wealth, your plan is criminal - if there ever was one. The people who have control over the supply of money have control over all the people who use that money and their plan includes torture and there plan includes mass murder and their plan is criminal, and they torture, and they mass murder and ignoring that fact does not make that fact go away. Arguing over the best method by which legal criminals could, if they only would, use power to increase the supply of power, rather than decrease it, is a plan, and an execution of a plan, to what end? What is the goal? I think the goal is to ignore the torturing mass murderers who may focus their attention in a personal direction if someone were to fail to ignore the torturing mass murderers. The goal cannot be one where the people actually desire more surplus wealth, rather than less, because the only way to get to that goal is to deal with the torturing mass murderers who have control of surplus wealth and they spend it on torturing and mass murdering. Any discussion on political economy that does not accurately identify the greatest ongoing expenditure of surplus wealth by legal criminals conducting aggressive wars for profit is a discussion that avoids the discussion. If the discussion goes ahead and ignores the legal crimes of torture and mass murder by legal criminals who have taken over the power of government and the power over the supply of money then why doesn't the discussion show simple facts? A. Gasoline powered vehicles cost 80% more per mile than electric powered vehicles even when the electricity used is produced by burning coal. B. Solar power is now about 10% less costly compared to the coal burning electricity supply. C. There is an inevitable move from things that people can't afford toward things that people can afford. If people are not now moving from things that people can't afford toward things that people can afford why are they not now moving in that direction? Answer: Ignorance People who are paying more for less now don't yet know how to pay less for more; if they did they would. When they do, they will. Why are they ignorant? Answer: The people whose job it is to keep people informed are ignoring the greatest story ever told whereby the criminals have taken over the force of government and the power of money and they are now using that power, and that force, to torture and mass murder millions upon millions of innocent victims. Once falsehood is allowed to infest, like cancer, it spreads, and the body is consumed by it. The speaker says that Solar is not cost competitive with coal. Do you believe that nonsense? Look at your electric bill right now. You can save money on that bill by calling a Solar Panel installing company up - so long as you live in a sunny place. How can that not be proof that Solar is cost competitive with coal? You pay less money for electricity. How do you pay less money for electricity? You switch from the Electric Company power supply and you begin making power at home by turning sunlight into electricity and you pay less per month for electricity. Which planet is that speaker on? This planet is the planet that already has people turning sunlight into electricity with solar panels and by that method they spend less power to get more power compared to burning coal to make electricity. Solar panels are not the most efficient method compared to using mirrors to focus sunlight on a heat exchanger where a liquid is used to capture heat, store heat, and then heat is used to turn turbines that generate electricity. There is a steady supply of sunlight used to make electricity, how much does sunlight cost? There is a steady supply of coal used to make electricity, how much does coal cost? Sunlight costs nothing. Coal costs something. A solar plant cost less to build and run than a coal plant. There is no need to run a constant supply of coal by rail to the solar plant as the fuel used to run the solar plant is sunlight traveling through space, and then through the atmosphere. Who is fooling whom? A Solar Panel on a home eliminates all the costs of pushing electricity though all those high voltage wires running from central electric power plants to each home. A person can now buy an electric car and save 80% on each mile traveled and reduce the travel cost per mile even more by changing from coal burning electricity to home produced electricity with solar panels. Why are these guys lying? They say that ethanol is not cost effective. Why is ethanol sold in Brazil, right at the pump with petroleum fuel? Even if ethanol was marginally cost effective relative to petroleum, then algae as an organic source of power, used to make motor fuel, is much more cost effective because algae grows much faster than other organic plants. Ha, ha, ha, they laugh, while they either lie willfully, or while they pass on lies unwilling. Either way the facts are not reported and their job is left undone, unless their job is to keep the victims ignorant.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 15th, 2011 10:49 am |
|
31st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Real News is working again. Thanks for the quick response.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 15th, 2011 12:11 pm |
|
32nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Does crime pay? Anyone, The people talking in that Real News report appear to be misunderstanding political economy. If I could jump into the discussion my viewpoint may lead the discussion toward greater understanding. I could report a few facts followed up by a few questions. Fact 1: No living being survives without gaining more power than the power consumed in life; and therefore there must be at least a bare minimum of power required to sustain life, and that supply of power can be accurately measured in some way. Which way? Answer: Surplus wealth, measurable as purchasing power. As surplus wealth is created that fact is physically measurable; as surplus wealth flows into physical places where surplus wealth is stored. Surplus wealth is the measure of effective economic activity. An economy is positive, growing, gaining, progressing, advancing, as the supply of surplus wealth increases. An economy is negative, contracting, recessing, depressing, dying, consuming itself, as the supply of surplus wealth decreases. That is "Economy" in a nutshell. Politics concerns the employment of economic power toward the direction of economic power; where does surplus wealth go, who makes what, when, and where does the surplus wealth flow, in which direction, which physical stores of surplus wealth fill up, which stores of surplus wealth are used up, which people decide where surplus wealth flows? There can be no politics without surplus wealth. Once the living beings accumulate surplus wealth, there is now more power than necessary to live at the moment when surplus wealth begins to flow into storage. The surplus then can be used to make more surplus wealth, a process called investment. How can surplus wealth be increased above the bare minimum? Answer: When the power to purchase, or when the store of surplus wealth, is consumed in the process of making more surplus wealth, and the expense, or cost, does in fact result in more surplus wealth after the surplus wealth invested is used up, to get more surplus wealth, then there is more surplus wealth in fact, as surplus wealth returns back into physical storage. Words may fail to convey the actual physical increase in surplus wealth realized during the process of gaining more surplus wealth, and therefore an example illustration may help convey the truth. A person having a measure of power above the bare minimum can spend that power on a process by which the end result is a steady flow of power returning to the person who spent the measure of power above bare minimum. 1. A farm (organic production) 2. A factory or production facility (inorganic production) 3. A voluntary association of more than one person all working toward the same goal of increasing the supply of surplus wealth and using that supply of surplus wealth toward the goal of increasing surplus wealth. 4. Crime 1. A farm can be one person spending a measure of surplus wealth on the process of accumulating all the things necessary to grow and then have more food. A. A measure of surplus wealth not spent on anything before a farm is built and running. B. The measure of surplus wealth is spent on all the things necessary to grow food. C. Surplus wealth increases by that expenditure as the food supply increases through the process of farming and surplus wealth in the form of food begins flowing into various storage. A. Surplus wealth is X, an amount that is enough to start a farm, or buy a lot of beer and lap dances B. Surplus wealth is less than X to get the farm running, no one has anything yet that can be used to start a farm. C. Surplus wealth is greater than X when the food piles up in storage after investing X toward the goal of farming. If there is only one person then the one person has to do everything, every job, every thought, and every action required to turn the small supply of surplus wealth into a larger supply of surplus wealth with the investment goal of farming. A factory can be one person spending a measure of surplus wealth on the process of accumulating all the things necessary to make and then have more things, a single person running a very small factory, making 1 chair a day, or two wooden spoons a day, or five charcoal briquettes an hour. The lone factory worker fills up a storage of surplus wealth once the factor is set up and running. If one single person made enough food to last one year and then one person stopped farming so as to make things in a single person factory, and if that one person made a thing that stored water, investing surplus wealth in the work of making that thing, then one single person would then have another process by which the amount of surplus wealth is used to increase the amount of surplus wealth. Water flows into physical storage. The single person uses power to increase food power, with a farm, and the single person uses power to increase water power, with a well, a pump, and a tank. Power is used to gain more power, and then the supply of power increases as more food flows into storage, and as more water flows into storage. One person can take a vacation, having so much wealth, as wealth fills the physical spaces where wealth was once not available, not flowing, not until the person invested the power toward the creation of more power. A. No expenditure of wealth toward the creation of more wealth. B. An expenditure of wealth toward the creation of more wealth. C. Actual wealth filling up the physical spaces where once there was no wealth. A situation where wealth is filling up the physical spaces where once there was no wealth won't occur without someone, or some group, deciding to spend wealth toward the goal of making wealth flow into physical spaces where more wealth can accumulate. Economy is positive when political decisions are made to make economy positive and economic action is effective. A single person governing his own actions can decide to spend surplus wealth on beer and lap dances, or a single person can govern his own actions by investing surplus wealth in the work required to make more surplus wealth - rather than less surplus wealth. Even if the decision is made to spend wealth on a process by which the plan is to have more wealth flowing into a physical space where once there was no wealth, even if that is the plan, the end result may not be a flow of wealth into a physical space where once there was no wealth, and the end result of the plan may well be less surplus wealth after the implementation of the plan, as the supply of surplus wealth is wasted, and the supply of surplus wealth decreases back toward a bare minimum. A political decision that intends to increase surplus wealth but fails is in one way better than spending the surplus wealth on beer and lap dances, and that one positive economic increase in surplus wealth comes in the form of knowledge. That plan failed that time. The political decision to repeat that plan, follow that plan exactly the same way, expecting a different result would be potentially wasteful. Think. How many times can a person learn the same lesson? Stick your hand in a fire. Your hand burns. Do you need to learn that lesson twice? How can anyone ever know if their plan does increase the supply of surplus wealth? Does a person have to ask a banker, or can a person use the scientific method, can a person, for example, measure their own body weight? How much surplus wealth are you transporting? How much does it cost you to transport excess weight? A single person is limited in the capacity of using power to create more power, or using surplus wealth in the work of increasing the supply of surplus wealth. Is there a way to increase the power beyond the power a single person commands? Answer 1: Yes, any number of people cooperating toward the work of spending power to make more power can increase that power and increase that power exponentially, or much greater than the sum of one person added to another person. Answer 2: Yes, take surplus wealth from those who create it. 1. Cooperation Person power X (one person alone) Person power Y (another person alone) Total power is greater than X plus Y when two people cooperate. 2. Crime Person power X (one person alone) Person power Y (another person alone) Total power is less than X plus Y when one person takes power (victimizes) the one creating power. 1. Cooperation Much greater power is possible when people cooperate in the work to use power to make more power because people can specialize, divide costs, and thereby more than double the rate of increase of surplus wealth flowing into physical spaces where once there was no surplus wealth. A farmer can farm while a pump and tank maker makes pumps and tanks, and another person can drill the well, and the water flows. The farmer keeps the food flowing. The factory worker keeps things flowing. The utility man keeps the water, or the electricity, or the natural gas, or the motor fuel flowing. Each person can save a whole lot of time and effort by having someone else do one of the necessary jobs so that each person does not have to stop doing one job, start doing another job, and the savings in time and effort results as those costs are divided by the number of people working toward the same thing: to use surplus wealth toward to work of creating more surplus wealth. If one person can be wealthy alone there is no logical reason why many people can not be extremely wealthy working together - without crime. Labor can be divided and people can specialize at certain jobs, then the capacity to invest surplus wealth (so as to make huge piles of expanding supplies of surplus wealth) is a very real human capacity - a proven reality. Before cooperation, division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale (dividing the costs among many rather than a few = the reason why cell phones, computers, and other mass produced things become so cheap), before cooperation, the amount of surplus wealth potential is no more than the sum of all the people working alone, no one gains a lot of surplus wealth, everyone only gains as much surplus wealth as they alone can create alone. After cooperation the sky is the limit, surplus wealth can be measured as Pyramids, space ships to Mars, etc. But then there is crime. 1. Crime Crime is when a person expends power toward the work of extracting power from any supply of surplus wealth, or source of surplus wealth, whereby the criminal does not add to that supply. The criminal has in mind only the work of exploitation: to take, not give, to subtract, not add. If the number of criminals exceed the entire capacity of positive economic human activity (spent on creating surplus wealth) there would be no surplus wealth as all the production of surplus wealth would be flowing to the criminal and the criminals do not create surplus wealth, by definition, they have only one plan, and their plan is to take. One criminal can hatch a plan and implement that plan and the result may be a flow of surplus wealth flowing into physical spaces that are then available to the criminal to be used to increase that flow of wealth to the criminal. The criminal can hire more criminals to "help" subtract from those who create surplus wealth. One criminal can reduce the supply of surplus wealth. Two criminals cooperating can increase the rate at which the supply of surplus wealth is reduced. The same criminal could have that power to make more power instead. The same group of organized criminals have the power to make more power instead. One criminal not only reduces the supply of power, the same criminal could have added to the supply of power instead. One organized crime ring, or cabal, could use their cooperative power to rapidly increase the supply of wealth rather than rapidly decrease the supply of wealth (Wars of aggression for example could be used to make solar panels and electric cars for example). One infant and one elderly person may not have the power required to add to the supply of surplus wealth, and one criminal could conceivably be consuming the last of the supply of surplus wealth that could feed the infant or the elderly, leaving one child starving and one elderly person frozen to death. The same criminal could add to the supply for infants or elderly or emergencies, etc. If the goal is to produce more wealth than the wealth consumed, by any person under the sun, then cooperative effort is the obvious solution. Crime is the obvious problem. If the goal is to take from the supply of surplus wealth, and not add to it, when the same time and energy spent taking could be time and energy spent adding to the supply, how is that goal not criminal? Answer: Don't ask the criminal - they lie. How can anyone ever know if their actions driven by their thoughts result in an increase in the supply of surplus wealth? How much do you weigh? Answer: If your plan includes a steady increase in the number of people tortured and murdered so as to reach millions of numbers of people tortured and murdered, by that plan (invade fill in the blank for example), then your plan is probably not increasing the supply of surplus wealth, your plan is criminal - if there ever was one. The people who have control over the supply of money have control over all the people who use that money and their plan includes torture and there plan includes mass murder and their plan is criminal, and they torture, and they mass murder and ignoring that fact does not make that fact go away. The bodies are flowing to their early graves, and the road traveled is miserably and torturous. Arguing over the best method by which legal criminals could, if they only would, use power to increase the supply of power, rather than decrease it, is a stupid plan. How many times does a victim have to learn the same lesson? This lesson: 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. Criminals lie, criminals hire liars to lie, and the same lesson repeats. This lesson: Let us not forget that violence does not and cannot flourish by itself; it is inevitably intertwined with LYING. Between them there is the closest, the most profound and natural bond: nothing screens violence except lies, and the only way lies can hold out is by violence. Whoever has once announced violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose lying as his PRINCIPLE. At birth, violence behaves openly and even proudly. But as soon as it becomes stronger and firmly established, it senses the thinning of the air around it and cannot go on without befogging itself in lies, coating itself with lying's sugary oratory. It does not always or necessarily go straight for the gullet; usually it demands of its victims only allegiance to the lie, only complicity in the lie. I think that the goal to ignore the torturing mass murderers, or to believer their lies, is a goal that will not increase the supply of surplus wealth - not while the legal criminals control the supply of money; the power to purchase. That goal, ignoring or believing the legal criminals and their lies, cannot be a goal where the people actually desire more surplus wealth, rather than less, because the only way to get to an increasing supply of surplus wealth is one that deals with the torturing mass murderers who have control of surplus wealth and they spend it on torturing and mass murdering - wars of aggression for profit, for example. Any discussion on political economy that does not accurately identify the greatest ongoing expenditure of surplus wealth by legal criminals conducting aggressive wars for profit is a discussion that avoids the discussion of the creation of surplus wealth. If the discussion goes ahead and ignores the legal crimes of torture and mass murder by legal criminals who have taken over the power of government and the power over the supply of money then the discussion is a discussion concerning how to spend the supply of surplus wealth, consume it, not add to it. Some facts (that can be accurately measured): A. Gasoline powered vehicles cost 80% more per mile than electric powered vehicles even when the electricity used is produced by burning coal. B. Solar power is now about 10% less costly compared to the coal burning electricity supply. C. There is an inevitable move from things that people can't afford toward things that people can afford (sooner or later). If people are not now moving from things that people can't afford toward things that people can afford why are they not now moving in that direction? Answer: Ignorance People who are paying more for less now don't yet know how to pay less for more; if they did they would. When they do, they will. Why are they ignorant? Answer: The people whose job it is to keep people informed are ignoring the greatest story ever told whereby the criminals have taken over the force of government, and the power over money, and those same lying criminals are now using that power, and that force, to torture and mass murder millions upon millions of innocent victims. Once falsehood is allowed to infest, like cancer, it spreads, and the body is consumed by it. The speaker says that Solar is not cost competitive with coal. Did you hear that in the Real News report? Do you believe that nonsense? Look at your electric bill right now. You can save money on that bill by calling a Solar Panel installing company up - so long as you live in a sunny place, and they guarantee that your bill will be less. How can that not be proof that Solar is cost competitive with coal? You pay less money for electricity. How do you pay less money for electricity? You switch from the Electric Company power supply and you begin making power at home by turning sunlight into electricity and you pay less per month for electricity. Which planet is the one where solar is not competitive with coal in the work of making electricity? This planet is the planet that already has people turning sunlight into electricity with solar panels and by that method they spend less power to get more power compared to burning coal to make electricity. Solar panels on individual homes are not the most efficient solar method compared to using mirrors to focus sunlight on a heat exchanger where a liquid is used to capture heat, store heat, and then heat is used to turn turbines that generate electricity. With solar there is a steady supply of sunlight, daily flowing, and this power supply, sunlight, is used to make electricity, how much does sunlight cost? There is a steady supply of coal used to make electricity, how much does coal cost? Sunlight costs nothing. Coal costs something. A solar plant cost less to build and run than a coal plant. There is no need to run a constant supply of coal by rail to the solar plant as the fuel used to run the solar plant is sunlight traveling through space, and then through the atmosphere. Who is fooling whom? A Solar Panel on a home eliminates all the costs of pushing electricity though all those high voltage wires running from central electric power plants to each home. A person can now buy an electric car and save 80% on each mile traveled and reduce the travel cost per mile even more by changing from coal burning electricity to home produced electricity with solar panels. Why are these guys lying? Where is the measure of coal costs? Where is the measure of solar costs? They, in the Real News report, say that ethanol is not cost effective. Why is ethanol sold in Brazil, right at the pump with petroleum fuel, if it is not cost competitive? Even if ethanol was marginally cost effective relative to petroleum, then algae as an organic source of power, used to make motor fuel, is much more cost effective because algae grows much faster than other organic plants, and the fuel used up by algae is CO2. Algae turns CO2 into motor fuel. Ha, ha, ha, they laugh, in the Real News report, while they either lie willfully, or while they pass on lies unwilling. Either way the facts are not reported and their job is left undone, unless their job is to keep the victims ignorant.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 17th, 2011 10:31 am |
|
33rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
One source of potentially accurate useful information  A report by the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan indicates that radiation levels as a result of the Unit 4 fire were higher than those reported previously. Radiation levels early this morning at the outside of Unit 3 measured at 400 millisieverts/hr. At the present time however, radiation levels at the boundary of the facility are 1530 microsieverts/hour. We will continue to update as further reliable information is available.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Mar 21st, 2011 04:40 pm |
|
34th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Full Employment Policy Anyone, Before watching the whole Real News Report linked above I am commenting on the first part because my comments are based upon a different viewpoint. "...a Crisis...unemployment..." That is a premise. That is a theory. That is a viewpoint. Why is that viewpoint taken as fact? To me, the crisis, if there is one, is a crisis of power-less-ness, not "unemployment". Power flows to criminals, criminals then use that power to increase the flow of power to criminals, and what is the result of that situation, that crisis? 1. Massive torture, where many people are tortured, and many people are tortured to death (see 2) 2. Massive murder, where many people are murdered, and many people are tortured to death (see 1) 3. Threats of extinction of life on Earth. 4. Other consequences including unemployment. What is the result of a situation whereby the power produced by the people who produce power send less power to the criminals who steal it and abuse it? 1. Less torture 2. Less murder 3. Less threats of extinction of life on Earth 4. Other consequences including people who want jobs get jobs because they now have the power needed to get jobs when they want jobs. When power is more, and more, concentrated into the exclusive control of criminals: the criminals use that power to exclude power from other people, or, in other words, the criminals use the power they steal in the work of eliminating competition. Competition is the stuff that moves quality up and cost down. When the torturing, and mass murdering, legal criminals use the power they steal in the work of eliminating competition, what is the result? A. Less competition B. Quality goes down C. Cost (price) goes up Another angle of the same thing: Life moves from a state of abundance into a state of scarcity, when power flows from those who create power to those who steal it, as the power-full employ that power in the work of eliminating competition, as quality goes down, and as cost (price) goes up, supplies dwindle, and abundance is turned into scarcity. In a state of scarcity the weak die, and the weaker die faster. In a state of abundance the weak thrive, as best they can, compared to a state of scarcity, where the weak die, and the weaker die faster. Unemployment becomes a "concern" when a state of abundance turns into a state of scarcity. Why does a state of abundance turn into a state of scarcity? That is an easy question to answer. A state of abundance turns into a state of scarcity as part of a thing called The Business Cycle, whereby the people who steal power use that stolen power in the work of eliminating competition, by adding and then subtracting to the money supply, the power to purchase, and once "the economy" is on The Business Cycle, the legal criminals know when to buy (at the bottom of the cycle) and when to sell (at the top of the cycle) and with that plan working the flow of power flows continuously from those who create power to those who steal power. A state of scarcity is enforced upon the weak, the less powerful, by the strong, the more powerful, so as to perpetuate the business cycle, because the business cycle is the ultimate Pyramid Scheme, the ultimate con-job, the ultimate fraud, and so long as it is enforced, so long will power flow from those who create it, to those who steal it by that method. Why does "The Economy" turn from a state of scarcity, where the weak die, and the weaker die faster, into a state of abundance? Another easy question, with the same answer, along with some other considerations. The legal criminals can't keep the state of scarcity at that miserable state too long, too many weak people die, strong people become weak, then they die, and the people who create power can no longer create power, so the legal criminals know that their power source, "The Host" will die, so that reason, added to the Business Cycle perpetuation reason, reinforces the need to move from a state of scarcity back into a state of abundance. The victims may revolt if the state of scarcity lasts too long - too. Who are the victims? Easy: The people who create power, the ones that the criminals target, the only ones that can create a state of abundance, no one else can, the weak can't, not while the weak are weak, only the strong can, only the ones who can create power can create power, how can that ever be misunderstood? Certainly the legal criminals do not misunderstand the source of their power - certainly not - a fool may misunderstand that fact. Is "unemployment" a problem once the legal criminals return "The Economy" back to a state of abundance, from a state of scarcity? Easy. No Not for those who want to work, since a state of abundance includes a move from high unemployment to low unemployment, for those who want to work. For those who don't want to work, unemployment isn't a problem, it is a goal, not a crisis. Back to the Real News Report for me. I see an opportunity to reinforce the validity of my perspective relative to the perspective presented in the Real News Report linked above. I heard:
It is vital that the victims, and potential victims, learn the true facts of history. In this case the victims (those who produce the power of wealth today), and the potential victims (those who will produce the power of wealth in the future), may gain the power of knowledge, the wealth of knowledge, concerning the true case of The Great Depression. The Federal Reserve System operators, legal criminals, caused an economic boom that became known as The Roaring Twenties, as those legal criminals doubled the supply of money (roughly) and then that same "System" was used, by some of the same legal criminals, or new legal criminals gaining the legal license required to change the legal supply of money, then subtracted roughly half of the money supply, thus turning the state of abundance into a state of scarcity, torturing millions, killing millions, where the weak die, and the weaker die faster. Then the legal criminals boomed again, and the new boom was called World War II. The same system is being used by new legal criminals to boom World War III. Unemployment isn't a crisis compared to World War III. Legal criminals are not employed, they are criminals, so unemployment isn't a crisis for them, their goal is their goal, and they do what they have the power to do, including the goal of World War III, their goal, if that is their goal, and if you think that they will tell the truth when asked, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, or better yet, how much will you pay for The Business Cycle, consumed by you at the price you are paying for it. Two links, for you, if you question the truth about how the legal criminals caused WWII, as part of their work, as they move power from those who create it, to them, with their power over money, and their operation of The Business Cycle: Read it and weep - if you still have the power of morality working for you (if you don't you don't): Boom side A Boom side B That is also called: Hegelian-ism, or, in other words, thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis, or, simply put, in other words, finance both sides of a war, and jack up the prices for bombs and boots, and stuff, sell to both sides, make a profit, then get the no bid contracts to clean up and rebuild after the "conflict", and make a profit during that part of that cycle too. Note: Many people know these things, not just me, and it isn't a coincidence that "Obama" or whoever "The President" is at the moment, is financed by "Wall Street" or whichever word labels the move of power from B to C. A. People who create wealth B. People who steal it through "The System" C. People who spend it (on "investments") What is purchased with the power to purchase? or Do you really want to follow the money? I did, you can too. Victims will remain victims so long as they remain ignorant. Back to the Real News report for me. I heard this: ...the other land mine is oil prices... I offer Joe's Law: Power produced into abundance (over-supply) reduces the price of power, while purchasing power increases, because power reduces the cost of production. In other words: When power (oil, money, electricity, food, oxygen, etc.) becomes scarce (enforced by nature or enforced by criminals) the price goes up and then the price of everything goes up and then, because the price of everything goes up, money is less powerful, it takes more money to get the same thing. Mathematically: Power now > Power past = higher standard of living for everyone so long as the few don't steal from the many Power now < power past = lower standard of living for everyone except for those few who steal from the people who produce power The power supply is draining in two ways right now - in America: 1. Less money 2. Less food/oil/electricity/better roads/better cars/better sources of electricity/better sources of transportation fuel/etc. What happens if the people who have the power to add more money add more money? The answer is as complicated as the following question must be answered in order to answer the proceeding question. What does the new money buy? The people who operate The FED, the legal criminals, have doubled the supply of dollars in 2008, alone, and who knows what they have done since, and there can be no answer to the question of what happens to "The Economy" without knowing what that money buys, even if it buys nothing. If that money flows to China, then the Chinese economy may BOOM, but not unless that money is used to create more power. If that money is used to oppress, throttle down, cut down, or otherwise limit the power to create power, a power that is embodied by those people who can create power, and only them, then the Chinese economy will not BOOM, no matter how much money is used to purchase things that throttle down the power to create more power. If that money begins to flow back into the American "economy", then the American economy may BOOM, but only if that power to purchase purchases more power, only if that power flows to the people who can, and will, and do, use that power to create more power - such as: 1. More electric cars. 2. More solar panels 3. Better roads. 4. Better hospitals 5. Better farms 6. Better power plants 7. Better learning systems 8. Better political systems 9. Better economic systems 10. Etc. If that money is used in the work of accelerating the flow of power from those who create it, to those who steal it, what happens? The same things that have been happening happen, on schedule, business as usual, liars are "elected" into "office" and legal crime perpetuates, the weak die, on schedule, and the weaker die faster. Back the the Real News Report for me. ...they say that we are in a normal recovery... "They" are, obviously, either lying (and hired to lie) or "they" are ignorant. All evidence reinforces the understanding that "they" (legal criminals) are working toward WWIII, or some word that accurately identifies the willful construction of a future new world wide conflict between China (new money monopoly power) and America (old money monopoly power) and when the conflict is over, on schedule, the legal criminals (the ones who are privy to the schedule) will move operations, move capital, to that new power. Out with the old, in with the new, brighter, future - if life on earth survives. If not, then not. The premise that "they" are stupid, and they are making mistake after mistake, forever, perpetually, making the same mistakes, over and over again, is a sure sign of stupidity, certainly, but it may be time to look in the mirror, rather than point fingers at "they", saying that "they" are stupid, as "they" fly their private jets to their limousines on their way to one of their summer mansions. Or not, you are the judge, and no one else can take that from you, or if someone has taken that from you, then you are what? A victim? Back to the Real News report for me. ...the neo-liberal view is... I have some great news for someone who may not yet know anything about political economy as told by anyone. You know. That is the good news. You know. You know that stealing is stealing, and I can help you with that knowledge as that knowledge, that certain knowledge, applies to the subject of political economy. A politician who lies is one who lies so as to steal, and the same thing applies to someone who is operating a business. The purpose of government, if there is one, is to protect the innocent from the liars who steal, or liars who torture, or the liars who mass murder, or the liars who are ending life on earth, or the criminals who tell the truth. If the first law enforced by the operators of the government is an idea followed by an action that is no different than stealing, then law is crime. As such: 1. Voluntary government (anything done that results in the effective avoidance of crime whereby the innocent are no longer victimized by criminals) 2. Crime (even if the politicians, or the licensed business people running a licensed business, say that it is not crime) 3. Involuntary government If you are not looking through a brainwashed mind, you will see that Crime is involuntary government. When the power flows from those who create it, earn it, and it flows to those who use that power in the necessary work to keep that power flowing, what is it? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, even if the duck says it isn't a duck, what is it? I know how the brainwashing works, I ran for congress, I can still remember the old lady worried about criminals and the fear associated with the concept of NOT forcing other people to pay into a fund that is supposed to protect people from having someone forcing someone to transfer power to them from a victim. Brainwashing is a point at which a person believes false things. Once you believe, there exists a power-less-ness; a lack of power, an inability to undo the brainwashing. The bottom line with the argument for involuntary government is the same argument employed by every dictator and every criminal that ever polluted the human gene pool. Human beings are bad. That is the same argument used by criminals. The victim deserve what I take from them, they are bad, they are weak, I am teaching them a lesson they need to learn, etc. Human beings are bad, they must have me to protect them, etc. Abundance, of jobs, of power, of wealth, of liberty, of freedom, of survival past today, past tomorrow, even past the life span of the Solar System, is earned through cooperative effort, division of labor, specialization, and the employment of power in the work of making power abundant. When power is taken from you, against your will, you have less power, not more, and you are now less able to survive, not more able to survive, unless that power taken does, in fact, purchase more power, by some means, and despite your objection, that power is invested wisely, and that power stolen from you is used, by the people who take it, by the people who steal it from you, for the production of more power, and now, after that wise investment, by that benevolent dictator, that Robin Hood, you realize a higher quality life, at a lower cost. A. Increased abundance by way of legal crime B. Increased abundance by way of competition; whereby the producers of power, the only ones who can increase power, and the only ones who can create abundance, are forced to produce higher quality, and are forced to produce lower costs, or someone else will, because no one is using the power that is available, in physical power storage areas, in the work of eliminating competition. C. Decreased abundance, followed by increased abundance, followed by decreased abundance, on a schedule called: The Business Cycle. The first option above, the option many people are born into belief of it, is the third option, one and the same thing. The overall net result, after each cycle, and each cycle, is greater abundance, so long as the species human survives. What could happen if B was the choice instead of A and C? Do you want higher quality? Do you want lower cost? What are you willing to do to get higher quality, and lower cost? The liberal view, before it became the neo-liberal view, is B, voluntary association, or the liberal view is whatever someone says it is, and if they say something untrue, once, twice, three times, then they can be trusted. Do you want to know the liberal view, or do you prefer not to know, or do you prefer the neo-fill in the blank? ...if you want to stoop that low.... The argument appears to be such that bad things happen when tax payer money (taken by force and threat of punishment for failure to pay) is not taken and then used to enforce minimum wage. Got that? A. Steal First it is OK to take money from people who know better than to send money to torturing, mass murdering liars. Now that that is out of the way. It is OK to steal. That is a given, so now "we" can proceed to item B. B. Use that stolen power to finance the enforcement of payments between "employers" and "employees", or else suffer punishment, if employers don't pay the enforced payment to employees. If it is OK to steal, then, it is OK to steal more, and that is that in a nutshell. Do they really want abundance. When there is abundance who needs to steal anything? Who needs to be forced to pay someone more than someone is willing to pay someone when there is abundance? When power is abundant, who cries about minimum wages? When there is abundance, there is an abundance of cars to drive, so many cars that the price of a car is very low. How can it be any different? What about the quality of the cars in abundance, when there is abundance? Do people still build cars after cars reach a state of abundance? No, unless the older cars are much lower in quality, or unless stolen money forces someone to keep building an obsolete, low quality, useless, less-power-full, car. Do you want abundance, or do you want scarcity? What is the "advice" offered to people in Unions? Stop working, refuse to work, enforce a higher pay rate, and how can that ever work without someone enforcing a monopoly, without someone enforcing an end to competition? It can't. Abundance isn't created with the enforced ending of work, that is bad advice, that is what happens when power is stolen, for your "own good", and then power is abused in the work of eliminating competition, just like all criminals must do, and the better advice manages to work toward abundance instead of working against abundance. A. Enforce a monopoly, eliminate competition, steal, and use that stolen power in that work, to steal, and perpetuate crime. B. Refuse to steal, work at ways that avoid stealing, work toward agreement, invent new ways of making more power out of less power, and in the case of a Union, of specialized workers, work toward the creation of a competitive product if the "employer" isn't competitive. In other words, instead of threatening to stop working, work toward building a better, a voluntary association, somewhere else, if the "employer" isn't supplying a competitive work place - make one - make a competitive one, to compete with the one that is low quality, and high cost. A. Make laws that force employers to increase payments from employers to employees or else suffer punishment for failing to do so. B. Make laws that do not limit the power of workers to allow workers to combine their power and to allow workers to make their own factories, companies, work places, where workers are allowed to compete in the process of producing the highest quality products at the lowest possible price, when employers fail to make higher quality products at the lowest possible price. When workers are tricked into playing the game by the rules that are enforced by the people who use law to eliminate competition, what do you think will be the result? A. Honest working people, who are the only ones capable of producing wealth, are tricked into playing the legal crime game, and are then swimming with the sharks, in the water, where the professional liars, the professional legal criminals, the specialized people who are specialized at taking, stealing, abusing, and using the force of law to move wealth from those who create it to those who steal it, and honest working people are tricked into thinking they can win this game. B. Honest working people decide to use the power they have (after taxes?), to run their own production facilities, pay themselves whatever they can afford to pay, and use their power to offer the highest quality product, at the lowest cost, or find a vocation where they can produce the highest quality product, at the lowest cost, if the current product is less than competitive. How is a worker, regardless of the quality of the work performed by the worker, forcing higher pay, any different than an employer, regardless of the quality of the employment, forcing a lower pay, any different in principle? If there is abundance, rather than scarcity, the employer can pick the highest quality worker at the lowest cost, among many willing workers, and the worker can pick the highest quality employment, at the lowest cost, because there is an abundance of employment options - including workers organizing and starting their own companies. Law is used to punish workers that organize and law is used to make sure that workers can't get financing to start their own company - during the down cycle part of the business cycle, certainly, and during the up cycle the same suppliers of the one money get to pick and choose who that power flows to, when, and how much that power costs to the receiver of that power. If that power flows to the people who make bombs, it doesn't flow to the people who make bombs by accident. If that power flows to the people who make electric cars in California, Tesla Motors for example, it doesn't flow there by accident. People move that power to where it goes on purpose, and that power to move that power, to where that power goes, is The Crisis. That power is held by the worst examples of human pollution that has ever weakened the human gene pool - they are now able to end life on Earth, and they may yet do so. My critics want to ask: Who are "they"? Follow the money. A good start would be following the trail back to the person or persons who doubled the money supply in 2008. Who has that power? You don't have that power. I don't have that power. That much power is enough power to cause an economic boom somewhere. That much power is enough power to cause an economic bust somewhere. That much power is enough power to destroy the American economy, or strengthen the Chinese economy, or cause World War III. Ignoring the fact that some one, some group, an uncountable group, or person, has that power, is the crisis, the crisis is a state of ignorance, the crisis is a scarcity of the power of knowledge. There is no unemployment crisis by comparison. One is a symptom. One is a disease. 1. Unemployment 2. Legal power so concentrated as to license one person or a few people with the power to double the entire supply of dollar purchasing power at will, without consequence. Am I crazy? Back to the Real News report: ...in fact the objective is to not have full employment... Who? An honest working employer (I'm not the one who says that there is any difference between an employer or a worker, both sell something, both buy something) wants a high quality employee at the lowest cost, as does an honest working employee - wanting a high quality job, at the lowest cost. A. Employer sells money in exchange for work. B. Employee buys money in exchange for work. If the medium of exchange is money, then the fact that the employer is taxed and the fact that the employee is taxed more is an obvious problem, if that is a problem. Employers who pay no taxes, General Electric perhaps, can now eliminate competition. Now workers seeking high quality jobs, at lost costs to the worker (high wages), face a monopoly supply of jobs, and face a situation where competition is against the law, and face a situation where the monopoly power grows more powerful, and face a situation where less and less power is available to start competing, to offer competition, and therefore less force is working toward higher quality jobs, at lower prices (to the worker a high paying job is a lower cost/price to the worker). What happens if the medium of exchange is no longer dollars? No more power flows to the monopoly power. Power from the worker flowing to the monopoly power where that power is used to perpetuate the monopoly ceases. Using the workers power (collecting power from all the workers and having that power flow to the monopoly power) currently ends competition and ends the force that would otherwise force employers to compete against other employers in the work of offering the higher quality jobs at the lower price (to the worker the higher wage is the higher quality job that is, to the worker, the lower cost to the worker, lower price to the worker, the worker spends less in exchange for the wage flowing to the worker). If the medium of exchange is the thing produced by the combined efforts of the employers and the employees, the result is a separation of powers, whereby the power of the monopoly money power is no longer combined with the power of the employer and the employee. Suppose that the employer and the employees make Solar Panels, or electric cars, or electricity, or food, or something powerful, gasoline, oil, houses, clothes, something that increases wealth, something that invests the available power supply toward an increase in the available power supply, and now suppose that the workers, and the employers both, get paid in Solar Panels, or electric cars, or electricity, instead of dollars. If the employer is paid enough to afford the thing produced by the employer and the employees efforts but the employees are not paid enough to afford the thing produced by the employer and the employees efforts, then there must be a reason for that fact. One possible reason: The employer uses the power paid to the employer in the work of eliminating competition whereby the employer is the only one hiring people to make that powerful product, and therefore the employer has no need to increase the quality of that product and that employer has no need to lower the price of that product and so long as that product remains scarce, so long as the employer doesn't make too many of those products, so long will that employer be in a position to dictate the price of that product, and the wage paid to the workers, and the wage kept and accumulated by the employer, so long as the power being spent to produce the product is less than the power flowing to the employer. As soon as a competitor is competing with the monopoly power is as soon as the monopoly employer is forced to increase quality and lower cost. If one employer decides to lower the pay of the workers before lowering other costs by other means is as soon as the best employees move to the better employer, and that "competitive" decision works against the quality of the product. If the workers are allowed to build their own competitive production facility, each being paid an equitable division of total profits, by mutual agreement, and if the highest quality workers all walk away from the monopoly, low wage (high price from the workers viewpoint), low quality (low wage is low quality from the workers viewpoint), and all the workers hire on to the Equitable Union Workers Employee run production facility, then what can the monopoly power do to get the best workers back to work at his production facility? Which production facility makes the highest quality product at the lowest cost? If there is only one product, then that one product is the highest quality, and that price is the lowest price. That one product is the lowest quality, and that one product is the highest price. There is only one product, here in the U.S.A., that is such a product. The dollar. The quality of the dollar is the power to purchase. The price of the dollar is the interest rate. The fact that it is a monopoly power is the crisis, not the fact that the abuse of that power causes unemployment during planned down cycles. I may be approaching broken record status, with an oversupply of the same song. Back to the Real News report: ...I am not interested in full employment... Ignoring the fact that taxes are taken, stolen, and stolen from the people who produce wealth, produce power, is a serious error. Power flow from the victims to the criminals and then once that flow begins the criminals gain more and more power; ultimately resulting in absolute power, such as the power to double the money supply at will, without consequence. That same power can include an abuse whereby a few people are given money, negative tax, and many people are heavily taxes, thus creating powerful people, and power less people, and the powerful people will work toward perpetuating that flow of power. The power can only come from the people who create it. The power flows to people whose work is the work that is focuses on accumulating power. If the people whose work is focus is both accumulating and spending that power in the work of making more power then the net result is more power - abundance - higher standard of living. Now, if the tax rate, the rate at which power is stolen, is more for group A (a group that does create more power), and less, or negative (subsidy), for group B, then competition is thereby reduced, or even eliminated. Group A can be known as employers Group B can be known as employees The stolen money can't go to everyone, the stolen money must, by obvious limitations in physical reality, go to a few. From many, to a few, obviously. Taking from many and giving back to many is akin to employing a person to dig a hole, and then employing another person to fill in the hole, and calling that "full employment". If the stolen money is given to the people who will use that power to make the most power in the shortest amount of time, costing no one any injury in the process, then total power increases soonest, abundance is reached soonest, the highest standard of living is reached soonest, at the lowest cost. If the stolen money is given to the people who then use that money to make sure that no one else can make the thing being made by the receiver of the stolen money, then the soonest state of abundance is not achieved, the stolen power is actually used in such a way as to enforce lower quality of life, at a higher cost, and the bill, the cost, is paid for my the producers of wealth, the only ones who can be taxed, and therefore the only ones that can pay the bill. If the subsidized group is called Employers, then it is a very poor thing to accuse all employers of this crime of receiving subsidy, failing to pay tax (share in victimization), and this poor thing done, is double poor for wealth producing employers and twice a bonanza for the criminal subsidized thieves, because the wealth producing (sharing in victimization = heavily taxed) employers are blamed for the same wrongs done by the subsidized groups, and the subsidized groups can take credit for any increased wealth resulting from the work done by the non-subsidized group. That is called prejudice. A. Group A does bad things. B. Group B doesn't do those bad things. Group A and Group B are similar in one or more characteristic so both Group A and Group B are in the same Group I. Group I (employees, workers, republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, women, men, Caucasian, Asian, etc.) Group I: Men Subgroup A: Men having extramarital affiars Subgroup B: Men who do not have extramarital affairs When someone says that all men are bad, because some men have extramarital affairs, there is a prejudice against men who don't have extramarital affairs, and those men who have extramarital affairs look better when placed within the group where some men don't have extramarital affairs. Look at me, I'm not so bad, men don't always have extramarital affairs, don't worry, I won't do it again, see there we aren't all bad, all the time. Men who don't have extramarital affairs look worse, see, of course you should be suspicious, men have extramarital affairs all the time. And worse. Look at that guy cheating over there, now look at that guy cheating over there, now look there, there, and there, all those guys cheating, always they cheat, me, don't look at me, look there, over there, they are cheating. Confusing one with the other works in favor of the guilty, not the innocent. Confusing one with the other works to the detriment of the innocent, not the guilty. Twice a debt for the innocent, double a credit for the guilty. Like this: Common Sense
...the Swedish Model... Power flowing to workers, people who work, makes workers powerful. Power flowing to employees, people who work, makes employees powerful. Where does the power come from? The power comes from the people who create power, and these people can only crate power if they cooperate, agree, specialize, divide labor, and access the power of scale, or numbers, whereby the cost of something is divided by more people (the reason why home computers fell in price - for a recent example). Before cooperation, specialization, and economies of scale, there is little or no surplus wealth stored anywhere in physical storage places. After cooperation, specialization, and economies of scale, there is a state of abundance, large and very large stores of surplus wealth in many, many, many physical places. Political power is the power by which control over thought is focused toward gaining control over surplus wealth. Economic power is the power by which control over surplus wealth is either used to increase or decrease the total supply of surplus wealth. Democratic politics (which can include republican, and federated politics), whereby law is universal, each person has the same political power as each other person, no exceptions, justice is blind, the scale is balanced equitably, removes, or works to remove, political power that flows from the many to the few, as a goal. Non-democratic politics (which can include communism, fascism, and dictatorships), works to focus political power from the man to the few, on purpose, for the profit of the few, at the expense of the many. Non-democratic politics cannot increase the supply of surplus wealth; it is therefore not an economic power. Non-democratic politics consumes economic power by any measure except one. In the face of a situation whereby failure to resort to non-democratic power results in the destruction of the people who produce surplus wealth (economic power) is the one exception and only an exception because a greater power threatens the democratic-political-economic power. Example 1: A political crime group gain more and more power by invading more and more democratic-political-economic smaller, less powerful economic groups, enslaving those groups, combining the stolen surplus wealth, and consuming that wealth on more, and more, and more invasions, usurpation, enforced regime changes, unification, and then that powerful engine of mass destruction turns its criminal might upon the next victims, us, for example. That crime group will destroy us, unless we do something, somehow, and some way. Example 2: A meteor is found, in time, in space, and soon that meteor will contact the earth, and if something is not done, Earth, and everything on Earth, is gone forever, unless something is done, somehow, and some way. We are apt to jump to the conclusion that each one of us must be forced by each other of us to pay whatever price is necessary at that time - without exception. I think, and you can consider, that we are apt to jump to the wrong conclusion. Why can't there be exceptions? Please think about it. I have to go help create surplus wealth, or else. Later
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 24th, 2011 12:19 pm |
|
35th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Why resort to lies? Anyone, The above links to a work published by a professor of economics. I try to read the works done by that professor of economics because that professor almost always sticks to the relevant facts when working on, and reporting about, current political economy. In this case the professor claims one thing but fails to deliver on the claim. The importance of this link, to me, is to help the reader understand three things. 1. The economic battle is fixed as one side fighting against the other side, it is an exclusive battle, like republicans against democrats, no one else is allowed to fight that battle, and you could ask why? 2. One side is capitalistic or conservative or of "Austrian Economics" dogma and the other side is socialistic or progressive or "Keynesian Economics" dogma. 3. Where one side agrees with the other side those agreements confess the true motives and where one side disagrees with the other side those disagreements confess willful deceptions. The capitalistic, conservative, Austrian Economics professor claims: Why Interest Rates Will Rise Someone wanting to know why interest rates will rise might read the work that claims to answer why interest rates will rise. Someone may be disappointed. Please note a fact that I am going to communicate to you. I spent many months, perhaps nearly a year, writing on the official Austrian Economics Forum Web Page. I asked questions, in search if answers, on that forum, and the end result was character assassination, and then banishment, no answers, dodging the questions, and resorting to lies, virtual coercion, and then exclusion or banishment from the forum - for the crime of doing exactly what they ask people to do: politely participate. The supposed authorities on economics, these Austrians, these conservatives, these capitalists, will not answer the questions that concern interest rates because those answers confess the true motives behind those people. The true motives behind those people can be summed up with a claim made by one of their "founding fathers" a person named Karl Menger.
Over time, a long time, and after much work on my part, even working in my sleep, I figured out, despite an absolute lack of help from "Austrian" economists, their dogma. I figured out their dogma. I call their dogma: Scarceonomics, derived from Scarce - Economics. In short their dogma is derived from a pricing scheme whereby a person can work toward the goal of gaining at the expense of others by way of gaining exclusive control of scarce things and then selling those scarce things at the highest price buyers are willing to pay. It is a "something for nothing" scheme, and the idea is to gain at the expense of others, or: to profit - at the expense of others. The more scarce a thing is, the higher the "profit" that can flow from buyers to capitalists. In essence, therefore, capitalism is a pricing scheme, and that is about it. Capitalism can be confused with politics, but doing so causes confusion. In a state of abundance, there can be no capitalism, and therefore, as can be proven by example, capitalists work toward the necessary state of scarcity, failing to do so will result in the complete elimination of capitalism. Please know this, or if you know that this is not true, please consider exposing the truth. Capitalists have nothing to do in a state of abundance, there is nothing for them to do, when there is abundance. They say as much. I can find the relevant quotes again, so if you think you can prove me wrong, do your homework first, I did mine. Capitalists work toward the goal of making things scarce, failing to do so removes the entire relevance of capitalism. A state of abundance removes capitalist dogma from the human condition; capitalism = scarcity. That fact leads the knowledgeable (someone knowing that fact) toward the understanding of the function of money interest. Now, reader, you can know why the "Austrian" economics professor will fail to answer the question: Why Interest Rates Will Rise The only reason why interest rates will rise is the reason why any price will rise - it is scarce and the seller jacks up the price because it is scarce. Someone needs something and the something needed is scarce, and the something needed is priced high, because the need is great, and the needy person will pay the price, as the price is jacked up, jacked up, and jacked up, until the price is jacked up too high, so high, as to be higher than anyone can afford to pay. The capitalist pricing scheme, according to capitalist dogma, then lowers the price down to an affordable price, something that the buyers can pay, failing to find that highest possible price, again according to capitalist dogma, is a failure to profit from scarcity by that exact failure, measurable in dollars or measurable in whatever the unit of currency is in that place at that time. What will "the market" bear? The capitalist must ask the targeted "market". When the thing being priced is money, the price is called "interest", and if you are confused by that, you may know, by now, that the goal is to make you confused. If you are confused you will remain a targeted market, ripe for exploitation, you won't be in a position to look for and find alternatives, you will be power-less by that exact measure of confusion; however you can measure it, such as here and now, if you are confused. If you are confused, you are less able to defend yourself. You are excluded from the group of people who gain power by way of interest. Many people pay interest, few people collect interest, which is interesting, to say the least. Remember:
Everyone cannot profit from interest rates on money. That won't work, like any other pyramid scheme, the few gain at the expense of the many. If money is not scarce: capitalism doesn't work, and that is why "Austrian" economists disparage the work of Keynes, because Keynes competes with capitalists, for the same market share, and Keynsians love to make money abundant. Keynesian economics professors, don't get me wrong, are as wrong as capitalists, on the subject of money. Austrians and Keynesians are much like republicans and democrats in the work of perpetuating the business cycle. When it is time to boom, bring in Side A, when it is time to bust, bring in Side B, round and round we go, when it stops, no, it does not stop, and that is the point: perpetuate legal crime. Hell, the victims, the target market, doesn't even have the term in their vocabulary. Ha! Check mate. Each side fights each other for the same thing, which is the exclusive control, the power, over legal money. Each side demands the same thing:
Each side insists upon exclusive control over the supply of money, and each side knows, even if they won't admit it, that the loss of control over the supply of money is the complete loss of their power over their target market. No exclusive control - no (exclusive) power to raise (or lower) the interest rate. Who, you may ask, is their target market? Who do they want to exclude from their club? Capitalists want to exclude Keynesians, visa versa, and both want to exclude the bottom parts of the pyramid scheme. To answer the question (why interest rates will rise): you have to trust me some, but trust yourself even more, and begin to use your own brain and think about what I am now going to offer to you. Who has the power to make more money by simply typing more zeros into their digital bank account? Now look at this: National Debt Clock That is a running account of one exclusive money. That is the real time dollar accounting ledger. The dollar is one, and only one, money. Who has the power to make more dollars by simply typing more digits into the digital dollar bank account? What would someone do, or what would a group of people do, to gain that power? If you could gain that power, you could gain enough power to boom the Chinese economy, boom billions of people, or you could bust the American economy, you could have enough power, you and your group could have enough power, to bust the economies of hundreds of millions of Americans. You could start wars by financing both sides of a new future conflict, if you can gain the power to add, or subtract, dollars from the legal dollar bank account. Would you be willing to lie, cheat, and steal, to gain that power? How about torture and mass murder? How about legal torture and legal mass murder? How about the extinction of the species for all future generations after you are long gone - talk about "exclusion" of all else? Do you think that someone else might be willing to lie, cheat, and steal, to gain that much power, if not you? What happens if the law is written so as to allow competition instead of monopoly as potential producers compete to gain the market share of money consumers, the target market, of legal money? How many people can legally make dollars (or legally unmake dollars)? The answer is one. There is only one license. Only one. If there were two, then there would be competition. If there were two, then the force of competition would force the dollar quality higher, and the force of competition would force the price lower. Are you confused? Why would you be confused? Use your imagination. I can help. You already know that there are at least two forms of legal money, and therefore my next offering isn't a wild Utopian fantasy, so I offer, for you, a simple example that intends to illustrate a point - to make that which is confusing: less confusing. A new law is rammed through congress, or signed into law by executive order, and this new law won't be done by the current congress or the current president, and that is why this simple law is so powerful in the work of creating understanding - out of confusion. The new law creates a legal money competition, so as to force competitors to increase the quality of money (each unit is more powerful), and by way of competition the law intends to allow the force of competition to force the price of money lower. The new law adds only one more competitor to the one money supplier, on purpose, so as to avoid further confusion - for now. The one money supply is the one that has the legal license to add or subtract dollar units - at will. That is the dollar supplier. The new law makes it a law to add one more license, one more franchise - to make two instead of one, to make competition lawful, and to make competition no longer against the law. The new law adds one more money supplier to that one monopoly supplier. The new law adds the Chinese Yuan (for example here) to the monopoly money supply business in America, and the reasoning, according to the proponents of this new law, the President, Congressmen, Senators, Austrian Economists, Keynesian Economists, News Reporters, and average Joe workers, and average Jane workers, business men, business women, is to force the suppliers of money to increase quality and lower cost - please. To force higher quality politely, no coercion, no fraud, no pointed sticks, nothing more than good ole' American competition, the desire to be the best. To force lower prices politely, no coercion, no fraud, no pointed sticks, nothing more than good ole' American competition, the desire to be the best. Side A against Side B. Dollar versus Yuan. The winner get's the gold ring. Does that illustration cause your brain to explode? Why, when the thinking here is elementary, simple, easier than simple math? You now have a choice, by law, to be paid, for all debts public or private, with either a dollar wage, or a yuan wage, and if today the dollar is higher quality and the dollar is lower cost, then today you want to be paid with dollars, if tomorrow the yuan is stronger and less expensive, you choose the yuan. The dollar supplier can no longer add to the dollar supply, at will, without consequence, because the dollar consumers won't choose dollars if the dollar is less powerful, and too expensive, so long as the competitor competes, so long as something better is on the same shelf for the consumers to choose - voluntarily. If, on the other hand, the dollar supplier and the yuan supplier both form a cabal, joined at the hip, to add and subtract dollars and yuan in concert, to balance their efforts to maintain control over their "turf", and avoid having their "customers" vote with their feet, move to the better place, then an effective monopoly replaces the effective competition. Too bad for the consumers. 1. Monopoly (price can be jacked up while quality can be non-existent) 2. Competition (price must be lower than the competition and quality must be higher than the competition) The reason why my illustrated law, simpler than simple math, elementary understanding of basic human character required, works to uncover the truth, is due to the fact that China (yuan) is on one side of the planet and America (dollar) is on the other side - there is room for thought between the great distance. There is no logical reason for people on one side of the planet to prefer money made on the other side of the planet, so the people on both sides would begin to think, begin to work toward understanding the new law, why the new law was proposed, and why the new law was jammed down the throats of congress, or why the new law was signed into law by the executive in charge of all enforced law in the American Nation State: U.S.A. Inc. (LLC). While employers begin to contemplate paying employees with yuan or dollars, paying suppliers with yuan or dollars, and while suppliers and employees begin contemplating demanding payment with dollars or yuan, sellers and buyers consider which competitor will be their money of choice, today, tomorrow, and next week, gears in brains will turn. Dictators, and monopolists, can't exist when gears turn in the brains of their target markets, the exploited natives become restless. People will begin to ask, and people will begin to answer questions. 1. Which money is better? 2. Which money do I want today? 3. Which money is more powerful? 4. Which money is less expensive to me? If I choose this money, today, will I avoid the transfer of the power I earn to someone else, today, can I avoid having my power drained by the simple act of choosing the better money? Choice A: Money that will cost me too much (transfers my power to someone else, and someone who may torture and mass murder with the power taken from me) Choice B: Less of a portion of my money choice flowing from me. Can I avoid working for nothing, can I work for something instead? Can I avoid having all the value of my work flowing to people who use the value of my work in the work of keeping that flow going, and going faster, until such time as I am working for the privilege of making other people very, very, very powerful, while my suffering increases day by miserable day - if I allow this to continue. What won't be asked is this: 1. Can I get something for nothing by choosing the better money? That choice is excluded from the list of choices, that choice is only a choice when competition is against the law. What won't work is this:
That does not work when competition is not against the law. Interest is interesting. Interest is the stuff of monopoly. Interest is the stuff of scarcity. Interest is the stuff of securing the supply and making damn sure that the supply remains scarce, by any means possible, so as to gain the power by which the price can be jacked up to the upper limit, and gain the power by which the quality can be maintained at the bare minimum, because there is no effective competition, by design, and because, therefore, there is no force forcing quality up, and there is no force forcing price down to cost. The only ones who want higher interest rates are the ones who want their power to make power for doing absolutely nothing. If, for example, my purpose for money is to have something I can own and to have the thing I own work for me, this thing I own works for me, I don't have to work, once I own this thing, this thing attracts more of itself to itself, like a magnet, then this thing I have grows bigger over time, as if it were reproducing itself, it sits there, and while sitting there it grows bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and the rate at which it grows bigger accelerates as it grows bigger, and when it becomes really really big it gets bigger and bigger faster, like cancer, or like atomic fission reaching critical mass. Isn't that interesting? Look here: Some Homework for you. I've done my homework, and that is why I was forced out of the "Austrian" economics forum, and that is why, when I paid to attend one of their "conferences" they dodged the questions they asked me to ask. While at that conference I listened to Ron Paul, and he mentioned me, on record. Ron Paul does not want The FED, for sure, I truly believe that truth, but what he wants, as far as I can tell, is exclusive control over legal money, in the hands of one supplier - despite what his words may suggest. If I am wrong, and if Ron Paul does get what he says he wants, then the force of competition will increase and it will force the money we can use, all of us, toward higher quality, at lower cost - to us. If that happens then money won't make money, all by itself, growing bigger and bigger for doing nothing but existing. That can only happen when there is an effective monopoly and then an enforced scarcity of that thing. That can't happen in a state of abundance. When there is competition there is a polite, or not as polite as one might want, but a non-deceptive, and non-violent, force that forces quality up, and price (cost) down. When the competition is money, the price goes down to cost (non-profit), or as close to cost as the winner competitor can get, and the cost can get to zero. The cost get become negative. The only way that can happen is when money is used to produce more wealth, higher standards of living, more power produced for less power spent, and only when power isn't wasted, burned up, consumed, and especially consumed by massive money pits such as aggressive wars for profit, where those who profit are the very, very, very elite few, and those who pay are those who pay even if they don't know they are paying, and paying, and paying, and paying - for the privilege to suffer more and more.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Mar 28th, 2011 01:01 pm |
|
36th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Kettle called Black Anyone, Each step of the way out of falsehood is a right step, a true step, and as any scientist will warn, the person stepping must be aware of the possibility of error. The link above links each individual person clicking on the link to an interview between two relatively famous people involved in political economy. The individuals who listen to those people may want to know the truth, and then again the individuals who listen to those people may want to know their lines in the script. A. Keeping in mind that there is a possibility of error; is this the truth? B. My empty brain is ready for more falsehood, give it to me, please. Which type of person are you? C. Blank I don't know, this is a one-way show here, since discussion is against protocol. The script say so, read your lines, you have no part here, you have no speaking lines in this sphere called Political/Economy. I will speak for those in Group A, and possibly those in group C (whatever that may be), and I will walk you through the link above, and offer evidence that raises the awareness of possible error. Listen to the link and stop at the point where Gerald Celente speaks of The Constitution. I have news for him. The Constitution had American people speaking out against it, before it was forced into being The Law of the Land. Do you understand the significance of that measure of doubt concerning any move, any right step, from this moment, to the next moment in time? Those American people who were against the constitution had many warnings and one very damning one in particular. 1. Those who get to interpret the constitution get to say that the constitution says anything they want it to say at any given moment and therefore the constitution is no better, a potentially much worse, than an open, in your face, dictatorship. I am not speaking about new things, this is forgotten stuff, this is stuff hidden in plain sight, this is the stuff of a thing once called liberty, which is the stuff of what was once a goal, a goal that individuals seek, where the individual seizes his, or her, own power to write his, or her, own script, and where the individual rejects the idea that he, or she, is powerless to do so, and rejects the idea that we, you, me, and anyone else, must say nothing until we are handed our part in the script. Number 2 on the list of things spoken about, in opposition to the constitution was the end of trial by jury. That end, the end of trial by jury, ends each individuals power of veto. In the past, when dictators were openly known as dictators, criminals without badges, criminals without a license, thugs, highway men, robbers, rapists, killers, open killers, torturers, mass murderers, operators of dungeons, where employees seek confessions, at any cost to the confessors, in the open, in your face, and who cares if you spoke the truth, who cares if you call the spade a spade, everyone knew, who could not know, that the dictator was one - then? Back then a thing was invented, and that thing was trial by jury, and that thing created a check upon dictatorship, and the dictator of that day knew that it was check mate, his game, King John the dictator of that time, knew his game was over. Game over - trial by jury - each individual gains the power of veto. The people not reading from the script exercised their power of veto, choosing not to read from the script, and their words warned the rest of us about the constitution, how the constitution can be judged to mean anything the judge wants it to mean, and how that fact wasn't even the worst of it, how the fact that trial by jury ends, adds to the warning about the constitution, and how life will be much worse after the constitution is forced into being, much worse for liberty, much better for dictators. Dictatorship = the constitution, be warned, then, not now? So, today, why would someone suggest, what is the point of suggesting, that there is a false step, as the step is made away from the constitution? Why say that it is wrong to step away from the constitution? The facts clearly show that the constitution was, in fact, a step away from liberty, and a step toward despotism, as told by those speaking that warning when that warning was spoken, and now forgotten. Dictators may include a few, in that group, who are benevolent, nice, polite, and unwilling to torture and mass murder innocent people, babies, teenagers, old people, whole families, etc. so as to remain a powerful dictator. The test, of course, occurs when the dictator is faced with a future step, that the dictator must take, where evidence suggests that one step will weaken his, or her, power to keep power, and the other step avoids that weakening. A. Risk dictatorial power loss. B. Not A Here is some news for you: Dictators don't get to be dictators by taking steps away from dictatorship. Criminals don't get to be criminals by taking steps away from crime. That is not a coincidence. Liars lie. Thieves steal. Torturers torture. Those who hire torturers torture. Victims read from the script. Please, sir, can I have some more, torture? Please, can you pile some more innocent bodies on the mass murdered pile, if not today, soon? That is what I hear when I hear someone claim that "Suddenly" things went wrong when this person, or that person, stepped away from the constitution. Why would someone say that moving away from the constitution is a bad thing? If someone does something bad, someone does something bad, what is it that was bad? Torture for profit? Mass Murder for profit? Failing to provide the interpretation of the constitution required to justify torture and mass murder for profit this time? Really, which script is being read, and who wrote it? Why? Why did they write that script? When people choose the steps that walk away from dictatorship, people create surplus wealth, and they prefer to do so, because failing to do so, is more miserable, and less enjoyable. Having nothing is miserable, having less is even more miserable. Having nothing but miserable work, just to make someone else more powerful, is enjoyable? Having something enjoyable is worth stepping toward, once known as the pursuit of happiness. Surplus wealth is made by people who are not on the dictator path, and this could be as well understood as the fact that the constitution was a wrong step, for people who are not on the dictator path. The dictators path is the path that takes from those who make wealth. Obey There is no "or else" (even that is a lie). For those on the dictator path, I think you should, at least, be aware of your part in that script. There is always a bigger dictator, and the biggest one will have the most people reading from their script. and the script says obey, and the end result is the flow of power from those who create it to the bigger dictators, and to the biggest dictator. Where is all the surplus wealth going, one might ask, so as to know which dictator, or dictatorship, will be the biggest one, sooner or later? Steps will be taken, by those who are following the script, so as to move surplus wealth, power, to the most powerful dictator, or dictatorship. You can take that to the bank. Follow the money, where is it going? I'm going back to the link, they may offer clues on the money trail. Even if you refuse to know, your life may depend upon knowing the truth, instead of believing in lies. I listened to the rest of that news story, and I have more news for you. Back in the last century, 1990s, the same decade I ran for congress, I attended a "Conference" conducted by Lew Rockwell and the boys, the Austrian Economists (political) boys, and I tried to get answers about China from them, back then, and note, please note, that the message from that news story, that interview, didn't even mention China. The money may very well be flowing to China, booming China, and busting America, on purpose. If so, who, or what group, will be the biggest dictatorship then? A few things: 1. The legal criminals claim that "we" are broke, pay up, we are broke, pay up, we are broke, pay more taxes, we are broke, work harder, we are broke, and it goes on and on like a broken record. Do you think that that message is true? The ones who write that script are not broke, they have your power, and they stole it. If you have the smallest of a shadow of doubt, about the accuracy of that message about how "we" are broke, then look into CAFR. You can do it. I don't have to give you the script. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Look it up, or not. 2. The people running The Federal Reserve System (of legal crime) doubled the number of dollars in 2008, and it is a secret (they know, you don't) as to where all that money went. That is a lot of power, your power, if you read from the script. 3. The people spending that money cause all the prices of things sold for dollars to double, roughly, so the people spending that money get everything for half price. If you don't understand that much, go ahead and blame me, for my lack of ability to clue you in. If they double the money supply today, and buy one thing today, they own that one thing today, tomorrow they can sell it, at what price? A. The total number of dollars yesterday was x B. The total number of dollars today is 2x (twice what it was yesterday) C. The people who spend the new money (1x) buy one thing at today's price. D. The people who have that one thing want to sell that one thing tomorrow. What is the price tomorrow? The answer is: Roughly double. Do you have this yet? A. The total number of dollars is x yesterday. B. The total number of dollars is 2x today. C. The people spending 1x buy one thing for the price 1x D. The people now owning one thing priced 1x sell it tomorrow. E. The people selling the one thing get 2x for selling the thing they bought for 1x How much money is there today? 2x - because the people at The Federal Reserve System (of legal crime) doubled the money supply of dollars in 2008. What will they buy with that purchasing power? Will they buys something? Do you understand that they will cause the power of the dollar to drop in half, which means, that prices will double - unless - and this is a long shot, unless that money is used to buy things that make more surplus wealth. Confused? 4. That money will be spent on something, or that money will not be spent on something, on purpose, for profit, their profit, at your expense, and the fact that you don't know what is or isn't purchased, is the important fact. 5. What if? What if that money, double the supply of dollars, was spent on two things? A. No interest loans to people with good credit (interest is charged to those without good credit because those with bad credit cause higher costs and therefore those with bad credit pay for their own mistakes and learn or don't learn at their own expense) for a home mortgage and/or business mortgage ANYWHERE ON EARTH = no one is excluded = universal law = no enforced end of competition = no abuse of law to enforce monopoly power. You can now buy a home and business property for roughly half price (because you don't have to pay the "interest" which is roughly double the price of the home or business property) B. One percent interest loans for Solar Panels, Electric Cars, and Modular Green House Vertical Farming units, and anything that qualifies as a power producing investment that will increase surplus wealth as a known fact, proven, at the time the loan is made. You buy things with a loan, things that make the power you need to pay back the loan, plus a small interest charge to cover the costs expended in processing the loans. You can now borrow the power needed to pay back the loan, plus a small charge for each individual and a very large amount of power from many individuals flowing back to the people who produce and sell the loans. You now have a new script, what will you do with it? The old script leads to torture and mass murder on a more massive scale, which is hard to imagine considering the examples of WWI, WWII, etc., and the old script may even lead to the extinction of the human species, and you throw the new script in the round file? Real News? One more avenue, loose end, something to tie up neatly - in a bow tie: The Constitution may be a step back from worse dictatorship to less bad dictatorship, arguably, and to that I offer an overall viewpoint, from which to write your own script. The Constitution was sold as one thing, by frauds, so as to get what they got, and so it is a good idea, perhaps, to look at the thing they were advertising - not the thing they got. They were advertising one thing. They sold something else. The people who bought it, the constitution, thought they were getting the thing advertised. They bought something else. Is it a good idea to look at the thing advertised, so long as the thing advertised in not confused with the thing sold, bought, and consumed by the target market? If so, then listen up. The thing advertised was a pyramid scheme with a back door. The thing sold was a pyramid scheme without a back door. A City in America, according to the advertisement, could be a dictatorship in competition with another dictatorship down the road in another City, in America. People who didn't like the dictatorship in one city in America could walk, vote with their feet, to the better city. Dictators had to be better than the competition down the road. Dictators had to offer a higher quality dictatorship - at a lower cost to the consumer (or target markets, or victims), failing to provide the higher quality dictatorship, at the lower price, resulted in a very poor situation for the failing dictatorship as all the victims went somewhere else - too bad for the bad dictator. How does that sound, as an advertisement campaign? An American County was run the same way. An American State was run the same way, competitive, in competition with the next State North, the next State South, East, or West. Anyone, (except designated non-tax paying slaves), could pack up and go to the better dictatorship, slaving to pay less taxes, for more return on that involuntary tax investment. How does that sound for an advertisement campaign? Taxes are too high in Massachusetts, and those crooks running that dictatorship have used the tax money to invade Canada on aggressive wars for profit, and they lost that war, so, naturally, I am moving to Pennsylvania, where taxes are less, and I get more. How is that for an advertisement campaign? That is what they were selling. Free market dictatorships, competing to gain the most market share, by offering the highest quality dictatorship, at the lowest cost to the designated tax payers. Non-tax paying slaves were not sold the freedom to choose the better dictator over the worse one, unless a non-tax paying slave "won the lottery" and was then able to buy the right to choose to move up from non-tax paying slave, without the power to relocate at will, to tax paying slave, having the power to relocate at will. A. Pay taxes or move somewhere else B. Don't pay "taxes", but have all the power of wealth you create through work taken, and since you are power-less, you can't relocate to a better place, you are property, someone's property, or some corporations property, according to the sales pitch, which isn't for you anyway, you are "disenfranchised". The fine print was written into the thing sold, the constitution, you have to read it to understand. A. Tax-payers are free to leave. B. Non tax payers (people who actually create wealth) are property - not free to leave. That was then, the hard sell, and the advertisement. The "Republic" was supposed to be a force for good, a power used in defense against invaders, invaders who may want to conduct aggressive wars for profit, enslave us locals, beware, bad guys are targeting one of "our" States, bad guys are seeking us as their next target market, we are ripe for their exploitation, and therefore the "Republic" was offered as a deterrent, as a fix, and as voluntary as each City, as liberated as each County, and as good as each State within the Voluntary Union of Separate and Sovereign States, Counties, and Cities. If you don't like things in one state, vote with your feet, and the dictators in each state compete to gain the most market share by offering the highest quality dictatorship, at the lowest cost to the consumer of dictatorships. That is what was advertised; based upon the Swiss model republic, or a hybrid, a new voluntary union where each mini-dictatorship can join or leave the union at will, if the leaders of the republic go too far toward absolute dictatorship, a state could vote with their feet - by voluntary law. See you later - alligator. I'm not playing that game, not on my dime. Each state had a veto. That was what was advertised, that was not what was sold. Again, this isn't news, this is old news, and not everyone read from the script, then, not everyone believed in the false advertisement campaign, not everyone swallowed the whole lie whole, and not everyone kept silent during that move from voluntary liberty toward absolute dictatorship, and some people, even back then, fingered the real criminals as the criminals who stole the power over money, and thereby control over the supply of surplus wealth. Check mate against absolute despotism was, and can again be, trial by jury, or any power of veto held by everyone, including the people who actually create surplus wealth, note here, that a criminal does have the power of veto, they don't read from the script. A. Trial by Jury gives license to everyone so as to empower everyone with the power to stop the enforcement of any law in each case tried. One juror can nullify each case tried, in each case tried. B. Criminals nullify every law they don't follow, they already have the power of veto. C. Legal criminals enforce crime, by making and enforcing laws that move power from those who earn it to those who the criminals choose to get the power stolen - themselves or their employees. This is really that simple. A law that does not apply to everyone is a crime. It is that simple. A law that takes power from someone, a targeted special group, and exempts everyone else, is crime, no different than any other crime. A victim is targeted, the victim is injured, the power flows from the victim to the criminal, and that is as simple as it gets. You are confused by my writing? A criminal nullifies each law they don't obey themselves, while the same law is followed by all the people who follow that same law. That is a power transfer. Law is either universal, applies to everyone, or it is crime, applies to some, at the expense of everyone else. If you have been reading from the script you are up-side-down. Criminals don't obey laws, laws do not apply to them. Who does that leave? The script is for the people who believe in such things as morality and, perhaps, moral law. Obey that law, while I don't. See? Check mate against liberty is, and always will be, an enforced belief that crime is law, once the victims believe it, it is check mate.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 31st, 2011 06:05 pm |
|
37th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Muammar Anyone, It may be a good idea to know who is supporting who, and for what. Our oil contracts are going to Russian, Chinese and Indian firms." In other words: BRICS member countries. It is not as if each day is brand new, having no connection to the past whatsoever, unless the new day dawns on those who believe the official truth - today. What, dear master, is true today - I've obeyed - I forgot the official truth yesterday. Please fill my empty head.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 1st, 2011 04:58 pm |
|
38th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Consistently for liberty Real News, Thanks for the latest news items that report information concerning many of the placers on earth where the legal criminals running U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) are backing the slaughter of innocent protesters, while those same legal criminals claim to be saving innocent protesters from slaughter, and torture, and serial killing mass murder. Please note, if you have not noted already, that at least one Democrat, in national office, for whatever that is worth, uses his power to check the abuse of power, even when a "fellow democrat" is perpetrating such abuse. Some republican's sometimes forget that they agree with some democrats on some things. False claims of saving innocent people while torturing and mass murdering innocent people is getting very close to as evil as a human being can be, perhaps short of claiming to be saving the human species while causing the extinction of the human species.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Apr 3rd, 2011 02:58 pm |
|
39th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Why do we continually look to corrupt entities to provide us things we don't need? HCKaos, I can offer: The first thing that must be done by someone, or some group, to over-power their target victims is deception. Knowing that, from my viewpoint, your sentence can be taken apart and inspected for clues that may (or may not) uncover deception precisely. You choose the word "we". Why do you choose the word "we"? Why do ____________ continually look to corrupt entities to provide __________ things ____________ don't need? Why do you choose the word "us" and the word "we" when you are asking that question above? I ran for congress, I've been working on these questions for decades, and I can offer to you a measure of accurate discrimination. Who is "we"? Do you understand the vital necessity of knowing, and accurately knowing, the difference between us and them, or, in other words friends for foes, or in other words criminals and potential victims? I have spent a whole lot of time and energy (power) on these questions and I can offer, also, that it is better to call a spade a spade, rather than to choose to mince words, and rather than to choose to use euphemisms, or half truths, or choose to use less-than-precise word choices, when the goal is to accurately discriminate between criminals and the potential victims of those criminals - legal or otherwise. I don't think that "we" (if I among that set of people) continually look to corrupt anything, other than looking to expose corrupt anything. The British aren't coming, they are here - so to speak. After decades of working on gaining the power of accurate discrimination between those who are criminals and those who are potential victims I have something to offer to you. In between criminals and their victims are many relatively greater criminals and relatively greater victims, along a bell curve, if you employ illustrations of reality so as to better understand reality; a bell curve illustrates reality. On the far end of criminal behavior, documented criminal behavior, actual criminal behavior, provable (beyond a shadow of doubt) criminal behavior, is the worst one. That worst one may have many rivals, fellow criminals perpetrating as much, or more, misery upon more, and more, and more innocent victims, and even victims not so innocent. There you have a fly in the ointment. I see a need to summarize at this point, so as to accurately identify that speed bump, that fly in the ointment. A. An innocent potential victim (more or less innocent) decides to use the power he, or she, has in the work of accurately discriminating between the worst bad guys, and gals, and the not as bad ones. B. The illustration of a bell curve becomes apparent, as the goal materializes into view, where the worst of the worst are on one end of the bell curve, recording deeds of massive torture and massive murder, and those are few people in number as the measure of their evil measures up by them, as they perpetrate more and more crime. That is the summary. The fly in the ointment involves the accurate measure of something called innocence. That speed bump, that fly in the ointment, must be confused, it must be a power that is weakened, because that power, once it is weakened, measures something worth knowing. One might ask: Why is the power of innocence weakened? Who weakens it? Why does anyone, ever, choose to weaken the power of innocence? Do you fully comprehend, and understand, know, and value the power of innocence? If not, then, you are adding to the measure of weakness. Innocence is that which is when crime isn't. Therefore; the measure of a lack of innocence is the measure of crime, like the measure of the lack of heat is the measure of cold, and the measure of the lack of light is the measure of darkness, and the measure of the lack of knowledge is the measure of ignorance, and the measure of lack of truth is the measure of falsehood, and the measure of the lack of peace is the measure of violence, and even, the measure of lack of ectropy is the measure of entropy, or the measure of lack of trust is the measure of disbelief (or uncertainty), and the lack of the measure of faith is the measure of belief (or certainty). So the speed bump, and the fly in the ointment, when illustrating the bell curve, the same bell curve that intends to help the viewer reach the goal of accurate discrimination between criminal and potential victim, is the measure of innocence. It is easy to place the worst of the worst criminals on the top ten list, and then find the worst of the worst from that top ten list, and do so based upon the number of horrid screams voiced by the number of dead and dying victims. What, though, with the speed bump in mind, happens when the number of victims are themselves criminals? Now the person who set out to reach the goal of knowing who is on their side and who is not on their side is befuddled, confused, and thrown off track, wandering, aimless, and power-less. It may help to know that doing the wrong thing can be better than not doing the right thing. A more innocent person may be someone who uses power with the honest intention of preventing injury to innocent people, preserving innocence, but failing to do so, compared to the person failing to even try. Example: Two people in separate places from each other encounter a crime in progress. Both person A and B see, right in front of them, an attack by one person upon another person, in progress. Person A does something to intervene, but ends up increasing injury, for failing to employ power effectively. Person B does absolutely nothing, ignoring the crime in progress, making a conscious decision to avoid any involvement whatsoever. That is the basic principle, and there are historical examples, not limited to the shining example, the one historical example reported over and over again, whereby the people of Germany, the average German citizen, allowed the Nazi criminals (legal criminals) to torture and mass murder with their aggressive wars for profit, and worse crimes imaginable. So, although it may appear easy at first, to reach for the goal of more accurately knowing the difference between the bad guys and the good guys, so as to move closer, in support of, the good guys, and move further away from, and oppose, the bad guys, it isn't easy because the bad guys make it difficult. The bad guys have a secret weapon. The secret weapon is deception. The good guys had better understand that, sooner, rather than too late, or all hell will break loose, again, and again, and again, like a merry go round, like a business cycle, like a boom and bust cycle, and like a chaotic self-defeating effort to use the same solution, that never works, to fix the same problem, over and over again, always resulting in the same sorry situation, every time, and thinking, this time, the same tired old solution, will work this time. Being caught into that mess, believing there are no other choices, renders the power to get out of it, power-less. That mess is not random, that mess is not inevitable, and as innocent as someone may want to believe they are, them-selves, their innocence must be measured accurately, by some means, failing to do so, for example, condemns them, confesses their guilt, by that exact measure. Look in the mirror, or in the words of an authority figure, he who is without guilt, cast the first stone. That, all that giant wall of text above, intends to quantify the reason why the bell curve measures up as a bell curve. On the far side toward absolute crime, the worst of the worst, is one person, or two people, and those two people may be actively targeting each other, and on the far opposite side is something, as yet to be known precisely, due to confusions that are caused, on purpose, by those two worst people on the far bad side, and in the middle are all the mixtures of all the half guilty and half innocent criminals who are also potential victims. Do you have that in view? Now look at how a pyramid works. A pyramid is man-made. On the bottom are the many. On the top is one. In order to get from the bottom to the top an individual must exploit, kill or be killed, all those who are around him, or her, because ascension upward within this type of system, a criminal system, requires the abuse of power, power employed in the work of gaining at the expense of less powerful victims. The pyramid type of social structure can be used by the interested observer to know how crime works. Criminals form alliances, but only so as to momentarily gain enough power over the targeted victims, and within those alliances each criminal will exploit each other criminal, to the extent of the power they command, at any given moment. The end result is well illustrated with a pyramid. The worst of the worst are on top, power from every other person flows to the top, and the least powerful, fellow criminals or absolutely only innocent victims, are the greatest number at the bottom. The largest number on the bottom, the fewest number on the top, which is crime, as illustrated by a pyramid. Crime is = kill or be killed. That pyramid is a function of economy. Power can't be stolen if there isn't any power. Everyone can't spend every moment in each day stealing power from everyone else, there would be no one spending one second in the work of producing power, as everyone would be using up all the power in the work of deception and violence. If you think this is wrong, look at any criminal enterprise, and know the tools that hare used, one tool is falsehood, the other is violence. The most effective crime is the crime that inspires the targeted victims, to work to death, voluntarily, in the work of sending every ounce of power to the criminals, and how those criminals divide those spoils, those profits, can be imagined, or even recorded accurately on ledgers. Lies and violence, and the most effective lie, avoids any wasted expense of violence, or covers-up the worst of the worst who think that violence is wealth. Now, and this effort may be more than that which is in demand, the viewer can superimpose the illustrated criminal pyramid measure over the illustrated bell curve measure, so as to get a better idea as to who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, without error. It can be concluded that among the top 10 percent, at the top of the power pyramid, by any measure, political or economic, or both, that those people, for the most part, got there by way of deceit and/or violence. It can also be concluded that the best of the best are people somewhere in the deep recesses of the pyramid since, and this must be understood, in my opinion, since the only people who can over-power the criminals, are the people who can produce power. The very bottom of the pyramid, those who are unable, or unwilling to kill or be killed, those who are unwilling to use their power, ever, to climb up one more step, at the expense of anyone, may truly be, the far opposite end of the scale, furthest away from absolute crime. That viewpoint would totally refute the bell curve illustration, and that would only explain the pyramid structure, as if only the pyramid structure could exist. Everyone on the bottom is good, everyone on the top is bad, but wait, and again, a person with power is the only person able to oppose crime, and failure to use that power, at all, may be worse, almost as bad as crime, compared to someone who tries but fails to oppose crime. The bell curve may yet be valid, with a closer look at all the many people who make up that bottom level of the pyramid. What do those people do, at that bottom level of the pyramid, how are those people known; what to they do to get on that level, and what do they do while they are on that level? Once those people are accurately measured, for what they do, then it can be known, by what they do, it can be known that a few of them are exceptional at what they do compared to what the rest of them, on that bottom of the pyramid, do. Who is the best of the best, and why are they the best of the best, and note that this is a question, that the worst of the worst can't allow to be asked, let alone answered. Failing to out-law the asking of that question, and therefore the possibility of having that question answered accurately, threatens crime as a means of living (if you can call that way of life to be living)? I am going to end this with the following offering, and then I have to get back to doing other things. If the scale, by which everyone (on the pyramid scale, or on the bell curve scale, or on the scale that superimposes the bell curve scale over the pyramid scale), if the scale by which everyone is measured is a measure of net power produced after net power is consumed then the viewer may yet be able to see the bell curve - better - and the pyramid illustration may yet fade out of view, altogether. If on the worst end of the bell curve a person was measured as the person who consumed the most power and produced the least power, then, look at this please, how would that person be any different than any measure of the worst criminal? If on the opposite end of the bell curve a person was measured as the person who produced the most power and consumed the least power, then, how can you not see, that there would only be one person, and then there would be one person accurately measured less powerful in that way, and then more and more people would be accurately known to consume more and produce less, where the average person, in the middle of the bell curve, produced as much as they consumed. I can't help it if my thinking, and publishing, isn't what you asked for, since I am free to think for myself, and it has not be an easy path to get to this point. I can hope that this helps, and I can discuss the relative value, the relative power, of my viewpoint compared to any other, in time, here, in this place, and I can promise two things: 1. I will not willingly resort to falsehood in this effort. 2. I will comment when I think something is false, to challenge what I think is false, with the idea, the goal, of reaching the power of knowledge, the power of accurate discrimination between that which is true, and that which is not. I can add: Please, if you think what I write is even the least bit accurate, then be more accurate in identifying exactly what isn't accurate, and if possible, avoid ambiguous criticism, of which I've had my fill, and therefore I ask, please be specific about any exposures of error on my part. I can't learn from ambiguity, how could I?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 4th, 2011 01:02 pm |
|
40th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
There's no such thing as a free market. So explain that, 'cause we're all being told that not only are we in a free market, they should be freer Anyone, Before I listen to that Real News Report linked above I am going to take a crack at the statement quoted above. Where there is no crime, is there a free market? You have something. Someone else has something. You trade with that person. Neither one of you lies about what you are trading. Neither one of you uses false information to encourage the trade so as to gain at the expense of the other, and neither one of you threatens the other one and thereby coerces the other to trade. Neither one steals by way of fraud. Neither one steals by way of threat of violence. Neither one steals by way of violence. Both agree, freely, without false belief, without threat of punishment, that no one is injured, on purpose, for profit, not even someone not party to the trade, no one is known to be injured on purpose at all. One doesn't gain, at the expense of the other, against the will, or against the knowledge of either one or anyone. Has that ever happened in human history? Is there a free market? If the Free Market in not the description above, then what is it? Who is claiming that the Free Market is this, or that, and why are they saying that the Free Market is this or that, or is someone claiming that the Free Market is ambiguous, not well defined, misunderstood, and means one thing today, and according to that person, or according to that group, the Free Market means something opposite tomorrow. Constructive interpretation. There is a free market, when there is one. When there is crime, there is crime. Confusing the two opposites may benefit someone, and you may be able to guess who? I will listen. And it wasn't free market that gave rise to a ban on child labor. It took government and a law and people saying in the interests of the society you can't have child labor. A child will have to labor when necessities are scarce, and that is a fact, and that can become a brutal fact. Who want's, or who needs, things to be scarce? What is the motive behind making things scarce? What is done, by people, so as to make things scarce? If you want to know, it may help to learn a few things from history, including some things taught by one capitalist whose name is Karl Menger. Capitalist dogma includes the notion that economic value only exists when something is scarce. That type of thinking drives human effort toward the work of making things scarce, so as to increase profit, and I can explain that in detail. I want to move onto something else in the Real News Report for now:
A double standard is a politically correct euphemism for fraud. If no one is injured by a lie, or the injury is superfluous, instead of severe, then a lie does not qualify, by a physical measure, as a crime. Example 1: Your dress does not make you look fat. Example 2: We are conducting this aggressive war for profit because those guys demolished three buildings in New York. In the first place, I tell my wife, what I think, even if she wants me to tell her lies. In the second place there are millions of people being tortured and mass murdered because the people who have the power to stop such crimes are led to believe the lies that cover up those crimes. One is one thing. The other is another thing. To confuse the two is a double standard type thing. Is it true? No Yes No double standard. Is the truth known? Yes No No double standard. Is there a Free Market? Who is the authority being asked? Do they record a history of telling the truth? Do they record a history, on paper, in video, of telling lies? Why would anyone trust them? Is there a scarcity of the truth? Who benefits from all the work done to make truth, facts, trust in facts, scarce? Is there power in truth? Is the power exclusive? Someone believing a lie is powerless. Which lie is the worst one? How about: "I am here to help you, give me your power, and I will use it to help you." I am telling the truth, you can believe me, no need for a second opinion. We can fix this, just send me more power. If the power collected, by any means, voluntary (non criminal), involuntary (criminal), the means can be ignored for a moment, the collected power can then be used to accomplish something. If the thing accomplished is an increase in power, then there is more power. If the thing accomplished is a decrease in power, then there is less power. Which is better? Some of the capitalist dogma, if not all of it, inspires a cap on power, throttle down the production of power, so as to avoid the capitalist terror storm of too much power. In capitalist dogma, a condition of too much power, makes power worthless. This can be seen clearly in Joe's Law. Power produced into oversupply (reaching for too much power) reduces the price of power (those that have it can jack up the price if it is scarce, and those that want it can get it at a lower price when it is abundant) while purchasing power increases (you get more for less when money is more powerful today than it was yesterday, you buy more with one unit of money today, also called deflation) because power reduces the cost of production. Capitalism is turned up-side-down when dealing with the production of power, and the production of power producing products, and when dealing with the production of power saving power. Example: A more efficient way to get from A to B such as a road Society A has no roads while society B, an exact copy of society A, uses power to make roads. Society A spends a lot of power walking over rough terrain, so society A does not gain power as quickly as society B, measurably, and accurately measurably, even if the politicians who call themselves socialists claim otherwise, and even if the politicians who call themselves capitalists claim otherwise. If power flows from the many to one collection point, by way of voluntary association, or by way of involuntary association, and then that power is used to improve travel, compared to an expense such as a failed aggressive war for profit, then that power used for improved transportation can be known as investment, and the failed aggressive war for profit can be known as malinvestment. One increases power - investment. One decrease power - malinvestment. The investment of roads enabled by the use of an aggressive war for profit (an involuntary association) can be a net malinvestment, because the victims subtract from the net total power measure. Those who suffer, involuntarily, for the benefit of others are called victims, even if the politicians calling themselves socialist say otherwise, and even if the politicians calling themselves capitalist say otherwise, ask the victims. Victims may lie too, but then they are not innocent victims, if the lie injures innocent victims on purpose, a willful lie that is meant to injure an innocent victim, then how is that not crime, even if the victims are clueless? A. Society A voluntarily improves transportation - without any victims suffering a reduction in their power, no exploited class, no profiting class who profit at the expense of the victims - known or unknown. B. Society B invades Society A and succeeds in enslaving society A, forcing them to pay taxes, to improve the roads going into society C. C. Society C is a remote society that will cost a whole lot of power to invade, and will cost a whole lot of power to exploit, before profits are realized, so taxes are raised to lower that cost, by building a road to it, so as to make it cheaper to invade it, to annex it, and then tax the victims in it, and make the use of the tool called war, by any other name it still stinks, and make war more useful to the perpetrators of war, more efficient, more better for them, and more detrimental to the target market of the day - society C. Society C may also have oil. Oil is powerful. Oil is even more powerful if it is produced so as to maintain a scarcity of it, to keep power scarce, and therefore profitable. Even more powerful if it is used to expand and then contract the society being exploited, so as to create, and maintain, a business cycle, where those who cause it, benefit from it, by knowing when to sell (at the top), and when to buy (at the bottom). Too much power, for too long, is bad for profits when profits are gained at the expense of the power less. If power was abundant, almost all the time, relatively speaking, what do you think would happen? Why is that potential happening a secret? Why do these authorities fail to uncover that secret? Is that secret exposed in this Real News Report about capitalism? I am on the edge of my seat. Yeah, I guess. And then once you become an imperial power yourself, you start having imperial ideas about what's good and what's bad. Yeah. At the root, not at the branches, or similarly at the cause, not at the symptoms, an involuntary tax transfers power from those who produce power to those who then become imperial powers. How can that be a surprise to any thinking person commanding a moral conscience? What explains the opposite? Don't ask the perpetrators, they lie, and that is why they are hired.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 09:50 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 |
| Power Independence > Good News > Good News > REAL NEWS | Top |
