| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Currency Red Herring War Anyone (or no one), I command an understanding of money. I do not understand the double speak generated by people such as the people speaking in these REAL NEWS reports on the subject of China. Therefore: A. Quote words spoken. B. Decipher the meaning of the words spoken. C. Propose a possible reason why these people say these things. D. Begin to understand the double speak generated by people such as the people speaking in these REAL NEWS reports on the subject of China Before doing that I am going to restate my own understanding of money as it relates to politics and economy. Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. If any group of people anywhere on the planet decide to organize and agree to produce more and more power, invest the power they have to the job of creating more physical power, such as electricity, for example, then those people will reduce the price of power for themselves. Money is purchasing power. Money is purchasing power or it isn't money. Money can then be created and employed toward the work of making more power, such as electricity for example, and people organized, polarized, and working by this creation of money for this specific purpose can BOOM the electricity production market and do so to such an extent that electricity is so abundant that the price of electricity is at the lowest possible minimum price, a price comparable to the price on clean air. Tide power, solar power, alone, without any other probable methods of generating more electricity suffice to illustrate the point and suffice to do so to defeat the argument that production of more power generators produces more pollution, CO2, etc. Adding Modular Vertical Farming Units producing CO2 eating Algae based fuel reinforces the point and continues to defeat the arguments claiming that increased productivity, and increased industry, necessarily increases pollution, Climate Change (formerly Global Warming), etc. Money creation begins the process - out of thin air. Money is then focused on the work of producing more power, electricity suffices to exemplify power production, and CO2 eating Modular Vertical Farming Units add to the hypothetical exponential increase in power production. Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power. At some point every home, every business, every place an electric generator can be placed is generating more power to a point where power is ubiquitous, and the price is then minimized. Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases. That sentence points the reader to the political or, if you prefer, the psychological aspect of power after that sentence reports on the economic or physical aspect of power. Purchasing power increases. Money gains power. Why? Because power reduces the cost of production. When money is invested the result is more power. When money is squandered, there is less power. Power can be measured as surplus wealth. A silo full of grain. A store of Algae based motor fuel. Steel I beams. A warehouse full of unused Solar Panels. A stock of cattle. A high reservoir of clean water capable of pushing turbine wheels as the water flows down to thirsty living beings powered by clean water. A planet filled with oxygen. The Sun. How much does each person spend in work hours just to pay the electric bill? How much does each person spend in work hours, time and energy, just to pay the transportation fuel bill? How much does each person spend in work hours, time, energy, blood, sweat, and tears, just to pay the interest on the home and business mortgage? The only possible reason for power production to be throttled down, restricted, governed to less than full production is crime. Criminals can't allow their victims to gain power, the powerless victims would cease being victims. Back to the REAL NEWS report looking for a decipherable quote: the fact that we're importing so much from China, and so much of it is so cheap, goods in Wal-Mart and so forth. People cry foul. They say that the currency is undervalued and gives the Chinese an unfair advantage. What does the term undervalued mean - in context? The apparent meaning, in context, is such that blame is projected at the people in China who have control over the Chinese Monopoly Money supply for something bad. The bad thing is ambiguous. The bad thing appears to be things in Wal-Mart; where the price of these things in Wal-Mart are too low. How is that bad? I don't know. It is not said, yet. Assuming for the moment that it is bad, how does that bad thing turn out to be caused by the people who have control over the Chinese Monopoly Money supply? Can it be known that at some point 1 US dollar can be worth 1 Chinese dollar? What happens if that is the case and people in the US are still buying things made in China, and then suddenly, over night, or in a week, or a month, or a year, the US dollar is worth 2 Chinese dollars? Will people buy more or less things from China at Wal-Mart? What happens if the opposite occurs and 2 US dollars are worth 1 Chinese dollar; will people in the US still buy things in Wal-Mart made in China? How about the scenario whereby the change in exchange rates occurs instantly, and in this case the US dollar suddenly is worth 2, not 1, Chinese dollar. What happens? I cannot, for the life of me, connect the dots between the currency exchange rate and the price of things made in China on the shelves in stores in the US; unless I follow the paper trail from the source of the paper. In order for 1 Chinese dollar to suddenly change from being worth 1 US dollar to a new exchange rate of 2 Chinese dollars now being worth 1 US dollar, what changes? Did The FED suddenly remove half of the dollars in circulation? Did the people in control of the Chinese dollar suddenly double the number of Chinese dollars in circulation? Either of those two actions could result in that change in that exchange rate - but it cannot happen over night, not suddenly. I think I need to know more about the process by which the people who control the Chinese dollar manage the action called pegging. How is it accomplished? How does the Chinese dollar become pegged to the dollar? All these question occur to me only because these people in that REAL NEWS report are speaking the words that they speak. To me the words they speak are words that are meant to confuse people. The reasons for low prices at Wal-Mart in U.S.A. Inc. LLC, on products made in China, include the most obvious reason, whereby the people who make those products are paid almost nothing in a place where the cost of living is almost nothing. The reasons for low prices at Wal-Mart in U.S.A. Inc. LLC, on products made in China, include another very obvious reason, whereby the people who set company policy in the companies producing those products set a policy whereby they do not expend costs that must be spent in avoidance of causing injury to the people in China - they pollute on purpose, for profit. The cost of living for the Chinese people will go up as a result of that pollution, as more and more people suffer injuries associated with such damaging pollution as is the case in China - as far as I know so far. Suppose there is a warehouse full of Chinese things ready for sale to a buyer for Wal-Mart in the US, and it is today, and today the US dollar is worth the same as a Chinese dollar 1 for 1. The buyer at Wal-Mart asks: "How much for that warehouse full of things?" The seller at the warehouse says: "100,000 yuan" The buyer says: "Will you take 100,000 dollars?" The seller says: "Sure, they are worth the same thing, the warehouse is sold." The buyer says: "Great, ship them." The seller says: "We don't ship, we sell things made in China." The buyer says: "Right, I'll send someone to pick the things up, thanks.: Now suppose a day goes buy, the guy didn't come and pick up the things at the warehouse yet, but suddenly the Chinese controller of the Chines dollar says that 1 US dollar is now worth 2 yuan, not one. What happens? If I were the guy who bought the things I'd be in a panic; because I just bought 1 warehouse full of things made in China for 100,000 dollars when 100,000 dollars was worth 100,000 yuan, but now, today, suddenly, 100,000 dollars is worth 200,000 yuan. I call the seller at the warehouse back up. Owner (former buyer): "Hey, ah, remember that deal we were thinking about yesterday, where I was asking if I could buy that warehouse full of your things made in China.?" Renter (former seller): "Your stuff is outside the warehouse taking up space, and you will be charged an additional 100,000 yuan if you don't get it off our property by tomorrow, we had to make room for more things made in China - business is booming - don't you know?" Owner (former buyer): "Ah, my guy won't be there until next week, so, ah, can we make another deal?" Dealer (former renter): "Sure, next week. No problem, I'll wave the rent charge." The point here, from my view, is such that the workers are still being paid next to nothing in a place where it cost next to nothing to live and where those costs are going up because China is being BOOMED, on purpose, on schedule, and the point is that the things in the warehouse are the same things today, and they are the same things tomorrow, even if the people who have control over the Chinese dollar say that the Chinese dollar is worth half as much tomorrow, or twice as much today. I am going to offer a term, now, that may help me untangle some of the confusion in my own mind, as I try to figure out what these people are saying, when they say such things as this: the fact that we're importing so much from China, and so much of it is so cheap, goods in Wal-Mart and so forth. People cry foul. They say that the currency is undervalued and gives the Chinese an unfair advantage. The term is PPP or Purchasing Power Parity How about [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define  urchasing+power+parity&sa=X&ei=8nQ9TZ6aB47QsAPT]Google [/url] ? I looked for a real time PPP converter but found only THIS China isn't even on that table. Why? A usable chart U.S.A = 47,000 China = 7,000 I have an idea about this relative measure of life on Earth between living in the land of the dollar and living in the land of the yuan. If a person worked an average job for one year in each country, and in each country the person consumed the bare minimum while saving the most possible amount of savings, in money, not buying valuable things, which person would have more valuable things at the end of the year, and where would that person buy those valuable things. Someone else, thinking along with me, might ask: what valuable things? How about an ounce of gold Enough Solar Panels to power one average home in America Enough clean water for one person for one year Enough food for one person for one year I see a need to change the question. How much time would it take for an average (by median earnings calculation) person in each country to work and live with minimum consumption and maximum savings to buy the above list from the same minimum cost place on Earth? In other words a person in the USA begins working and consuming the bare minimum, at the average pay rate, and time passes until that person can afford to buy that list of things from the least expensive seller on Earth selling those things on that list, and at the same time a person living in China starts working the average job so as to eventually earn the same purchasing power, and the question asks: what is the percent difference in time required to arrive at the level of power required to purchase the list of stuff? And the answer appears to be, if I have the PPP measure understood, the percent difference between 47,000 and 7,000 provides a workable percentage rate difference. 7,000 is roughly 15% of 47,000 If the list of stuff could be bought by the person working at the average job in the U.S.A. in one year then at that rate the person in China has only 15% of the purchasing power earned after 1 year. How many years are needed for the person in China to work long enough to earn the purchasing power to buy the list of stuff earned in 1 year working in the U.S.A.? Roughly 6.7 years. I just realized that the math needed here is a ratio, 47/7, or 6.7 to 1. If the people who have the power to peg the Chinese dollar to the The Fed dollar declare that the Chinese dollar is worth twice today or half tomorrow that application of that power can't, really, change that ratio of 6.7 to 1. The things that change that ratio of 6.7 to 1 are such things as infrastructure. Example: 1. A well maintained highway 2. An electric power distribution grid 3. A communications network 4. Ready access to purchasing power by people who will invest that power and in so doing more power is produced over and above the power consumed during production. 5. Limitations of access to purchasing power by people who consume, waste, or use that power to commit crimes whereby innocent productive people are injured and thereby rendered less capable of investing available power and turning available power into more power. Those things lead to the average person in either place on earth lowering the number on their side of the ratio. U.S.A. - China 1----------6.7 There are many other things that can be added to the list. Declarations concerning the legal value of a unit of legal currency relative the declarations of the legal value of a unit of currency produced by a competitor isn't on that list. If Chinese people lower the amount of time it takes the average person working toward the goal of increasing their power to purchase a better life, lowering their cost of living, working less for more in exchange for their labor, they must finance productive activity and avoid financing crime. They can't expect to lower their work load, and increase their wealth, by transferring the power they have to criminals, where the criminals then use that power to commit crimes. The result of such folly is readily apparent in the U.S.A. as the productive people are now being indebted and the criminals are now being financed, with the obvious result of productive people having to work more and more for less and less. And the responsible, and accurately accountable people orchestrating that transfer of wealth, in the U.S.A. are the people who have control over the dollar issue of legal currency. If those criminals, who can commit billion dollar frauds, and then be rewarded with billion dollar bail-outs, complain about competition, as they complain that "the Chinese currency is undervalued and gives the Chinese an unfair advantage", then my guess is that the complaint is at best half true. Are the Chinese people capable of moving the power to purchase to the people who will use that power to produce more power or will the Chinese people allow that power to flow to criminals? Why not speak in simple language, meaningful language, and why don't people find good cause to unravel the tangled web of deceit? What, on Earth, is preventing the truth from flowing quickly all around the globe, like sunshine dawning on a cool summer morning? When will people declare a war on falsehood and when will people stop electing torturing mass murderers as their leaders, by whatever means they manage to accomplish that amazingly stupid feat? I see a need to return to the REAL NEWS report and post this progress. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
have some public way of putting liquidity into the economy and stop giving banks free money Another quote from HERE I can offer more than 2 examples of that which Paul Jay speaks with his words "some public way of putting liquidity into the economy", but 2 will do. Historical Example A Quote from A: The most important lesson, however, is that a depressed community in an apparently hopeless situation found a way of ending the seemingly insoluble problems of unemployment, local decline and lack of a reliable tax base, symbiotically through the use of community-owned currency. Current Example B Quote from B:
I will return to the REAL NEWS report to see how the answer to Paul Jay's question is handled by the political economy authority person. Well... The supposed authority dodged the question. Paul Jay's question was essentially exposing the monopoly power to the possibility of using the force of competition as a means of forcing any producer of money to produce higher quality money at a lower cost. Not only did the supposed authority on political economy dodge the question, not only that, but Paul Jay didn't press the question, and I've seen Paul Jay's interviews enough now to know that Paul Jay is fully capable of pressing a question so as to actually get an answer. So far, the answer is no answer, which is an answer. Competition is against the law. Law is crime. Look at those links above, and know what happens when competition threatens a monopoly banking power. If a competitor gains currency, gains market share, begins to grow powerful enough to threaten the banking monopoly power, what do you think will happen? What has happened in the past? I see a serious need to quote from Paul Jay now, as he moves to the subject of interest rates supposedly voiced from a libertarian perspective. I ran for congress in my district as a libertarian in 1996.
Paul Jay is referring to Austrian Economic Dogma, such as the dogma that is spoken by Ron Paul, who is a Republican, and once a Libertarian. The essential part of the dogma isn't the measure of the rate of interest being low or high, the essential part of the dogma is the force by which the interest rate is determined. If the force by which the interest rate is determined is competition, then the interest rate will be X. If the force by which the interest rate is determined is a National police or military force, or political force driving a national police or military force, then the interest rate will be whatever that political power declares the interest rate to be - by fiat - by declaration and the force required to enforce the declaration. The term artificial is then meant to discriminate between a supposed "free market" interest rate and everything else; whereby everything else is "artificial". The problem with Ron Paul's dogma, and the Austrian Economics Dogma, involve a significant split in "the party"; whereby one faction supports involuntary government intervention within the free market of currency (or money) and the other does not support, or sanction, any involuntary intervention whatsoever. That split is clearly delineated by Gary North: HERE One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money. Gold as money is one thing. Gold as currency is another thing. Voluntary associations are one thing, an agreement over time. Involuntary associations are another thing, some call it slavery, not typically the slavers, more typically the slaves. Slavers prefer euphemisms, as do criminals. Criminals don't call up their victims and agree upon an appointment. "Hi, what time sounds good to you for me to stop by and take what I want from you?" I am going to return to the REAL NEWS report and see what the political economy authority has to say about artificial interest rates, and note that the Worgl competitive currency historical example amounts to a negative interest rate. So the problem isn't that we should just let the market establish the interest rate; the problem is that when you have a massive unemployment situation where the basic mechanisms of the economy are no longer working, you have to have much more directed investment. The problem there is that the speaker of those words either dodges the facts or is unaware of the facts. The fact is that the "market" in question is competition, not some nebulous fantasy, and competition will drive quality up and competition will drive prices down, unless competition is eliminated by some other force. A. BANK 1 - high quality money at -10 percent interest rate. B. BANK 2 - high quality money at +10 percent interest rate. C. BANK 3 - low quality money but money that is required for the payment of taxes or the tax non-payer goes to jail. The political economy professor ignores A and B as if no such thing can exist, and the only thing in view is C, on purpose, for some reason. What is the reason for ignoring, dodging, and not speaking about questions concerning the force of competition as the force of competition causes money to be forced high and higher in quality and as competition forces money (or currency if you prefer) to lower and lower prices (interest rates)? What is the incentive, the reason, the cause, the rationale, the excuse, or the thinking behind avoiding a discussion about competition as a force in competition with the force that enforces banking monopolies? Ignorance? I don't think so, Paul Jay asked the question once. Here it is again: have some public way of putting liquidity into the economy and stop giving banks free money I've got to get back to work so this may be the end of this session. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I am calling for a reality check on the following words: Source And the crisis itself was caused by an economy that is increasingly deregulated, no longer subject to really stringent securities laws, labor laws, health and safety laws. The cause of the supposed crisis is manipulation of the money supply by the people who have the license to manipulation the money supply, dollars, and those people are known as The FED. It is well past time for people to begin using accurate labels for the things that people discuss, if the idea is to conduct meaningful discussion. Double Speak is created by people for specific reasons. The FED is a label that accurately identifies a specific group of people who have a specific license given to them by another group of people who can accurately be called The government of the United States, or, U.S.A. Inc. LLC. The FED has the legal power to add or subtract to the total supply of dollars world wide. Anyone else can subtract from the total supply of dollars, go ahead and try it, burn some. You may be guilty of a crime, try it, see what happens. No one else can add to the supply, that is a crime, it is the crime of counterfeiting. Try it, see what happens. When The FED doubles the supply of legal money, as they did in 2008, they are not committing a crime, they have the legal license to do so, at will, and no one has the power to hold those people to account. Ask them what they did what that money, see what you get as a response. Members of U.S.A. Inc. LLC asked them what they did with that money, and they were told to pound sand - in other words. I can link that event if I can find it, but why waste so much of my time proving the obvious facts, I don't have to tell people not to stare at the sun - to offer an analogy. The Fed caused the crisis by subtracting from the total number of dollars, just as they added to the total number of dollars in 2008. How, exactly, The Fed managed to remove dollars from the total number of dollars is unknown, exactly, by me. Someone knows, the people who did it know, and my guess is that if asked, they wouldn't tell, just like they don't tell, where the new dollars, created in 2008, twice what the supply was before they doubled it, are now. Where are those new dollars created in 2008, when the people at The FED doubled the number of U.S. dollars, according to their own account? If someone wishes to pretend that the so called crisis is caused by some other means, by some type of accident, for example, then someone is guilty of producing fantasy, a reverse Utopian Fantasy Dream-scape of sorts. That should be known by all who are serious about averting a real crisis looming. WWIII for example. WWIII can, as unconscionable as it can be, make WWI, and WWII appear to be a walk in the park, for humanity as a whole, by comparison. WWI = not good for humanity as a whole WWII = worse for humanity as a whole WWIII = no more humanity Torture and mass murder perpetuated by humans who are legal criminals isn't nice. Morally speaking it is wrong. It is wrong to steal. It is worse to torture. It is yet again worse to massively torture massive numbers of people, on purpose, for profit. It is even yet again morally worse to mass murder millions of people, on schedule, regularly, perpetually, like watering or weeding the lawn; however the willful extinction of the human species is the very end of bad according to any measure of human morality - along with everything human ending at that point in time and space. It doesn't get any worse from the macro-human perspective. If you are scheduled for a torture session this afternoon...worse is relative in the micro-human world. Why construct a reverse fantasy Utopian Dream-Scape where randomness, or some other folly, is guilty of causing a supposed economic global crisis while the actual guilty people perpetuate it? The answer can only be confessed by those who do it. I earned some time off of work to finish viewing this report by REAL news and I don't know about anyone else, but I'm on the edge of my seat listening to the very good questions tabled by Paul Jay. From the vast pile of surplus wealth a portion of it could have managed to find its way to someone, or some group, in America who then use that money to cause Electric Cars to appear in showrooms at new car dealers in every town across America, and in every town across America, there could also be a booming Solar Panel market, actually there is one, but the point here is that some of that money created by The FED, the money that doubled the money supply, could boom those two markets, just to name 2 possible methods by which jobs can become jobs in America. Good question Paul Jay, good question, and the answer is to misdirect the focus of defensive power away from the people who cause a so called crisis and focus attention into a fantasy world, a black hole called random occurrence? Quoting again: And the crisis itself was caused by an economy that is increasingly deregulated, no longer subject to really stringent securities laws, labor laws, health and safety laws. I may have wandered in response to that quote some. The actual message there is such that randomness isn't the cause of the so called crisis, rather: the cause of the crisis is deregulation. That is not so. The regulators are there to allow crime to occur, the regulators are there to aid in the elimination of competition. The regulators are there to cover up piles of defaulting mortgage bundles, millions of them, and slap triple A ratings on them, in the effort to, what is the term, "explode" a competitor's political economy? If regulation can occur it can occur with a working Trial by Jury system whereby criminals are accurately identified as criminals and anything else done to those criminals is secondary - even trivial by comparison to the accurate identification of the people who commit crimes - not an easy task, and to convict an innocent person is as bad as any wrong under the sun, and don't take my word on that moral judgment - it comes from a higher power. How about a Trial by Jury system fingering the people at The FED for the crime of causing the so called crisis? That has not happened because it can't happen as told by such people as Patric Henry over two centuries ago. End a working Trial by Jury and what do you think will happen? Surprise! Torturing mass murderers are paid the highest wage. Why is that a surprise? Now, now, Joe, I can hear someone argue, they don't actually torture at The FED, they just add or subtract digits to the dollar account - you are being overly general, or something less that accurate, or some other critical response, something negative aimed at my effort to report the vital truth. Really? What would you do with the power to double the total number of dollars currently in circulation? Would you spend a dime in the effort to get one torture victim off today's schedule? Those people are being tortured in order that the power to add and subtract from the dollar supply remains in the hands of the people who have that power. What do you think happens to people who have the power to double the number of dollars in circulation once they have that power? Such power does exist, and such power has existed since, at least, 1913, and actual people actually have the actual license to have that power, and most of the ready victims, of the abuse of that power, are clueless about that power, completely, and utterly clueless - is that you? It is not me. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Big Question is the State of the States Anyone (no one), I started and paused, to comment on, that report above. Revenue sharing to state and local governments have prevented these kinds of severe cuts thus far, including from my own institution where I'm sitting right now, UMass Amherst, which got a $50 million stimulus check. We need another one Before anyone anywhere has another bright idea as to what can be done with the huge pile of money (the power to purchase a whole lot of things) it may be a good idea to accurately discriminate one vital thing. Whose money? If the pile of money is denominated in dollars, it is The FEDS money. They own it. They control it. Congress doesn't, and The People certainly do not own it. This accurate discrimination applied toward the measure of purchasing power in question must be done first, before moving on to any fantasy by which the person thinking, seeing, understanding, and knowing what will be done with that power proceeds. A. What can "we" do with the power to purchase. B. Who has the power to start and stop the flow of that specific power to purchase. Carts do not pull horses. If you are at place A and you want the horse to pull you and the cart to place B do you reign in the cart, or do you reign in the horse? If you have a cart full of Solar Panels, barrels of gasoline, food, and cloths to be delivered to houses where the power grid has failed, and these desperate people will pay you for that delivery, do you feed the cart first? What is feeding the cart going to do for you? Do you then expect to reign in the cart so as to drive the car, pulling the horse, to your intended destination? The fix to this problem is to not fix it, according to the people who have caused the problem, on schedule, this is classic double speak. Why are The People speaking double speak? What is in it for The People? A. There is a problem that needs to be fixed, for The People. B. The problem is the fix for The FED (legal parasites feeding off of The People by way of a monopoly money fraud, extortion, protection racket) The dollar is the means by which power flows from The People to The FED (legal criminals) and that must be understood or failure to understand that is as powerless as trying to move your power to market by feeding and then driving the cart pulling the horse. It won't work. It can't work. Dollars have to go. What will be in place once dollars have no more power? A. Something that works better for The People B. Something that works better for legal criminals When "The President" (A joke in itself, on The People, since the real power flows from The People to The FED, not "The President", and "The President" is an employee of The FED, The Dollar Hegemony, U.S.A. Inc. LLC) says that the recession is over the real possibility exists that more dollars will flow from those who create dollars to those who employ dollars as money. Where, exactly, will that money go? If that money goes to China to make Chinese made Electric Cars, and Chinese mad Solar Panels, and Chinese made tennis shoes, and Chinese made things that fill the shelves at Wal-Mart, and Chinese made anti-ship missiles, and Chinese made submarines, and Chinese made military space hardware, then who would profit from that investment? The People? How about The People in China, will they profit from slave labor, pollution, and WWIII? Where, exactly, will that money go? Revenue sharing to state and local governments have prevented these kinds of severe cuts thus far, including from my own institution where I'm sitting right now, UMass Amherst, which got a $50 million stimulus check. We need another one Some of it goes to places where double speak is manufactured and propagated, it seems to me. A. Dollars B. Past time for The People to recreated their own, better, and less expensive form of money The State will then beg for power or earn it, not lie, not dictate, certainly not torture, and no more mass murder with the power stolen from The People by way of a monopoly money fraud. The concept of involuntary taxation, if that is what The People want, I don't, but if that is what The People want, then taxes can be collected by charging interest on the money The People create, and use, for their own purposes. What do The People want to do with the power collected by involuntary means? 1. Torture 2. Mass Murder 3. Maintain the power to collect involuntary taxation 4. Defend against criminal invasion by any one or any group of criminals The supposed moral reason for demanding involuntary tax payments from The People and by The People is 4 above - other wise the justification is a local question, such as a local police officer issuing a demand to lower the volume during the party. When the criminals own the government, a recession is the fix to the problem, not the problem. The recession is the bottom section of the cycle, and if it is over, as "The President" claims, (how do you tell when a politician is lying?) then the section called boom is beginning, if the claim is true. Who will boom? Where is the money sent? The FED doubled the money supply in 2008. Where is that incomprehensibly vast sum of money? Do you need a reality check? Look HERE GIANT pallets loaded with cash amounting to more than $4 billion (£2 billion) and weighing a total of 363 tons were sent to Baghdad aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, it has been revealed to Congress. That money went to finance the enemy. That is not news, that is what the legal criminals do, and they profit from war, that is their M.O. I did some math on that report. 10,000 pound payload = 5 ton When "The President" says that the recession is over he isn't talking about his ability to buy dinner, or a shirt, or a few more degrees on the thermostat. His customers are happy, he is paid a living wage. What recession? Why do people believe these lies, over and over and over again? What is the point? What is the pay off for being that incredibly gullible? Revenue sharing to state and local governments have prevented these kinds of severe cuts thus far, including from my own institution where I'm sitting right now, UMass Amherst, which got a $50 million stimulus check. We need another one AHHHHHH! A confession of sorts. I'll restart the report and I will try to find usable data within that data stream (currency is a data stream). Now, are the Democrats willing to sit there and watch pension fund contracts get broken? I don't really know the answer to that, and I don't think any of us know that. May I point out that someone paid to not know something will not know something or they will be looking for another job. If you do not please your customers: your customers will find someone else to reward with pay. Why does that person think that no one else knows the answer to that question, or any question for that matter: isn't that, perhaps, a closed mind? The first thing that could be done with any store of value, such as a pension fund, is to convert it to a denomination that isn't produced and maintained by legal criminals. If there is a large pile of dollars, in a pension fund somewhere, why couldn't a State governor, or anyone having the power over the fund, buy something valuable with that money, so as to maintain the value of the pension fund, rather than have the pension fund evaporate? If the pension fund is denominated in dollars, and if The FED turns loose the new dollars that constitute double the total dollars before 2008, then the value of that pension fund will be cut in half as inflation occurs as a result of what The FED does when The FED manipulates the total number of dollars in circulation, on schedule, as they have done, and as they will continue to do, because they have that power, and as yet there isn't anyone, anywhere, no other group on the planet, who can take that power away from them. Henry Ford quote please: It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. That is possibly a very wise statement particularly because the revolution occurs before tomorrow morning: in the minds of the victims the revolution is empowered. Thanks Henry. Elon Musk is the new Henry Ford - it seems to me. Elon Musk is making competitive American made Electric Cars, and I've seen reports concerning his inability to finance that lucrative enterprise. Where will the dollars created in 2008, to double the dollar supply, go - Mr. President? "That is a trade secret" He can't say, really, it is such a secret that such a question would be dodged. Liars don't answer some questions, some questions can't even be acknowledged, because the mere acknowledgment of the question confesses truth, and weakens the power of lies. The severity of the state and local budget crisis is just starting to happen because up to now the federal government has funded it through stimulus funds. Has any reader ever heard of CAFR? If you have not heard of CAFR then you are now in a position for a moment of enlightenment. You can unlock a door to a room where the sun is bright and all those scary legal criminals have scurried back under their rocks - they no longer have power to terrorize you with reports of doom. CAFR is Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. City, County, State, and National (Federal is an inaccurate term) governments have kept books, accurate books, on net income subtracted by net costs. The lies told to the tax payers has been that we are broke. In the city governments the lies have been that we are broke. In the county governments the lies have been that we are broke. In the state governments the lies have been that we are broke. To tell the tax payers that we are rich is to transfer power back to the tax payers. Why would you pay more taxes to someone who is already rich? Since at least WWII the governments at all levels have been investing surplus wealth toward the job of gaining more surplus wealth. The surplus wealth is then hidden from the public, and The People are told that we are broke. The People are told that a sum of the total of surplus wealth has been budgeted for the years expenses and the years expenses exceed that budget, we are broke, and they are telling half the truth, a typical scenario. The other half of the truth is the measure of total surplus wealth, denominated in dollars, in the account after all costs are subtracted from all revenue sources, including profits from investments, and that is a sum called net receipts. Once The People get wind of those sums, as they have, some of The People now know about this fraud, the legal criminals will take steps to move the surplus wealth, denominated in dollars, from those accounts, and they have. Their own, the legal criminals own, books have gone from very detail, very accurate accounts, reporting total receipts, before the discovery of, and dissemination of those frauds, to less accurate, less comprehensive annual financial reports, published by they frauds for fellow frauds - not for The People. You won't believe me. You will have to confirm the facts yourself, despite simple logic, simple common sense. You will still not believe the truth, you will still believe the lies, and I ask why, think about this question even before you unlock this door, even before you go inside this room, think about the question right now: why do you believe in the lie that The People are broke? A politician driven around in a limousine tells you that we are broke. You beleive him or her. You won't believe me when I tell you about CAFR. You refuse to believe me, and you now that there are many people who will refuse to check out the fact themselves on this specific subject: this CAFR report. CAFR is one of those things that politicians can't even acknowledge. Show a politician their own copy of a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and they won't see it, they can't, it does not exist. Net reciepts. Where is the money? How do you follow the money? Who is trying to drive the cart; while the real cart is being pulled by tax payers, the horse, blindly off a cliff. Where is the money going? When you finally must get rid of your gasoline powered car, because it costs way too much to drive it, and you must then buy an electric car, and you have to buy the one built in China, because it is half the price of the one built in America, know then where the money went, when The FED doubled the money supply in 2008. If, by then, it is too expensive to buy electricity from the State run Power Company (state license to own, or use, The GRID), and you have to buy Solar Panels, and you have to buy the one's made in China, because the ones made in American are twice the price of the one's made in China, then know where that pile of dollars went to; and from The FED back when The FED doubled the number of legal dollars. I can go on, and I can go on in particular concerning the price of food, onto the subject of Modular Vertical Farming Units - as a missed opportunity to boom the power of The People, by the people, and for the people - but not now. Now "The President" speaks - lies, half truths, and cover ups, while his friends, or his customers, or his employers, or by whatever filter you view that group of people with that power there at those places on the planet, and those words have power, those words move people and those words stop people because power has managed to flow to those people by some means. Who has the power of The People? What would happen if one City dumps the dollar and begins using self made purchasing power at home? Do you think that such a thing is beyond posibility - and if so why? The supposed national debt can be as quickly wiped out as it was created, or as Henry Ford's words suggest - before tomorrow morning. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
rewtedesco, Thanks for pointing out that the movie is new, I am viewing it. Example: "So, you have to ask yourself the question: what matters?" In a discussion, as far as I understand what matters, each member of the discussion offers their viewpoint on the topic. If the topic is the movie, and not Joe's Law, then "what matters" in this part of this discussion, from my viewpoint, are questions raised in the movie, and other things in the movie. Example: Nature versus nurture was raised in the movie. I've thought about that, or something similar, and I have arrived at a more basic dichotomy whereby two main forces are at play and those forces are: 1. Entropy 2. Ectropy I found Extropy one day not long ago, while Entropy was already a part of my vocabulary and Entropy had been a part of my vocabulary for some time, Entropy had made its way to my vocabulary early on. Ectropy is one of those terms that appears to be against the law, such as Legal Crime is against the law, and CAFR is against the law, terms that once spoken discussion ends. What matters, as far as life is concerned, is Ectropy, it seems to me. I will watch more of the movie, which I find very interesting, and comment as the stream of data flows past my personal viewing space, inspiring me to offer my part of an imaginary discussion. Discussion is against the law. Note: The forum spell checker doesn't recognize ectropy as a word. "It's all in the genes": an explanation for the way things are that does not threaten the way things are. Why should someone feel unhappy or engage in antisocial behavior when that person is living in the freest and most prosperous nation on earth? it can't be the system! As far as I can tell the movie producer/writer/creator/publisher/etc. uses the above quote as an example of rationalization or "apology" for maintaining "the system" whereby the system in question amounts to the system by which group A overpowers group B, which is what I call legal crime. The System is either something specific or The System is ambiguous. If The System is specifically identifiable as the system by which group A overpowers group B, then an accurate measure can be made by which power transfers from B to A, and I think this specific example accomplishes that accurate measure. The group that overpowers the other group is the group that creates these lies, propagates these lies, and the lesser power group believes, and parrots, those lies - as that example in quotes above. An apology for punishment, a rationale for punishment, an excuse for institutionalized punishment, and an obvious case of power being transferred, in real time, from the targeted group (those who will be punished), and the targeting group (those who punish), and the true test of this fact is to seek evidence that confirms the reality of group A having immunity from punishment while group B has no such immunity. Take any supposed "reason" for administering punishment to anyone and see if the same "reason" applies to the creator and propagator of that supposed reason. Example: The serial killer must be put to death. Each president of U.S.A. Inc. LLC, at least as far back as WWII is guilty of the crime of mass murder, serial killing, and how many of them have been put to death by the supposed "rational" system of punishment? How about failure to repay money borrowed from the government? What is the punishment dealt out to banks that are "too big to fail"; group A? What is the punishment dealt out, by foreclosure, to group B? Reality check: In a society which is predicated on competition, and really very often the ruthless exploitation of one human being by another, the profiteering of other people's problems, and very often the creation of problems for the purpose of profiteering. The ruling ideology will very often justify that behavior by appeals to some fundamental and unalterable human nature. Competition is. To say that society is or is not predicated on competition is to offer a competitive viewpoint on society. Why, really, really, really, why, do people blame competition for anything bad, evil, wrong, destructive, less by any measure than what competition does. Competition forces quality up. Competition forces cost (price) down. Society A is a very low quality society; whereby each person in the society has to pay a very high cost to society, merely to survive as an individual, and by some measure Society A exists as a social power. Society B is a very high quality society; whereby each person in the society has to pay a very low cost to society, survival is as costless as breathing clean air, and by some measure Society B exists as a social power. If the measure of power in Society A is much greater than the measure of power in Society B, then which society survives, and which society does not survive? A competitive example of a society that measures up as a very competitive society is one where the people learn to be empathetic, cooperative, aggregate, non-violent, and capable of equitable exchange, reciprocity, leading to economic exponential power production, surplus wealth, stores of life preserving power, by accessing division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale. Such a society is much more powerful than a society whereby each individual plans on, and then follows through with the plan, to injure each other person. The accurate measure of the accurate discrimination between good human behavior and bad human behavior isn't as such: A. Competition B. Non-competition Competition is. The accurate measure of the accurate discrimination between good human behavior and bad human behavior is as such: A. Crime (willful premeditated injury of innocent people by criminal people) B. Not A Back to the quote: In a society which is predicated on competition, and really very often the ruthless exploitation of one human being by another, the profiteering of other people's problems, and very often the creation of problems for the purpose of profiteering. The ruling ideology will very often justify that behavior by appeals to some fundamental and unalterable human nature. The ruthless exploitation of one human being by another is the ruthless exploitation of one human being by another - what does that have to do with competition or individuality? Individuality is. Each moment is an individual moment. Each atom is an individual atom. Each person, in each moment, thinks an individual thought, and each thought can drive each individual act, by each individual person, each individual second. Why does that person connect, by way of false association, the facts of competition and individuality, things that are, with crime, things that are either done or not done according to whichever individual person decides to either go ahead with a crime or not? Crime itself is competition. A. A society based upon crime (A.K.A. punishment) B. Not A Which society is more likely to survive longer? The connection between legal criminals who propagate institutionalized crime, what I call legal crime, and capitalism, if there is such a thing, in context with Darwinism, is as such: A. The survival of the fittest means: kill or be killed. B. Do unto others before they can do unto you. In fact, if I understand Darwinism, the capacity to reproduce empowers a species toward survival, not fitness in a violent or aggressive sense. To be fit, is to be fit and able to reproduce. To be fit, in a sense that someone, a single member of the species, is aggressively more powerful, violently more powerful, or deceptively more powerful than a competitor, more powerful than another member of the species, is unfit as a biological adaptation, not an adaptation that is fit for survival of the species. Such an example of one member of the species is an example that isn't likely to reproduce, and a whole society of such people would not be a powerful competitive society for lack of basic resources, since no one would have time to produce anything, since everyone would spend all their time defending against attack, and planning attacks on other people within such a society made up of such a poor example of biological adaptation. If each person in the society were as powerful as The President, able to steal, torture, and mass murder at will, the human species would have ended a lot sooner. It is dogma like this dogma, in quotes above, that lead to errors in social organization, whereby power flows to the worst, and most destructive, human individuals. Blaming evil on competition, and individuality, rather than blaming evil on the actual people who are evil, by their thoughts, and by their actions, each at each moment, is not a very competitive thought or act. Why think such nonsense? Why speak such nonsense? This: In a society which is predicated on competition, and really very often the ruthless exploitation of one human being by another, the profiteering of other people's problems, and very often the creation of problems for the purpose of profiteering. The ruling ideology will very often justify that behavior by appeals to some fundamental and unalterable human nature. Why connect bad things done by bad people with things that are not bad, such as competition, which is, and individuality, which is, and to suggest that there is a connection, when no such connection exists, is willful, or not? Why? I won't get an answer, the video presentation is a one way communication medium, while discussion, as outlawed as it may be, is a 2 way communication medium, a method by which one individual can access another individual and compete and create a higher quality viewpoint (one that is more accurate) at a lower cost (a better perspective that is less filled with inaccurate data). Example: Person A: Hi, it sure is fun running west with my eyes shut, I've been doing that for awhile and it is thrilling. I feel great. Person B: Hi, I'll try it. Before you go, though, it may be a good idea to hold off on your fun, I just came from the west, and there is a sheer cliff 100 meters west, so you may want to open your eyes long enough to avoid running off the cliff. Person A: What? You are stupid. Nothing you say has any meaning what-so-ever. I'm always right. Get lost. Person B: Just because discussion is against the law, doesn't mean that you have to obey. Reality check 2:
If it is a system disorder, as the person claims, then put that system in an empty room, next to an loaded gun, and see if the system commits suicide, and then we, the surviving human beings, can get along without that bad, bad, evil, system. That is the same false perspective as the false perspective that blames shooting murders on the gun, or stabbing murders on the knife, or strangulation by hand murders on the hand, invisible or not. Any system either accomplishes or doesn't accomplish its intended purpose determined exclusively by the capability of the system operators to get what they set out to accomplish with that system, or by accident. Does the person speaking in the movie suggest that the system did it - by accident? I am beginning to see some very huge errors, by accident, or by willful act, with the underlying message of this movie. Reality check: What is Intrinsic Obsolescence? Context: Economic Rule: I think that the main problem with the perspective being projected, or propagated, in this movie is the idea that the system is responsible and the thing that enforces the supposed Economic Rule, and that they system enforces Intrinsic Obsolescence, whatever either of those things mean. I am typing on a computer that I patched together from parts given to me, and parts sold on E-bay. I did not choose parts that will be intrinsically obsolete, I chose parts that are the highest quality parts, at the lowest cost, and I won't throw away these parts, because I can use a less powerful computer near my guitar and amp, some day when I can afford a new computer, and I can even give these parts away to someone who has no computer. Who, not what, is enforcing cyclical consumption? If this video movie, this propaganda, does not accurately identify the legal criminals who have the power to add and subtract legal money from the legal money supply, in American that group of people are known as The FED, then this movie will miss-identify the actual cause, and the actual reason for causing, cyclical consumption. The people who cause it are the people who have the license to add and subtract from the money supply, in American, and the reason that they cause it is easy to understand; power flows to them and from the people who create power. Power, or surplus wealth, is created by people as people cooperate with each other and thereby they, these people who cooperate, learn to specialize and divide labor, so as to make many things together where no single person could ever make one thing alone, such as a car, or even a steel sowing needle, or a computer, or a global news network, and by way of competition the people learn how to act in ways that improve what they do, what they make, as they compare their acts with other acts by other people, and where they compare thoughts they think with thoughts communicated by other people, and in that act of comparing, an obvious better way is made obvious, rather than unknown. If I want better money, for example, I'll know it when I see it. Where is it? How much does it cost? If I want less expensive money, I'll know it when I see it. Where is it? How much better is it? If the propaganda piece linked here in this thread doesn't accurately I.D. The FED, finger those people, then this piece misses a primary cause of human suffering and misery, as those specific people continue doing what they have done, specifically doing the enforcement and maintenance of a global business cycle. If these propagandists fail to state the obvious, they confess by that omission something obvious to me. They are covering up the truth, not spreading it. Reality check: On the subject of planned obsolescence, it can be known that no such thing can occur unless a monopoly enforcement mechanism is at work, something employed by people who enforce a monopoly. As soon as a potential user, buyer, consumer, purchaser, owner, or whatever word used to describe the person who doesn't have something and then that person does have the thing, as soon as that person has a choice between product, or thing, A, and thing B, where thing A wears out in 1 year, and thing B wears out years later, then the person will, most likely, obtain the better thing - especially if the better thing costs less. How can someone explain reality otherwise? Anyone? Reality Check again: The system cannot do anything. People do things. The system cannot allow, or not allow anything. People allow and don't allow things, such as competition, and thereby a person will enforce a monopoly, not a "system". That method of misdirecting accountability away from actual people and onto irresponsible, actually un-responsible (unaccountable) things is a common tactic used by criminals, legal or otherwise. Reality check: On blaming the system (this movie propagandists call it "The Market System") for brainwashing people with advertisements: Mass media has been taken over by actual people who actually have managed to create and enforce a monopoly on that which masses of people are exposed to, and the result is an obvious result; the quality of propaganda (advertisements, news, information, etc.) goes down and the price of propaganda goes up. To illustrate the truth of this fact all one has to do is perceive the facts as competition is now abundant in the form of The World Wide Web - no longer are the mass media monopolists able to enforce near total monopoly, yet, by at least one measure, access to a Super Bowl commercial minute will still cost a propagandist a whole lot more than access to a forum topic here on this forum. Where does a potential propagandist go to get the license to broadcast onto televisions in America? Who do I ask for permission to run a television commercial? Who do I ask for permission to start a forum topic on this forum? How much does it cost me to run a television commercial? How much does it cost me to run a forum topic on this forum? Explain the difference in price, and try not to fix accountability on the system, try to fix accountability on actual people who actually set prices, and account for the reason why someone has the power to set the price at the price they set. A person who has an enforced monopoly can set a higher price because no competitor offers that same thing at a lower price. Last Reality check: I see no point in continuing to point out how dogmatic this propaganda piece is as this viewpoint compounds the error of accounting criminal acts upon a system. I will explain capitalism instead. Capitalism is a method of pricing. If the propagandists have a perspective that is critical of capitalism then the propagandists may find the root cause of the supposed problem within the method of pricing, otherwise the propagandists are barking up the wrong tree. If the propagandists have a problem with a person freezing to death because a person selling power cut off power for failure to pay for power then the system that has worked in such cases is Trial by Jury. Where is Trial by Jury? If Trail by Jury no longer works, then the system that is no longer competing to gain market share as the best quality and lowest cost system of justice is against the law, and some other law, legalized crime for example, has taken away that competitive example of systematic production of justice, or fairness, or equity, or mutual cooperation, or universality, or whatever words label the system by which people manage to minimized the power of crime - rendering crime unprofitable for criminals at the expense of innocent victims. If the propagandists are going to criticize capitalism, they can't ignore the pricing scheme, because that is capitalism. Capitalism is a method of fixing prices. I may be inspired to comment further as I finish this propaganda piece, but I'm going to economize my desire to comment based upon a scale similar to triage in the medical profession, as other things compete for my time and energy. Ahhh...the propagandists are demonizing money. Money isn't bad. Guns are not bad. Knives are not bad. Systems are not bad. Money is a form of connection. Air, or oxygen, is a form of connection. Money can be used by human beings to accomplish things human beings want to accomplish. Oxygen can be used by human beings to accomplish things human beings want to accomplish. If a criminal wants to injure innocent people with money a criminal can figure out how, and then a criminal can execute that method. A criminal can cut off the supply, like cutting off the supply of oxygen, or the criminal can add too much to the supply, like pumping oxygen onto a raging fire. A criminal can even figure out how to govern the decrease and then the increase of the flow of money so as to cause the actual power to purchase to flow from the people who create the power to purchase (surplus) to the criminal or the gang of organized criminals, and these criminals can even figure out how to lie, and cover up their crimes, and how to trick their victims into wasting the meager power left to the victims on such things as the demonization of anything other than the actual criminals who actually cause hell on earth for the innocent victims while the criminals collect all the surplus power to purchase. I am only half through this movie. I don't think that the propagandists will ever get to the actual problem, it appears that they will continue to focus attention on wild goose chases, or mistake affects for causes, etc. Reality check (and I'm putting off other things to do): When these people are speaking about money and when these people are reporting the facts concerning money they are reporting half truths. These people are reporting things that are true but only true when speaking about specific forms of money and in particular the form of money these people are talking about is what I call legal crime money. You can call the money these people are talking about anything you want, the word on the money is dollar. The dollar form of money is the money these people are talking about. The dollar is debt based, sure, but the dollar remains to be a thing that can purchase other things. The dollar unit has a measurable amount of power with which to purchase a measurable quantity of something else. A starving person can buy food with a dollar. A freezing old man can buy fuel for heat with a dollar. If you want to call the dollar that the freezing old man uses to buy heat a debt based dollar, go ahead, but remember that the freezing old man without a dollar and without heat is likely to freeze, without some other power available to the old man. When these people talk about interest they are talking about the dollar and the ability of the dollar to buy interest, a power to purchase more dollars. There have been and will continue to be other forms of money whereby the money buys negative interest, and such money is designed to discourage people from storing, holding, or in a derogatory sense: hoarding money - whereby the money produced and sold to the consumer is money that has more power to purchase the first day it is produced and that money has less power the next day after it was produced and that money becomes worthless, on schedule, and at a time it is designed to be unable to purchase anything. Consumers buying such money, by whomever they buy it from, whenever, are consumers that know better, and they know not to keep it, they spend it, and pass it on like a hot potato. Forming a perspective that is too narrow is a choice. Why do people ignore obvious solutions to obvious problems? If the money is bad, get good money. What is the problem? The problem is, apparently, a case of ignorance. Those idiots actually say (I'm not going to waste more time quoting verbatim): Make no mistake...the system...is to blame. Who do they think created the system? Who do they think maintains the system? Who do they think are the actual people who actually have the legal license to own everything? Do they really think that the money trail stops at innocent people who are also victims of the system as they order torture, as they order mass murder by way of aggressive wars for profit, as they order the dumping of raw poisons into the drinking water supply of their victims, as they order the legal money supply to be cut in half, then doubled, then cut in half, and then doubled to create and maintain the business cycle. Those people are idiots, or they are employees, but not employees of some vague and nebulous system, they are employees of actual people who actually hired them to read from the script they were given. Either they are ignorant, or they are themselves criminals, as they add to the cover up, and as they misdirect any power that could have been employed toward avoiding victimization by those very criminals who commit those very specific crimes. I have viewed little more than half of the propaganda piece and it is hard for me to imagine the authors, producers, writers, or actors in this move coming up with anything worth viewing - but I can certainly be wrong so I will see this through. My choice. The system won't make me watch it. "Strategic Access"? This thing is becoming humorous. When I grow up I want to work at McDonald's like my mom. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Cart's don't pull horses by accident. Criminal Charges Must Be Laid - Former Finance Regulator The legal license to add and subtract from the supply of purchasing power (legal dollar units of money) is the horse. The horse pulls the cart. Who is driving the horse? If a victim has access to law, true law, a victim can use law to avoid further victimization - at least. Victim A employs law, and then victim A is no longer victimized. That is one of more than one possible method by which this Crisis can be unraveled and prevented from being repeated. There isn't a monopoly on the number of ways this "Crisis" can be unraveled and prevented from being repeated. Victim B can stop using the money (dollars) and begin using some other form of money - case closed. Now the reader has 2 possible methods by which this Crisis can be unraveled and prevented from being repeated. The problem with both methods is the same problem every living organism must face whenever a living organism is faced with a problem. Does the living organism have a sufficient amount of power to use in the work of investing that limited supply of power in the work of gaining more power, and then, once more power is gained, and only then, the living organism has the power required to solve the problem. Take both example methods by which the "Crisis" problem is solved by any person alive today. A. Law B. Competition (choose the better money, and thereby avoid the costs associated with choosing the worse money) How about solving the first choice, first, since that is the nature of the message offered in this REAL News report. Criminal Charges Must Be Laid - Former Finance Regulator Look here please: Person A decides to access law. Who is person A? How about any person who is now paying monthly mortgage payments on any property in America whereby the value of the loan is more than the value of the home. Person A reduces the money he pays to the lender, voluntarily, by that exact discrepancy. Each monthly payment is reduced, voluntarily, according to the injury caused by the criminals who caused that injury. Example: Person A pays 2000 dollar units of money for a 200,000 dollar home. Then the legal criminals cause the down cycle and now the home is worth 100,000 units of legal money, but the victim is still paying for a 200,000 dollar home. Person A volunteers to personally adjust the discrepancy and begins paying off the 100,000 dollar home with 500 dollar per month payments, and Person A sends a note to the owner of the mortgage informing the owner of this New Deal, asking for agreement, or failing to agree, Person A adds: "see you in court". Does Person A have the power to avoid this injury legally? I offered an example of how law can be accessed, and any other competitive method of accessing law is certainly "on the table" as far as I a concerned. I am merely inventing one way, so as to move the discussion along, and get to the point. If Trial by Jury worked, as intended, the case offered above could be a trial case, one case of a future flood of similar cases, and imagine that you are also on this jury in this trial as you sit in judgment of this case as this Person A solves his power problem by accessing law. Is law universal? Is law the same law for Person A as it is for Person B - no exceptions? It could be admitted by any living, breathing, rational human being that the answer is definitively no, measurably no, conclusively no, accurately no, and no without any false front, no without any smoke and mirrors, no without the least bit of ambiguity, and no without double speak. No, law isn't the same for you and me, we do not get bailed out when we commit fraud. We could, if we access our power, as a majority power, and a majority power that actually produces power, not a power that steals power. Trial by Jury works that way. Person A has 12 randomly selected (not cherry picked) other people judging Person A. How many other people are on the Jury, during the trial to find out if it is OK for Person A to refinance the loan amount down to a realistic value, and thinking: "If he can do it, I can do it too." How many victims are there? How many criminals are there? HERE is the score card in case someone has no power by which to answer the two questions above, and do so accurately: follow the money. If it is true that Trial by Jury exists, law, actual law, universal law, law that is by the people, for the people, and of the people, proven to work better than the competition, in each case so far, then the accurate measure of how many victims there are relative to home many criminals there are, are found on the random selection of jurors in each case, a mathematical statistical certainty, with few exceptions. Trial by Jury isn't perfect. Law isn't perfect, never has been, and it will never be perfect. People aren't perfect, therefore law made by people, of people, and for people can't be perfect. Natural law is perfect. Try the law of gravity out, and see if it fails once. That is solution A, how about solution B? A. Law B. Competition (choose the better money, and thereby avoid the costs associated with choosing the worse money) Competition is a natural law, some people call it Darwinism, and some people confuse Darwinism with a specific man made law, and they do so on purpose, to get away with things, like crime, like stealing, like torture, and like mass murder. People who confuse Darwinism with a specific man made law may get away with the extinction of the human species, that would assume, however, that there is life after death: getting away with that crime would include suicide - all inclusive. Competition can be confused with a specific crime called: "kill or be killed" or "survival of the fittest" or some other such terminology pointing to the actual confusion between man made law and the natural law explained within the work of Darwin. When a criminal hatches the plan to injure an innocent victim, it is a matter of convenience, or even a matter of expedience, to cover up the crime with such confusion as the confusion of Darwinism with man made law, where the law maker makes any law that says: I kill you, or injury you, before you have a chance to injure me, or, the law I make excepts me from that law, and the law I make applies only to the specific people I list, as I apply my law inequitably, excepting me, and excepting anyone I choose to except, and as I punish whomever I choose, and as I reward whomever I choose, as I take the power from my victims, and as I then purchase loyalty with that stolen power. The crime game can become very sophisticated, to such a point as to include a global cyclic method by which power flows to the criminals from the victims. A score card is available, and it isn't ambiguous, it is accurate, and it allows anyone, anytime, to follow the money as the criminals perpetrate that very elaborate crime, in real time. So, competition, a natural law, natural selection works this way, is second on the list of things to do, if human beings wish to do, this thing, this solving of this problem, this so called "Crisis" problem. Again: A. Law B. Competition (choose the better money, and thereby avoid the costs associated with choosing the worse money) I think Trial by Jury, or Law, would work very well, and the example offered exemplifies how law could work to solve this so called "Crisis". The people who have the license to add and subtract from the legal money supply own the law, they have control of the horse, and they are pulling the cart. They don't like it when people compete for control of the horse, pulling the cart. They have law. The own it, and they have owned it since, at least, 1788. The names change, they are the group that I call legal criminals. They use law to eliminate competition. Competition works better than law. Solution B on the list, and there can be as many competitive solutions as there are seconds in eternity, such is the nature of competition, I've just offered solution A, and solution B, so as to narrow down the choices, and arriving at a deciding point, either A or B, there isn't a C at the deciding point. If noting is done, then A wasn't on the list. If doing nothing is done, then the list, just before the deciding point was: A. Do nothing B. Not A It didn't matter what was on the list, after the deciding point, since nothing was done. B, or competition, can solve the problem, in each and every case, and it can be exemplified here and now, and the same problem as the problem with problem A occurs, in each case. The real problem: The problem with both methods is the same problem every living organism must face whenever a living organism is faced with a problem. Does the living organism have a sufficient amount of power to use in the work of investing that limited supply of power in the work of gaining more power, and then, once more power is gained, and only then, the living organism has the power required to solve the problem. I don't have to quote myself, that would be silly, I just cut and pasted. People can choose a better money. Walk away from the home, or the Crisis, and get a loan to buy another home, and get a loan that is denominated in a denomination that isn't a denomination that is run by a band of frauds, and then pay off that which you have borrowed, and keep your good faith and credit intact in that way. Why not? [url=http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford136294.htmlHenry Ford wrote:[/url] It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. The revolution occurs over night. People simply drop the low quality expensive stuff and they begin using the higher quality stuff at the lower price No, yes, maybe? I think, seriously, that I must be from another age, or another planet, sometimes, but I know, in my heart, and in my mind, that it takes effort, diligent effort, and a whole lot of suffering, to get past the falsehood, but it can be done. Other people can do it too. Get past the falsehood, you might like it. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
AnnonamousLast week, the Egyptian security apparatus cut off Internet access and even cell-phone service across the country in response to protests that have rocked the U.S.-backed dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. Many of the demonstrations were actually orchestrated using social-networking services like Facebook and Twitter. The power struggle is always a question of numbers because the cost of power required by each individual is divided by the number of people adding to the power supply. 1 person alone is limited in power and that power can be X. If it takes 10X or much more power X to the 10th power, for example, then 1 person is powerless against many when many can pool or combine or collect their individual power into one massive power supply sufficient to accomplish the targeted task. The rationale behind compassionate or moral government is the protection of the individual, weak, or minority from criminal attack by overwhelming criminal powers exceeding the defensive power of the individual, the weak, or the minority. When a moral government, a compassionate one, one based upon the ideal of protecting the innocent, powerless, and weaker from the criminally stronger among us, goes bad, is when the operators of the government employ the power of government toward the elimination of competition by criminal means, or by, in a more specific, and less ambiguous, definition: by injuring the targeted innocent, on purpose, and for profit. 1. Law = legal power is absolutely equal, no exceptions, all are as powerful as everyone else, and known as universality. 2. Crime = willful injury of innocent victims by criminals as criminals define such things as crime by what they do, not what they say. The false rationale, therefore, is half true, as the criminals employ law to except themselves from the power of law, to gradually remove all defensive power that could conceivably target the criminals with one exception. 1. True law = the collective power of the many employed toward the defense of the few from the criminal power 2. Legal crime = legalized criminal power as criminals take over the operation of law and employ law toward the elimination of competition 3. Competing legal criminals = the power of numbers reapplied to the power struggle between competitive groups of legal criminals The false rationale, used by legal criminals, is the rationale that says "we need to be worse than our enemies", or some other such apology for torture and mass murder becoming legal, or much sooner the false rationale merely apologizes for a small subsidy transferred to one competitor. The false rationale employs the true rationale as a cover story, when the actual design of law alters from the true rationale toward the criminal one. 1. True rationale = protect the weak, innocent, power-less people, from the strong, criminal, power-full people. 2. False rationale = criminalize the true rationale by using the power collected from the true rationale storage fund toward the criminal rationale whereby the criminals operating the law power use that power to except themselves from that very power = eliminate competition. 3. True reality = another bigger and more powerful legal crime organization may over-power the smaller and less powerful crime organization. The reader may be confused by my comments and in particular the confusion at this point may be a confusion over what my comments have to do with the topic of people who have shut down the internet web sites of the Egyptian government after the people running the Egyptian government have shut down the internet access to the people of Egypt. If the reader is confused by my comments relative to the topic then I can add one more comment in an effort to tie things up. The true rationale is the only path to greater power collected and stored into a fund, without that type of government working, without a non-criminal organization in play, there isn't any increase in power flowing to that collection of power into the supply of power that the people running the government use to run the government. That is a very serious thing. That must be understood. Not having that thing understood, is a powerless state of being in the face of criminals, and in the even greater danger as innocent people face organized crime, and in the even greater danger as innocent people face legal crime. The innocent people are the only people who have the capacity to increase the supply of power available to anyone for any reason including the rationale of protecting the innocent from harm by criminals, and including the rationale of eliminating competition. Without innocent people working together, toward greater supplies of excess wealth, power, there can only be the power supplies produced by individual people, working separately, alone, and powerless. A. A single person, working alone, can only produce, at best, enough excess power to survive, and no more. B. Two people, working together, can more than double the supply of excess power and begin creating a supply of excess wealth, power, to reproduce and thereby ensure the survival of the species. This is very simple stuff, in the light, and out from under the rock, the veil of falsehood, produced by legal criminals who operate a criminal government. No criminal government ever earned one cent of excess power, all the power spent by legal criminals is power earned through voluntary cooperation by innocent victims, stolen from them, and then used against them, as the legal criminals set about excepting themselves from that very power that was formerly collected into a fund for the purpose of defending against crime. The first act by which a supposed governor excepts himself, or someone else, from the power of moral law, is the first criminal use of that moral law, and such act destroys competition - weakens a potential competitor, and strengthens the criminal committing that first crime or strengthens any other person receiving that subsidy, potentially overpowering the potential competitor. A. All competitors are shackled by law to compete with other competitors in the work of supplying the highest quality at the lowest cost/price, in moral law zones, where moral law is practiced, and where moral law renders everyone equally shackled by moral law. B. Competition is gradually eliminated as law is employed by legal criminals in the work of transferring all power to them from the source of power, which is the power produced by innocent people, and the only way to accomplish this is to eliminate competition. Criminals do not exist in zones where moral law is maintained by innocent people who produce a vast supply of surplus wealth and a vast supply of power. legal criminals can't exist within or even without moral law, therefore the observer is empowered to know the facts in any given situation on earth, such as the one in Egypt. If the people in Egypt stop sending power to the legal criminals who are running the Egyptian government the Egyptian government will no longer have power flowing to them through those mediums, those channels, and those sources. American people send power to the legal criminals running U.S.A. Inc. LLC The Dollar Hegemony, and through that channel, power can still flow to the legal criminals running the Egyptian government. How to: How to know, for sure, if a government has turned from moral government and if a government has turned toward legal crime. A. Torture is legal B. Mass murder is legal C. The people running the legal crime government confess their crimes by their actions, not their words, and they use the power of government toward the work of eliminating compettion If torture is legal, I rest my case, and there is no rational excuse possible, for a victim of torture, to excuse torture, while the people financing, or the people actually performing torture, can make up any excuse they desire, so as to enable further torture, in their own minds, as well as in the minds of the victims being tortured by actual torture, or by the torturous condition a mind must be in once a mind begins to excuse torture by any excuse imaginable. Once the torture bodies begin to pile up in mass graves as a result of on second over the limit of torture for each victim, the evidence abounds, and all the person has to do to prove who is guilty of the crime is follow the paper trail back to the source. Person A in pile A was tortured and murdered by torturing mass murderer B. Person seeking the truth: "Why did you do it?" First person caught red handed (literally): "I'm just following orders." Person seeking the truth: "Who ordered you, and, by the way, how much did you get paid?" First person caught red handed (literally): "Here is my check, there is the person signing it." Person seeking the truth: "Thanks, that is a good start." Institutionalized punishment is arguably as ineffective as torture, as a means by which innocent people can defend against victimization by criminals, so please don't assume that my perspective signs onto that methodology. I don't. I don't sign onto, for example, the idea that an eye for an eye works, morally. The attack on the criminal government by the person or people running Anonymous can be better understood, from my perspective, if the reader takes some of their time, energy, and power, to peruse the following link: Modern politics defined Discussion is against the law, so you are on your own. Thanks for the soap box. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Robert Fisk on site
Note: I found 2 apostrophes in that quote and I replaced the cut and pasted symbol with the symbol generated by this forum and tested it, it works, the forums software obviously misreads cut and pasted symbols. The words in quotes inspire me to comment. Comment A comes from a literary work produced by someone named Lysander Spooner and the tile of the work is Trial by Jury. The relevant quote from Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner follows the links. Trial by Jury [url=lhttp://www.barefootsworld.net/trial02.html]The History of Magna Carta.[/url] This "law of the land" seems not to have been regarded at all by many of the kings, except so far as they found it convenient to do so, or were constrained to observe it by the fear of arousing resistance. But as all people are slow in making resistance, oppression and usurpation often reached a great height; and, in the case of John, they had become so intolerable as to enlist the nation almost universally against him; and he was reduced to the necessity of complying with any terms the barons saw fit to dictate to him. A. Absolute Dictator (King John in this example) B. The Barons (The Army of that time) C. The Law of the Land (The People of that time and the measure of their collective power) The Army of that day dictated to King John demanding Magna Carta, as the official law of the land, including Trial by Jury. Trial by Jury gave the power of veto to each individual citizen. Relevant quote 2: The question here arises, Whether the barons and people intended that those peers (the jury) should be mere puppets in the hands of the king, exercising no opinion of their own as to the intrinsic merits of the accusations they should try, or the justice of the laws they should be called on to enforce? Whether those haughty and victorious barons, when they had their tyrant king at their feet, gave back to him his throne, with full power to enact any tyrannical laws he might please, reserving only to a jury ("the country") the contemptible and servile privilege of ascertaining, (under the dictation of the king, or his judges, as to the laws of evidence), the simple fact whether those laws had been transgressed? Was this the only restraint, which, when they had all power in their hands, they placed upon the tyranny of a king, whose oppressions they had risen in arms to resist? Was it to obtain such a charter as that, that the whole nation had united, as it were, like one man, against their king? Was it on such a charter that they intended to rely, for all future time, for the security of their liberties? No. They were engaged in no such senseless work as that. On the contrary, when they required him to renounce forever the power to punish any freeman, unless by the consent of his peers, they intended those powers should judge of, and try, the whole case on its merits, independently of all arbitrary legislation, or judicial authority, on the part of the king. In this way they took the liberties of each individual - and thus the liberties of the whole people - entirely out of the hands of the king, and out of the power of his laws, and placed them in the keeping of the people themselves. And this it was that made the trial by jury the palladium of their liberties. There is much more to that work done by that person Lysander Spooner on this subject whereby an Army did, in fact, hand over the power of government to the people instead of handing power back to the King during a revolution; when everyone was against the dictator who was dictating criminal injury of innocent victims. That is historical reference 1. That historical reference occurred within the home country of the person who claims not to know of any historical occasion whereby an Army hands power over to the people. This claim:
That did happen in England, no less. Historical reference 2a: Inventing a Nation Historical reference 2b: American Revolution's Final Battle Historical reference 2c: Epilogue to the American Revolution Historical reference 2d: The Other Founders Historical reference 2e: 1776 Summary: The revolutionary army handed power over to a republican form of government modeled from the Swiss example then known as The Articles of Confederation, The 13 former Colonies, etc. Please note that Washington was already employed by a number of people running a congress during the revolutionary war where the British aggressors (for profit) were forced into defeat, the same British whose Trial by Jury was corrupted into a powerless condition as explained in detail by Lysander Spooner, and that the tipping point back into despotism occurred in America, the 13 Former Colonies, under The Articles of Confederation, in 1788 when the Nationalists hiding behind a false front of Republicanism followed through with their plan to Nationalize the republic into one dictatorship known as U.S.A. Inc. LLC. Anyone wanting to to know the facts concerning the shift of power away from The People (Washington and the congress at the time gave The People the power, including Trial by Jury, to The People once the Army took that power away from the King in England) and back to the new despots, may take my word on it, or the words in those books, it is a documented fact. Reference 2f: Patrick Henry speaks in opposition
The group who will take over in Egypt will either allow The People to gain the power to nullify any law through Trial by Jury or The People will be powerless. If The People do not gain that Trial by Jury power then they will have fewer options in their future when dealing with legal crime, such as legalized torture, and legalize mass murder, and lesser crimes made legal by the legal criminals running the government that does not include an effective Trial by Jury where any individual person can veto any law in each case tried by an effective Trial by Jury. Despots since King John know the power given up with Trial by Jury. The People don't, and that is a fair and accurate assessment by way of aggregate measure. I know. You can too. You now have the power, the power is contained within those references. People cannot expect to have power handed to them, power must be earned, given, or stolen. God may give it, I suppose, I didn't wait for that to happen. I've been given the power of reason, that should be enough, yes or no? Oh, there I go asking a question, within the vacuum, as discussion is against the law. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Do not respond: conditioning We are so good even our enemies believe our lies Do not respond - to respond is outside/against the law. If you respond: be violent, or else - really? Truly? Who thinks what, and why? The power struggle is won non-violently, it is an easy math problem. A = The People B = Torturing Mass Murdering Dictators financed by The People A > B How many of A are required to over power B and what action is required by that number of A to overpower B? Ax > B The number of people required must be more than about 3%, since 3% is about the number of people in the B (Torturing Mass Murdering for profit) group, and that murderous, and torturous B group is better armed, and they have no perceivable conscience (observing acts perpetrated by B not believing in what the people in the B group say - per se - some confess, most don't, they lie because it is necessary to lie in order to perpetuate torture and mass murder as a means of earning a living), and so 3% is probably not a sufficient number of the A group (The People, powerless victims, tax payers, producers of wealth, the slaves, the workers, the mob, the cattle, the sheep, etc.) to overpower the B group non-violently. The number of the A group needed must represent a greater power in the eyes of the legal criminals in the B group, a sufficient number of people in the A group renders any hope of keeping power by the B group: hopeless, in the eyes of the members of the B group, the torturing, mass murdering, legal serial killing, legal criminal group membership. Ax > B when B has no hope of staying in power since x is too many people. Think about that number. I'll quote then offer a measure of that number that can make sense to the reader. Nearly two weeks into what is a truly historical convergence of humanity, technology and politics in Egypt, Western (and Israeli) interests have concluded that what is needed is a military dictator subject to Western leverage, and one imagines the CIA and DIA corridors are buzzing with questions of "Who do we know?" and "How can we help him?" That it will be a man, ideally a "strong man" who can "lead the country" is a given for American policy-makers, if they can get their way. The number of people in group A (peaceful defenders of liberty) must be sufficient to the task of maintaining their own power to increase their own power, short of that number the A group is dependent upon the parasitic group B. This can be seen by examples of hypothetical numbers of people in group A. Example: Ax > B when x is the entire number of people in group A; which is roughly 97% of the population. In that example the entire group known as The People go to bed tonight, and early in the morning they entire group, from East Coast to West Coast, in a wave of sudden and irreversible wisdom, each person in each bed, wake up knowing that everyone in group A no longer supports, in any way, the torturing mass murdering serial killing group. The only change, non-violent, is that the credit card used by Group B is cut in half, they have no more money from The People, to spend on torturing and mass murdering, or food, shelter, or anything else, and they then, the entire group B, has to find an actual paying job, where they actually have to do what the customer wants, and failing that they must either, the entire B group must either depend upon charity, or resort to unfunded crime - no more free lunch for them. If there is violence, the violence will be members of group B fighting each other for control over what they have managed to horde in their own stores of power, wherever that may be, and violence perpetrated by the remaining B group criminals who continue their crime spree, victimizing more innocent victims, but no longer financed, in any way other than whatever those remaining criminals can take from their current victims, at that time, since the flow of power from The People via the fraudulent money monopoly pipe line will have been cut off by the rest of The People during that wave of sudden and irreversible wisdom passing each person from East to West as the Sun illuminates the globe on that new morning. Now the reader has a scale to work with in each readers own estimate of the actual power struggle at play now, and always. Ax < B when x is 3% or roughly the entire population of the B group Ax > B when x is 97% or roughly the entire population of the A group What is the tipping point number of x - as a percentage of the entire population of both A and B within a given area, such as Earth, or Egypt, or U.S.A. Inc. LLC, or America? The quote: ...there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. Therefore a question begs for an answer as such: What money will The People use to maintain their power to increase their power once they stop using the legal crime money, once they cut the credit card that finances legal torture, legal mass murder, at home and abroad? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Markets Anyone, I could discuss this topic with someone who has an angle of view whereby their view is precise and factual concerning the true motives behind actual actions performed by specific people in reference to these Real News stories. I'm going to pretend to be discussion the topic by quoting from Bill Black. Bill Black says: So the first part was the interest rate crisis, when chairman [Paul] Volcker decided to break the back of inflation by dramatically raising interest rates. I would have said: "Hold on there, Bill, I don't know why anyone would ever say such a thing, since the facts don't add up on that angle of view, that sounds to me like a huge lie." Bill Black might say: "What lie?" Joe: "Bill, don't you know that inflation isn't a problem, and interest rates aren't a crisis, so long as you have the legal license to create legal money, do you have it?" Bill Black might say: "I think I know where you are going there, but I want to stick to the topic, and not get too far away from it." Joe: "Readers, most of them I known, lost you at that claim you just made concerning "breaking the back of inflation" and "interest rate crisis". Why don't you speak without resorting to double speak, people can then know what you are talking about, actual people, not legal criminals, regular working people, the people who actually produce surplus wealth, you know, the people who actually create enough wealth to actually afford the luxury of having a government of any kind whatsoever." Bill Black might say: "See...how far away from the topic can you get?" Joe: "Not far at all, the supposed interest rate crisis isn't a crisis at all, not if you accurately identify the group of people who have the legal power to change the interest rate, so why not spend one moment of your time discriminating better?" Bill Black might say: "It was an interest rate crisis, these are the facts." Joe: "It was not an interest rate crisis, there you are mistaken, by roughly half. You are half true, and therefore you are perpetuating double speak. Double speak is produced for a reason, a very specific reason. Why do you support such falsehoods in that way, why don't you break the back of falsehood instead of supporting it?" Bill Black might say: "Can we get back to the topic?" Joe: "So long as it is clearly reported that the group of people who have the power to add or subtract dollars from the legal dollar total number of dollars have that power and that to them there is no interest rate crisis, none at all, the reverse is true, the interest rate is exactly where they want it at that time, since they have the power to raise or lower the interest rate, a function of having the power to add or subtract from the total number of dollars." Bill Black might say: "Can I get back to the topic?" Joe: "Please do, but one more time, I'll quote your words and then one more reinforcement of the pertinent facts." Your words: So the first part was the interest rate crisis, when chairman [Paul] Volcker decided to break the back of inflation by dramatically raising interest rates. Joe: "There was no crisis, it was, as it is now, a moment in the cycle, as the legal money makers cause economic depression, or bust, and from the viewpoint of the legal criminals who create that cycle, it can't be viewed as a crisis. It was not a crisis. That is a fact. It was no more of a crisis than inflation is a crisis, since inflation is the upward or boom part of the cycle, created on purpose, and therefore also not a crisis. "The confidence scheme is covered up by words such as "crisis" and "inflation" and other falsehoods, so as to perpetuate the legal license to commit this specific legal crime, where the legal criminals who have the license to add or subtract to the legal number of dollars abuse that power and create a business cycle, for profit, at the expense of the people who work and create wealth. The wealth created by people who create wealth flows down this one way circuit to those people who have the legal license to add and subtract from the supply of legal dollars, and they use that power to commit these specific crimes that are hidden behind these lies, these half truths, that you perpetuate, by your choice to use these words. "Please go on." Savings and loans, especially in the era of the savings and loan debacle, made home loans to people. If someone is reading this, and someone is thinking of asking a question at this point, I'll speak for you, and I'll ask the pertinent questions at this point. Note how Paul Jay is speaking for the people, trying to get Bill Black to speak words that people can understand too." Joe: "Hold on there Jay, hold on Bill, can it be understood that the average working person can't borrow one dollar for the purchase of a necessary home without having to pay back two dollars on average?" Bill: "That moves us way off topic." Jay: "Quickly, answer the question Bill, Joe may be going somewhere here, somewhere worth going, a long shot, but possibly worth the investment." Bill: "Yes, on average, an average person has to pay roughly twice the cost of a home, in interest payments." Joe: "So, who receives that added value, who banks the wealth that equals one extra home for each home built, while average Joe works and pays for two homes, and Joe owns one of them, who owns the second home, the Savings and Loan people?" Bill: "Can we return to the topic?" Paul: "We need more time to explore that answer, let's return to the topic." Joe: "Why? Why rush ahead. Who benefits from half truths?" Paul: "Continue with the topic, please, Bill." Bill: "Hold on, Joe may have a point, so let me back up." And savings and loans borrowed very short, as we say: deposits were short-term. Their assets were very long-term. Joe: "Yes, that is my point, the high interest rate only works when the people are fooled into the false belief of an ever expanding economy where a high interest rate is affordable because, and only because, asset prices keep going up, and up, and up, and up, and therefore someone can afford to pay three times as much for a house today because the price of the house will be three times as expensive in 30 years. The legal criminals charge a medium interest rate to the Savings and Loan people, effectively one extra house price, and then the Savings and Loan people charge the average Joe another extra house price. Math works better to illustrate how that works. Legal Criminals get back the money they loan plus the cost of one house. Savings and Loan people get back the money they loan plus the cost of two houses, they keep one house, and they pay the Legal Criminals two houses, one house of borrowed money, and one house profit. Average Joe borrows at a high enough interest rate to be so high as to force Joe to make enough wealth to pay for three whole houses. Joe works to make: 1 House to live in. 1 House to pay the Savings and Loan people for the privilege of borrowing money 1 House to pay the legal criminals as protection money, an offer that Joe can't refuse. Joe borrows to buy 1 house, and Joe works to pay off the cost of 3 houses. Joe won't see an interest crisis so long as inflation keeps going up, and up, and up, and up, in lock step with wages, going up, and up, and up, and up, no crisis, no cause for alarm, accounting is easy, just add zeros. Joe needs a house, the house cost this much, the savings and loan people get the cost of one house too, and the legal criminals also get the cost of one house, Joe pays for all three. No problem. Everything is as it should be, things are working fine, Joe keeps working, and Joe doesn't argue over the trivial things like working 30 years to pay for his house, plus the extra 2 houses. Average Joe, not me, I see the crime in progress, but that is just me." Bill: "Can we get back to topic." Jay: "Yes, the topic is Reagan." Joe: "Please, just to reinforce, before returning to the topic, the point I wish to make here is that the people who earn credit, the people who actually create wealth, should, by any measure, earn a very, very, very low interest rate because they prove, over and over again, their capacity to pay back all the money they borrow, and if they are borrowing from themselves, as the false story is told to them often enough, then why don't they pay themselves back once they earn the cost of the home, plus the cost of a second home, plus the cost of a third home? "If the average Joe can afford 3 homes, because the average Joe can produce enough wealth to build 3 homes, why can't Joe keep all 3, and the answer that will be dodged here, is the obvious answer that the legal criminals are running a racket, and the legal criminals make Joe work harder so that Joe can afford 1 home while the legal criminals collect the surplus wealth by way of charging high interest rates, enough interest money to pay off the savings and loan people and pay off the people who have the legal license to add to or subtract from the total number of dollars. "If Joe had the legal power to add to, and subtract from, the legal number of dollars, without all those middle men, they Joe could stimulate the economy by working for his own home, and then working for a home for his 2 kids, and then end up, after 30 years, a retirement in one home, without a mortgage payment, and both of his kids could then have homes without mortgage payments, and those kids could then afford school, and further stimulate the economy, instead of having all Joe's surplus wealth, over 30 years worth, going to the legal criminals who run the legal extortion racket that can be called The Dollar Hegemony, U.S.A Inc. LLC, The FED, or "The Interest Rate Crisis". "Please go on, I think that the point made above is a point worth making, and worth reinforcing until such time as the victims gain the power required to end the perpetual crime in progress." The second thing is what economists then called the competition in laxity or the race to the bottom. Joe: "Hold on please, I have a few comments on that point." "The race to the bottom is something. The race can be seen as a crisis by some people, call them the losers. The race can be seen as a bonanza by other people, call them the winners. The point here is that the winners have names and they are the people who are at the end of the paper trail if someone curious wants to find them. "If the losers want to find them, to find out how better to play the game, so as to become winners next time, then they too can follow the money trail, and find out how that money trail operates. "The point here is to point out, again, and reinforce, again, the point where the dollar supply is added or subtracted by the people who have the legal license to add or subtract from the dollar supply. "People can accuse me of doing bad things, typing the same thing over and over again, but people can't convict me of adding trillions to the supply of dollars one day, and then the next day subtracting trillions from the supply of dollars, since I don't have that power, and therefore I can't abuse that power, and if my guilt here, of typing the same thing over and over again, is bad, what do you think will be the result of the abuse of that power to add to and subtract from the total dollar supply, over and over and over and over again?" "The result is something called a business cycle and the winners win all the way around that cycle, and they do so because they know when it will be going from bust to boom and then back to bust, each time, because they cause it, that is how they know those facts, they cause those facts, over and over and over again, perpetually, on a schedule, a schedule they know, and a schedule that their victims can't know, because if their victims know, then the fraud can't work." "I have many more comments concerning how the victims are fooled, but I'd rather reinforce the understanding of how the victims can avoid the whole mess." Bill: "Can we get back to the topic." Jay: "Yes, back to Reagan." Joe: "The average Joe can avoid all of that, and this is important, this is the real news here, as the average Joe, and all of those people who constitute the average, regain control over their own capacity to produce surplus wealth. Once the people regain that power they can then figure out how to maintain that power, to keep it, and to defend against criminal abuse of it, and not before regaining it, that is placing the cart before the horse. The real news here is to reinforce the accurate understanding that the criminals have taken the power of spending surplus wealth created by the people and they use that power to perpetuate crime - legal crime. "It is absurd to spend one more moment discussing the things criminals do as if those criminals were anything other than criminals, unless the motive for such an absurdity is to perpetuate these crimes - forever." "Please continue, and I have to back up this work up to this point." So that means that there's no oversight about level of risk whatsoever and no oversight how much backup you have for the loans you have out there. Joe: "I have to stop here, again, and point something out, something that may be real news to many people, as it was real news when I first found out about the news I am going to report." Jay: "We may never get to the end of this report, but go ahead, this is the Real news, after all." Joe: "Competition is the best regulator, and the fact that the regulators fail to regulate when the people hire them to regulate, misses the point entirely. "The thing that people think is the government isn't the government, it is the legal crime business, and it is run by a monopoly power, a power that destroys competition, because the monopoly power will have no power in the face of competition, and to illustrate this point all that is needed is a few words on what does happen when competition is the force that regulates in reality, real reality, not false reality. Bill: "Please do use few words, I'd like to get back to the topic." Joe: "If all the average Joe workers out there could log onto the internet from home, or walk into a bank down the street, today, and at this competitive bank the people at that bank have a loan for sale to Joe, and all the average workers like Joe, all the average Jane workers too, anyone wanting a loan, anyone with a proven capacity to pay back every cent of every dollar borrowed..." Jay: "Few words, please." Joe: "Right. "Right now, all the average workers, suddenly have a choice, right now, to buy a new home mortgage loan, and the interest rate is zero. "Since this is now a discussion, one that I am in on, I can ask, at this point, the relevant question: won't that competitive product regulate the banking market right now, and reduce all the costs charged to all the average workers who are now paying, and paying, and paying, for regulation that doesn't regulate, all those average workers are paying for regulation that does the exact opposite, doesn't that one illustrated product, that one form of competition, end the cycle of legal crime from that day, that that competitive product hits the market, onward?" Bill: "I'd like to return to the topic." Jay: "Yes, the topic is Reagen." Joe: "If the motive behind hiring these legal criminals is to get them to regulate themselves, an absurdity, then it is past time to fire them for lack of performance, for a performance record that reads like a "How to commit the perfect crime" manual, and it is past time for someone, anyone, to point this fact out, to be the first, or second the notion, or third, or at least get in the right line, not the wrong one. "If the motive behind hiring these legal criminals is to get them to perpetuate the business cycle because the employers profit from the business cycle, then by all means keep them in business, and forget about any notions that may compete against such business, because that one business wins by that default methodology. "Don't ever think thoughts that expose both the single worst legal crime and the peaceful avoidance of most of the legal crimes in progress that result from that one single crime." Bill: "The topic?" Jay: "Continue." Joe: "By all means, continue." Joe: "The missing regulator there is a working Trial by Jury. "Whenever someone, anywhere, commits fraud, a victim has the power to publicly announce that fact, and set in motion a series of events that end with a decision made by each of 12 jurors unanimously affixing accountability in each case whatsoever. "Bill Black is complaining about competition - to the bottom. Is he complaining that there isn't any power to avoid being victimized by these competitors as these competitors fight over each other to find the quickest way to commit fraud? "Competition among people who do not commit fraud isn't the same thing as competition between people who commit fraud. A = competition to be the more effective criminal fraud B = competition to offer the highest quality product at the lowest cost? "Competition B makes competition A mute, incapable, without capacity, profitless. When the highest quality money at the lowest cost is found by way of competition the legal crime money monopoly business doesn't pay. "Crime doesn't pay, unless the victims pay into it. Is this Real news, or more of the same business as usual? Jay: "Perhaps that subject can be reported in another report, this in a report on Reagan." Bill" "Can I continue?" So what happens next is the disaster. It's not that President Reagan kicked off the savings and loan crisis; it's that he made it vastly worse, because savings and loans were recovering from the interest rate crisis as interest rates fell sharply through the 1980s. Joe: "Please correct that error." Bill: "What error?" Joe: "Interest rates didn't just "fall", they were lowered by the people who have the legal power to add and subtract legal dollar from the total money supply, and that isn't a trivial correction, that goes right exactly through the heart of the beast, the evil beast, the cause of all this legal torture, and legal mass murder - not at all trivial." Bill: "Who invited this conspiracy theorist nut job into this discussion?" Jay: "It is an open forum, you get what you pay for?" Joe: "The point can be made very clear with the same hypothetical illustration of how competition works to regulate, and end, a legal money monopoly where the people running the legal money monopoly have the power to raise or lower interest rates - interest rates don't just fall, like rain falls, or like leaves fall off trees in the Fall." Bill: "Interest rates were lowered. How about that?" Joe: "Thanks" Bill: "You are welcome." |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
North Dakota Tells Wall St. Not Only Game In TownWell, first, it made money in 2009 when almost all the banks in the country lost money. It returns half of its profits as dividends to the state, and that's been about- -over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars. Anyone (or no one), Numbers are important, accurate numbers more important to some, false numbers more important to others. If a bank, state run or not state run, has published, for public access, numbers, and the numbers are accurate, then that can be a case of lawful, moral, human conduct. If a bank, state run or not state run, has published, for public access, numbers, and the numbers are false, false on purpose, then there is a person, or persons, involved in criminal conduct. The enormity of the numbers involved in banking suggest to me a need to be diligent in the process of judging the accuracy of the numbers, because chances are that someone somewhere, or a group of people somewhere, are falsifying the numbers so as to gain at the expense of the people who are hoodwinked by those numbers. When, it seems to me, the people running the bank, state run or not, refuse to provide accurate numbers, the cat is out of the bag, and the people who refuse to provide accurate numbers confess by their refusal that they are criminals, and they know it, I know it, and the only ones who don't know it, obviously, are the people called the mark, the victims, the targeted market. Let us be very clear about this report by the people running The Real News: The Federal Reserve people are criminals, they refuse to publish accurate numbers, even when congress people demand those accurate numbers, and that supposed Bank is a monopoly bank, a state protected bank (if not run by "The State" per se), and a competitor exists in the form of a separate and sovereign State Bank in North Dakota. A. The Federal Reserve B. State Bank in North Dakota Numbers are important. A. The Federal Reserve: Cost - Income = Profit B. The Bank of North Dakota Cost - Income = "over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars" Got that? How about a better perspective on the scale of the numbers involved in this banking business, state run or not state run, criminal or not criminal, legal crime or not legal crime? I do this often enough to empower me with a sense of scale, a knowledgeable point of view, a way of seeing the forest, so to speak, an not the trees. America is home to about three hundred million people. 300,000,000 American people live in houses, and suppose one third of Americans will someday seek and then gain a mortgage for a home. 100,000,000 That is One Hundred Million Mortgages. Now suppose that the average home mortgage is One hundred thousand dollars. 100,000 Now there can be a simple way to know the scale involved in this banking business by knowing that each home mortgage transfers at least one extra home price from the borrower to the lender as interest payments or the cost of the mortgage. In other words the borrower works to pay off the cost of 2 houses, the borrower keeps one house worth of money, the actual house, and the borrower sends another whole house worth of money, interest payments, to the people running the bank. Now we can use math to find out how much money can transfer from American home borrowers to the people running the banks that lend the money to the American home borrowers. People borrowing = 100,000,000 = One Hundred Million people Power flowing to the Bankers per person = 100,000 = One Average Home Price 100,000,000 x 100,000 = Total Interest Payments sent to the people running the banks Math is easy when working with zeros: just add up the zeros. 100,000,000 = 8 zeros 100,000 = 5 zeros 100,000,000 x 100,000 = 13 zeros 10,000,000,000,000 Back to the relevant quote: Well, first, it made money in 2009 when almost all the banks in the country lost money. It returns half of its profits as dividends to the state, and that's been about- -over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars. And that's a state- -remember, North Dakota has a very small population. It's only got 600,000 people. So it's actually provided a surplus on a very regular basis to the state and has served as a very productive channel for development. What is half a trillion? 500,000,000 That is Five Hundred Million: half a trillion Here is the 30 year income stream going from The People in America to the bankers: 10,000,000,000,000 <------American mortgage target market -------500,000,000 <------Half of a trillion Readers can now know the scale of the numbers being discussed as people discuss the differences between a criminal fraud being perpetrated by the people running The Federal Reserve and the competition running against that fraud. A. The Federal Reserve crime spree 10,000,000,000,000 B. The Bank of North Dakota 500,000,000 All the reader has to do is connect the dots and ask: what if? What if the National government regained control over the legal money business? What would the people running the National government do with all that power to purchase? How about making the scale of this power even more understandable by using a neat math trick called percentages. What is the percent difference between the power sent to The Bank of North Dakota compared to the power sent to The Federal Reserve criminals - power sent to them, from The People (borrowers sending interest payments). What percent of 10,000,000,000,000 is 500,000,000? The web has a neat Calculator page .005% In other words: Small Potatoes The target market in North Dakota is .005, small potatoes, compared to the target market in The Nation as a whole. That is only measuring (by very rough average) the National home mortgage market relative to this report on the measure of "profits" gained by The Bank of North Dakota after expenses. Now there is a very real need to quantify the measure known as expenses, or costs. How much does it cost to run the Bank of North Dakota? If it is a "not for profit" venture, then all income above cost is returned back to The People - yes or no? Back to the relevant quote: Well, first, it made money in 2009 when almost all the banks in the country lost money. It returns half of its profits as dividends to the state, and that's been about- -over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars. And that's a state- -remember, North Dakota has a very small population. It's only got 600,000 people. So it's actually provided a surplus on a very regular basis to the state and has served as a very productive channel for development. Income - expenses = net profit profit If the separate and sovereign state of North Dakota people can generate more power than they consume why can't other separate and sovereign states do the same thing? A Republic is designed to work competitively as each separate and sovereign state exemplifies how best to provide effective government to The People, and then The People can vote with their feet, and move to the better separate and sovereign state, within the Republic. Since this Nation, U.S.A. Inc. LLC, is a National government, not a Republic, the money power encompass all the Unionized states, and no state is separate, and no state is sovereign, within the National State, as designed by Robert Morris and Alexander Hamilton, and others. The idea then, and the idea now, is to create and maintain one monopoly banking power, and from that power all legal money is produced by specific people given the legal license to produce and maintain the National supply of legal money. If the reader can quantify the power involved here, with my illustrations of math, then the reader must also account for the fact that The Bank of North Dakota, is inferior, and subject to, the higher power, where the dollar is produced, and therefore The Bank of North Dakota must send a portion of its earnings to that higher power in the form of interest. It will be interesting, to me, to see if something is done, or what is done, by the people running The Federal Reserve, as The Bank of North Dakota example gains currency by this exposure, this Real News Report, and other avenues of information flow, as Real News travels from person to person in due time. Back to the report for me. Hold on, I see something very important. Ask: Do the people running The Bank of North Dakota create and maintain a business cycle by which The People are alternately feed too much purchasing power (by way of loose monetary policy, liar loans, etc.) and then not enough purchasing power (by way of tight monetary policy, excessive interest rates, etc.) so as to BOOM, and then BUST, the natural flow of economic activity, and thereby know, on schedule, when the boom will turn bust, and when the bust will turn boom, and therefore when to know when to sell at top dollar, and when to buy at bottom dollar? yes no If they do that, if they do create and maintain a business cycle then they, the people running the bank, can move all titles to all wealth to them. In order to do that, it seems to me, the people doing that have to have the power to create money out of thin air, not just accumulate sufficient wealth and then operate a banking monopoly whereby a business cycle is created and maintained. I think that the power to create and maintain a business cycle must follow the seizure of a power by which a person or a group of people can add to or subtract from a legal money supply. The Bank of North Dakota has to get dollar from either The People (tax payers) or The Federal Reserve (people with the legal license to add to or subtract from the total dollar supply), The people running The Bank of North Dakota, as far as I know, do not have the legal license to add to or subtract from the total supply of dollars. That is possibly a very important point to consider. Middle men don't get to bail themselves out, and middle men don't get to raise their own salaries, and middle men don't get to give themselves bonuses, since middle men don't have the legal license to add to or subtract from the total number of dollars - the one and only unlimited credit card. This one: U.S.A Inc. LLC Compare that to this: Well, first, it made money in 2009 when almost all the banks in the country lost money. It returns half of its profits as dividends to the state, and that's been about- -over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars. Know the scale, and by that means know the stakes. Words are powerful, false words only have power over the people who believe in lies. Well, they like to say that they go a very fine line between competing and cooperating. Competition forces quality up and price down. People can know this fact, and know it well, or fail to know this fact, and by that failure they can pay higher cost for lower quality stuff - be my guest. In the money business there are many examples of competitors who have provided higher quality money at lower costs and I will relink one: Negative Interest Money When a competitor provides the very highest possible quality money, what will that money be - exactly/ When a competitor provides the very lowest cost money, what will be that price - exactly? Competition forces the answer into being real, not theory. Banking frauds, the legal ones, can't allow money competition, it can't be allowed, because that force would then force banking frauds out of business on the very first day that the consumers have a choice. Why is this not easy to see, and why is this not common knowledge - common sense? I think that it must be understood, accurately, that knowledge of this sort is against the law. Law has been taken over by the criminals, what else explains reality here? There is no Crisis. All the suffering, all the destruction, all the torture, and all the mass murder perpetrated by law is crime, by law, man made, on purpose, for profit, and if the victims are asking for permission to know these facts, they will be suffering for a long, long time. This is a very good report, from my view, worth the effort to view it. So the critique that would come from the sort of libertarian side, I guess, would be governments just don't know how to run banks, and this will end up being something- -you know, a boondoggle of one form or another. I ran for congress as a libertarian in 1996. I can speak from a libertarian viewpoint. The argument against state run banks is such that the person doing the arguing is wanting to point out to anyone who will listen that the people running the state are people who will abuse their power in such a way as to make competition illegal. If the people running the state don't abuse their power then it is easy to measure that fact. How? If you want to know, then I can provide the answer, and the answer comes from a libertarian perspective, not a quasi, or pretentious, or false libertarian perspective. Libertarians are moral people, or they aren't libertarians - do no harm. From that position, as a do no harm libertarian position, the force of competition remains in force, as people voluntarily avoid using force to do such things as: make competition illegal. When competition works there will be a measurable increase in the quality of stuff, anything imaginable, and the higher quality stuff will be less expensive, less costly, sold, or even given, at a lower price. That is how someone can know, with an accurate measure, if the people running The State, are abusing their power: just ask: Is the quality of things going up? Is the price of things going down? If The State Bank of North Dakota is providing a higher quality banking service, at a lower price, compared to the competition then competition is in force, despite all efforts to outlaw competition. All things are relative. A. The Federal Reserve example B. The State Bank of North Dakota example C. The City Bank of Worgle Austria (1930s) D. The State Bank of China Where is quality going up, where is price going down, why is quality going up, and why is price going down? If a State Bank is run by people who allow competition, adapt to new and better methods of providing the best for the least, then whose to say that is bad, and compared to what? If a State Bank is run by people who make competition against the law, they can then use their power over money to transfer wealth from everyone who creates it to only them, only the few of them inside that network of legal criminals, and there is a score board for such things, and it isn't a crisis, it is exactly what it is by design. It is working exactly as it is designed to work. How can that be a crisis? The score board: Low quality very high cost for many, high quality low cost for very few All things are relative - dependent upon ones unique perspective. I do not represent every libertarian. I do know the base of libertarian ideals - do no harm. It really isn't complicated. What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Complication serves a specific interest. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Time for a Reality Check Please consider reading the article above, and then consider reading my response following: Do you understand the problem? Will you understand the problem better if the problem is presented in a simple and reasonable manner? 1. Living organisms must produce more power than the power the living organism consume. 2. The Sun powers all life on Earth, without which, no Sun, no life on Earth. 3. The power from the Sun exceeds all possible power requirements by all living organisms, including mankind, on Earth by a very, very, very wide margin, so long as the Sun continues to burn. 4. Human beings can now convert sunlight into electric power cheaply. 5. The cost of 1 watt of electric power, on average, from Solar Power Products is less to the average consumer, by about 10%, than the price, on average, charged by the average Electric Company. If anyone, anywhere, has any evidence contrary to the above listed facts, then please consider posting the correction, and the source of the information that proves the correction - otherwise I will proceed, after offering a few observations supporting the above facts, and I will proceed to explain the problem in a common sense manner based upon those 5 facts listed above. 1. Oxygen power is one of the sources of power required by human beings as human beings struggle to survive, cut off that supply and human beings no longer survive. Food power is another, and food power requires more expense, more work, more investment of time and energy, and more cost for human beings compared to oxygen power, so food power helps support the first fact on my list of facts that help the reader understand the problem. I can also use math: Power produced > Power consumed = Life Power produced < Power consumed = Death That is a fact, and important one, and one that helps the reader understand the problem. 2. The Sun is already the source of power that is consumed in the work of creating oxygen on Earth, take away the Sun power, plants die, where do you think oxygen comes from on earth? Take away the oxygen supply, where do you think human beings are going to get the needed supply of oxygen, or the needed supply of plant food, or the needed supply of oxygen consuming animal foods. No Sun and human beings will spend a whole lot of effort replacing that power source, for a short time, all life on Earth ends quickly. 3. If every extra source of power that human beings have at their command was spent today and every day from this day forward only toward the work of increasing the power human beings store, for later use, just in case the sun goes out, the amount of power stored can never equal a small portion of the power already raining down on Earth from the Sun, but, and this is important: the power human beings could store, if that is what human beings decide to do, would be a very, very, very, large amount of power. The Sun power could move all the water in the oceans up to the highest mountains on Earth, Damned up, and then allowed to flow back, by gravity, through electric generators. That is an absurd example used to illustrate the actual power supply that exists, what could be done with the actually power supply that exists, if the idea is to use the available power supply in such a way as to store as much power as possible in the event that no more power would be available - from the Sun. People may have a very hard time understanding this fact, but people will have an even harder time refuting it, unless the introduction of deliberate falsehood is chosen as a means of "refuting" the facts. 4. One of the cheapest forms of converting solar energy into electric power is by way of using mirrors to reflect sunlight onto a liquid and then storing the hot liquid, and then using the hot liquid to boil water, and then using the pressure of steam to run electric turbines. It is expensive to move the electricity from that cheap power station to the many people who use power from that station. Solar Panels make power at the point of consumption, cutting out the middle man, cutting out all the wires needed to move electric power from the Electric Company to the customers. 5. If one human being can now call up a phone number where the person answering the phone guarantees a lower electric bill to the person calling, if they go solar, then it is an established fact that Solar Panel Electric Power is now cheaper than Electric Company Electric Power, in that place, right now. The average cost per watt world wide is not known by me, the facts are the facts, and the facts show up on each bill payed by each consumer who now sends a sum of money to an Electric Company each month, where going solar will, in fact, reduce that cost per month. If it is guaranteed that that bill will be less, by going solar, then the cat is out of the bag, the fact is now known, and knowable. Go solar, the bill is less per month, the facts are what they are, in each place where that fact is a fact, in fact. Unless someone can refute those facts, the following words are presented as valid additions - unraveling the problem: Currently the laws made by man against man are such that a person making electric power at home cannot sell electric power when they generate too much electric power at home. Try it, see what happens, and consider reporting back here. If those laws change and if any person anywhere can begin producing more and more power at home, more than the power consumed at home, then what happens to that extra power, if the laws are changed to allow that person to sell power back to the Electric Company for a profit, what happens, and what happens next? Things become more complicated at this point, involving such things as the legal title, and therefore the legal control over, The Grid. The facts that can be understood, the simple facts, include these: 1. More, and then more, people will produce more power at home, sell the excess, and by that method more people will convert electric power into money (purchasing power) at home - when doing so is no longer against the law. 2. More people producing power, more power will be produced. 3. If more power is produced, power price will reduce. 4. If more power is produced, and the price of power reduces, there will be an increase, by that fact, in the value of each unit of money. 5. Fact 4 above is true because power (such as electric power) reduces the cost of production. Here is where the reader may have lost the trail, and here is where I can gather that person back up and point that person back on the trail, right on the trail, looking exactly where the solution to the problem becomes very, very, obvious. The reverse of this power solution is illustrated by an example of the power problem when the reader recalls what happens when the supply of oil power drains out and that source of power becomes scarce. In reverse order: 1. Less power, in this case less oil power 2. Less oil power from sources in America or anywhere else, less oil power 3. Oil power price goes up (Who is going to argue this fact?) 4. The value of each unit of money plummets as a direct result of less power supplied to the people who use power to produce all the things that money buys 5. Fact 4 above is true because power reduces the cost of production and therefore less power increases the cost of production. Less power = higher power prices = higher costs = higher prices = lower money value per unit. What happens in reality when our supplies of power are reduced? This is a known fact, the prices on everything go up, and therefore the amount that 1 dollar will buy is less, and therefore the value of each unit of money is less - and the reverse is true. More power produced, money is worth more, because power reduces the cost of production. That is a direct result of this: Power produced > Power consumed = Life Power produced < Power consumed = Death The problem in the link is expressed as those people producing that News Item are able to express the problem. Those people do not identify the abuse of law as a means of eliminating competition. Why not? If each person were given the legal power to profit from The Grid, by selling power produced at home, and thereby convert Sunlight into Electric Power and then convert Electric Power into money, what would be the problem then? Please consider these facts, or find errors in these facts, the supposed problem isn't a problem, there is an obvious solution, and it is a peaceful, powerful, economic, political, and environmental solution. Easy as American Apple Pie. End falsehood first. Back to the News Item: The issue of control mainly refers to controlling the load generated from solar energy assets, especially in situations of high PV (photovoltaic) deployment, a uniquely Californian problem in the U.S. For instance, San Diego Gas & Electric's programs to encourage small businesses and homeowners to adopt solar energy have been so successful that the utility has circuits with more than 40 percent PV penetration. There are certain instances in which so much solar is generated in the circuit that the voltages exceed acceptable ranges, which affects power quality. To address this issue, the utility can either upgrade the circuit system (a costly undertaking) or prevent circuits from over-penetration by: 1) limiting PV penetration on a circuit to 20 percent (PG&E automatically flags solar permits in circuits with more than 20 percent penetration); or 2) curtail or throw away excess energy. The obvious missing element in that report right above is the thing called storage. Here is where I can help put the reader back on the right track again, if that is at all possible. Storage can be understood from many angles of view including but not limited to The Electric Grid, a basic electric circuit in a radio, a hydraulic circuit such as the hydraulic circuits in Bull Dozers and Heavy Equipment, Money flowing in an economic circuit, and blood in the human body. How about money? If there is a number of dollars on Earth and that number is x and one person begins storing dollars in one bank and as time goes by that one person manages to store half of the total number of dollars on Earth in that one bank, then everyone else must work with the other half. How about the human body? If someone gives blood to the blood bank then someone obviously has extra, unless that someone dies from giving blood, and that extra blood is stored at the blood bank, and then when someone needs blood, there is stored blood in a blood storage unit, a blood storage unit that won't die if too much blood is taken out of storage. How about The Grid? If The Grid included 2 cars in each garage where each car was an electric car and most of the time one of those cars sat in the garage hooked up to The Grid, then there would be many, many, many little batteries storing a very large total amount of stored electricity. How about more information on the problem and solution of The Grid? If someone could sell electricity, by law, to The Grid, from home, something that is now against the law, then someone could invent and then use one of many ways by which their own home power generating system stores electricity at any time when they choose, such as a time when the price they can sell electricity is low, and they prefer to sell electricity when the price is high, so they store it right at that low demand moment, and then they sell it right at the high demand moment when prices go sky high. Does that sound at all familiar - in reverse? If there is no demand for storing electricity, someone might ask why, and the answer might turn out to be the abuse of the power of law toward the immoral, and unjustified elimination of competition. Or not. When laws are not abused in the work of eliminating competition, creating monopolies, there will be a natural demand for the production of power producing products, used at home, and power storing products, and both in one thing. Case in point: There are devices that use electric power to make Hydrogen gas out of water. Electricity is used to separate water into Oxygen and Hydrogen. H two O becomes Hydrogen and Oxygen, not water. Now a person can store electricity in the form of Oxygen and Hydrogen. Hydrogen can then be used to generate electricity, or heat the house, or some other use, when needed. Data supporting the case in point A home power producer, someone who decides to compete with the Electric Company, may want one of these types of devices, so as to store, and then sell, or then use excess power they create at home - if laws weren't abused so as to eliminate that competition. Who would make all those power producing and storing products demanded by all those people who decide to make a living in the power producing business once competition was no longer against the law? What would happen to the price of an hour of labor once the number of working people dwindled to a trickle, as everyone found ready employment in the power producing and power storing business once the laws were no longer abused and used toward the work of eliminating competition in the power producing and power storing business? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The History of Military Dictatorship in EgyptYou know, that was seen by Washington as some kind of communist state and closely allied to the Soviet Union, so part of the Soviet system. Who is "Washington"? The false front, the false advertisement, or the cover story has been East vs. West, Capitalism vs. Communism, etc. The Real story is the power struggle, absent the names, so as to see the actual measure of power. Washington is, since 1913 at least, The Federal Reserve. The actual power is a power to purchase. A member of The Federal Reserve has the legal license to increase or decrease the total number of dollars, since 1913, at least. That is a powerful source of power, and that power can buy dictatorships, if someone commanding that much power to purchase desires a dictatorship. The story here, this History of Egypt, misses something important. I have viewed the Real News report up the that quote above and so far there is no reference to something called Islamic Finance. The Power Struggle can be expressed as: A. The Dollar B. The competition Islamic Finance is a part of the competition. If an Arab country, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or Panama, breaks away from, escapes, or otherwise disconnects from The Dollar power they are then faced with a situation whereby dollars are no longer available - at a cheap price. Lacking easy access to dollars is lacking easy access to oil. If the country breaking away from The Dollar have oil, like Venezuela, or some other valuable currency such as a canal, a thorough fare, a toll road, a short cut through Panama, or a short cut through Suez, then that country has power to buy dollars or power to back their own new and competitive currency. The Dollar has The Federal Reserve System by which The Dollar supply is managed. What, and who, manages the supply of legal money in the Arab world, and specifically what, and who, manages the supply of legal money in Egypt? Why is this important? If Egypt undergoes a regime change similar to the regime change that occurred in Iran - out with The Dollar puppet Shaw, and in with the new guys, then the new guys will need a replacement for The Dollar. Iran has oil. Egypt has the canal that allows oil to be shipped economically, or inexpensively compared to going around Africa, or through pipelines over land, and therefore through countries where regimes may charge too much for passage. The power struggle will therefore shift power, significantly, toward or away from The Dollar power, as passage through the Suez Canal either backs group A or group B. Group A is The Dollar Group B is the competition Islamic Finance is one of many options available to the new guys running Egypt. Which will they choose? If that choice isn't even reported, then the report is missing a key piece of the puzzle. If the new guys want military hardware, or parts for the military hardware they have, can they buy from The Federal Reserve, U.S.A. Inc. LLC, Washington, and The Dollar Hegemony if the new guys are not fully on board with the laundry list of demands issued by Washington, The Federal Reserve, U.S.A. Inc. LLC, and The Dollar Hegemony? If they can buy military hardware, oil, and other things from subsidiaries of U.S.A. Inc. LLC, Washington, The Federal Reserve, and The Dollar Hegemony, what currency will they use to buy those military hardware supplies? Who supplies Cuba, and Venezuela, and Iran with military hardware? A. The Dollar Hegemony B. The competition Who offers the best stuff, at the lowest cost? Islamic Finance charges no interest. Interest is the cost of borrowing money. Capitalism is the method by which price is determined or fixed at "that which the market will bear". If Islamic Finance charges no interest, then Islamic Finance does not fix price according to capitalist dogma. Which competitive monetary policy is the higher quality monetary policy at the lower cost; and therefore which competitive monetary policy would gain the most market share if the market was a free market? Here is where the capitalist propagandists run into their own falsehoods, their contradictions are exposed, and the Real News is right here, as people may want to know the truth about the power struggle between socialism and capitalism, East and West. A. The Dollar Hegemony B. The competition. The application of force, military (hardware or physical force) and political (software or psychological) toward the elimination of competition is the force that disqualifies a market as a free market and this comes straight from capitalist dogma. To commit fraud is to apply political force toward the elimination of competition and end what was a free market before the competitor was rendered power-less by victimization. A subsidy is a very good example of political fraud. Competitor A receives power from the political force while competitor B does not receive power from the political force, rendering competitor B power-less and rending competitor A power-full - ending competition. Competitor A can then lower his price and still balance the books, while competitor B cannot. Competitor A can then increase quality by investing the subsidized power to purchase while competitor B cannot. This is all straight from capitalist dogma. What about money? The moment any law is made by which one money is more powerful, by law, than another money, is the moment that law is used to end monetary competition, even if the one money made more powerful by law is gold. Lawful money is a political quality of money, and a powerful quality since lawful money is the money required to pay when taxes are required to pay, and anyone without lawful money will be guilty of tax evasion - plain and simple. Therefore lawful money, according to capitalist dogma, ends the free money market, as one money, the lawful money, is subsidized, and made more powerful by forcing people to use the lawful money, and forcing people to pay higher costs if they choose the unlawful money. Once political power, and/or military power, is used to end competition in money, by way of subsidy, by way of making one money more powerful than another money, by way of punishing those who don't have lawful money, once that is done, the money made lawful no longer has the force of competition working toward higher quality and lower cost. The sky is the limit as to how low the quality of the lawful monopoly money can go, and the price (interest rate) for the lawful money can also go as high as the sellers, producers, The Federal Reserve, want to charge for that monopoly money. Any person in America, or anyone anywhere on the Globe called Earth, if allowed to have a choice between money A and money B where the two have an equal ability to purchase, and money A cost nothing to borrow, and money B cost 10% interest to borrow, in a free market, would anyone choose the higher cost money, and if so why? A. The Dollar Hegemony product B. One example of the competition Islamic Finance News At least $500 billion in assets around the world are managed in accordance with Sharia, or Islamic law, and the sector is growing at more than 10% per year. Here is where readers may loose interest due to a perceived insurmountable complexity; however this is easy to see. A growth rate of 10% can be compared to the often repeated dogma behind many over-population doom day reports where the report is used to scare people into believing that the human species is doomed. Too many people, not enough stuff, because the number of people are growing exponentially. Malthusian growth model An increase of 10% per year is a rate of increase that doubles in size every 7 years. Caculator 10% = double every 7 years A. The Dollar Hegemony B. The competition Despite all efforts to create and maintain a monopoly power, by forcefully eliminating the competition, using fraud and violence, using political and military power, despite all that expense the force of competition remains powerful, and this is also part of the capitalist dogma. Capitalist dogma contradicts itself, the actual people contradict themselves, in money (and labor) markets. There are many capitalists who say one thing for all other markets and they say the opposite thing for money and labor markets. The price of money, according to capitalist dogma, is determined by market forces, and therefore the best money at the lowest cost will be the money that gains the most market share, and that best money, at the lowest cost, will always be the money of choice, who would choose the worst money at the highest cost, ever, unless forced by trickery or by threat of violence, or by actual violence, forced to "choose" the lower quality and higher cost money; an offer they can't refuse? If the reader is a capitalist, or if the reader has access to a capitalist that is willing to speak truthfully, then either look in the mirror, or call up your capitalist friend, and ask him which money is the best money. The capitalist inside will short circuit, or the capitalist on the phone will short circuit, and the answer will never appear - ever. If the capitalist inside says that the best money is gold, or if the capitalist on the phone says that the best money is gold, then that can of worms will only delay the inevitable short circuit - it is cover story. The gold versus paper money fight is another example of evidence leading to the accurate identification of people who produce this type of conflict so as to divide and conquer the target market. The Real News here is that the free market does exist despite all the power that has and is being expended in the work of eliminating free choice. The free market is free choice, the free market is never present when a choice is based upon deliberate falsehood or deliberate threat or use of violence. Protesters who have had enough falsehood, fraud, threat of violence, and use of violence may want to combine their power, if they have command of their power of numbers, toward the creation and maintenance of the best money at the lowest cost. 1. The Dollar Hegemony (a tool by which boom and bust is perpetuated) 2. Islamic Finance (Interest charges or usury is against the law) 3. The competition (including negative interest money) Ask the questions following: 1. Which military hardware will the new Egyptian regime choose to buy? 2. Which money will the new Egyptian regime choose to buy? 3. Will the Egyptian regime choose capitalism or socialism? What will be the answers? The first 2 questions will be factual, the third question requires a look in the mirror to find the answer. I'm returning to the Real News report.
When that person says "we" as in "we shouldn't forget" he may know, without a shadow of doubt, that some people must forget certain facts, because certain facts destroy the false front that certain people construct as certain people construct false front to accomplish certain things. East vs West Capitalism vs Socialism Despotism vs Democracy Austrian Economics vs Keynesian Economics The construction of certain things require work, willful work, and deliberate work, and work that has a design, and work that has a purpose, such as the purpose: to conquer. A. One Division B. Two Division We may very well not want to forget some things, others of us can't stand to know some things, to do so would be earth shattering events, and to do so, to know, would be horrific, and terrifying, to see one's own accountability is, to some, unthinkable - against the law. Outlawed. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Economist Jeffrey Sachs on the Budget: "Do we really have to have our own Egypt here in the United States?" [Video] Bloomberg The message there appears to be a problem with a false or misleading solution. Problem: The National Government has been taken over by people who are "on the take". Solution: Raise Taxes, spend more money I say that the problem is a non-problem and this is reasonable. Who wants to raise whose taxes, and who then wants to spend that money gained by raising those taxes, and what is that money going to purchase? Take any single expense and ask why would the person wanting to raise taxes want to raise taxes instead of merely having the person wanting to raise taxes keep their own money and then allow them to spend their own money on whatever they want to spend it on. If the money is wanted for improving a road, why can't someone spend that money locally, where they would most likely be using that road? Why send the money to "Washington", or U.S.A. Inc. LLC, or The Federal Reserve System, or here: Rediculously BAD investment Why would anyone send money there, money that could benefit someone? This idea of "raising taxes" as a solution to any problem is ludicrous. Person A sends money to a group of people who have legalized torture and mass murder for profit and then Person A expects to realize some measure of benefit by that transfer of power from them to the torturing mass murderers? The money, the power to purchase, transferred from all the people who create that power (the good faith and credit of the American people) to the people who are spending it, is power used to secure the power to take that power. The supposed solution is the problem. Criminals have taken over the power to spend the wealth that is created by the American people, and they spend that money on aggressive wars for profit, the same crimes committed by the German legal criminals known as Nazi's and those legal criminals were hung by the neck until dead for having planned and they perpetrating aggressive wars for profit. Criminals collect all the power that can be squeezed out of the American economy and they spend that power torturing and mass murdering innocent victims in places where oil power can be seized, and where banking interest can be seized, and where power in any form can be seized, including food power, water power, gold power, diamond power, the power of wealth, human labor power, any power whatsoever. If anyone wishes to test the their theory out, do so, and see what happens. Problem: The National Government has been taken over by people who are "on the take". Solution: Raise Taxes, spend more money Keep sending them money, send them more money, send them more money, complain about things such as "how they spend that money" and "how poor we are after we have sent them all that money" and see how well your solution works for you. Criminals have taken over the power to spend the wealth that is created by the American people, and they spend that money on aggressive wars for profit, the same crimes committed by the German legal criminals known as Nazi's and those legal criminals were hung by the neck until dead for having planned and then for having perpetrated those aggressive wars for profit, those cases of mass torture, and those cases of mass murder. Imagine this: Problem: Legal criminals are torturing and mass murdering on my dime Solution: Use money that isn't designed by the legal criminals and therefore sever the connection to the legal criminals - forever. This: Rediculously BAD investment Becomes this: 0 Zero The flow of power from those who create wealth to those who spend that wealth on perpetual crime ends. What happens in the imaginary scenario? Compare the imaginary scenario to the proposed solution to the proposed problem? They are "on the take" and they are not using the power we send them to benefit us, boooo hoooooo, woe is me, what can we do, send them more money? What? Problem: They don't listen to us, they keep using the money we send them to prop up Dictators all over the world, to torture, to mass murder, and we are beginning to understand that this is not right, and they still don't listen to us. Solution: Protest like some of the victims are protesting in some of the places where our power has been used to commit heinous crimes against innocent victims, not limited to mass torture, and mass murder? Really? How well has that worked for them? If there is enough power to force the legal criminals to be nice, and force them to stop doing really bad things, and force them to spend our power on us, to benefit us, then there is enough power to design and then use our own money, and sever the connection we have to them, and then they have to get real jobs, and then they have to do what every other honest working person has to do, they have to actually please their customers. Right now, their customers are criminals, just like them, people who profit from aggressive wars for profit, and profit from legalized torture, and profit from legalized mass murder, and it may be a good idea to get up, got to the bathroom, and look in the mirror, and report back here, please, and tell me, and anyone else, what you see. Are you willingly sending your power to people who torture and mass murder on your dime? Is that what you want? Did you hire those people to torture for you, and mass murder for you, and are you one of their customers, and are they pleasing you, to no end? Are you happy now? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
War With Their Unions Anyone, Here I see an opportunity to expose the lies, at the core of the lies, and continue my war on falsehood. The right versus left argument is in place for a reason, it is constructed and maintained for a reason, and that reason is clearly understood as a political tactic known as Divide and Conquer. The legal criminals use the power they steal to finance both sides of a conflict and they gain more power during the conflict. The people fighting each other may see the conflict they are in as a living hell, or a Bust, an almost total loss, a very bad state of affairs, and only worsened when the viewpoint is seen by the losing side. The winning side is relatively less worse off only compared to the losing side. Meanwhile the legal criminals see that part of the cycle as their Boom side, or up side, recording record profits, as both sides become very needy, needing shoes to cover the soldiers feet, at Valley Forge, or the Predator Drones in the Middle East, or Anti-Aircraft Missiles for Osama Bin Laden as he fights as one of the Enemies of our Enemies and therefore "our" friends. Who is inside that "our" group? It is past time to make a top ten list, American's top ten legal criminals, the serial killers whose list of victims are more massive by exponents compared to their illegal competition. Who signs the order to torture, legally, and who signs the order to mass murder legally? When that person is facing a jury, for torturing the innocent, and for mass murdering the innocent, will that person seek the "I was only following orders" defense too? Oh wait, they exempt themselves from the laws they enforce, and give themselves raises, to keep up with their need to raise our cost of living. Of course these people lie. Why do you think these people were hired? They represent the people who gain power by creating conflict. They have the power to boom any group of people and they have the power to boom any other group of people, and they have the power to pit one group against another group, and then they have the power to charge each group to fight each other, selling hardware, for example, and then they have the power to sell the survivors on both sides more things, at the highest price, to clean up the mess. A winning side, or losing side, being boomed by these legal criminals, see their lives boom, explode, suddenly begin to gain power, to enrich, to expand, to energize, and to grow, and even here, at this point in the cycle, the legal criminals continue to rake in the power, to receive the power, to gain the power, to become more powerful, as their power is loaned into the winning sides, or losing sides, economy. People don't call foul on the things I write. Why? I've done my homework. Look at the next two links and know that the stories in these links are two halves of one story, and the same story repeats over and over and over again. WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER Who is Wall Street? If every person in America woke up tomorrow and began, as planned, to use any money other than The Dollar would Wall Street have any power whatsoever? Wall Street is The Dollar, it is The Federal Reserve Systematic Fraud by which The People in America are fooled into making the people called Wall Street very very powerful as The People in America create power and send all the excess power they create to the people running The Federal Reserve Systematic Fraud. Where is all that money? Were are all those dollars? I don't have them. Who does? What is being done with all those dollars? I am speaking about the excess dollars. There are more dollars than the number of dollars needed by each person needing dollars. How many dollars are there, where are they, who has them, and what are they going to do with them? The Federal Reserve people recently (2008) doubled the number of dollars. Where did that excess go? Do you have it? No, you don't, and if you had double the total supply of dollars you would certainly have too much, you couldn't ever spend that much money, ever, no matter how long you lived, yet, someone signed the order, and someone set in motion events that caused, in 2008, the creation of as many new dollars as the number of dollars already on Earth. They will boom something, somewhere, and you can't. If you want to boom something you have to get a job, you have to do what the customer wants, if you don't someone else will, and then you have to find a job where you do what the customer wants, and then, after taxes, and after hidden taxes such as "inflation", you may have one excess dollar to spend, because here, in America, the Federal Reserve People are busting, they have America on the down cycle at this time. Where is that money going to go? If they do have, in their plans, and on their list of things to buy, with that new money, double the supply in 2008, a new Boom cycle in America, what will the buy? If they make zero interest loans to all those people who are now paying twice what they can pay for a home if the move next door, then all those people can stay where they are and just cut their payments to the bank in half. That would put the power to purchase right back into the hands of the people who make power, people with good credit, people who earn their power to purchase, and what would those people buy? Would those people buy depleted uranium projectiles with which to kill natives who occupy lands over oil, so as to keep on killing, and torturing, for years and years even after the oil is gone? No, they wouldn't, not if they thought about it, how would that honest working American, with good credit, deliver that depleted uranium projectile to the destination - take a vacation, travel, and deliver it by hand - send his oldest son? The new money, double the money supply from 2008, could be loaned only to people who need a no interest mortgage loan, to cut their living expenses, month to month, and have enough money to pay for, well, how about Solar Panels and a brand new electric car? Dad: "Hey, son, instead of sending you off to hand deliver that depleted uranium projectile to torture and mass murder the natives residing on oil lands we have considered a better investment opportunity. We can buy 2 electric cars, fuel them at home, and you can drive one as a taxi cab. What do you think?" Son: "Well Dad, really, I hear that vacationing in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or Iraq, or even Iran, in the possible near future, is all the rage." Mom: "Nancy Grace would be so proud, even if you came back in a pine box, ohhhh, dear son, there isn't any glamor in driving a taxi cab - do go." Why keep reading from the script, what is the point? The paper trail leads back to the dollar. The fight isn't left against right, unless you make that the fight, and if you declare war on falsehood, your power will stay at home. If socialism is bad, dear right wing conservative fellow citizen, explain the military - what is it? If capitalism is bad, dear left wing liberal fellow citizen, explain the justification for taxation? When The People do know that they are on the same side, the legal criminals then have to find a real job, just like everyone else, and they then have to please their customers, because someone else will do the right thing. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Obama's Budget: Freezing the PoorLIHEAP offers block grants to states so they can offer financial assistance to low-income households in order to meet home energy needs, mostly for heating. Most of its recipients are the elderly and disabled. The program is currently funded at more than $5 billion. Obama is calling for that to be slashed to $2.57 billion-roughly half. This life-or-death program, which literally can help prevent people from freezing to death, represents less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the proposed $3.7 trillion annual budget. The reader could expand on that theme, and apply that type of knowing, that understanding, to a wider vision, and do so by spending some time, some energy, and some power toward the perusal of a thing called: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report C A F R Someone most certainly knows where all the money goes, to suggest otherwise is a curious suggestion. Who suggests otherwise, and why do they suggest otherwise? Consider thinking from a very basic, base, and solid foundation, then peruse the subject matter tabled by Walter Burien, plopped on the table like a torturer might plop a severed limb onto your dinner table, to wake you up, let you really know what is going on, on your dime, and that foundation is this: Honest, hard working, polite, agreeable, cooperating, innocent, People can, will, and do, create a whole lot of excess wealth. People can even create so much excess wealth that they can build Pyramids in their spare time, and they were powerful enough to be able to do that well before the invention and use of labor saving things like motors and motor fuel, or computers, or the internet. The reason for this human power, this human capacity, and this human ability by which people can produce much more than they consume is, at least, three in number. A. Division of labor (I bring home the food, you cook it) B. Specialization (I get really, really, good at, bringing home the food) C. Economies of scale (If I bring home enough food in one trip for 10 people, good, but if I bring home enough food for 1000 people, even better, since the cost, or the expense of the trip is divided by 1000 instead of 10) All of those powerful advantages empower humans to be very good at creating and stockpiling excess wealth, for a rainy day, or to conduct aggressive wars for profit. A. Honest working people increase their standard of living by investing their excess wealth toward more efficient ways of producing more wealth with less effort. B. Legal criminals steal the excess wealth, use that power toward the maintenance of that power, to steal, including the financing of both sides in perpetual conflict, and the perpetuation of a boom and bust cycle whereby the excess wealth always flows from those who create it to those who steal it. That is, in the words of Albert Einstein, as simple as possible, but not simpler. Here: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Why are things made to be too complicated, on purpose? A law that can only be understood by the enforcers is a law that will only benefit the enforcer? How about an even simpler understanding as to why things are made too complicated, on purpose, and this quote comes from someone who earned his authority on the subject. Alexandr I Solzhenitsyn 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. The truth is one half, what is the other half, what constitutes the overly complex half, why is there fine print? Who writes the fine print, and why, and if you asked them, would they answer with the truth, and who expects known liars to do anything but lie, who banks on them telling the truth, this time? Who is fooling, who is fooled? The capacity of producing and storing excess wealth exists, more wealth than can be imagined, what is the limit? Falsehood. Falsehood covers up all the other limitations. Who produces falsehood, and why? The prize in view is that unlimited capacity to produce and store excess wealth, and having seized that goal, what limits the laundry list of things to do to get it? Torture is on that list, made by the people with that goal driving them. Mass murder is on that list too. The limit may be an end to the human species, as that too may be on the list of things to do, as each competitor who is after that same goal reaches for it. Who has nuclear war, on the table, on their list of things to do, and if you find that person, what have you found? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The economic reasons A.K.A. War Rationale 101 This is about as accurate a confession for legal crime as anyone can imagine into being. Those who confess have to actually tell the truth - don't you know? Torturing someone into confessing isn't confessions, torturing someone is torturing someone, confessions are confessions, linking the two together, as in torturing someone into confessing, is torturing the truth so as to make the truth unrecognizable, for some reason. On to quotes from the link: The cable, titled "Shin Bet Talks Gaza Economics," was written by David R. Burnett, Economic Counselor in the US embassy in Tel Aviv. It describes a briefing given to Embassy officials by senior members of the Israeli Shin Bet*, on how Israel uses the banking system in Gaza to increase the political influence of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Gaza, by attempting to starve the Hamas government of cash. Starving is a form of torture. Try it, see how happy you are as the life drains from your body, and as the body begins to feed upon itself. How happy might someone be as someone watches their children shrink instead of growing, because they starve. This document demonstrates that the Israeli government is in fact strangling the Gazan economy in order to turn Gaza into a captive market for Israeli products and maintain demand for the Israeli shekel - all in the name of "fighting terrorism." It also demonstrates that the international community - and especially the US - have allowed this policy to continue. One reason is as good as another, so long as the acts inspired by reason continue, the reasons are mere words. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? Someone signing the orders, following orders, or making up orders on the spot, adding a stamp of approval, or authoring new orders, does so, and acts follow, and the current reason, excuse, rationale, cover story, or argument now may be out-dated the next second, the next minute, the next hour, the next day, the next week, the next month, the next year, the next decade, and the next century, while the acts remain the same. A. Plan on injuring innocent people. B. Execute the plan. When the injury ends the life of the innocent victims, what do the family and friends of the murdered people think and do as a result of such a thing? When the injury merely starves the innocent victim, so as to extract from the innocent victim, a pound of flesh, what does the victim and the family and friends of the tortured victim think and do as a result of such a thing? C. Plan to deal with the innocent victims who survive the injury. Where is plan C? Where are the Wiki-leaks exposing the confession by the legal criminals as they plan to deal with the obvious results of their crimes upon their innocent victims? The Shin Bet estimates that Hamas uses US$40 million (13.8% of its budget) for military and security needs, and invests the remainder in administration and civilian projects. A parasite feeding too much upon its host will be a parasite that kills its host. A decision time will be reached. A. Keep feeding and kill the host. B. Reduce feeding and allow the host to live. C. The parasite isn't a parasite, the parasite is a torturing mass murderer intending to kill the innocent victim by way of sucking all the life out of it, and cause the innocent victim to die a torturous prolonged slow agonizing death, on purpose, for some reason. In America there was a problem called The Indian Problem. There was a solution. In Germany there was a problem called The Jewish Problem. There was a solution. In Israel there is an Arab problem? What is the final solution planned and executed in that case? In America their final solution didn't work, perhaps not as well as planned and executed. Now the Indian problem remains, and now the new solution includes licenses "given" to Native American political leaders for legal tax "differed" gambling. Native Americans persevered; remarkably. Many were wiped off the face of the Earth, the last of the Mahicans long gone. In Germany their final solution didn't work either, depending upon who does the measure of success, I suppose. Did the planners and executors of their final solution, in the Nazi example, get what they set out to get, did they get it, or did they not get it, according to their own stated goals, and according to the actual results of their actions. Can they confess while hanging from ropes around their necks? Would anyone believe them if they confessed? Do the victims get to measure the case? If they live they can, conceivably. How well did that final solution work, according to the victims of it? Now the shoe appears to be on the other foot and a new Jewish problem emerges, and now the new solution includes Jewish political leaders, Zionists, adopting the Nazi final solution programs, apparently verbatim. What was the Warsaw Ghetto? How is the Warsaw Ghetto any different, principally, morally, rationally, reasonably, and arguably from what the Zionists have planned for, and are doing to their targeted "problems" who happen to be living where the Zionists want to live? A. The problem is x B. The solution is to remove x C. The solution causes x to be less than willing to accept that final solution for some strange reason? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Power to avoid, or power to punish?Why did the Egyptian police state not starve on the vine, forcing Mubarak's depraved cronies in the military, police, and bureaucracies to go home and make livings for themselves that did not involve robbing, killing or intimidating ordinary Egyptians? The actual title to that news item is: Monetary Revolt: The Silver Bullet To Kill a Despised Regime That news item is published on a right leaning news outlet, or an economy leaning news outlet, a perspective that focuses the power of thought more on physical or economic powers and less on political or psychological powers. The left could be seen as the power of mind, and the power of psychology, and the power of politics. The right could be seen as the power of matter, and the power of physics, and the power of economy. What power does the economic right side access when that power accesses news media? News Media News = software, information content, ideas, perceptions, opinions, reasons, thinking, psychology, argumentation, cooperation, agreement, deals, offers, politics, and the stuff flowing through the connection from one human mind to other human minds in time and space. Media = hardware, bits, bites, letters, sentences, text, sound waves, images, structure, paper, pens, wires, roads, satellites, avenues, networks, physical matter, physical laws, economic laws, facts, accurate measures, and the stuff that connects one human mind to other human minds in time and space. It is always a good time to point out how matter always moves and matter never stops moving. Life is current. Why did the Egyptian police state not starve on the vine, forcing Mubarak's depraved cronies in the military, police, and bureaucracies to go home and make livings for themselves that did not involve robbing, killing or intimidating ordinary Egyptians? Someone leaning left aught to be able to appreciate the question, it seems to me. How much better might one appreciate the right answer? How about the accurate answer for those who refuse to lean the least bit toward the right answer? I comment while reading, so I'll read onward, looking from the edge of my seat, for the accurate answer. The facile answers to these questions that have been seized upon by the media involve the Egyptians' supposed respect for the military, and the funding that has continued to flow into the country from the United States. Both of these answers are unsatisfying, and ultimately question begging. Someone grieving over a tortured or murdered innocent loved one, or someone on the schedule for today's torture session, or today's murder victim list, to be executed in due time, may beg for a little less flow of dollars from where dollars come from to where dollars are going when dollars are purchasing employees willing to execute those things on those lists of things to do. All things are relative, such as who begs for what, and why one person may beg more than another for virtually the same thing. I get put off by many of the right leaning authors, inspiring me to take a defensive posture, it seems to me. I'll read on, the answers may be worth the effort required to receive them. The real reason for these men's ability to keep their jobs and effectively maintain the Mubarak-inspired police state is that the Egyptian people neglected the most important aspect of protest in the modern world; monetary protest. I am almost falling off the edge of my seat now. This writer obviously understands the whole picture - the power struggle. I'll read on expecting to find words that reinforce my own understanding, briefly, that people sharing a common goal of avoidance are people that won't reach that goal without the power required to accomplish the goal. People need water power, or they suffer and die of thirst. People need food power, or they suffer and die of hunger. There can be no secondary goal achievable without satisfying the primary goals first. I'll read on. In the modern world of fiat currencies printed by governments like Mubarak's, it is not enough to say "get out and stop oppressing us," even if millions of people are saying it. It is not enough to storm the presidential palace and string up the dictator like a hog, as the still-oppressed people of Romania know all too well. It is not enough to demand elections, and it is not enough to demand freedom. Instead, what is ultimately needed is to cut off the beast's funding and starve it to death. No dictatorship, junta or even republic in the world can survive if it cannot finance itself. The mantra of the revolution ought to have been "Down with Mubarak money!" Someone familiar with my work may wonder why I am very disappointed with that news item, that quote of that news item, that message in text above, and I can explain. The People don't have to protest. Once the people solve their own money problems the people thereby change course from dependence, from subjugation, from victimization, and onto whatever people do once they are no longer having their life's power sucked out of them, one drop of blood at a time, one cent at a time, one dollar at a time, one ounce of power at a time, and the consequence, not the goal, is that the parasites are left with fewer choices. The problem I have with the news item is such that the author appears to set the goal as: "Down with Mubarak money!" That places the cart before the horse. Cart: "Down with fill in the blank money" Horse: "Up with monetary competition" Monetary competition forces money to be better and cheaper. The reason why The People are powerless against their oppressors is simple, understandable, and easy to fix. The people do not have access to better money, cheaper money, money they can use to do the things that people do, when people have better money, cheaper money, things like prospering, things like increasing the standard of living, and things like decreasing the cost of living, by cooperative effort, by specialization, by agreement, by division of labor, by invention, by adaptation, by economies of scale (dividing fixed costs by more people paying fixed costs thereby making things cheaper to make), and all the things people will do, which, by the way, avoids the situation whereby people are powerless in the face of now powerless oppressors. Plan A. The people power < oppressors power = oppression of the people by oppressors Plan B: The people power > oppressors power = not A How do the people accomplish "Down with fill in the blank money" when people do not have the power they need, when people do not have the power they gain when the people have the best money that money can buy, the stuff they need to prosper, and how can that happen when monetary competition is against the law. Who makes the law that makes money competition against the law? What is the value of that law, if it is made, if the people merely decide, as one, on one glorious day, to avoid that law, and allow monetary competition to force money quality up to the highest possible quality, and force the cost of money to the lowest possible cost? My right wing friends, of which there are none currently, do not confess the truth about money. They lie, and liars are not my friends. I will read on to see if there is more value in this news currency authored by this right leaning economist authority type. My hopes of finding accurate currency flowing through this medium outlet are now much less hopeful, after reading that very bad news, about how this author misdirects people with false information. False by roughly opposite - not half. Not half true, it seems to me, opposite of the truth. A. Protest and demand a new money, coerce other people into enforcing new money. B. Voluntarily agree to allow monetary competition, start allowing it, and then the force of competition forces money to become available whereby the highest quality money at the lowest cost is produced by whomever wins that competition, as that competition continues, and as that force works to do what that force does, as all the consumers of money choose the better money, the better money at the lower cost. A is opposite of B. A is not half true. A is false, A is a bad plan, one not worth executing. Plan B is opposite of A. Plan B voluntarily forces people to avoid crime, by setting examples of good behavior. Good wins. Bad loses. Why would anyone ever suggest to anyone else to follow a plan whereby Bad wins and Good loses? I don't know. Someone doing that would have to confess their true reasoning. I am going to read on, despite having my hopes destroyed by the words so far written by this right leaning authority on political economy. The protesters thus ought to have made dumping the Egyptian pound and adopting a non-governmental currency the central plank of their protest. They should have enjoined their fellow countrymen to sell their Mubarak money for gold or silver or anything else that's real, and the value of the pound would have plummeted instantly and massively, which would have spurred even more selling. The patriots who participated in this monetary revolt would have protected themselves from losses by getting out of the pound, while the traitors to freedom in the regime and those who supported the regime by holding onto Mubarak's pounds would have lost everything. Moreover, the police and military that are paid with Mubarak's crooked paper money would see an instant and massive de facto pay decrease. This would have forced Mubarak's central bank to print even more money to finance the military, police and all other bureaucracies, which would have turned the Egyptian pound into toilet paper. The coup de grace of the monetary racket would then be for the protestors to simply use the worthless paper the junta and Mubarak printed to pay their taxes. A hefty dose of their own crooked monetary medicine would be all that is needed to collapse the regime without even one shot being fired (by the protesters, anyway). That to me is the half truth, which is better than the opposite of truth, and to explain I can offer some words. The oppressed will protest oppression with each example of each person choosing a better currency, but there is very little power in a single choice by a single person avoiding oppression in that way. A. Protest oppression B. Choose to use a better money The false or opposite of truth part is the part where the goal of a person is to protest. The whole truth is the truth by which a person decides to take the power he, or she, has and use that power to better his, or her, own situation. The half truth is the part whereby the author leaves out the vital part whereby the single person has to find someone else to agree with the choice to take power and use power as a shared goal. I can't, alone, decide to use better money; there is no power in it. I have to find at least one other person to agree to use better money, and then there is power in that mutual agreement. Both of the people agreeing to that choice to take power into their own hands make power and both have power by that choice. That choice isn't a choice by which one person gains power at the expense of someone else. That choice, between two people, mutually gaining power, is minuscule, power-less, compared to all the other people who still choose to be oppressed by the blood soaked, fraudulent legal monopoly money, whereby power flows through that monetary pyramid scheme, from the people who create wealth to the people who produce and maintain that fraudulent monopoly money crime spree. A. Many, many, many, many people linked into an ongoing crime spree where the power of the victims continues to flow toward and power up the legal criminals who run their legal monopoly money syndicates. B. Two people finally changing their goals from "protesting" or trying to force someone else to bend to their will and instead: adopting the goal of mutual agreement, and all the good things that can begin from that new beginning. A > B A is very power full (the power of numbers), while B is two people. Getting from A > B and getting to A < B requires more than 2 people choosing Plan B instead of Plan A. Plan A: Force other people to bend to your will, by deception, by violence, or by any means necessary. Plan B: Agree to allow competition in money markets and thereby force the best money at the lowest cost into the money market The right leaning authority offers half of the truth, sometimes. I will read on. There is no doubt that the collapse of Mubarak's money printing and taxing racket would entail much short-term hardship for Egyptians. That is the same guy who accused someone else of question begging. If any group of people on Earth decide to adopt plan B instead of plan A they immediately reap the benefits of that decision. The problem remains to be the same problem and that problem is created and executed by the people who will do things that secure their money monopoly power, they will decide to enforce their money monopoly power, they will destroy competition. That is a serious problem and a problem that must be considered by any group of people who voluntarily decide to allow competition in money markets. Here is one very good example: Worgl Austria Stamp Script Negative Interest Money That example of monetary competition was forced out of business. That powerful example of monetary competition was outlawed by a higher, and very criminal, legal power. The power of numbers did not work for the force of competition in that example. The power of numbers, numbers of people, worked for the legal crime people, the monopoly power, in that example. Two more examples that illustrate the power struggle between the voluntary collection of people choosing money competition, on one side, and the collection of people choosing to make monetary competition illegal on the other side are two very good examples in American History. A. Shays's Rebellion B. The Whiskey Rebellion George Washington, turn coat to the cause of liberty, assembled an army the size of the one he had when he had defeated the British, Washington then used that Watermelon Army to crush that example of monetary competition, as The People chose whiskey as a form of monetary currency, a choice inspired by the fraud monopoly money powers as it drove gold out of the colonies as the criminals began sucking the life blood from the people who created wealth in the colonies. The choice of severing all connections to the legal criminals, once the legal criminals outlaw competition in money markets, becomes a cause for the legal criminals to act, and the act they choose is to torture, and to mass murder, or do anything necessary to enforce their monopoly once their monopoly is in force. The power of numbers must be secured by The People before the people can become powerful enough to avoid the power of legal crime. That is the whole, ugly, truth. I'll read on, despite the familiar spin being put on this "news" item. Freed from the shackles of a currency that constantly loses value against their food, they could finally start saving and investing for the benefit of themselves and their children. Indeed, they would stand alone in the world as a people that finally possessed a money that their government could not manipulate, depreciate and confiscate. The familiar spin here is the false association between government and legal crime. A government can be voluntary, or non-criminal, and this is a proven fact. Any agreement of any kind between any number of people constitutes a government. Why does that mutual agreement, in any case whatsoever, not constitute a human government? If the argument is such that government is hereby defined, by me, to be, and only be, as I say it is, and I say, not to ever be thought of, or spoken of, in any way, by anyone, ever, or suffer punishment for that crime of saying, otherwise, that government is, and always will be, involuntary, or it isn't government - then that is an argument. What would be the point of such an argument? A. Voluntary government B. Not A If I say that two people agree to act according to a mutually beneficial set of actions, and they mutually agree not to act out a mutually understandable set of actions not to be acted out, then I'm describing something specific, and the label I used to describe what actually happens is just a label, the thing actually happening actually happens even if I stop calling it one thing and even if I start calling it Fried Chicken. A. Fried Chicken B. Not A The thing is what is it, the thing isn't what I call it. Why argue? The spin spun by the right leaning author is a familiar plan followed by a familiar execution of the plan and the plan goes like this: Bad thing A is called: Bad thing The thing I don't like is called: The thing I don't like. If I substitute the label of one thing for the label of the other thing I can spin the truth into something false and I can attach bad sentiments onto the thing I don't like. Example A: Sentence A: I don't like The thing I don't like. That is the truth. Now the plan is to substitute one label for another label, so as to execute my plan. Sentence A is spun as follows: I don't like the Bad thing. What is the reader going to think when the person writing is writing about "The thing I don't like" and the writer is using the false label instead of the true label? Example B: Sentence B: Crime is bad Spun sentence: Government is bad or Spun sentence: Socialism is bad or Spun sentence: Money is bad or Spun sentence: Capitalism is bad or Spun sentence: The gun did it. Bad bad bad gun. People who murder and torture massive numbers of innocent victims have a vested interest in blaming their plans, and blaming their actions on anything other than their plans and their acts. Does that make sense? Was that once common sense? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Power struggle defined Anyone (or nobodies), The powerful criminals who have seized the power to take power use that power to take more and more power and they must because failure to do so will threaten their power to take power. If the powerful legal criminals who have seized the power to take power, by law, from the tax payers, which are, by definition, the people who create power, wealth, value, and excess power, power left over after power is consumed, and failure is on the horizon, for them, for the legal criminals, then they will increase the rate at which they siphon power, take power, steal power, transfer power, from their target markets, from their tax payers, from their victims, so as to empower them sufficiently enough to regain, reestablish, and perpetuate the power to take power. The victims cannot be allowed to be more powerful than the power required to maintain victimization. As soon as the victims are allowed to gain power, the very moment the victims gain power, power that could have been stolen, power that could have been transferred by law, by the legal criminals, is the very moment that the power to take power, by law, is threatened. The victims cannot be allowed to have control over power, in any way, in any form, whatsoever, to allow that to happen will threaten the legal criminals power to take power. This is the fundamental, base, and accurate viewpoint of political economy. Tax payers < law enforcers = political despotism The competition between political economies, such as despotism versus republicanism, can then be seen, from that base understanding, as the force that transfers power back to the people who create power, the tax payers. Taxes go from the people who create wealth to the people who enforce law by a mechanism, call it whatever you wish, call it Fried Chicken, and it remains in place, and working, so long as the people who create wealth grow weaker and the people who collect taxes grow more powerful. The force, or the power, that moves power from tax collectors back to the people, is the force of competition. People choose something better. political despotism < political (choice) universality = political competition political despotism > political universality = competition is effectively against the law (despotism) Why does economic power flow from the victims to the victimisers - in the first place? In nature such a transfer of power occurs as a parasite feeds off of a host. At what point does a host become weaker than the parasites that consume the host? A tax payer can employ a parasite, or pick off the parasite, or fire the parasite, once the parasite begins to threaten the host, once the parasite is no longer useful to the host, assuming that the parasite did manage to convince the host that the parasite was useful to the host,in the first place. That power to choose is competition. Competition is very powerful. If the parasites are able to convince the host that the parasites are the hosts brain, the host will never expend any power toward the avoidance of being connected to the parasite. The parasite becomes the hosts brain in actual practice. When the tax payers are convinced into a false belief that their power to think belongs to the people they pay taxes to, the affect at that moment, that tipping point, is the creation of the power by which power flows from the victims to the victimisers perpetually. It is a significant moment, and some say it is a point at which there can be no return. I disagree. Who thinks that the democrats are our only hope against the wrongs done by the republicans? Who thinks that the republicans are our only hope against the wrongs done by the democrats? Who thinks that the payment of taxes to the tax collectors, no matter who they are, democrats or republicans, criminals or saints/gods/benevolent dictators, are necessary payments, and anyone failing to pay, is cause for vehement punishment rained down upon that criminal tax evader? Who thinks that war is good for the economy? Who thinks that the failure to bring about Armageddon is a failure to fulfill the prophesy, and therefore eternal damnation? Where do people get these thoughts? What is the source of these lies? When the legal criminals gain the power to be the brains of their victims, effectively think for their victims, their victims will no longer command the power to avoid victimization by those victimisers. Discussion is against the law. Competition is outlawed. The only thoughts allowed are the thoughts that maintain the power by which competition is against the law. That is a Utopian Fantasy, for a legal criminal, someone able to create legal money whenever they want, without limit. If one network of people, anywhere on the planet, or in the universe for that matter, regain their control over their own brains, and by that power are able to avoid victimization, that one network of people will prosper, grow in power, exponentially, and present, to the human species, to the world, and to the universe, a competitive example that will render any criminal network powerless by that force of competition. Competition is very powerful. 1. Network of people held together by voluntary association 2. Not #1 Which group will anyone choose to join? Which group gains the most market share? Which group gains more power? How many people are dying to get into North Korea? How many political enemies were dying to get into Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia? How many people went to America once America became a competitor on the world stage, as a voluntary association, a voluntary association in competition with less voluntary associations? Who decided who can join the voluntary association and who decided who cannot join the voluntary association - ever? Once inside the voluntary association: who decided what the volunteers can do and what the volunteers cannot do, once inside the voluntary association? At what point does the voluntary association become less voluntary compared to the competition? What do the volunteers do at that point, if they have a powerful choice, a competitive choice? At what point do the people no longer have a choice to seek and gain a voluntary association to join, on earth, when the place where they exist is less than voluntary compared to the place they can live? The only way that legal crime can work is by effectively removing the power of choice from their victims. As soon as the victims have the choice to join a more voluntary association, one that does not cost them as much, the victims will vote no to the less voluntary, more expensive option, and the victims will no longer be victims, by voting yes to a more voluntary association. If the choice is never known by the victims, the legal criminals are not threatened. A. The Dollar B. The competition Not one person in millions of people think about choosing a better option - why? Dollar by de-fault The dollar is thought about, by millions of people, as if the dollar was air, or Uncle Sam, or America, or The good ole' U.S.A., apple pie, freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of property, or even happiness. Why? I ask many people that question and I have yet to get an answer. What happens if money becomes a legal competition, like automobiles, computers, cell phones, or restaurants? People I ask: visibly short circuit. I can offer a few illustrations of what can happen, and the wheels in the brains of the people I ask stop turning. I ask the unthinkable. See if your brain short circuits. Be competitive - please. Suppose that the legal criminals allow 3 competitors, only, and this can be seen this way: A. Republican based money competitor - License to produce legal money #1 B. Democrat based money competitor - License to produce legal money #2 C. One more license based upon a competition between competitors who submit a bid to win one more license to produce legal money #3 1. Legal money license #1 could be a legal gold standard money. Whatever the Republicans can dream up, or the republicans can offer business as usual and they can choose to keep their Federal Reserve System of fraud. 2. Legal money license #2 could be a legal stamp script money such as the example in history found in Worgle Austria before WWII. Whatever the Democrats can dream up, or the democrats can offer business as usual and they can choose to keep their Federal Reserve System of fraud. 3. A National referendum, run on a Web Site, encrypted voting, one vote per American citizen, view and choose between the bids offered by various people, and companies, bidding for the one remaining license to produce money. Possible companies that could put up bids include: 1. Skype 2. Google 3. Paypal 4. E-Bay 5. Verizon 6. Microsoft 7. The Real News Network 8. Power Independence I can't speak for any other person, but I can speak for myself, and I would place a bid whereby I offer 2 new monetary products to the people of America. Here then are illustrations of the possible choices offered in competition to the people of America once competition is no longer against the law in the market of money: 1. Gold standard or The Federal Reserve System of fraud offered by Republicans 2. Negative Interest, or subsidy money, or The Federal Reserve System of fraud offered by the Democrats 3. Any one of a number of choices including but not limited to the following 2 products offered by one bidder seeking the third and last choice offered by national law enforcement. Product 1: No interest home mortgages to any current low risk borrower so as to turn in your current interest mortgage for a no interest mortgage and thereby transfer power back to the honest workers who actually produce wealth in America Product 2: A 1 percent interest loan to the same low risk borrowers (high FICO score) for the purchase of power increasing products such as Solar Panels, Electric cars, to name just two products that are proven to increase power production compared to the current competition - in reality. Supposing, for a wild moment, that someone has not suffered a bout of Pavlov's Dog syndrome, and supposing that someone has not had their brain locked up at this point, the reader may be working at fitting these various puzzle pieces into place, and having a few pieces that won't fit anywhere. Consider taking just one piece at a time and fit one piece into the puzzle. Take, for example, one person with one choice, as one person decides to vote for one money. I've set up a scenario above to offer that one choice at one time in one place. You, for example, are at the computer and you click on the web page that takes you to the National Referendum on Returning Competition in Money Markets, and you can see, much in the same way as seeing who owes whom on the National Debt Clock Web Page, you see which competitors are getting the most votes, and you can vote for the one you want to have the new license to compete in money markets. You fit this puzzle piece in place yourself, and you do so right now. You are the authority on political economy right now. Which do you choose? Hypothetically: 1. Legal money license #1 could be a legal gold standard money. Whatever the Republicans can dream up, or the republicans can offer business as usual and they can choose to keep their Federal Reserve System of fraud. 2. Legal money license #2 could be a legal stamp script money such as the example in history found in Worgle Austria before WWII. Whatever the Democrats can dream up, or the democrats can offer business as usual and they can choose to keep their Federal Reserve System of fraud. 3. A National referendum, run on a Web Site, encrypted voting, one vote per American citizen, view and choose between the bids offered by various people, and companies, bidding for the one remaining license to produce money. Now suppose, just to move the building of the puzzle, the whole picture, along in one more increment, one more step, fit one more puzzle piece into the picture, and fit the one piece into the right place, just suppose, just for now, that you choose to give a legal license to print legal money to Skype, because you see that they have the best bid, and they will charge the least tax payer money, they win the competition, as far as you are concerned. You have, supposedly, already talked to other people and other people say to you that they are going to choose business as usual. You can see that the current number of people choosing business as usual is considerable, as the web page reports the current winners and losers. Many people are choosing Republican gold standard money. Many people are choosing Democrat subsidized money or negative interest money. Many people are choosing Skype money, many are choosing Pay-Pal money, many are choosing Real News Money, but you don't look at that money just yet. Suppose you begin to entertain the idea that you can buy down your current mortgage, at no interest, and you can buy Solar Panels and a few electric cars at 1 percent interest if you choose the option provided by Power Independence - if they get the last license to offer competitive money. What goes through your head when you contemplate that option, that option whereby you consider pocketing the savings on mortgage interest payments, electric bill payments, and gasoline bill payments, every month of every year from now on until mortgage interest is even lower, and electric costs are even lower, and gasoline costs are even lower than the current situation in reality? What stops that choice from being a choice? How about thinking in terms of the power of numbers? How much power flows from the people who earn power to the people who collect that power at a central power collection point, such as a Bank? Each mortgage moves the power cost to build one house from the buyer to the seller, each time, and each time one entire extra home cost is moved from the buyer to the seller of the mortgage. The Bank is paid (over time) the cost of building one extra home, a home that does not exist, as each person buys one home. If you choose the no interest home the power you pocket is the cost of that one extra home, you keep that power, the bank does not keep that power. That is one person. How many people would choose that option if that option was a competitive option? What power is there in numbers? How can that power be quantified, and measured accurately? The next link I link attempts to answer that last question, and I have to ask you, and please be as honest as you can be, and the question is: Do you trust the accuracy of the following legal authority of the measure of the power of numbers: is the following accurate in your view? U.S.A. Debt Clock Do you think my words here are not to be trusted, and do you trust the people who create those numbers? Mortgages are said to be: Upside Down Isn't that interesting? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Not A RepublicJAY: So what exactly--what can--what privacy can they break down, or what do they have access to? Much is contained in that Real News report worthy of comment, in my opinion. On the subject called privacy there is an angle of view worth mentioning. Living organisms survive because living organisms adapt. Adaptation is necessary for life. Failure to adapt to inevitable changes in the physical world is failure to survive as a species, the result of failure to adapt is extinction. If each individual example of a species suffers from a power by which the individual must think and must act according to a very narrow prescribed set of thoughts and actions the species will die off, for failing to access the power required to adapt to the inevitable physical changes that will occur in actual reality. This can be seen by way of illustration or actual physical measurements. Some early species of humanoid failed to adapt, other species of humanoid adapted, the result is the human species, and that is a measurable fact. An illustration can be provided by imagination, and this is itself a form of adaptation, rocks have no imagination, ants may be capable of a simple form of imagination, I, being human, can imagine the following situation: Each person is exposed to a power by which each person knows what they must do or failure to do what they must do results in severe punishment, punishment that is so severe that the person will be weaker following the punishment, and the person will then be even less able to survive as an individual, as a result of the punishment, the punishment that will occur if the person does not do exactly what he must do to avoid being punished. The imaginary illustration continues: Each person is exposed to a power by which each person knows what they must not do or failure to not do what they must not do results in severe punishment, punishment that is so severe that the person will be weaker following the punishment, and the person will then be even less able to survive as an individual, as a result of the punishment, the punishment that will occur if the person does that which the person is forbidden to do. The above is my imagination applied toward the medium called written language, those are words above, I invented those words, but those words describe historical reality, read for example the book titled The Gulag Archipelago Actual physical reality, in human history, illustrates the problem that is the base problem underlying the so called "privacy" issue. When the list of things that must be done narrow down in scope from a very large number of optional choices of many, many, many, things that must be done, the list can, conceivably, and actually, become a very short list of only a few things that must be done. 1. You must work, failure to work is death by gun shot, or beating, or freezing to death, death by thirst, or death by starvation. In the cases reported by Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn the list had two things that must be done. 1. You must work 2. You must starve to death The empire employees in those cases were ordered to dish out less food than the food they knew was the minimum amount of food required to survive, even without forcing the workers to work. So, the reader may wonder, how does this relate to privacy, you are all over the map. I'm not guilty. I am not all over the map. Along with the vary narrow list of things that must be done is the list of things that cannot be done and the point here is to point out that the power to enforce these lists works against the power to adapt as each individual is forced to narrow their own creativity, their own power to invent new ways, new methods, new ways to adapt to changes in the physical world, because each individual is exposed to a power that works directly against that inventive power. The power of peer pressure, for example, works on an individual in such a way as to force the individual to follow a specific set of actions and to force the individual to avoid a specific set of actions and if those sets of actions are followed then the individual spends his or her life following a specific set of actions. Fear, as a negative, and conformity, as a positive ("belonging" to the group), are specific measurements of the force that keeps individuals doing only specific things, and forces individuals to consume life following a specific method, absent the force of adaptation. As soon as one person steps out of line, is the very moment one individual employs the force of adaptation, an adaptive experiment is performed by that one individual, the one individual who steps out of line. If all the other members of the species are poised, ready, willing, and able to immediately destroy the one individual who steps out of line, or so much as contemplates stepping out of line, then the power to adapt is completely destroyed in each case that it could occur if it was powerful enough to occur. If each person contemplating some act must first pass the gauntlet of known prohibitions and expectations the power to imagine will be inversely proportional to the power exerted against it. Think, if you can, if you still have a brain that can think. What allows you to imagine new things, and what power destroys that capacity to imagine? If every second of every day an individual is fearful of what other people may do and what other people may think, then when will that person ever have time to imagine something else? If every second of every day an individual is totally committed to the work of gaining positive feedback from other people, absolutely consumed with making sure that everyone is pleased with everything done by this imaginary person, when will this person ever have time to imagine anything? Privacy is the stuff that exists between a person's ears when they are able to set aside the force of peer pressure and are then able to imagine, and are then able to adapt, and are then able to invent, and are then able to know new things. To turn that understanding, about privacy, into an imaginary person who is hiding something, some bogey man, an imaginary child porn cannibal terrorist torturing serial killer, hidden behind every unopened e-mail, is to suffer greatly from the force of peer pressure - it seems to me. Privacy can be a simple issue. What business is it of yours? Don't you have more important things to do, than to be going through everyone else's business? Privacy can be, as I have illustrated, a much more important thing, a power worthy of securing, a power that empowers adaptation, and allows individuals the required means by which the species can adapt to the physical world. Too much peer pressure will kill off the human species, and there are plenty of examples in human history that prove this fact out, not just the example reported by Solzhenitsyn. If every person copied the example of The Gulag, if that became the short list of things allowed, and the short list of things that must be done, or else, then our species wouldn't have lasted to today. Some people, like Solzhenitsyn, managed to adapt - despite all the forces forcing him to conform. The privacy issue is a power struggle between that which the group exerts upon the individual, the collective power of all the individuals combined, as that collective power is seen in the mind of each individual, and on the other side opposing the collective power is the individual power to adapt. How can this be seen more accurately, more competitively? If each individual were nothing but willing and able to conform exactly as each other individual expected, demanded, and exerted force so as to make each other individual conform, there would be no question as to privacy. Each person did, and does, exactly as each other person did, and does, and no one, ever, stepped out of line. That set of things that is within the set of things that are acceptable, to all, can be a very large set of things, or a very small set of things, but the point is, here, for you to consider, is that the set of things is set at that set, and as soon as one person steps out of line, at that moment, there is a new thing done, an adaptation experiment. One person might say: The world is round, not flat. One person might say: The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, really, what are you people doing to each other that leads to this kind of shared false perception? If the reader is inclined to think, even for a second, that the privacy issue is about people siding with the terrorists, protecting the terrorists, being terrorists, then the reader may want to question that thought and reevaluate it, despite any pressure from any quarter suggesting otherwise. The Emperor isn't wearing any cloths - figuratively. The President of the U.S.A corporation is literally a torturing mass murderer as guilty as sin, by his own confessions, as twisted as those words may be, the facts are measurable as the victims scream, the blood runs, and the bodies decompose and stink to high heaven. Who decides what the collective opinion will be on any issue whatsoever? 1. You 2. Not 1 Will you take a poll? The power of everyone else bears down on each of us, and that power can reach a destructive level; yes or no? How about this poll: Torture is: A. Not so good for the one being tortured B. Torture is great, it keeps us safe from terrorists C. A form of entertainment D. Understood to be immoral, not morally justifiable, and ineffective as a means of gaining accurate information. There are people who are demanding access to things that were once considered to be private things, things that are none of anyone's business, for good reason, or for no reason whatsoever, once these things were considered none of anyone's business, and now some people are demanding access to these private things. Who are those people? Who is demanding access to everyone's private things, including demands to inspect all your cavities? New poll: Who wants this power, this exclusive power, to do whatever they want whenever they want, without limit, to anyone they choose? A. I want that power B. I want that power and I want everyone to have that power too. C. I want the republicans to have that power, not the democrats D. I want the democrats to have that power, not the republicans E. That is what criminals do, in fact, in actual reality, but don't ask them to confess that that is what they want, and don't ask them to confess that that is what they do, their confessions occur when they act, when they volunteer to do whatever they want to whomever they want, despite the tortured screams, of protest, produced by their victims during those crimes. Life is current. JAY: So what exactly--what can--what privacy can they break down, or what do they have access to? Another comment I have concerns the reference to The Founding Fathers. Paul, is that it basically is a landmark between two ideas of a republic and an empire. I think we're an empire at present. In a republic, the ordinary rule of life is freedom for the individual. That's what the Declaration of Independence says, that the sole purpose of government [is] to secure rights to unalienable life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the government must establish a very, very strong case to justify invading liberty before that can--the right to be left alone can be invaded. The empire is different. The empire assumes the government can go in and invade and surveil you and make you transparent to the government, unless you can show tyranny is the next step. That's the opposite of what the founding fathers said. They said, no, in a republic, the preference, the goal of the government is freedom first. The government has to satisfy that high threshold of danger in order to encroach. I have a few problems with that report by that authority on the subject. I may be overly presumptuous to be saying that that person is an authority on the subject, he appears to me as being an authority on the subject, so I'm going with that presumption. 1. The U.S.A., by way of The Constitution, is a Nation State, and it is so by design, and it is not a republic, it is not a republic by design. 2. Actual people think things and do things, governments can't think, and governments can't act. On the later problem I have I can say that it is a matter of convenience to say that "The government did this" or "The government did that" instead of making a list of the actual people who did this or the actual list of people who did that, such as: Alexander Hamilton, and a list of other people conspiring with Alexander Hamilton, perpetrated a fraud upon the rest of the population, the victims that has since become known as The U.S.A., and Alexander Hamilton, and his cabal, hid behind a false front of Federalism, and that list of people created a Nation State disguised as a Federal Government, on purpose, for profit. The differences between a republic and a nation state can be illustrated in two examples. Example 1 has 2 parts, and example 1a illustrates a before nation state example and example 1b illustrated an after republic scenario. Before America turned from an experimental republic and turned into a nation state there was a historical power struggle known now as Shays's Rebellion. Example 1a (before nation state): 1a. Shays's Rebellion After America turned from an experimental republic into a nation state there was a historical power struggle now known as The Whiskey Rebellion Example 1b (after the republic experiment was criminally usurped - regime change - coup de grace): 1b. The Whiskey Rebellion During the experimental republic the law of the land allowed for, or didn't out-law, rebellion in cases of excessive oppression by a separate and sovereign state government. How could the experimental republic make such a thing against the law when the experimental republic was created as a result of rebellion against excessive oppression by the people running the government? The rebels of Shays's rebellion were claiming that the criminals running the Massachusetts State government took over the money supply, debased it, drove all the gold out of the state, forced the people to use whiskey as a competitive money, and then these legal criminals had the audacity to tax whiskey and order, get this please, order that those taxes must be paid in gold. Talk about oppression! Well, the experimental republic worked exactly as it was meant to work, since the surviving rebels, including Daniel Shays, fled to Vermont, after losing their fight to restore moral law in the separate and sovereign state of Massachusetts. The criminals running the Massachusetts government sent an order to the people running the Vermont government to hand over the rebels, to be punished, for the crime of rebelling against an oppressive government, and the people running the Vermont government, another separate and sovereign state within the republic experimental government, basically told the criminals running the Massachusetts government to pound sand. Daniel Shays's, and the rebels, didn't commit any crime, they rebelled against a criminal oppressive government where the people running the criminal oppressive government were running a currency debasement fraud, and using that power to purchase, incidentally, to invade Canada, wars of aggression for profit, and failing to gain the booty, and going broke in the process. Who in their right mind would stand for that nonsense, let alone pay for it? Danial Shays's, and other rebels, were celebrated war heroes, who had rebelled against the British Government, drove them out, and were then made criminals for doing the same thing in the rebellion against the tax on whiskey in Massachusetts. The reason why the republic worked is the reason why competition works to force higher quality and lower costs. Vermont offered a higher quality government at a lower cost, within the republic, and Daniel Shays's voted with his feet, when he knew, beyond a shadow of doubt, that he was no longer represented, in any way, within the Massachusetts state system of monetary fraud, as a means of financing, an perpetrating, criminals wars of aggression. That is the before nation state illustration. The after republic illustration concerns a repeat of the same currency fraud occurring in almost all of the states within the experimental republic as the currency manipulators drove out the gold and as the people invented new forms of currency such as whiskey to replace the gold they needed but didn't have as a result of the manipulations done by the currency frauds who were running various state governments within the experimental republic, and then a secret meeting was conducted behind closed doors, out of the public eye, to hatch a plan to nationalize the experimental republic, and create a law that can enforce a currency monopoly power nation wide, thus ending all competition, leaving no one able to vote with their feet from one oppressive state to one less oppressive state. Once the national law was in place George Washington, the first national military leader dictator in chief, assembled an army as big as the one he had used to defeat the British, and he employed that power to crush the rebellion, for good, and that law remains the law of the land. Here is the law: Section. 8. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Here is the president: Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation Relevant quote:
What spirit was crushed - exactly? Ask: what was the spirit of 1776 all about? Here is the stuff of republicanism: The Declaration of non-victimhood That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Having the people of the government make laws that monopolize the currency, and therefore abolish the stuff people must have to prosper, makes people unhappy, and adding insult to injury the people running the government use the power they steal to enforce their power to steal, to torture, to mass murder, to conduct aggressive wars for profit, and lesser crimes, and this dynamic, ongoing fraud, causes the people running the government to be more powerful than the people they oppress, one unit of purchasing power at a time, ultimately arriving at a score board that looks as absurd as this: Patent absurdity Any thinking person, using their own brain, can see that the above is a patent absurdity, anyone "believing" in that score board is akin to someone "believing" that the naked Emperor is wearing the most fashionable and flattering attire. Onward to example number 2. I've shown the historical example by which the republic was a working experimental republic and then the experimental republic became a nation state and now I will show the most obvious second example by which the people running the nation state secure the nation state as one all encompassing nation state, and proves, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the nation state is a nation state, and the nation state is not a republic, by any measure whatsoever, hithertofore. Example 2: Not at all civil - false label covering up the legal crime of the century The actual facts surrounding the controversial subject of slavery were confessed during the secret proceedings leading to The Constitution and those facts became known as The Dirty Compromise. The Dirty Compromise was a legal crime perpetrated so as to cause The Constitution to be the enforced law of the land, enforcing, and perpetuating, slavery, and The Dirty Compromise was merely a stay of impending future conflict, the impending future conflict erupted in the legal crime that became known, by way of false advertisement, The Civil War. Legal criminals wanting a nation state in place of an experimental republic in the North wanted more power over the nation state and legal criminals wanting a nation state to replace the experimental republic in the South made a deal, to divide the power, the power over their victims, and these criminals hatched their plan that became The Constitution. Here is the law that divided up the power the legal criminals took over their victims, including all the slaves, everywhere in the Union (aka national government), and here is the law that made sure that no slave could vote with their feet, and leave one state in the experimental republic, if they could, and move to a less oppressive state in the experimental republic: Legal crime 101: as good as any example in the sordid history of man-unkind "to recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge." Read it, and weep if you must, but know if you can, if you still have the power. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I have an e-mail from Real News and the problem may soon be fixed. |
|||||||||||
|
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] |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Real News is working again. Thanks for the quick response. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Left, Right, and the naked Emperor I am half way through that example of News. My first comment is to say that that News could be front page news, and prime time news, if more people wanted, demanded, more accurate news, instead of more effective lies. There is power in numbers, the left know it, and the right know it. You can too. Note:
Are you baffled? Please think. Consider: Take all that money and loan it to anyone with good credit, at no interest, for a home or business mortgage, and charge those with bad credit a measure of "interest"; where the interest debt is used to cover the costs associated with loan defaults. Got that? How many U.S. citizens will turn in their current mortgages to buy a home, or even build, a new home, and in doing so, they will effectively reduce their monthly mortgage payment in half, roughly half, because a no interest loan is about half the cost to the borrower compared to an interest earning loan. Is that too difficult to comprehend? Trust me on this math problem, for now, then check out the numbers yourself. You, by that method, by that use of that money, get a new home, or get to keep your current home, and you cut your monthly mortgage payment in half, and, you can start a new business, without paying interest on your business property mortgage. What happens? Each borrower, of that new use, of that new money, can save, or use, the money saved, each month, by that means. How many U.S. citizens would get that new loan? Still confused? Mortgage interest transfers power from the working people who create wealth to the bankers who have the license to create legal money. Money, power, flows from the many to the few, by the device known as mortgage interest. That use, of that money, does the opposite. That money, by that use, allows the people who create wealth, the workers, the business operators, to keep their money, and that flow of money no longer flows from the many to the few. The opposite of this: Debt Clock That, there, turns around, by that use, of that money. 3,300,000,000,000 Not enough evidence to convince the skeptics? At the same time as no-interest home mortgages are offered to borrowers (good credit = no interest, and bad credit = an interest charge to pay for risk) there can be a second loan product, offered, with that money. The second product, the second loan, the second financial instrument offered, is a 1% interest loan to anyone, where the borrower uses the power to purchase, to purchase something that is accurately measured as being something that creates more power out of less power. Do you not understand the concept of creating more power out of less power? I can guess that you do not, because those people, in that video, don't, and if they don't, then who does? Inflation is caused when power (money) is used to create more power (production) but fails to do that feat of magic. Deflation is caused when power (money) is used to create more power (production) and succeeds. Dennis says: The money hasn't been used to create jobs... That is half true. Jobs that do not produce more wealth do not increase power, wealth, power, purchasing power, and therefore the money used does not accomplish the goal, if the goal is to gain more power. Simple? Confused? If the money is used to create a job, where a person is hired to dig a hole, or torture someone, or murder massive numbers of people, and then another job is created, to fill in the hole, or provide medical car to the torture victim, or rebuild the destroyed area where the aggressive war for profit was executed, then the total power supply goes down, not up. Still confused? 3,300,000,000,000 If product two is used for, say, the purchase of electric cars and solar panels, on the homes of the working people, which include all the business people who work, owner's of businesses, in competition with other owner's of businesses, then, what happens to total power, and what happens to purchasing power, what happens to the power of the dollar to purchase things? If that money is used to lend money (power) to productive people, so as to help the borrowers produce even more, what happens? What happens if legal money stops being the tool by which a few people exploit the many and legal money becomes the tool used by the many to make the many more and more powerful? Too simplistic for you, because you prefer over-complexity? Each person borrowing a no-interest loan, also borrows a 1 percent interest loan (or higher interest if you have a low credit rating, to pay for the cost of bad loans), and each person cutting their home mortgage in half, buys 2 electric cars, and buys enough solar panels to fuel their home and their cars, and extra, not just enough, but extra, and they can sell extra power, sell extra electric power, back to the grid, and get a check in the mail for doing so. What happens if that money is used in that way as more and more people do things that way, instead of everyone, or most everyone, doing things this same old way, where the power we create is used to keep us paying for our destruction? This is not an NEWS. Example Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. The British aren't coming, they are here, they hire the "president", and they hire the "leadership" of congress, just as those who are not yet bought out, everyone has a price, with few exceptions. One republican, and one democrat out of how many? What difference do a few zeros make? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jMoaSYTPLc Anyone, I have viewed that link up to the point at which the speakers report about the deal made between China and Russia to trade oil for money, and the money traded isn't dollars, and the news goes further to uncover that Russia is now the place where the most oil is pumped out of the Earth, surpassing Saudi Arabia. If anyone has read anything that I write, then the significance of that event, where China is now powered by Russian oil, and both countries exclude any transfers of power to the west, no oil profits, no inflation tax (no connection whatsoever with the devalued U.S. dollar in that deal), then you may now begin to understand the significance of American power flowing to China for all the past decades whereby I have been watching this happen, and questioning the reason for it. That video, at that 25% point through it point, is now offering an explanation. No one else even asks the question, as far as I have found, and I've been asking, let alone propose a possible answer. I'm going back to view the rest of that presentation. I made it to the difficult part where Glen Beck is speaking, and I have to confess a general dislike for that person, and I can use that feeling I have when watching that person to imagine what someone, anyone, might think, or feel, about me, and the things I write. Before anyone swallows whole the words of Glen Beck, which I don't, I see an opportunity to expose something false that Glen Beck says. Glen Beck says: This has been tried before, but it has never, ever, worked before. That is false. Glen Beck may be ignorant, he may not be willfully spreading falsehood. The creation of an I.O.U. is a simple concept, it can work, it has worked, and it will work again. It is important to know why an I.O.U. is made before the judge of how well or how badly it works judges that measure. If the creation of an I.O.U. is created so as to enslave the targeted person who is fooled into debt, or forced into debt, then the result of that creation, that I.O.U., as to how well, or how badly, it worked, is the measure of how much power transfers from the borrower to the lender. If total power transfers from the borrower to the lender, and the borrower must work every waking moment just to stay alive, and all the earnings of that work, except the barest essentials required to keep the worker alive, transfers to the lender, then that is absolute success, for as long as the borrower and his heirs, or her heirs, and the lender and his heirs, or hers, remains alive. If the purpose of the I.O.U. is to transfer all power to the lender, from the borrower, then it works best when all power transfers from the borrower to the lender. If, on the other hand, the purpose of the I.O.U. is to use power to earn more power, then a historical example may suffice to illustrate how that works. Here are two: Stamp Script The key to its success was the fast circulation of Scrip within the local economy, 14 times higher than the Schilling! When a power has the legal license, the legal power, to create purchasing power (it isn't money without the power to purchase, and it isn't powerful money if it can't purchase more than its weight in gold, or more than it's energy content in oil, or more than it's wattage in electricity), then a power can BOOM or BUST an economy the size of China, let alone an economy the size of America. How fast can the BOOM spread? Read the link titled "Stamp Script", and know that an economy can boom when purchasing power accelerates, where the power of money speeds up, as long as the power is employed in productive work, the power used will be used to create more power. Power is used to get oil out of the ground and into cars. How much power is used? How much power is gained? How much more power is needed to run an economy on the power of horses? A. Oil powered economy = fast = BOOM = high rate of production for a lower cost of power invested. B. Horse and buggy economy = slow = pre-oil-boom = low rate of production for a higher cost of power invested. C. Aggressive wars for profit = fast = BUST for the victims = BOOM for the legal criminals = power stolen is invested in the work of maintaining the power to steal, and torture, and mass murder, and rape, and pillage, and even end the human species - for fun, and profit, for those very few in that business. It is called the business cycle, or business as usual, or the new world order, or any name, so long as the actual thing is known, the name, by any other name, still smells like rotting corpses, and fear. So, the message may sound like a doom day parade, and I'm here to tell anyone, anyone at all, that there are easy ways out, like flipping on a light switch, just wake up, and the more the better, the power is in the numbers, and the process of waking up can be very, very, very fast, reaching critical mass, and just like waking up on a new summer day, a cool breeze, without the plutonium, and the evil genie goes back in the bottle, and the legal criminals have to find real jobs, where they have to satisfy the needs of their customers, and do so better than the competition, and they can no longer give themselves raises at will, without consequence. Example two (refuting Glen Becks falsehood): California It isn't a requirement to be stupid, to be a political economist, it just appears to be the norm, and the reason becomes obvious, if you look well enough and long enough, the pieces eventually fit together. It took me decades to get this far. I'm returning to the Lindsey Williams report, and I hope Lidsey Williams isn't swallowing Glen Beck's falsehoods whole - he appears to be much to smart for that - to me. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Part 3Most people in rich countries are paid more than they should be Anyone, The question (statement), again, is loaded. The reason why the question is loaded requires a good guess, or a true confession. The person making that claim (statement, question), will either explain why it is so loaded down with ambiguity, and loaded down with room to make false assumptions, or that person will not confess, and if not, then the person hearing, and then considering that claim, statement, or question, will have to deal with all that ambiguity, all that baggage, the loads, and loads, of room to load up the thing with false assumptions. My guess is that the person making the claim is a person who fails, or willfully avoids, considering the measures of power involved in the human phenomenon to which the claim, the statement, or the question is targeting. The thing being considered here, is a power struggle. A rich country, for example, may be a small native tribe deep within the Amazon Forest, if the measure of richness isn't specified. If the measure of richness is specified as the richness in the richness of being able to avoid exploitation by criminals, then America must be one of the poorest countries, by that measure, therefore the statement doesn't apply to America. Which place on earth, at which time, does the statement apply, according to the person making the statement? How confused can a person be, when a statement is so heavily loaded down with dogma? We, in America, are being robbed by the legal criminals, in a big, and a very big, measurable, and accurately measurable, way. How much power do you produce? How much power do you produce over the amount of power that you consume, and how much of the power that you do produce, over the power you consume, is your personal power to control, as you see fit? How much of what power you have left after you consume your power is stolen from you, or transferred from you, to someone else? How do they manage to steal, or transfer, that power, the power you create by your own industry? If the measure of richness is a measure of units of wealth, adding up to a total amount of wealth, and dividing that total supply of wealth by the total number of people in that country, then that measure can be either very accurate, and factual, or it can be falsified, and very misleading. Who owns, and has access to, and controls, all the wealth, who, in reality, is all that wealth divided among? Total Wealth divided by Total number of people Total Wealth divided by the number of people who have power over that wealth Is America powerful, or is it powerless? By what measure? America is not a rich country if all the riches are controlled by only a few people, and those few people take those riches and move those riches to another country, to boom other countries, like China, or bust other countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Japan, Columbia, Libya, Egypt, Vietnam, Korea, etc. Boom, bust, boom, bust, boom, bust, and by that means keep the power flowing one way. If that happens, how can America be on the list of rich countries, and again, if not, then the loaded claim, the loaded question, and the loaded statement does not apply to people getting "paid" in America, certainly not to the mean average, or any calculation of average person. Unless the actual person being paid, in America, is specified, such as a corporate raiders salary, plus entitlements, plus expenses, plus commission, and plus bonuses, or a fast food cook, the meaning of the claim is relatively meaningless. One is one, and the other isn't. Who is this "expert" kidding? I will now start the Real News Report, after this, my brief, introduction. Exactly. You know, I mean, we have been brainwashed, this idea that whatever market decides to pay people, we have to accept. You know, so if Mr. Blankfein at Goldman Sachs gets paid $50 million per year, it must be because he's worth it. You know, if people are poor in developing countries, it must be because they have low productivity. There it is, a specified example, of someone being paid. The reason why that person can raise his own pay, or have his co-workers raise his pay, as much as they please, please consider: that has more to do with who has the power to add zeros to the legal bank account, than it does to any other thing, they have that power, and they do things with that power, including the use of that power to brainwash their targeted victims, or hire flunkies to go around raiding corporations, to eliminate the competition, and to amalgamate all the power from everyone else, to them. If you have the power to add zeros to the legal bank account, or subtract zeros, then you have the power to make things, or brake things, big things. The people who make up that legal culture, in this case of that legal culture is America,those people who have the legal power to make, or brake big things, is a few people, not many, as is the legal culture, another culture in control of the power, by which things are made, or broken, and those few people, are in their own group, and they use The Federal Reserve franchise, the license, to move the power of wealth, to them, so as to keep that flow of wealth going to them, and they use the business cycle, to do it, and they use that power to eliminate all competition, as they must do, or failing the work of eliminating all competition: they have to increase quality, and lower cost, or fail to keep the power flowing to them, because failure to increase quality (the quality of money is the power that money has to purchase), and failure to lower cost (the cost of money is interest, or the measure of total increase or total decrease in power to purchase as a result of what is done with that power to purchase), and failure to compete in that way, will cause the target market, the consumers, to select the better money, and stop using the worst money. A. Failure to eliminate competition results in competition B. Failure to produce better money at lower cost is failure to compete C. Failure to compete is powerless, power then flows to the better competitor Failing to accurately identify that real problem, where an effective monopoly power manages to siphon all the wealth by that means, will fail to justify, the supposed validity of the statement, as the statement applies to any other worker, or any other "earner" of pay in America. A. Corporate raider (legal criminal) B. Not A The thing the "expert" says next is a magic act, a bait and switch, and a very troubling employment of willful falsehood, as this "expert" can't be both stupid and smart, at the same time. The bait is to claim the finance industry worker is in view, and things apply to him, and the switch is any other worker, and the same things don't apply to him, or her. What things? The finance industry worker does not face a scarcity of power, all the insider finance industry worker has to do is add zeros, and then the finance industry worker has abundant power. Is that a significant distinction, or a powerless one? Any other worker has to make more power out of less power, or manage to exchange human labor, or human ideas, for more power produced by other people who also make more power out of less power, or someone steals power. Which is it? If power is stolen, by trickery, or by threat of violence, or actual violence, who pays that bill, power is consumed in the process of stealing, stealing requires work, thought, action, expense. Who pays the bill? But is it really the market that's deciding? And, I mean, that's my point, because, you know, for example, if you liberalize that in terms of immigration, probably 80, maybe even 90 percent of people in the rich countries can be and probably will be replaced by cheaper immigrants. And we are not just talking about cleaners and taxi drivers; we are talking about medical doctors [inaudible] engineers. Bait: Market forces work this way on a Wall Street Banker "employee" Switch: Market forces work this way on people who are not employed in the Wall Street, insiders, club. They don't work the same way. The insider club steal all the wealth created by all their targeted victims, which include everyone who uses that monopoly legal money, and the measure of theft is as exact as it needs to be, if the idea is to know, exactly who are the criminals, and who are the victims. Just follow the money back to the source. Who has the legal power to increase the supply of money from what it is today, to 3.3 Trillion more dollars 4 months later, in 2008? Who did it? Why did they do it? Where did that money go? Who benefited by that purchase, and that use, of that money? Who paid the bill, or who is paying the bill? Stealing costs something, it doesn't fall from the sky. Did that money, stolen in 2008, 3.3 Trillion dollars, buy things that make more power? Did that money buy things that destroy things that make more power, like people, and hospitals, and farms, and bridges, and power plants? How much does it cost to bomb Libya? How much power does it cost, if money is worthless? Where does the power come from, who makes the power? Who makes the money? Who is credited with the power of earning? Do you need 8 by 10 glossy photos of how a bomb destroys a person in reality, how a bomb destroys things that can, and do, make more power out of the power consumed by them? How about a bridge, a hospital (full of people), a power station (full of more people)? I don't. If that power, such as that 3.3 Trillion dollars, was distributed among the powerful (productive, not destructive) people in America, or just never stolen from them in the first place, then it is very likely, provable, that the biggest scarcity in America, would be a lack of laborers, not enough of them immigrating, here, to fill the demand for them, and they could then name their own price. A. Power is stolen from the only place power can be stolen, from those who produce power, and then power is transferred to the people who use that power to destroy all competition that threatens their power to steal, and perpetuate their power to steal. B. Not A, and therefore there is more power, and therefore more power is used to create more power, and therefore workers become higher in demand, and therefore workers become scarce, and therefore the power to price the price of work transfers from the criminals to the workers. Why must these "experts" lie so much, as they justify the up-side-down world, as if there could be no other, as if the right-side-up world can't exist? What is the supposed solution? Higher taxes flowing from productive people to the legal criminals, to "create jobs"? The right side up world does exist, and all you have to do to see it, is look, but you have to look past the drama that is written in the script, the huge thing called falsehood, where the constructors of that drama use all the power they can steal to keep it real, and it costs a whole lot of people a whole lot of their power to keep it going, and going, and going, like a demonic electric bunny. Failing to measure the power at play, is a huge failure. Who controls the power, what does the power do as it flows to where it is directed by those who control it? Failure to know that, is not an oversight, so much as it is a goal. CHANG: Exactly. You know. And, you know, I personally replaced a British guy 20 years ago when I got my job in Cambridge. So it's not like--. Well, I don't know that whole story, but perhaps the British guy wasn't reading, as well, from the script, perhaps he was blowing the whistle, confessing the truth? Can't have that running rampant, so, you're fired. Who will read from the script? Ah, you, good, you're hired. Here is your script, don't ever say that, here, here, say this, yes, that, say that a lot. I mean, it is that our productivity, individual productivity, is largely collectively determined, and therefore you cannot have these people argue that, well, I get $50 million because I'm worth it--no, because his $50 million earning is supported by the whole society. Again, that is measurable as power, and I can explain. A single person working alone has an amount of power, some individuals have more power, more brain power, more physical power, compared to another person, but alone, their power is limited to whatever they can produce (or destroy) alone. When the "expert" says "collectively determined" the actual measure of that "collectively determined" power is determined by agreement between individuals to combine power and make use of tools, just like a wheel is a powerful tool, just like oil and electricity are powerful tools, and a lever, or inclined plane, is a tool, or even math, or science, ideas, are tools, and in the case of "collectively determined" measures of increasing power, the tools are: 1. Division of labor (you do that job while I do this job) 2. Specialization (while you get better at that job, I get better at this job) 3. Economies of scale (the work load, cost, is divided by more workers, therefore each worker pays less, the more the better, as each individual worker has to work less and less to get the same, or more, productive, or destructive, output) Those tools are not available to the single person. A single person can't divide labor, a single person has to do every job himself; hence a "collectively determined" power increase is not possible by the single person working alone and unconnected to anyone else. A single person can specialize in one thing, and then specialize in another thing, but the power of specialization only works to the limit of the single person's capacity (power) to work, there can be no "collectively determined" increases in power gained by specialization, since the single person has to stop doing what he is doing, and then start doing the next thing he is doing, or she, and two people combining specializations don't have to stop and start, and that saves, or divides, a whole lot of costs, the entire cost of stopping and starting each job is avoided, traveling to each source of raw material by both is avoided, storing materials by both is avoided, and there are many, many, many costs that are divided through specialization when one single person no longer has to do everything alone. Economies of scale, the word, does not do the process justice, the actual phenomenon, of "economies of scale" can be understood by measuring the actual things produced "collectively" such as, an Egyptian Pyramid, where they didn't even have oil power to use, as a cost saving tool, a labor saving tool, back then. Someone claiming to earn a high pay rate for taking all the credit for building the Pyramid, is someone failing to understand political economy, or that is someone using lies to cover-up that tool, falsehood, which they wish to keep as their exclusive tool, a secret tool, and a tool that must be made as scarce as possible to everyone else: do as I say not as I do. Falsehood and violence must be scarce, because too much of it will completely eliminate productive human activity. Criminals, legal or otherwise, can't allow too many of the workers converting to their religion, the crime God. I alone have the license to lie, you must obey, not me. I alone have the license to print money, you can't. I alone have the license to torture, you would abuse that license. I alone have the license to benefit from double speak, you must be victimized by it. Obey, there is no: "or else". This is an offer you can't refuse, you don't have enough power to refuse, and you don't have enough power to disobey, not alone. So...go build me a pyramid, and get me a drink of water, and tomorrow, just for fun, and profit, I think we will begin an aggressive war, be ready, ahhhh, after you build my pyramid, and after you get me that drink, or do I have that order backwards? Back to the drawing board? Another example of economies of scale, the power of it, as illustrated with real world examples, are the prices of personal computers, or things mass produced, and things in high demand, things that start out small, and expensive, and then they become big, big business servicing big markets, competitive business, higher quality, and lower cost. What explains the lower cost? A single person alone could not make a modern personal computer, not enough power, not in a century of life times. Who get's the credit for making personal computers so cheap? Socialism? Capitalism? "Collective determined" dogma? Power? If so, what form does that power take? Division of labor Specialization Economies of scale Competition (forcing quality up and cost down) Credit, or reason, or cause for the effect, goes to those powers. That is the answer to the question: What power causes an increase in the human capacity to create power? Who gains control over that surplus wealth, that "collective determined" increase in total power? What is the process by which those people gain that control over that power? Well, that's--then you could go to my point 25 would be: if the whole society is producing the wealth of the society, why are we still living with forms of private ownership that come from the 1500s? But--. But...: There is no "whole of society", the measure of "collective" power is a sum of all the individual powers, using tools, using "leverage", to gain more, and more, and more, power, power enough to travel to the moon, if that is the goal, if the goal is to go to the moon, then there is enough power potential to do so, with the tools, to get to that goal. There is no "state'. All there are are individual people. The "State" or "Society" can't, ever, decide to go to the moon, or conduct an aggressive war for profit, or tax the rich, or give to the poor, since no such "thing" exists. Collective sums of power are aggregates, totals, sums, or measures, of all the individual powers, and an individual person can see how many other individuals add to that collection of total power, the sum, doesn't become a thinking being, a being capable of thought, a being capable of responsibility, a being that has an "interest", such as a "National Interest" or a "Social Interest", or a "Collective Interest", to think so, to dream up that imaginary being, that Man of Straw, is false. It does not exist as a being unto itself, capable of responsibility, and therefore it is incapable of accountability, which is why it is created, as such, in the first place. The Bank did it. The Government did it. The Corporation did it. The gun did it. Bad, bad, bad Bank. Bad, bad, bad Government. Bad, bad, bad Corporation. Bad, bad, bad gun. Bad, bad, bad lie. While the victims, or the witnesses, are blaming the Bank, the Government, the Corporation, the gun, and the lie (the Man of Straw), the criminal picks up another Bank (name), another corporation (name), or another gun, or another lie, and moves on, as planned. Isn't that game tiresome by now? How much does that game cost, and who pays the bill? What is the process by which the many focus their power in the work of accomplishing the things that are produced, such as aggressive wars for profit, or defensive wars for defense, or Pyramids, or Trips to the Moon, or Personal Computers, or legal fictions? There must be a process, even if the process is totally random, which may be a claim someone makes, and which may be a claim that someone else may want to question. What is the process? There is one. There is a process by which someone, or some group, will determine what the group does, and if the group doesn't decide to employ the power they have into the work of creating more power, then there won't be more power. What is the process? If the process is ambiguous, or "left to someone else to figure out", then for that single person, accomplishing that failure to know what the process is, gives up on that power of knowledge, and without the faintest shadow of doubt, someone else will specialize at that job, and it is a very powerful job to have, by hook, or by crook. Which process? Socialism? Capitalism? You don't know? You didn't do your homework. I did. The job was, and is, ignored by most people, say, 99.999% of the population, including both the "expert" and Pal Jay, and the remaining .001% of the population are on that job, they do that job, that is their job, they are employed in that work, they are the workers of that goal, and the job they have constructed, the form of it, the actual product they have in place, should not be a surprise, to all the people who have failed to take on that job. The process isn't capitalism. The process isn't socialism. In one word, the process is, crime. In two words, the process is, legal crime. Those are sound bites. In three words, the process is, The Business Cycle, Legal Money Monopoly, Falsehood and Violence. Confusing the process that is working with other things, like socialism, and capitalism, just so happens to keep the actual process going, and it is working as it is designed to work now; while the ignorant, and the confused, are doing the job they have to do, to keep that process going. Who is telling the truth? You are not. I am. When will you begin telling the truth? How many people must get on the job of knowing and then producing the process that uses power to make more power, instead of the process that is in operation now? Answer: more than one. You may think that I (I can imagine, I have an imagination), you may think that I am a megalomaniac, for claiming such things. The proof is in the pudding. How is capitalism working for the capitalists? How is socialism working for the socialists? What can you guys do to make those processes work better? If you think that the socialists are in your way, when criminals are really in your way instead, and if you think that the capitalists are in your way, when the criminals are really in your way, then might it occur to you that you may want to find something about socialism, or capitalism, that agrees with the other? Do you know what Hegelism is, or do you know what is meant by Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis? Do you know that some people work toward the goal of getting one group of people to fight another group of people, trick, and arm, both sides, so as to profit from their fights, to sell them what they must have to defeat each other, and then, they get, for themselves, no bid contracts to clean up the mess when it is over? They destroy things and then they give themselves bonuses for doing so? Is that a news item? Is that a surprise? No, you don't know that, it is absurd to you, unthinkable? Unspeakable? Really, and I am the megalomaniac (if that is what you think)? Yeah. No. You know, I mean, on this I can only agree with Gore Vidal, who some time ago famously said that the American economic system is capitalism for the workers and socialism for the rich. So there you go. The idea that all economic activity is based upon scarcity, and that "every individual will" profit, by "excluding" all others, comes from Karl Menger, the Austrian Economist. That is dogma. The famous "profit motive" and the "invisible hand", and all the other dogma, pertains to falsehood, and is used by those who use falsehood, and so why would anyone read from that script, unless the idea is to follow the script, and therefore, the idea is to keep things going as they are going? Yes or no? If someone is greedy, their profit is not simply a gain, the gain must be a measurable gain, that is gained, at the expense of someone else, or the satisfaction doesn't materialize, if I understand the concept of greed. Not just gain, that is not the goal, the goal is gain, at the expense of someone else, that is the goal. Get it? Are you getting it? Are you being screwed? Do you think it is random? Do you think that the people you hire to protect you are screwing you by accident, and next time they will do their job better? Really? That is not the same thing as someone who thinks that a short term sacrifice is worth a long term gain, such as, volunteering to repel an aggressive army of criminals, repeal an army of criminals who are bent on torture and mass murder, an army of criminals who want torture and mass murder for their exclusive sense oppf profit, at the expense of the target market, the target victims, or the target natives, not the same thing as the goal of repelling those criminals, so as to gain the future profit, the possible future profit, of freedom from victimization by people conducting aggressive wars for profit, or less crimes, or greater crimes. The gain in view, by the soldier volunteering, is the gain in view by the soldier volunteering. Ask one. Ask what gets him, or her, up in the morning? What drives him, or her, each moment, any moment, to find out what drives him, or her, according to him, or her, and don't rely upon a talking head, with an axe to grind, or a lie to perpetuate. What keeps them moving from point A to point B? Ask anyone. What causes you to move out of bed, ask yourself? If the motive isn't self-motivation, what is it? If you decide to sacrifice for others, and that is what you decide to do, then why don't you decide to gain at the expense of others, why do you decide one path, and not the other, at any moment, at any time, during the process of living? A person who will consume himself, or herself, in the work of helping someone else, is driven to do so by some power. What is that power? If it isn't self generated, then it is externally generated, if it isn't a choice made by the individual, then it is a choice made by some other power, and if the individual decides, despite all external powers, to go ahead and consume his, or her, life to help others, then how can that not be his, or her, profit, by his, or her, exclusive measure? Capitalism is defined by a capitalist. What do they say? What do they do? Do they consume less than they make? Do they profit at the expense of other people? Socialism is defined by a socialist. What do they say? What do they do? Do they consume less than they make? Do they profit at the expense of other people? Do other people give willingly, to expend their power in service of others? Do other people transfer power un-will-ingly? What is that process? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Part IVSo the argument is, if we control inflation, we control the world economy, and everything will just be prosperous. Anyone, I just started the Real News Report and I am going to introduce my viewpoint before I comment on the viewpoints reported in that report. That quote above is a confession. CONTROL INFLATION and CONTROL THE WORLD ECONOMY In your face. There is no "if" and the "we" is exclusive. One power controls inflation, not two, not three, and certainly not "we". To understand this, please, I am begging, please, please, please, use an illustration by which these facts can be easily understood. In 2008 the ONE power that can inflate did inflate and the reports I get, and the reports reported by the ONE power report, confess, a significant event, in 2008, where that ONE power inflated, on the books, and perhaps that ONE power did some extra, off the books, or on the second set of books, inflation, then, and up to today, now. The event is recorded in history, and it illustrates that exclusive power: the power to inflate. The event can be roughly illustrated, quickly, so as not to get bogged down with exact numbers, and dates, and to get to the point, get to the principles involved. Early 2008 the total number of legal dollars were X (a known quantity). Late 2008 the total number of legal dollars becomes 2 times X (twice the earlier known quantity). The principle here is factual. One legal license enfranchises ONE legal entity with the exclusive power to add (or subtract) from the number of legal dollars, in this case U.S.A dollars, or American money. Those are the facts. The illustration is factual. The one legal entity, run by an unelected, or quasi-elected, ambiguously elected, appointed, person, or a few people agreeing upon decision making, but none-the-less, ONE group, doubled the number of legal dollars in 2008. Suddenly adding double the total number of dollars to THEIR bank account is a powerful, exclusive, power, a power "we" don't have. For the sake of understanding, it can be offered, put on the table, that the actual number of the actual increase, in 2008, was 3.3 Trillion dollars. The principle here is called Monopoly Power, exclusive power, and the reason why this is a principle, is the cause and effect force that works against Monopoly Power, which is competition. A. Monopoly power (no force forcing quality up and cost/price down) B. Competition (forcing competitors to satisfy consumers or go out of business for failing to do so) If there were two franchises, and not one, then the force of competition would force quality up, and cost down, and without two franchises, and without the force of competition, the Monopoly Power has no force forcing quality up, and cost down. If you have a brain left in your head, see this, please. If the U.S.A., America, were in competition with China, to see which money was better, than we would spend that new money, created in 2008, at home, by using that money, to make more power here at home, to make us more powerful, and therefore our money empowers us to use money to make more wealth, at home. We would use that money to improve transportation, for example. How? Could that money be used to subsidize the production of Electric Cars, here, not China, and could that money be used to decommission the entire fleet of government gas guzzling cars, and have all government employees driving electric cars by Monday? Could that money be used to subsidize the production of Solar Panels, here, not China, and could that money be used to add to the electric power grid power, by installing Solar Panels on all government buildings, where all the government employees could charge their government cars, and pay less per mile (80% less) compared to using gas guzzling cars, by Monday? 3.3 Trillion dollars went somewhere. Did it go to the Middle East to bomb innocent victims in the effort to control vast fields of sweat crude oil? If it did, wouldn't the ONE monopoly power want to keep that a secret from you? No, you don't care? OK, I'm going to imagine, I'm going to use my power of sympathy, to get in your shoes, and I'm going to imagine that you have no problem with aggressive wars for profit, so long as you don't have to pay so much for gasoline. If the aggressive war for profit works, and the excuse for it allows me to avoid guilt, then I get to pay less at the gas station, and I can upgrade my T.V. with that savings. I have news for you. The bombing in Libya is done to stop, not add to, the flow of oil. The result will be higher gasoline prices. You have been had, again. Is it about time that you questioned your own confidence in knowing the truth? The ONE monopoly power has to destroy the competition, failing to do so, forces quality up and cost down. Islamic finance may be the only competitor feared by the ONE monopoly power, and therefore, it may make sense, that the targets are now the Muslim people - with their no-interest mortgage systems. Perhaps not. There is a need to know, where the 2008 dollar double down power went, for any rational human being, who may want to know what will happen soon. On to the Real News Report, for me. But as you try to bring it down from, you know, 5 percent to 2 percent, 4 percent to 1 percent, we have to do a lot of things which depress demand, which translate into job losses. And, you know, of course, I mean, everyone as a consumer might benefit, because their grocery bill is 1 percent smaller, but don't forget that a lot of people are paying for this in the form of being unemployed. If that confuses you, or even if my words confuse you, then your power to avoid having your power stolen from you is measurably powerless, by that confusion. That quote confuses me, as to why those words are chosen by that person, the subject does not confuse me. Inflation is simple, but to know the simplicity of it, the viewer must understand the difference between inflation during an enforced monopoly and inflation during a competitive force. Falsehood, lies, deceit, secrets, double dealings, threats of violence, and actual examples of brutal violence upon the innocent, are the necessary things required to enforce a monopoly. Higher quality and lower prices (more benefit for less cost) are the forces that force competition in force. If you do not understand that distinction, you may very well be very confused, because you may very well confuse a monopoly force (falsehood and violence) with competitive forces (higher quality and lower cost = more benefit for less cost). A monopoly force moves power from the many to the few, that is the object, the goal, and the design, the purpose, and the effect, of a monopoly force, and it works that way measurably, when it works. Competitive forces move benefits up and costs down for all the competitors. Which is better? Which is better for whom? Monopoly forces are better for the very few who profit by their enforcement, as they trick other people into enforcing them, for a low wage for their work in enforcing them, and monopoly forces are something for nothing schemes, pyramid schemes, frauds, cabals, organized crime rings, for the few who receive the benefits at the expense of the victims who work to perpetuate them. Competitive forces are better for both producers and consumers, at the expense of no one, except the criminals who no longer have their monopoly power in force. Those are the two discriminatory distinctions that accurately identify which path can benefit which people and who has to pay for their share of surplus wealth. Surplus wealth is created as people agree to work toward that goal. Competition forces people to improve quality and lower cost, failing to do so does not destroy anything, a failure by one is a success by another, and anyone failing at one thing, may then move to another thing, and succeed at the new thing, since surplus wealth becomes abundant, and since labor becomes scarce, that type of systematic focus reaching for the goal of more benefit, for less cost, increases the opportunities available to work toward that goal, since no one is left working in the work of eliminating competition. If the Real News Report is focusing attention upon monopoly power systems, then that is what it is doing. If it is focusing attention on a free market, where competition is the power in force, then that is what it is doing. If the Real News Report is confusing one with the other, than that is what it is doing. Inflation, in a free market, must improve benefits (higher quality) and lower cost, or that example of inflation will go out of business, because some other producer will improve benefits and lower costs. Which leads to the question, the answer is vital, as to why the inflation was ordered, and then produced, and what was purchased with the purchasing power created by that inflation? Did China inflate? If so, then what did China purchase? Why did they inflate? Did The Federal Reserve inflate, as they did in 2008? What did they purchase with their exclusive increase in the power to purchase? If the Real News Report is suggesting that the people at The Federal Reserve inflated for a reason, then what is the reason? What was purchased? Why proceed with any "theory" on politics or economics, without the vital facts? If the money created, the inflation, is invested productively (creating more power, more wealth, more purchasing power), then aggregate (average) prices go down, not up. If the money created, the inflation, is malinvested, used in the work of destroying wealth, then aggregate prices go up, not down. Is that too simple? If China invests while The Federal Reserve malinvests, then China wins that competition, and The Federal Reserve people may be out of a job, because China increases quality and lowers cost, while The Federal Reserve people lower quality and increase cost. Does that sound too simple? So if you're sitting on assets, if you have a lot of money and a lot of ownership of things, you want to protect the value of those assets. You don't want them to depreciate through inflation. And so if people lose their jobs, that's not your problem I suppose. An asset is valuable as wealth. A barrel of oil, for example, contains power in it, measurable as power, watts, or measurable as force, newtons, or measurable as energy, joules. The asset is valuable, or the asset isn't valuable, and the money value of the asset is a separate thing. Paul Jay should know that fact. The change of value of a money can change the value of an asset for reasons that are specific to the money and the asset. Example: Gold prices tend to go up as malinvestment occurs with legal money value. The change of the value of gold is minor compared to the change in value of the legal money value because the change in the value of the legal money (caused by malinvestment) is inversely proportional to the change in the value of gold, because the change in the value of money causes the change in the value of gold. To see that more clearly, the viewer can look at actual current reality. China is inflating their legal money and using that legal money to buy up as much gold as they can. The Federal Reserve group of people are inflating their legal money to do secret things that may include aggressive wars for profit, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. If China buys all the gold in the world, then they can demand payment for gold in Chinese legal money, and by that strategy the gold they have monopolized will add to the power their money has, as a power to purchase, because anyone who needs, or wants gold, in the world, has to buy Chinese dollars first, before they can buy gold next. If the Federal Reserve group of people gain control of all the oil in the world, they can demand payment for oil in dollars, and then anyone in the world that needs oil, will be someone needing dollars first, so as to buy oil next. As soon as China starts selling gold, gold flows to other people, and then other people can buy things with that gold, or use that gold to make things, and then sell things. What happens if someone uses the power they have to find a new gold mine, where the cost of mining the gold is minimal, suppose someone on an island just happens upon a gold source that is the size of a mountain, and all that is needed is the work of chipping the gold off the side of the mountain, and packaging it up, and selling it for money, selling it for a new money, a money demanded by the new gold producer, call it gold island mountain dollars. Imagine that, a new Country called Gold Island Mountain, a new Central Bank printing new Gold Island Mountain Dollars, and anyone wanting to buy new gold has to buy new Gold Island Mountain dollars first, and the illustration works if you imagine that the pile of gold is twice the amount of gold already known to man. The one guy, and a few employees, on the new Gold Island Mountain, a new country, a new Federated Republic of one person, and a few low wage workers, doubles the supply of gold over night. The illustration is useful. The people at the Federal Reserve would hire people to advertise an excuse for invading gold island mountain, supposedly to find the weapons of mass destruction, to help or aid the terrorists, to spread democracy, and, of course, while "we" are there, we get the gold, in our national interest - of course. I can then upgrade my T.V. The barrel of oil, unlike the gold island mountain, actually contains real power, and that real power can actually be consumed in the process of making more power, such as the production of food, which is also a power product, a product that has a measurable quantity of power within it, measurable as calories, or newtons, or watts, since power, force, and energy are all measurable with measurements that can be converted to the other measurement - one way or the other. The point here is to point out how the power of legal money is different from the power of actual power. Actual power remains actual power even if a person chooses not to appraise it as high as someone else. This point is well illustrated in Joe's Law. Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. Gold is not a power product when compared to oil, and therefore oil is a much more competitive currency compared to gold, but not as competitive compared to a more powerful source of power. Illustrate the difference with Joe's Law, and see for yourself, and I hope that Paul Jay is reading my work here. Try out five things, and plug these five things into Joe's Law, and see if political economy becomes much more understandable and much less confusing: 1. Chairs 2. Gold 3. Oil 4. Solar Panels 5. Accurate knowledge Start with chairs, and plug chairs into Joe's law, and then understand how things work with Gold. Chairs produced into oversupply, reduce the price of chairs, while purchasing power decreases (inflation), because chairs do little to reduce the cost of production. What happens if chairs are produced too much? The condition of oversupply, or too many chairs, is reached soon, and if everyone kept producing chairs, no one would have time and energy to produce anything else, and so the power supply would be all used up in chair production, and food supplies would drain out, and only chairs would be available, and chairs would be worth nothing, and although you could buy a chair for nothing, you may even have to pay someone to store chairs that are in the way, but the price on everything else would go through the roof, because all the power available would be spent on making chairs, and no power is left to make anything else, and all the money in the world couldn't buy a hot dog, since no one had any time or energy left to make one hot dog, because everyone spent every once of power on making too many chairs, and, or but, people had to also make more money, print more money, and print enough money to buy all the chairs, not much money at all, but they had to print enough money to by everything else wanted, or needed, and no matter how much money they printed, and no matter how many chairs they made, it was never enough money, and never enough chairs, because the price of all the things not made, with the scarce power available, had been priced out of reach for everyone, including the people who make and sell dollars, and including all the people making and selling chairs. Everyone has nothing but chairs and money, and no one has enough power to make a hot dog, because chairs, and money, does not lower the cost of producing chairs, or money, or hot dogs. So chairs can be overproduced, reasonably, measurably, obviously, and logically. Don't ever do it, there's no money in overproducing chairs. Who would ever want to overproduce chairs? Who would ever want to stop someone from producing too many chairs? Who would ever make a law that forced people to stop producing too may chairs? Who would ever make a law that forced people to stop looking at the sun? Who would ever make a law that forced people to stop sticking their hands in the fire? Who would ever make a law that forced people to stop being stupid? Now plug in Gold into Joe's Law. Gold produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of gold while purchasing power decreases (inflation) because gold does not reduce the cost of production competitively. Compared to chairs, gold can certainly be produced more toward overproduction, from now on, until gold reaches closer to overproduction. Gold is now being produced, but gold is very scarce, gold will not reach overproduction soon, compared to chairs, but compared to oil, or compared to solar panels, or comparing gold production to the production of accurate knowledge, gold will reach overproduction very soon, because gold does not contain actual power. Oil contains actual power. Solar Panels convert actual power. Accurate knowledge is actual power. Gold does have a power called conductivity, but the point here is a competitive power scale. At some point: gold reaches an obvious over-supply, too much gold, too much power misused unproductively, and not enough power used productively, when too much power is used in producing gold, there is not enough power left over after consuming scarce power in the work to get too much gold, not enough scarce power left to be used to make other, more valuable, things; as gold becomes worthless, as more and more gold is produced after that point, when overproduction of gold is reached, as gold is not a competitive power product. Too much gold, like too many chairs, is bad, measurably bad, stupid, worthless, a malinvestement, poor. Not good. Now compare oil. Oil produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of oil while purchasing power increases (DEFLATION) because oil, unlike chairs, and unlike gold, contains actual power, and actual power actually reduces the cost of actual production - competitively. A gold miner must use labor, or gasoline, or a more beneficial power, a lower cost power, to mine, to transport, and to produce gold. Gold doesn't power up, or fuel, the dump truck. Chairs don't fuel the dump truck, or the other equipment, or the other people, used to make chairs, or mine gold. Oil can be forced out of the competitive power business by a better source of power, but oil remains a source of power, even if a better source of power takes over the power business. A. Non-power products (no power, not competitive in the power product business) B. Power products (the best power product is more powerful and therefore more competitive) One oil producer can be forced out of business by a more competitive oil producer if one oil producer charges more for the same thing compared to the more competitive oil producer, but both are in the power business, not in the chair business, and not in the gold business. Competitive oil power businesses increase wealth, and power, by producing and selling more power, more power flowing into the economy, and if it is competitive it will be flowing into the economy at the lowest price, lower than the competition, so long as there is no monopoly on that oil power, no cabal, no consortium, no lies, no force, no legal crime. Oil power increases total power, total wealth, it does so itself, therefore purchasing power increases (deflation) accordingly. Oil remains a power product,and therefore oil is a more powerful backing for monetary currency, oil is a monetary currency, because oil is power. Oil power can even increase the power of legal money even if a competitor has a more powerful source of power, just not as much of an increase in legal money power (deflation). Power produced into oversupply INCREASES purchasing power. Power produced into oversupply causes DEFLATION of the monetary currency. You have just used Joe's Law to accurately identify the difference between a power product and a non-power product. A power product produced closer and closer toward overproduction does not result in a decrease in the power to purchase, the opposite occurs, and that is significant, and that is overlooked, and that is confused, and that is important, and that is powerful, because the goal can be to reach for more, and more, and more power, until such time as power is abundant, and therefore the price of power is as low as it can get, and at that time money purchasing power increases (deflation) to the limit it can get. A non-power product that is overproduced will not increase the power to purchase with money, and that is because actual power reduces the actual cost of production, and things that are actually not powerful don't reduce the cost of production. Still confused? What happens in America if chairs or gold become so abundant that the price of chairs and the price of gold is negative? People are paying other people to store unwanted, and unused chairs, and people are paying other people to store unwanted and unused gold? What happens to the economy in America when those non-power products are overproduced? What happens in America if oil becomes so abundant that the price of oil is negative and people are paying other people to store oil, so much oil is everywhere, so much that the price goes negative, and oil runs like water or oil runs like sunlight on a cloudless summer day? Obviously the price of a barrel of oil goes to the floor, but what else happens? Chair and gold overproduction causes chair and gold prices to drop to nothing, and what happens next, as a result of that overproduction? Oil overproduction causes oil, and gasoline prices, to go down to the bottom, the minimum, down to the cost of bringing the product to the consumers of the product, and what happens next? Today chair prices are 100 dollars a chair, and gold prices are 1000 dollar an ounce, and gasoline prices are 4 dollars a gallon. Tomorrow chair prices fall to 1 dollar per chair, gold prices fall to 1 cents an ounce, and gasoline prices are down to 50 cents a gallon, or less. What happens? If you see food prices going down, while your monthly pay stays the same, and you no longer spend 100 dollars to fill up your truck, to get to work, then your cost of living goes down, considerably, and your work load stays the same, and the cause was an increase in power flowing into the "economy", not more money, more power. Now plug in Solar Panels, or food, or any competitive source of actual physical, measurable, power into Joe's Law, and see what happens? Power is abundant, overproduced, and deflation occurs. When actual power becomes scarce inflation occurs. What happens if accurate knowledge, brain power, reaches a condition of oversupply? Would anyone vote for a liar again? Would anyone ever send another watt of power to a torturing and mass murdering cabal of legal criminals again? What happens to the amount of benefits earned when the expense, or costs, of producing those benefits lower? Power reduces the cost of production. Are costs going up or down? Are benefits going up or down? How much power do you have, what does it cost you to get more power? In whose best interest is it to keep you from gaining power? What is a powerful way to move toward progress? What is needed? There is power in numbers. Free-market policies rarely make poor countries rich. I covered that too. Confusing crime with the free market process is a choice, or a plan of attack, and that plan, that choice, to confuse crime with the free market process, when executed, will transfer power from the confused to those who profit from those who are confused, or from those who are ignorant, from those who are powerless. Why do it? There is an obvious answer. Capital has a nationality. Capital can be understood as physical matter, of, and belonging to, the physical world, and the concept of economy can be understood in the same light, as physical, measurable reality - separate from perception. Objective reality. Capital is a barrel of oil, for example. A chair is capital. A bar of gold is capital. A solar panel is capital. An asset is a assessment of capital. A judgment. A perception. Subjective observation. Nationality can be understood to be psychological matter, of, and belonging to, the world of ideas, perceptions, judgments, evaluations, assessments, etc. A Nation is the way someone views a place on earth. If a person claims a place on the moon, or a place on mars, is a part of a place on earth, a person does so with ideas, not physical matter. If the place on the moon, claimed to be a part of a place on earth, belonging to China, or belonging to America, and in doing so, the next thing done is to connect the place on the moon to the place on Earth, by sending people and machines there, and by removing, say, a quantity of gold, or a quantity of matter, a new powerful substance, He-3, from the moon, to the Nation, on earth, then there is a combination of physical matter along with psychological matter, or economy and politics mixed, subjective and objective connections, the earth connected to the moon. The idea drives the work that causes the physical matter to move from one place to another place, and the perception can be such that the Moon is now a part of the Nation, if that is what the person claims. A person may claim that it is in the Nation's interest to claim the moon as part of the Nation. Other people may believe that claim. Why? Capital has a nationality. Capital = physical matter = economy Nation = law = psychological matter = perception = politics. Capital can exist within a geographical place on a planet where people share an idea that the place claimed is a nation. We live in this Nation. They actually live where they live. What they agree to call it, is what they agree to call it. A Nation is a legal fiction, as is a corporation. Nationalism, like Fascism, and like Despotism, is a political idea, one I do not share. I know why they are created, and I know why they are maintained, I know the purpose, and I know the consequences, and I call them what they are, with a more accurate term, a term that exposes their true color, their true purpose, which is crime, so I call nationalism, fascism, and despotism by the accurate term Legal Crime. Capital has a nationality according to the legal criminals and their ignorant, or confused, victims. I mean, you know, the World Bank every year publishes these statistics showing the proportion of high-tech products in your export. According to this number, the Philippines is second most high-tech economy in the world after Singapore. But why then does the Philippines have only $2,000 per capita income? Does the above intend to quantify something worth knowing? A group of people cooperate and intend to produce wealth. That combination of effort consumes wealth and the end result is either more wealth or not. Is that what is being reported? the Philippines is second most high-tech economy in the world What does that mean? What is the intention of reporting that measure of things? Is that not the same thing as saying that a group of people agree to cooperate and use their power to create more power, and that plan succeeds, and those people are the second most successful in the world, by that measure? Who is credited with that accomplishment? "The Philippines" The actual people who have actually agreed to begin working toward that goal where those people succeed in reaching that goal are not listed, rather, the whole of them, they, are credited with the credit of having done something. Who is credited with that success? Whose bank account increases? What is the process by which power is used to create more power? What is the process by which power flows from the many to the few, and then to even fewer? And also, don't forget, I mean, the countries like Switzerland that you think live on taking care of dirty money deposited by Third World dictators and selling things like cuckoo clocks and cowbells to American tourists actually, in per capita terms, is the most industrialized economy in the world. It literally has the biggest manufacturing output in per capita terms. Of course, they're only 7 million people and they tend to specialize in--. The Swiss Republic was the example used by the people who removed the British Monarchy, as the goal to reach, to reach the goal of a Swiss Model Republic, by getting rid of the British Monarchy, get rid of the control by the British Monarchy, over the "colonies", and start using a Swiss model Republic instead. That was the plan back before The U.S. Constitution. It was a political and economic plan shared by many volunteers. A Swiss model Republic was tried, in the form of The Articles of Confederation, where separate and sovereign State governments voluntarily combine into one Federated Republic, and that was the form of government in mind during the defeat of the British military invaders, the invaders who invaded to enforce a Monarchy, and the defenders began to use a Swiss model republic, and a volunteer army, and use help from the French military, and that group of people, working toward that state of abundant power, to be powerful enough to no longer be overpowered by the British Monarchy, could have kept the legal criminals out of business, after they threw out the legal criminals, but it failed to work, when more legal criminals, such as Alexander Hamilton, and Robert Morris, to name just two, set about to overthrow that voluntary association, and place a Nation, using nationalism, in place of the federated republic that was based upon the Swiss model. In a federated republic, the separate and sovereign State governments compete against each other for the favor of the tax payers, by offering the best government, at the lowest cost, and so the people can vote with their feet, from one Canton, to the next State, if one State begins to move toward despotism, and if voting by ballot doesn't work, the citizens within, and protected from without, can move, they don't have to love it or leave it. Each state, in a state of competition, must deliver the best government, at the lowest cost, or their citizens walk over to the next state, where they can get the best government, at the lowest cost, and everyone knows that this will work, because it does work, and it does work, because people know that governments are best when they are forced to compete, by the force of competition, to deliver the goods, or else, they go out of business, for lack of customers. They don't have to love their chains, and they don't have to lick the boots of their oppressors. And such a model, as the Swiss model, avoids the leap from defensive power to offensive aggressor power, no crime power, no legal crime power, because the states are not conglomerated into one single monopoly power, and the federated republic becomes the most powerful defensive power, having not wasted valuable power on failed aggressive wars for profit, as proven by the Swiss model, note, the Swiss managed to stay out of both WWI, and WWII, as those examples of legal crime went on all around them. Which model is the most stable economically? Which model is the most stable politically? Which model is the most stable militarily? The Nation State model, the one Alexander Hamilton and his cabal coerced into existence instead of the working Swiss model federated republic, is, as anyone can now see, exactly what the opponents of it said it would become, which it did become, and it became a legal crime business before the ink was dry on the last signature on that legal crime recipe. The nation state was formed, and the Swiss model form was overthrown, and now the citizens are all slaves, party to aggressive wars for profit, doing the same crimes perpetrated by the Nazis, and believing in the same lies that perpetuate the same, or worse, legal crimes. The power that boomed the Nazi power, was the same power that busted the Nazi power, and that same power boomed Stalin's version of communism, absolute despotism, and it is the same power that busted Stalin's version of communism, and that power is the monopoly legal money power, even if you refuse to know that fact. There is a gorilla in the room, and pretending not to see the damage done by it, doesn't make the damage any less damaging, the effect of willfully ignoring it, empowers it, and perpetuates it. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Part VHa-Joon Chang: US Does not Have the Highest Living Standard Anyone, Statistics, like any other tool, can be used to accomplish a specific task, and there are at least 2 major categories that the many possible tasks fall under. A. To increase the accuracy of human perception B. To willfully misinform a targeted group of people There are many people within the boarders of the Nation State, or State Corporation known as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) whose living standard is regressive, whereby this group of people are starving to death, for lack of power. While people within the boarders of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) are starving to death there is a group of people who are in command of so much power that this group can, and does, conduct aggressive wars for their exclusive profit, at the expense of all the people who are not in this exclusive group. A. The group on the far end of the low standard of living (powerless) B. The group on the far end of the high standard of living (powerful) Any statistic that combines those two groups into one group, as if a person in one group is no different politically, or no different economically, than a person in the other group is a misleading statistic - yes or no?
It is past time to abandon the practice of reading from the false script. If someone within the legal boundaries of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) will succeed in moving from the far left, or starving, or low standard of living end, to the opposite end, or the rich end, or the powerful end, then someone living in the legal boundaries of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) has to get power to do so, and there are few free market options. There may be many Free Market tm (trade mark) options. A very talented person is born with power, while someone not born with a great supply of talent power is out of luck. A very hard working person, someone who earns power by producing more power than they consume, and then uses that surplus wealth earned in the work of creating even more power can accumulate more and more power within the legal reach of the law enforcers who run U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), and there are many good examples, such as Elon Musk. How much of that power is talent, how much is hard work, effective work, and how much of that power, controlled by Elon Musk, is spent by Elon Musk, in the work of avoiding a loss of power resulting from crimes perpetrated upon Elon Musk, or anyone within the legal reach of the enforcers who run U.S.A. Inc. (LLC)? In context, could an Elon Musk, produce more power, and consume less, if Elon Musk was no longer effected by the actions of the enforcers who run U.S.A. Inc. (LLC)? Would an Elon Musk, hard worker type, high producer type, low consumer type, fare better in another country or not? What happens if the answer to the above question is provided by a careful look into the record of monetary exchanges between Elon Musk and all the people connected to him, as Elon Musk moved from a low standard of living to a higher standard of living - follow the money? One of the things Elon Musk was able to do, in his short history, is to cause money to flow from people he contacted to him, as that flow of purchasing power flowed from investors to Elon Musk, so as to empower Elon Musk with the necessary power required to move Elon Musk from a low standard of living to a high standard of living, rather than Elon Musk having to sell things to get the start up money, Elon Musk sold ideas, sold investment plans, to get the power needed to start up the projects that produce more power, and more power, so as to move Elon Musk from a lower standard of living to a higher standard of living. Recently Elon Musk had to find sources of investment money outside the legal boundaries of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), on that money trail, so those facts measure the competitive differences between U.S.A Inc. (LLC) and other legal competitors in the sphere of economic surplus wealth creation. Since Elon Musk had to get credit off-shore, so as to have enough power (credit) to produce more wealth on-shore, that fact is worthy as significant data in the task of measuring which legal system works better (the U.S.A. Inc. system or a competitor) in the work of allowing human beings to produce more surplus wealth, and therefore increase the standard of living, so this illustrated, real time, example, provides accurate data so as to reach a reasonable conclusion - when looking for a higher quality system, at a lower cost. You can call the U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) system an example of a Free Market System (tm), but what does that mean? It is not a free market system if credit is supplied by one, and only one, legal supplier, and members of the system have to go outside the system to get credit, the opposite is true, the facts show that the U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) system is a closed system, a monopoly system, and not a free market system. Calling it a free market system is akin to calling a lie a fact. A lie is a lie. A fact is a fact. Confusing the two makes a lie look factual, and a fact appear less factual, so why do it? Is the goal such that the participants desire confusion, on purpose, for some, secret, reason? A. Free Market (tm) U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) system of extortion operating under the false flag of a free market system. B. U.S.A Inc. (LLC) in competition with other competitive closed, exclusive, systems, constitutes a free market, so long as people in one closed system retain the power to choose products from another closed system. Pointing at a legal extortion racket and calling it a Free Market is false. Pointing at competition between rival legal extortion rackets and calling that a free market is less false, closer to the truth. A free market can be a human social structure that suffers a minimum cost associated with crime, legal or otherwise, as the free market participants retain the power to choose who they choose to connect with, what they choose to transfer among their chosen associates, and by what methods the exchanges are conducted, voluntarily, without willfully causing injury to innocent victims, against the will of the victims, or even against the knowledge of powerless victims within a free market defined by the people in that free market in that specific way. Criminals define a Free Market as a market in which the victims are free to exploit in any way imaginable. How Free can a Market get? Torture, mass murder, and threats to the survivability of the human species reaches the limit of that Free Market defined in that way by those who define torture by torturing, and those who define mass murder by mass murdering, and those who define threats to the human species by causing things that do threaten the human species, even if they say they are cooking fried chicken. They lie, and the victims don't have to believe the lies if they gain the power to choose something other than believing in lies. In the U.S.A Inc. (LLC) power struggle, the credit for producing more surplus wealth, and the credit for increasing the human standard of living, flows from those who produce surplus wealth to those who operate the legal money monopoly business, and they are no longer investing that power here at home - obviously - measurably by following the (dollar) money flow. That can hardly be called a Free Market. The power to produce surplus wealth, credit, and money (purchasing power), is taken from those who produce surplus wealth (the only one's that pay positive tax payments), here in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), and then that power is sold back to those producers of wealth, or not sold back to those producers of wealth, depending upon which part of the business cycle the operators of the legal money monopoly (Dollar Hegemony) are currently enforcing. The paper trail documents the fact that the legal monopoly money power (The Federal Reserve Dollar Hegemony) is currently enforcing the bottom part of the business cycle, neither busting the business cycle more, nor booming the business cycle, here in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC); however there does exist evidence, in various forms along the paper trail (or digital trail), when following the money, that indicate that the operators of the legal money monopoly within the legal reach of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) are well prepared to boom an economy somewhere, since those operators have doubled the number of dollars in 2008, therefore there is a great potential for those legal criminals to boom an economy somewhere, by causing all that purchasing power to flow to specific people they decide to transfer that power to, for whatever reason they alone dream up, in secret. That is hardly a case of a working Free Market. The script these people are reading from is false, by a wide margin - perhaps sarcastically, by some measure. The Swiss have a higher health standard, I mean, judged in terms of life expectancy and so on. The US is a very unequal society. It has a much higher crime rate. On per capita basis, the United States have 12 times more people in prison than in Japan, eight times more people in prison than European countries. So this is a consequence of, you know, unequal society. I would like very much to spend a lot of time on the concept of Purchasing Power Parity, because that is a measure of the quality (and cost) of the various competitive monopoly monies. A monopoly money is a monopoly only within the legal reach of the producers of that example of legal monopoly money power. Illustration of two Examples may suffice to show the difference between a working legal money monopoly and a working competition between legal money monopolies. A person living in China does not have to pay taxes to the legal fiction known as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC). A "citizen" of China does not pay U.S.A. income tax directly, and therefore a wealth producer (the only source of tax power) producing wealth in China has no need to acquire dollars to pay off a U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) tax debt. The opposite is true. A surplus wealth producer inside U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) does not have to possess Chinese legal money to pay Chinese income taxes. Chinese people have to get Chinese monopoly money to pay Chinese tax debts. American people have to get U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) money to pay U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) tax debt. The Chinese producers of wealth are required to produce enough surplus wealth to get enough Chinese dollars to pay their taxes; by whatever means that is now being accounted in China - I don't know how their tax system works. A U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) producer of wealth is required to produce enough surplus wealth to get enough U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) dollars to pay income tax; failing to do so will result in punishment and a loss of productive power that exceeds the loss of the productive power known as income tax. In other words: OBEY The wealth producers must transfer productive power called TAX or the wealth producer will pay even more productive power called PUNISHMENT for TAX EVASION. A. Rock B. Hard Place And the wealth producer must use the legal monopoly money to pay the TAX, or failure to use the legal money is the same thing as failing to pay the TAX at all. A. Pay up B. Pay up with dollars C. Failure is not an option So people under the punishment mechanism within U.S.A Inc. (LLC) are captive within that monopoly money system of fraud, having no choice to use any other currency, they must use The Dollar, or else they are guilty of Tax Evasion, and the people of China must use the Chinese money or something similar happens to them. That shows how a legal money monopoly avoids the force of competition within their own legal boundaries, as each victim is forced to use whatever money the legal power produces, no matter how low the quality of the money, and no matter how high the cost of the money may be within that legal enforced money monopoly extortion racket. But, and here is the ugly head of competition, from the viewpoint of the legal criminals, The Dollar Hegemony must compete for market share against other legal money enforcers and the winner of that competition is measurable as Purchasing Power Parity. A. Dollar quality (power to purchase) and cost (interest rate) is X B. Chinese money quality (power to purchase) and cost (interest rate) is Xy Who wins? This can be known easily. If both China and U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) changed their laws to allow all tax payers to pay with either/or Chinese money or Dollar Hegemony money, then what happens? You have to use your own brain for awhile, and you may have to stop reading from the script to do so, but that question above unravels much confusion, if you want to unravel much confusion. If both countries changed their laws to allow all tax payers to pay with either the local monopoly money or the foreign monopoly money there would no longer be a monopoly, and purchasing power parity would quickly reach equal purchasing power; assuming, of course, that people do what is in their own best interest, and people no longer choose to do things that cause injury to themselves while they can easily avoid such injury to themselves. All the tax payers would choose to be paid with the higher quality (more powerful) money (at the lower cost) and therefore the force of competition would force the producer of the lower power money (at the higher cost) to either increase power (and lower cost) or go out of business for lack of market share. A. Better money (more power and lower cost) wins = higher purchasing power parity B. Worse money (less power and higher cost) loses - lower purchasing power parity Less bang for the buck loses More bang for the buck wins If the Dollar Hegemony money is much higher in power (and lower cost) compared to the competition, in this case the Chinese money, then all the tax payers in China would demand payment in the higher quality, and lower cost, money, and there would be no one left on Earth using the Chinese money so long as the Chinese money remained lower in power and higher in cost. The fact that the Dollar Hegemony legal monopoly extortion racket people have used their power to gain exclusive control over the price of oil, and they have done so through the investment of a very powerful criminal military force, is not NEWS, it is fact, and it cannot be overlooked if the idea is to understand political economy on a Global scale, and therefore understand how, and why, The Dollar Hegemony has managed to keep their monopoly legal money more powerful than all the competition, whereby all the competitors have lower quality monopoly money, and higher cost legal extortion racket money. That is called The World Reserve Currency competition and the old winner may soon become the new loser, and that, by all information I have found so far, is on a schedule, it is being planned to occur, on purpose, because failure to maintain control of The World Reserve Currency (monopoly) will usher in a new age of prosperity, a sudden and rapid surge in total surplus wealth, and abundant power world wide, so much excess power, in fact, that the victims will have enough power to avoid being victims, and the legal criminals are thereby overpowered, the legal criminals will then be rendered powerless, and the legal criminals are no longer powerful enough to eliminate competition when that happens, and therefore all forms of currency will be forced higher and higher in quality and lower and lower in price, because no force will be forcing one single low quality and high cost money upon the clueless, hapless, and powerless victims. One of the costs of monopoly money enforcement is the transfer of surplus wealth from those who create surplus wealth to those who operate the legal money supply, as those legal criminals perpetuate a planned, scheduled, enforced business cycle, where the insiders know when to buy (at the bottom of the bust) and when to sell (before the top of the boom); which has been the method by which all surplus wealth has moved from the control of those who produce surplus wealth to the legal criminals who operate their extortion rackets. Another cost of monopoly money enforcement is torture and mass murder. Another cost of monopoly money enforcement is the measurable move toward extinction of the human species. It can't get any worse than the willful extinction of the human species, unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible, therefore anyone else can chime in here, and help me see my errors. JAY: Yeah. I mean, it's a combination. In the first years after World War II you have the Cold War put in kleptocracies and dictators, 'cause the only issue that the West cared about in Africa, that there wouldn't be national liberation movements that somehow would be allied with socialism. And now you have the IMF and structural adjustment policies. That is a prime case of reading from the (false) script, like saying: "We failed to spread democracy in Vietnam" when referring to that aggressive war for profit which did help manage to perpetuate The Dollar Hegemony power flow as power did continue to flow from the victims of The Dollar Hegemony to the operators of The Dollar Hegemony. They won the Vietnam war, it is proven along the paper trail, if the money is followed, if the account is accurately known. What you must understand, in my view, is that the power struggle is a power struggle between people who produce power, and people who steal from people who produce power, and the proof is measurable as surplus wealth flows in real time. When the people who produce power are able to avoid having their power stolen, less power flows to the legal criminals, the total amount of surplus wealth increases, and increases in inverse proportion to the rate of power flowing to the legal criminals. The legal criminals use the power stolen in the work of eliminating competition, which is, by definition, destruction, such as aggressive wars for profit, such as environmental pollution, such as punishment and imprisonment of non-criminals for the crime of competing (thought crimes, victimless crimes, tax evasion, etc.), and the legal criminals use the power stolen to recruit larger numbers of criminals who join the legal crime business, through subsidy, tax breaks, bail-outs, munition industries, no-bid "reconstruction" contracts, political "contributions", etc, and all that power could, and would, have been used to make more power instead of having all that stolen power consumed in the work of perpetuating destruction. To parrot the lie that the operators of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) were once fighting socialism, or communism, or defending against the evil enemies during the Cold War, or the new evil enemies in the War on Drugs, or the War on Terrorism, is a subsidy, or a tax payment, a political contribution, a form of welfare to the rich, and that choice actually transfers power to the legal criminals, as that choice, to read from that false script, covers up the truth, and hides the facts, and empowers, and facilitates, and encourages, and emboldens, and enables the legal criminals to continue their perpetual crimes. The Dollar Hegemony is a legal money monopoly, a crime, it is extortion, and it is well past time to know this fact, and well past time to work toward avoiding victimization from it. The Dollar Hegemony has competitors, other similar criminal extortion racket operators, and it may well be a good idea to know that criminals can agree to combine their forces, instead of fight among themselves, and then the once competitive criminal powers form a cooperative larger consortium of criminals, where all the separate opposing criminals join together into one homogeneous criminal cabal, and in so doing they are no longer expending much of their stolen power in the work of destroying each other, and therefore they have more stolen power to employ in the work of destroying all competition everywhere that competition may arise, so as to be able to ensure that the power supply remains scarce, and therefore they alone have control over the price that everyone who needs power will have to pay to get control over the scarce power supply. Knowledge is power, why do you think lies are produced in such great quantities? To maintain a scarce supply of the power of knowledge. Too much knowledge renders the legal criminals powerless in their work of stealing power. Oil is power, electricity is power, law is power, why do you think that lies are produced: to cover-up all the actions that are being executed in the work of monopolizing the supply of oil, electricity, and law? What happens when oil flows like water? Would anyone purposefully make oil power scarce? The price goes down when the supply reaches abundance. Money power goes up (you can buy more with one dollar) when oil prices go down; because power reduces the cost of production. What happens when electricity becomes much more abundant, flowing from home based Solar Panels, farm based Wind generators, water based tide generators, etc.? What happens when knowledge is no longer trapped within a closed system of false reality? What happens when people are no longer left with one false script to read? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism Pt.5Governments can pick winners. Anyone, The false script imagines into being two fictitious enemies. Socialism Capitalism Please step back. A lie has a purpose, and knowing the purpose leads to knowing that a person volunteers to work toward that purpose, a person invents the lie, and this must be known. The lie doesn't happen by accident. The criminal will invent a diversion during the crime so as to capture the attention of any power that could otherwise stop the crime in progress. The thief my yell "Thief" and point at some innocent person during the crime as the criminal steals, the victim of theft may be looking where the thief is pointing, while the thief steals from the victim, and all the people who could be in a position to stop the crime are looking where the thief is pointing, and thereby the thief invents the lie, fabricates the false story, so as to make crime pay. Who pays? That is a low level fabrication of one false entity used by criminals to perpetuate crime. How much more effective is it to create two imaginary beings, point to those fabrications, and cause other people to focus attention upon an imaginary fight between those two imaginary combatants? In the case of the thief inventing an imaginary second thief, an innocent victim is rendered powerless. In the case of a more complex lie, whereby two imaginary foes are fighting each other, the criminal inventor can recruit fellow criminals into the scarce supply of criminals, and thereby reduce the power of the potential victim group. In order to know of which I speak the reader must learn from history. This criminal tactic, of inventing fictitious combatants, has its roots in logic, along the lines of theories published by a man named Hegel. Hegelism observes thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis, whereby the goal is synthesis, and the means of arriving at the goal is to create a thesis, to create an anti-thesis, and to arrive at the goal of synthesis. I will offer a general description along with two links that intend to support the validity of the general description. The criminals, legal or otherwise, decide that they want to eliminate competition, and they want to make certain that power remains scarce, and they want to make sure that the supply of scarce power remains within their exclusive control, they control power, and their target synthesis, is to keep that power. In order to get that power to control power they decide to use the power they have in the work of creating, out of thin air, a fictitious power, by hiring a leader of the fictitious power, and then funneling money to that leader, of that fictitious power, and inspire that leader to use the power given to him, to gain more power with that power, and at the same time, nearby, another leader, and another leader, are also given power, and also tasked with the power to empower this new fictitious being, and the idea is to finance both sides, and all sides, in a new power struggle, where each new leader works to gain all the power available, and each new leader is then set against each other new leader, so as to cause a very destructive conflict, and once it is over, the criminals enforce debt payments from the survivors, and the criminals sell "reconstruction" to the survivors, and the criminals gain control of all the various channels and methods by which surplus wealth is accounted for and controlled. Not too distant past examples: WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER The creation of a new fight between the Terrorists against the Anti-Terrorists cause the creation of what new synthesis? Can you guess? If you don't see it, it doesn't disappear. If it doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that a common belief of the fiction isn't real. Actual criminals actually exist and they actually plan, and they actually perpetrate those plans, and actual innocent victims die miserable deaths by the millions and millions perpetually, or until the time at which the innocent victims are clued in, and then they do something effective in avoiding victimization. Not seeing that does not make that go away. Fictitious beings are created, to take credit and blame, so as to allow the actual people who produce these fictitious being to cover-up their crimes, during these crimes, and when these crimes become obvious crimes, eventually, as the screams of torture reach volumes that can no longer be ignored, and as the piles of murdered bodies clog the rivers and roads of commerce, the criminals can blame the legal fictions and the legal criminals are thereby free to create new legal fictions, or rotate the employees holding the offices of the current legal fictions, so long as all defensive power is used up on wasted effort channeled toward the imaginary beings. National interest did it, nothing personal, business is business. Still skeptical? I have Real News for you. Socialism and capitalism are both fictions that can be measured physically, as a consequence of a belief in those fictions, and the physical measure is done in financial accounting of surplus wealth. When surplus wealth flows from those who create it to a central location the financial account proves that surplus wealth exists, and the financial account proves that surplus wealth flows from those who create surplus wealth to the central location. Those are the facts, just like the fact that early human societies consisted of many farmers creating surplus wealth in the form of food, and the food traveled from the farms to a central location called a granary. A person can view such transfers of surplus wealth, measurable, and accurately measurable, physical, transfers of surplus wealth' by any name they can invent, and any name that other people agree to use, when people use the name to describe the physical transfers of surplus wealth from those who create it to the central, collective, physical, places, where surplus wealth is stored, and controlled. A person can choose to call the practice of moving surplus wealth from those who create it to a physical central collective collection place with the label Socialism or Capitalism. A rose by any other name, smells like a rose, yes or no? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is a duck, does it seem silly to call it fried chicken? If the process by which the surplus wealth flows from those who create it to the central storage place is accomplished by way of deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence by the people who seize control over that flow, and that store of surplus wealth, then the accurate name for such a condition of life, social life, is an involuntary association, or crime, or extortion, or any number of words in any language where the word means the same thing. A process by which a powerful few seize control over surplus wealth flowing from those who create surplus wealth to a single controllable power place, and that process proceeds against the will and/or against the knowledge of the creators of that surplus wealth - is what it is - by any other name, it remains the same process. If the criminals can convince the creators of surplus wealth that they are two groups instead of one group, and thereby perpetuate conflict among the creators of surplus wealth, things may occur, as a result of that imaginary, fictitious, conflict, that is only a conflict when the victims are convinced of that false, fabricated, belief of that lie, perpetrated by those who divide and conquer, by that knowable, and known, process. 1. The rate of increase in production of surplus wealth is controlled by the criminals. 2. The power to avoid victimization is lost; for lack of power. 3. Competition is reduced, eliminated, and willfully made powerless 4. Conflict replaces competition, by fraud, and by force 5. Destruction replaces production, production is consumed in the work of destruction 6. Power flows from those who create it, to those who steal it, perpetually From a simple lie, as the thief points and calls out "thief", to divert defensive power, to shunt it, to waste it, to ground that power, unload it, from that simple crime, crime has evolved into more complex structures. Wealth producers are convinced of the need to fight each other, to conflict with each other, instead of competing with each other, and the complexity of this process can be narrowed down to an easy, and obvious, litmus test. 1. Competition is voluntary 2. Conflict is involuntary Do you know that you are being had, do you know that you have a choice, are you powerless to avoid victimization? Criminals know the secret, knowledge is power, and until the victims gain that power, uncover that secret, they will remain victims, and they will continue to send surplus wealth to those who use that power to perpetuate conflict, and to eliminate competition, and to ensure that power remains scarce, and that the scarce supply of power remains within the exclusive control of the criminals. If that is news to you, and you see it now, like the sun rising on a new summer day, remember where you once were, because that place is where many other people are still, and getting from A to B requires much work, it is not something for nothing. Knowledge does not arrive on a silver platter. Liberty isn't purchased by abject obedience to falsehood; because, unfortunately, there are criminals among us, and many of them gave themselves the license to commit crime perpetually. Liberty is a voluntary association, among those who do not resort to crime, as a means of "gaining liberty", by false construction of language, by excuse, by apology, by self-deceit, or by targeting victims with deceit, by threats of violence for failure to be subjected to injury, or by actual violence resulting in victimization of the innocent wealth producers who do manage to voluntarily associate. What is the use of fighting between voluntary capitalists and voluntary socialists, compared to the necessity of all volunteers, all competitors, to work toward the avoidance of victimization, avoidance of contact to criminals, legal or otherwise? In whose interest do people read from the script that says criminal capitalists are better than criminal socialists or visa versa? I will return to the Real News report - seeking accurate data. So these people actually use these things to justify whatever is convenient for them. You know, I mean, I just think this argument that government is always unsuccessful and the private sector always is successful--. The fight is not between which criminals are the most effective at lying, cheating, torturing, mass murdering, and doing what ever is required to eliminate competition, and limit the production of power to level that ensures criminal control over scarce power. That is the criminal fight. Are these guys criminals, asking each other which crime gang is the best crime gang? Who is the most benevolent dictator? The fight is between voluntary producers of surplus wealth and the criminals who work to gain exclusive control over that surplus wealth. If a person is holding a title, in an office, that has the name "Non-profit Government Public venture" on it, or if a person is holding a title, in an office, that has the name "Profit Private Business venture" on it, the success or failure of either isn't measured by the name plate. The success or failure is measurable as an increase or decrease in the quality of life divided by the cost of life, as an aggregate. Person A succeeds when human life improves and human costs decrease. Quality goes up. Price goes down. Person A succeeds at the expense of injuries to other people. How can that be the measure of success, regardless of what label is stamped on the stationary? How about the following two examples of competitors working toward success: Competition for success Competitor A produces a high quality and low cost money, and the rate of success is a measurable increase in the quality of life, an increase in the supply of surplus wealth, and the price, or cost, is measurable relative to the competition, whereby competitor B resorts to threats and violence as a means of eliminating competitor A. If competitor B agrees to not resort to violence as a means of eliminating competitor A, then competitor B would be forced, by competition, to increase quality and lower cost, and thereby offer, voluntarily, the consumers a more competitive product. Those two examples are examples of supposedly "socialistic" producers of money, or "government" money producers, and the challenge there is to introduce, and to offer, a competitor representing the capitalist group of monetary producers. Such as: The Liberty Dollar Where is the capitalist forms of competitive money products that arise as a result of free market forces as free market competition forces quality up and price down? Will a capitalist form of money, such as the Liberty Dollar, out compete, in a free market, the stamp script form of money, negative interest money, or the Islamic Finance form of money, no-interest money, or will some form of money not yet invented prove to be the most competitive, highest quality, and lowest cost money, if competition avoids elimination by criminal forces? The whole capitalist dogma routine falls apart on the measure of the cost of money, actually currency, in seems to me, and that cost is also called monetary interest, interest is cost, interest is price, and interestingly enough, the vocal capitalists measure monetary interest as a benefit, not a cost, which begs the question: in whose interest is it to make purchasing power scarce, whose interest is it to make money scarce, whose interest is it to make currency scarce, on purpose, for profit? CHANG: Yeah, there is that political [crosstalk] issue. But this is a political issue. It's not inherent in the government policy. You know. I mean--and especially in these days, when half the US financial companies are--I mean, that should have been technically bankrupt without this bailout, someone saying that private sector is better at pick winners, I mean, it's [crosstalk] Now they are getting down to the base, root, of the political economy power struggle between those who produce surplus wealth and those who steal it. It matters not what label is on the stationary, if the power to control surplus wealth is purchased by way of willful deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence, then that is the destructive method, the criminal method, the method that makes power scarce, and the method that destroys competition, and therefore that is the method that renders the power to increase quality, and the power to lower cost, power-less. The socialists, here, appear to ascribe to the falsehood whereby government is justifiably involuntary - obey or get out, pay taxes, or be punished - and as such it is principally criminal. From that principle there can only be more crime. That is the criminal method. I say that they appear to ascribe to, support, encourage, defend, the criminal method, because they illustrate criminal examples of socialism, and they do not clarify those examples as being criminal examples. A wealth producer moving to one of those example places, illustrated by these people, would either be forced to pay taxes or forced to move out of the reach of that criminal government - yes or no? The taxes collected by those criminal governments are powers that are used to reduce the total rate of power being produced, on purpose, and so as to eliminate competition - or not. Which is the case? I am not familiar with the cases those people use as example illustrations; but I can quote their own words: Singapore Airline, which is one of the most kind of highly rated airline companies in the world, is actually a fully state-owned enterprise. In the nearly 40 years of its operation, it has never made one penny of loss. In contrast, all the free enterprise American airline companies live on government subsidies. What does "fully state-owned enterprise" mean? What does "government subsidies" mean? Where does the power to purchase in either case come from, where are the start up costs earned, how do the people producing the new airline service manage to gain the power to purchase, how do they get the credit needed, where does that power used to make the airline service originate from, as that power flows from the control of someone who has that power before that power is then controlled by the "fully state-owned enterprise" or the "American airline companies"? Where does that power used in that investment originate from, before it is moved and then used in that investment; what is that process called? Who controls the decision to move purchasing power from where that power was before that power went to those people running those air transport services? Socialists appear to be claiming that "government" is a person, and this person, this entity known as "government" is credited with the good sense of moving scarce power from those who make it, the only place it can come from, to people who then produce air transport services. High quality air transport services do not increase total wealth without integration within a larger network of cooperating, and competing social groups, within that connection of those many people. How is any single person's contribution to the increase of total wealth determined, and accounted for accurately? What is that process, what is the name of that process; capitalism, socialism, meritocracy, what? If the wealth producers, working in concert, do increase total wealth, measurably, and they do lower their transportation costs, measurably, then it is because the price of air transportation decreases; because lower air transportation costs lower the costs of producing everything that requires air transportation, therefore total surplus wealth increases, by that measure. Who is credited with that decision to move power to that investment? Government? What ever happened to the person who made that decision, he, or she, or they decide by some process of decision, do they, or does he, or does she, not get the credit they deserve for making that decision? If they get the credit, and socialism doesn't get the credit, and capitalism doesn't get the credit, how is that credit measured as that credit flows to those specific people who caused the lowering of transportation costs and thereby those people, by those decisions, and those actions, increase surplus wealth - how is their increase in credit accounted for accurately, and what is the name of that process? The opposite is true. Who is blamed for failures caused by the American airlines whereby the American airline people produce lower quality air travel at higher prices? The corporation is blamed? The government is blamed for bailing out the corporation. Governments, and corporations, are, in their own fine print, legal fictions. People create legal fictions, and guns, and money, and pointed sticks, so as to succeed at doing what they want to succeed doing, with those tools. The tools don't do things. The tools can't get credit for doing things. The tools can't be held accountable for doing things. Crediting and blaming tools for the things people do is a choice, a false choice, and an irresponsible choice, and a method by which accountability is avoided, on purpose, for profit. People profit, not governments. Socialism can't take credit. Capitalism can't take credit. Socialism will never be held to account for anything - ever. Capitalism will never be held to account for anything - ever. Socialism will never realize the truth. Capitalism will never confess true motive. JAY: So join us for the next segment of 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. And we're going to be talking about the idea that making the rich richer makes everybody else richer. Or does it? Thanks for joining us on The Real News Network. I want to review that Real News report, when it is published, and I can say beforehand that surplus wealth cannot be allowed to pass a level that can no longer be controlled by the legal criminals, they must throttle down the production of surplus wealth to a level that is below a manageable level for them. If they fail that necessary work then the whole "trickle down economics" dogma will become real, a fact of life, as power will then flow to those who are best at making more power, and more power, and a new age will dawn, and the legal criminals will be out of business, because there will be so much power available to so many, that the victims will then have the power they need to survive well, and the former victims will have enough power to avoid victimization. Competition over how best to adapt to a power abundant world will include new methods, new inventions, of which mankind, generally, haven't even begun to imagine. Increases in the quality of life and decreases in the cost of life is inversely proportional to increases in the effectiveness of legal crime, as the legal criminals use scarce power to make power scarce, and use scarce power to eliminate all competition where ever, and when ever competition arises. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, The socialism versus capitalism conflict serves those who support it, and it may be a good idea to employ limited power working on more productive projects. Then again, it may be a good idea, to resolve some of the destructive affects of that socialism versus capitalism conflict which serves those who support it. Resolve 1: Power flows to those who support that socialism versus capitalism conflict and that same power flows from the honest productive people who are the only ones who produce the power that flows to those who support that socialism versus capitalism conflict, and those who support the socialism versus capitalism conflict can be accurately known if the paper trail is accurately followed as the power flows from those who produce the power, to those who support, and perpetuate, the socialism versus capitalism conflict. Resolve 2: Socialism is one thing according to one type of socialist. Socialism is one thing according to a opposing type of socialist. Capitalism is one thing according to one type of capitalist. Capitalism is one thing according to a opposing type of socialist. There are at least 4 major groups involved in the socialism versus capitalism conflict, each group is specifically not each other group, there are 4 different groups, and among the socialists there are 2 diametrically opposed separate groups, and among the capitalists there are 2 diametrically opposed groups. I can show you the facts, written by the actual people claiming to be opposed to the opposing groups, but will refrain from that lengthy report for now. The voluntary socialism group is diametrically opposed to the involuntary socialism group. The voluntary capitalism group is diametrically opposed to the involuntary capitalism group. The involuntary socialism group is diametrically opposed to the involuntary capitalism group. The voluntary socialism group is fully supporting the voluntary capitalism group, in principle, if not in interests. Resolve 3: What group, if there is one, anywhere, does not resort to premeditated willful designs, plans, thoughts, that result in willful injuries to innocent victims, on purpose, for profit, among the 4 separate, and distinct groups in Resolve 2 above? Which group do you support? If the group that does not resort to willful injuries to innocent victims, by deceit, by threats of violence, and by willful acts of direct violence against innocent victims, exists, if that group exists, what do they call themselves? Raise your hand, please, and let me know where you stand, and from those resolves, I think the conflict can be understood to be what it is, instead of it being a tangle web of deceit. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism Pt6Number 13: Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer. Well, even if you accept their theory, who says the capital has to be private capital? Who says it can't be public capital that creates the jobs Anyone, Discussion can be a process by which ideas, persepctives, plans, and actions, compete, whereby the purpose of the competition is to lay bare, before all eyes having an interest in seeing, and all minds having an interest in knowing, which idea, which perspective, which plan, and which action is better, and which one is not as good. What is the higher quality one? How can you answer that question without knowing which is the higher cost one? How can you answer that question without knowing who pays the cost and who receives the benefit? Discussion can be a process by which one person, or one representative of one group, intends to misinform a targeted victim, or misinform a group of targeted victims, and the idea can be known as a one way communication, a dictatorship, a subject who is subjected to the false information, and a dictator who dictates the false information; thereby subjecting the subject to the one way, dictatorial, communication. Why does my above viewpoint work to explain the "us" versus "them" argument? Is my viewpoint competitive? Does my viewpoint offer a higher quality viewpoint, at a lower cost to you? Well, again, do you earn your living at the expense of someone else? Do you depend upon lies to keep your victims unaware of their condition of victimization? If so then my viewpoint does not represent a high quality, low cost, viewpoint to you, because it is true, and truth sets your victims free from your victimization, and that may never do, that may be a very low quality, and high cost, perspective to you, you may have to actually produce something that someone else wants, something higher in quality, and lower in cost to them. Involuntary socialists steal surplus wealth from stupified victims, and the victims are made up of all the people who produce surplus wealth, the only place surplus wealth comes from, originally, and fraudulent acquisition of surplus wealth from those who create it, can only come from those among that group of surplus wealth creators who are stupified into a belief, and a condition, that they are powerless to avoid being, or even knowing that they are, victims. Take that paragraph above and take out the words involuntary socialist, and place in the words involuntary capitalist, and you have the same social arrangement. Involuntary socialists and involuntary capitalists fight each other to gain the larger share of surplus wealth that is stolen, by way of fraud, extortion, lies, threats of violence, and demonstrations, got thet, DEMON-strations, of inhuman, immoral, violence, against the innocent victims they target and subject to involuntary association, also known as, with the moral sense added: slavery. If these guys in the REAL NEWS Report are arguing against involuntary capitalism while they are supporting involuntary socialism, you may well have guessed it by now, they represent half of the two heads of the same coin, and it matters little which lies are used to subject their victims to victimization, the transfer of earnings, from those who produce earnings, goes to either one of the victimizing groups. The masters share the rewards gained by deceit, threats of violence, and demonstrations of violence. Who really cares if your hard earned earnings go to legal criminals who call themselves socialists or legal criminals who call themselves capitalists? If, on the other hand, these people are discussing voluntary socialism, and how voluntary socialism compares, competitively, along side of voluntary capitalism, then the idea can be to see which good qualities ( and for who) exist in the practice of voluntary socialism, and which bad qualities (and for who) exist in the practice of voluntary socialism, and the same accurate power of judgment, discernment, and discrimination, can be focused on that which is good (and for who) and that which is bad (and for who) within the practice of voluntary capitalism, which is all a moot point, for anyone who cares not to volunteer to do one of the other, as they alone see fit, without suffering from victimization at the hands of those who willfully deceive, and those who willfully threaten violence, to get what they want, power don't you know, and without subjection to demonstrations of violence, even when those demonstrations are claimed, by the criminals, legal or otherwise, to be "for your own good", take your punishment, and shut up - an offer you can't refuse. I can offer a very good example of what happens when a person does accomplish the work required to know the differences between capitalism and socialism, the voluntary processes, and the involuntary processes, and you can understand those things too, if you do your homework, otherwise you may be stuck listening to those who may not have your best interests in mind. I'm not saying that I have your best interest in mind, either, you have to figure that out yourself. Capitalism first, with a relevant quote: Karl Menger ...every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others. That is the basis behind capitalism, and to understand how that could work, if it ever does exist, there would only be capitalists, there would be no one who ever expended a moment in the service of someone else, no charity, no transfers of power willingly from the giver to the receiver, none whatsoever, and therefore all the capitalists would be attempting to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others. When I read that, I thought, "really", and what does he think I'm smoking? What becomes of the people who are fully capable of producing surplus wealth, good working people, good honest people, people who consume less than they produce, and then they give away some, or even all, of their surplus wealth, to someone else, not excluding others, in fact, that is what they volunteer to do, what happens to them, in this thing called capitalism; are they magically disappeared from view, fro some reason? Well, they don't exist, generous people don't exist in capitalism, there is no such thing as a generous person in capitalism. Either you are a capitalist, in capitalism, or you don't exist. Does that sound too convenient? I didn't write the capitalist manifesto, so don't blame me, read the whole thing, see what you think. The idea may become even more convoluted as you read further on, and to me, it is all a justification, an apology for that single quote above, and as far as I am concerned, a capitalist is nothing more, and nothing less, than someone you need to avoid, because their purpose is to connect to you, and then their purpose is to get from you whatever they can get from you, and the methods by which they will invent, to get things from you, are secret, on purpose, because if you knew how they get power from you, you would, more than likely, avoid that loss of power that you once had, and that now flows to that capitalist, the one you didn't avoid connecting to, or the capitalists as a collective group such all your power out of you, because you have failed to avoid connecting to the lot of them. If the capitalists are telling you something along the lines of, this is for your own good, such as the whole "trickle down theory", then you may want to avoid that, like you may want to avoid someone showing symptoms of the plague, who is spitting as they speak, at you, selling you something you must have, according to them, and you may not want to get too close, for fear of getting some of that on you. That is my viewpoint, my words, my opinion of capitalism, and I hope that you judge I can't speak for the capitalists, but they, more than likely, think the same thing, about each other, since they are privy to the game, so they know better than to be victims at that hands of a fellow capitalist who will, as they themselves confess, in the fine print, "attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others". That is not to say that a capitalist isn't an example of a very powerful force that can employ scarce resources efficiently in the process of producing more, and more, and more, surplus wealth, and if they produce vast quantities of surplus wealth, by hook or by crook, there can be a whole lot of economic activity for those who have little, or no, interest in inventing new ways to use scarce power in the work of creating more, and more, and more power. They have more power, isn't that nice. Whatever trickles down, could be better invested by those who earn their share, in charitable investments, or not. Perhaps the problem with capitalism is such that everyone isn't a capitalist, and therefore the non-capitalists among the social structures that combine capitalists and non-capitalists, give up, voluntarily, more of what they earn, charitably, to the capitalists, without a fight, without resorting to secret deals, without resorting to exclusionary tactics, without excluding all others. A. Capitalists excluding all others B. Non-capitalists including all others C. The legal criminals When the capitalists and the non-capitalists exclude the legal criminals, then the non-capitalists become, by that measure, capitalists, yes or no? How does one go about excluding all others? Where are the capitalists who are willing to divulge their secrets? They are as scarce as the socialists who are willing to divulge their secrets. No one is confessing, unless a curious individual sets about to uncover the fine print. Moving on to socialism, from a self confessed socialist, a person that wrote a history of socialism, a book I have yet to find, and avoiding a definition of socialism that is written by a confessed opponent of socialism, which would likely include some errors, I offer, straight from the horses mouth: Stephen Pearl Andrews What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all. Stephen Pearl Andrews was an abolitionist before the not so civil war of aggression for profit, by greedy capitalists, or greedy socialists, depending upon which cover story works best at the time. The cover for the war, after it started, was "anti-slavery", and those who have a special place in their hearts for Abraham Lincoln may want to know that he suggested shipping all the "Negroes", his words, back to Africa, presumably, not asking for permission, don't you know how that works, it is called deportation, you are not welcome, get out, now, not to be questioned, just get out, and what method do you think will be used to ship those "Negroes" Mr. Lincoln, the same luxury liners used to ship them from Africa to U.S.A. Inc. (LLC)? Not likely, Lincoln was bought and paid for by the Rail Road "interests", and the newly forming military industrial complex, soon to be redirected solving the Indian Problem, with the all to familiar Final Solution. So, if you can, think, and come up with a few ideas on your own, using your own sovereign power, your individual power, and think, which methods work best for you, which methods of social structure are more likely to allow you to keep the power you were born with, and which social structures may work against you as you may want to keep the power you earn? Which social structure is most likely going to result in the most surplus wealth that can be produced, and who will get control of it, in that social structure? Which social structure is most likely going to result in the equitable distribution of the most surplus wealth that can possibly be produced? Are you out of ideas, wanting someone to hand the best idea to you on a silver platter? Which social structure liberates each individual so as to avoid power wasted in the process of defending against those who authorize themselves to gain at the expense of others? Does that make any sense, or did I jump to far in one leap? I will listen to the rest of the Real News Report, then I have a few chores to complete, efficiently. Number 14: US managers are overpriced, you say. Look, people, they are caught up in the quagmire. If socialism is supposed to be this "public" ownership concept, then how is that any different from corporate share holders? Many people send their power to a central collective point, place, fund, thing, where then that central power is controlled by a few people. Why mince words? Why make that which is obvious, measurable, into something covered with smoke and mirrors? Who benefits by covering up the facts? If socialism is a concept whereby no one owns the air, then that is what socialism is, a concept whereby no one owns the air. Air, or oxygen to be more specific, is not owned by anyone, do you understand this factual measure of reality? That is what is meant by the concept of pubic ownership, or collective ownership, or that which is not owned, controlled, and used to gain profit, by a division of the whole human species less than the whole. What happens if a division of less than the whole of the human species gains control, or ownership, or private ownership, of the stuff called air, or more specifically the stuff called oxygen? Do you want to know the concept of "public" ownership, or do you prefer to be stupified by the lies produced by the people who profit from lies, at your expense? A. Knowledge B. Ignorance Which do you prefer? Which is more powerful, to who, at the expense of who? When you give up your power to veto any law, then your masters can tax you for your use of oxygen. They own you. Learn the facts, or suffer the consequences. I have to get to work, but I do want to listen, and then comment on, the rest of this Real News report. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Back to Part 6 To summarize: Power flowing from those who produce power goes to a few of the most powerful, and then those people use that power to accomplish one of two things: 1. The total measure of power increases 2. The total measure of power decreases As a secondary concern the following 2 possibly results of moving power from those who create power to the few who then spend (or don't spend) that power: 1. The average person gains more power (benefits) 2. The average person loses more power (pays more cost) I'm returning to the Real News Report I returned, I tried to find Real numbers, and I didn't. My guess is that the total measure of power has increased, but perhaps not much, the rate of increase is difficult to know, perhaps impossible, unless the power increase counts things like nuclear bombs, nuclear power plants, air craft carriers, bombs, missiles, and these things are then used, and then the result of their use is destruction, so total power actually goes down, not up, over time. As a secondary consideration the shift of scarce power (a rate that may actually be negative and therefore power is becoming even more scarce) may be shifting more toward the few who use power to make power even more scarce, and the power shift may be moving away from a flow of power that ends up with power being used to increase power. Since I don't read from the Socialism (involuntary) versus Capitalism (involuntary) script, my viewpoint may be difficult to understand, to someone who is caught up in that mire. On to the next subject:
That is code, or double speak, for a measurable accounting of power production. A. Where power is scarce people produce more power at a faster rate B. Where power is abundant people produce more power at a faster rate Why would anyone ask such a question? Is there a plan by which the process of producing more power at a faster rate is discovered and then emulated? I will listen to find out why such a question constitutes Real News. Some people have [incompr.] this idea and have tried to help them by providing small amount of credit. This is known as microcredit. Now, unfortunately, a lot of this microcredit is these days provided by glorified loan sharks, people charging 90, 100, 120 percent interest rate--can you believe it? But even the good guys do not really lift many people out of poverty, because they are on their own. They have a bit of money; that's it. I mean, if you really want to help these people, you need to give them training. If you want to, say, help--. Wow, there it is, who can say it better? If power is to be produced at a faster rate: then the people who can, will, and do, produce power at a faster rate will be the ones who get the credit needed to accomplish that specific goal, and then, having credit, they set about, and accomplish that goal, which is the goal of producing more power. The good guys do not give themselves credit (120 percent interest) for doing nothing, so that method of taking credit, a cost, is no longer a cost, and the result is, without question, more power flowing to those who produce more power, causing the total supply of power to increase at a faster rate. How simple can it get? Why make that which is simple into that which is complicated? Why increase costs, whereby the cost increase does nothing to increase the benefit? Who would do such a thing, what is the point of doing such a thing, as to increase costs, whereby the choice to increase costs, results in no increase in total power, whereby, the increase in cost results in less power produced? What is the motive behind such a thing? Why would someone willfully choose to set in motion actions that are designed to make sure that power production reduces, on purpose; who profits from such a power-less decision to expend power in the work of creating less power? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Part 7Despite the fall of communism, we are in fact living in planned economies. Anyone, What I just heard bears repeating. What I will quote, now, is very interesting stuff. When Karl Marx was writing about central planning, there was actually no centrally planned economy. Where did he get the idea? He got it from corporations. So corporations might look free, kind of, when it interacts with other corporations, but internally it's a very hierarchical organization. When false information, or dogma, is produced there are inevitable contradictions that arise; and the above is an example. The involuntary capitalists are apt to sling mud at the involuntary socialists, and inevitably, since they are both founded upon the same principle, the mud splashes back to the source of it - and visa versa. All these companies are planning things more and more. I mean, not just--we are not within national borders anymore. I mean, they are transnational and there are a lot of planning elements. Now, therefore, I argue that the question is not whether to plan or not, because we are already planning. The question is what to plan, exactly, at what level. I can add something I found in a book titled: The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness The author of that book quoted Karl Marx (explaining the quote): For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. Fromm, 1961, 1968) I prefer to measure the differences between a socialist based ideology and a capitalist based ideology by illustrating how the two ideologies work in combination, and I can do so by an illustrated example in history, and an illustrated proposed hypothetical example. History example: Give away the razor, to sell razor blades. The costly negative profit gift of producing and then transferring a razor to people who will use a razor is, by itself, a very charitable, and definitely non-profit (actually negative profit) social investment, to give, to serve, to expend personal power in an effort to empower everyone else, by that personal gift. That is the socialist ideology at work, as an example of a socialist idea, followed by a socialist act, a plan, and then following through with the plan. Working, expending personal power, personal cost, with the idea of making other people more powerful. In combination with that socialist idea, and that socialist act, is an additional attachment to that socialist, planned economy, whereby another amendment to that socialist plan, is a capitalist fine print clause. The plan continues past the personal sacrifice, to the benefit of all, into a personal gain, whereby the person following through with this combined socialist and capitalist combination, sells razor blades at a profit to the people who have been given a razor. Does that make any sense? My proposed hypothetical combination of socialism and capitalism is a familiar story for me, because I've written extensively on this idea in the past. Product 1 represents the socialist part of the plan, or the giving away the razor part of the plan, whereby this product is given away by the producer of it, which is a voluntary government agency type thing, an agreeable law, a lawful money product, and it is a non-profit product, that takes the form of an interest free home mortgage loan. The gift is a gift to anyone who needs the credit needed to purchase a home, and once the person has that credit, the person buys a home, and moves into a home, or the person can pay off an existing interest bearing mortgage, with the Product 1 gift, that isn't a gift, it is merely a loan that does not charge interest. The person getting the gift does have to pay back the entire loan back, but the gift part, is the part where the person getting the gift, doesn't pay interest. Product 1 is permission from all the other volunteers in the voluntary government, to go ahead, and borrow from yourself, and the job of accounting is awarded to the person, or company of people, who are awarded the contract to produce Product 1, and Product 2. That is the socialist part, and that is the part that is the same thing as selling the razor. The capitalist part is the part where the legal loan license, given by the socialist government law enforcement central planning department, is a license to profit at a rate of 1 percent, for a second product that can be sold, and the second product is another loan, where the loaned credit is only used to purchase things that produce more power, such as a Solar Panel, or an electric car whereby the cost of running the car is, so far, about 80% less than a gasoline car, even before the price of oil goes up. I can add that to the discussion offered in the Real News report - so I did. No. I mean, you know, there are certain things that we really need central planning for. That is a case of false choices. There is a plan, and a plan is executed, whereby a few people gain power and then a few people use the power they gain in the work of limiting choices. A part of that plan is to create false choices such as: 1. A planned economy 2. Not 1 There are many choices, not just those two, and the Real News here is that there are two opposite choices at work in reality, and it is important for anyone, anywhere, to be aware of these two opposing categories of choices as such: 1. Voluntary associations (with or without agreement to use plans) 2. Involuntary associations (where one plan is followed or failure to follow the one enforced plan includes the one planned act of punishment for failure to obey the one plan) One plan, the involuntary plan, uses power to enforce the one plan, and the same power is used in the work that is necessary to eliminate all competitive plans, so as to enforce only that one plan. If there are more plans than one, and the power of voluntary association remains a workable power, then the better plan, the least costly plan, the most beneficial plan, will be the winning plan, until such time as a more beneficial plan, at a lower cost, is planned into existence, or just happens to fall out of the sky. CHANG: No. I mean, you know, there are certain things that we really need central planning for. That is code, or double speak, for a troubling problem, and a false solution. The troubling problem is the problem that keeps on troubling mankind. Some individuals, within the group that is mankind, plan on, and then enforce their plan, whereby innocent people are victimized, on purpose, for the benefit of the few who come up with this plan, and the few who execute this plan, and as always, the only ones who pay for this plan, are the honest people who produce wealth, which is measurable as power, as anyone with a brain can know, the criminals with this criminal plan, don't waste their power stealing from people who have nothing, they target people who have something to steal. The false solution is to become a criminal so as to fight crime. 1. Voluntary associations are required in order to produce power, or wealth, and if a voluntary association is incapable of using the power that is created in the work of defending against crime, then crime will occur. 2. Involuntary associations are examples of crime, the definition of crime, therefore an involuntary association is a false solution to the crime problem. If criminals admit that they are criminals, the victims then know who to avoid. If the criminals can convince the victims that crime is a solution to crime, guess what happens? Legal crime. JAY: Okay. Moving on, Number 20: Equality of opportunity may not be fair. What's that mean? I stopped at the announcement of that statement and I'm going to guess at what that means. That is another very loaded series of words. What that loaded series of words brings to my mind, is a situation whereby credit is distributed within a social structure that is both voluntary and heavily involuntary in form, purpose, structure, and in actual operation. If credit flows only to those who earn credit, is that fair? If the answer is no, then the word fair must be explained in order to explain why the answer is no. If the answer is yes, a fair distribution of credit is a distribution whereby credit flows only to those who earn it, then I can report that such a place as that, where credit flows only to those who earn it, is the place where the least crime occurs, and such a place will be the place where the most power is produced, and such a place will be the place where the average person is almost as powerful as the exceptionally powerful person, and the least powerful person is almost as powerful as the average person. If credit flows to people who steal credit, then what does that measure, if that is an example of "fairness"? Who has the power to define the meaning of fairness, and how is fairness measured by that definition, as that person, or that group of people, define the meaning of fairness? Do they have the exclusive power to define the meaning of the word fairness, and do they impose that definition, in measurable ways, upon people who don't define fairness in the official, authoritarian, and criminal, way? I am returning to the Real News report. But it is not because these kids are, you know, inherently incapable. It's because they were not properly catered for. If you have a disabled kid, then, you know, you have to have a program to fit an artificial leg to this kid so that he can actually run. That can be just about anything, but I think that the above falls into two major categories: 1. Charity 2. Not 1 If that is charity, then that it what it is, and many people are charitable, so long as there is enough power to be charitable, and if there isn't enough power to be charitable, then how can more power be produced, so as to reach a level of power, whereby charity is once again possible? If a person with one leg can begin producing much more with an artificial leg, more power production is possible compared to the rate of production with only one leg, then power flowing to the person with one leg, so as to purchase and gain an artificial leg, is an example of power (or credit) flowing to someone who can earn power, and earn even more power with two legs, and not someone who is in need of charity. What is the mechanism by which power flows to the "disabled" (less powerful) person? A. An involuntary mechanism B. A voluntary mechanism If an involuntary mechanism is used then crime is the solution to the disabled problem, and it is therefore possible, if not likely, that the person who was unable to produce more power with one leg becomes someone who produces even less power, consuming more power, with two legs, such as having the innocent one legged person employed in work that reduces power further, in some way. 1. Charity (the flow of power flows voluntarily to people who cannot produce power) 2. Crime (power is taken from people, by fraud, by threats of violence, and by examples of violence, that may include chopping legs off of two legged people, creating a whole lot of one legged people, and then power is transferred to an army of one legged people, who are employed in the work of enforcing the involuntary association, whereby they chop legs off of people who don't obey, and they attach artificial legs to the people who learn to obey) Choosing the voluntary solution to the one legged problem becomes a situation whereby credit flows voluntarily to those who earn credit and therefore a third option comes into view: 1. Charity (assuming that there is enough power available to be charitable) 2. Crime (assuming that the power available has already transferred from those who create power to those who steal it, and then the criminals use that power to chop off legs, and attach artificial legs in the effort to keep the power flowing to the criminals from those who produce power) 3. Investment (assuming that power does flow voluntarily, by some means, to those who earn credit, including honest working people who can, will, and do produce more than they consume with or without an artificial leg, and if they can produce more with an artificial leg, then, with their credit that flows to them, they buy an artificial leg, or make one, or make more than one, store one, or make more than two, and sell the extra one) I have to divert attention elsewhere at this time, and I intend to return to this Real News report. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism Pt.7JAY: Okay. Number 21: Big government makes people more open to change. How's that? We're told big government destroys innovation. That exposes, more so than almost anything, the true destructive power of legal crime. If the law is criminal, or involuntary, then the law is a method by which power flows from those who create power to those who steal it, that is a physically measurable fact, and one way, but perhaps not the best way, perhaps not the highest quality way, and not the lowest cost way, to physically measure the flow of power from those who create it to those who steal it, causing Big (criminal) Government to get Bigger, and Bigger, and Bigger, is this: How Big can it get, physically? So number 21 on the list of things that "they" don't tell you is, again, more importantly the same lie, where the criminals (they) don't tell you that government is organized crime, and failing to know that makes all the rest of this stuff a very poor investment of power (time and energy). Crime destroys, that is what crime does, that is the purpose of it, and when it is organized crime, it becomes very innovative, actually the people running it become very innovative, at the work of stealing all the power, all the power that can be stolen, and then using that stolen power in the work that must be done to keep the organized crime business "flourishing", which is certainly not good for the victims, who are no longer able to use their power in the work of "flourishing", since all their power is not only stolen, but all their power is being used to steal more. What exactly, and without smoke and mirrors, and without lies, and without threats of violence, and without examples of violence, is government? If that question above is left unanswered, or ambiguous, then it is ignorant to suggest that a qualitative or quantitative question concerning government can be answered intelligently. So what is the point in dodging the obvious error, and moving onto ignorant questions that lack intelligence? The obvious answers, just to begin listing possible competitive answers, seeking the highest quality answer, at the lowest cost, are: 1. Willful deceit 2. Ignorance 3. Willful ignorance (stupidity) 4. Misplaced and misguided applications of productive power, whereby the power spent is misspent and the goal of knowing becomes less possible. 5. Other obvious answers I do not have enough information to know the truest answer. I will guess that the answer is 4 above, and that these guys are struggling to understand things, but missing the Elephant in the room, as the Elephant eats up all the resources, space, food, air, etc., and the Elephant excretes piles upon piles of putrid poisonous waste which further encroaches upon scarce resources, and that Elephant is, in every single example whereby a supposed agent of government willfully employs the power of government in the perpetration of injury to innocent victims, which includes any involuntary tax whatsoever, criminal. Is government synonymous with crime, and if so, why speak of it as if it is anything but crime? If there is a non-criminal government, where is it, what distinguishes the non-criminal government from crime, exactly? One lone gunman, lone assassin, single individual criminal, is one thing, but to have almost every elected and almost every unelected, government agent stupefied into willfully enforcing a false belief in the legitimacy, and the moral correctness, of stealing, this involuntary tax confidence scheme, is all together different, whereby the force that could be use to avoid crime is almost entirely turned into the force that ensures that crime will grow, and grow, and grow, until everyone becomes a criminal and a victim, and all power is consumed in the work of perpetuating crime. Read Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, wise up, before it is too late. Wake up now, or tomorrow morning, sooner rather than later, and refuse to participate in crime, no more lies, no more plans to injure innocent victims, and no more executions of those plans to injure innocent victims, including the enforcements of involuntary tax payments. At some point each member of that involuntary association will run out of power and expire, because that is how involuntary associations work, as each member of an involuntary association is hell bent on consuming a steadily declining power source, to consume before someone else will, until all power is gone, leaving the last, most innovative, and most powerful, legal criminal, left, or, moving in the opposite direction, the honest productive people figure out how to avoid the criminals and set about using the power they have to make more power. A. Chose the criminal method B. Reject the criminal method I'll listen to more of the Real News report, as those people obviously fail in fundamental accounting. Do they really think that the legal criminals are trying to do the right thing but failing, each time, over, and over, and over again? Real News:
There is no doubt, not in my experience, that many people are stupified into accepting falsehood, and then defending it, often vehemently, but who is doing so now? "They" don't know any better. "They" think government is bad. Which government? "They" think that socialist government is bad? Which socialist government? "They" don't understand that socialism is good. Which socialism? Is it, or is it not, a good idea to plan on, and then execute the plan, that results in the transfer of power, by deceit, by threats of violence, and by executions of violence, from those who create power, to those who receive that power by those methods? If the answer is yes, that is a good idea, then the person answering that question is "they", the mysterious "they", the stupfied "they", the criminal "they", the ones who support, and perpetuate, the flow of power from those who create it, to those who steal it, by way of deceit, by way of threats of violence, and by way of executions of very destructive violent acts. Why ignore the Elephant in the room? Who benefits? Who gains, by that willful ignorance. "They" can't see the crime factor? Really? Is that Real News or something less real? Sure the criminal socialist democrats tell lies, in the effort to get their victims to accept those lies, and render their victims powerless to avoid victimization. I read that loud and clear as the criminal capitalist republicans report such truths. Sure the criminal capitalist republicans tell lies, in the effort to get their victims to accept those lies, and render their victims powerless to avoid victimization. I read that loud and clear too. When are the non-criminal honest productive people going to recognize a common bond? Never? Never may be a much shorter span of time than we may be led to believe, if never is the answer to the question of when the non-criminal honest productive people will recognize a common bond. If the answer is soon, or now, what form will that common, agreeable, common bond take, what will constitute that bond, how can that bond be qualified and quantified, and how can that form of that common bond be improved in quality and how can that form of that common bond be reduced in cost? It can't, ever, because it never will be recognized by anyone? The opposite of the Elephant in the room, that many people willfully ignore, is the common bond that empowers honest productive people with the power needed to move away from legal crime and toward higher quality life, at a lower cost, for all, even the criminals. Back to the Real News for me.
That dogma belongs in the falsehood pile that it is within, it belong in the falsehood that it is of, within the involuntary association connection, the common bond between people, in that involuntary association network, which is crime, that is what that is, and that is what belongs in any accurate appraisal of what happens within such a network, such a social structure. If the form of the connection is involuntary, the output will be determined by the powers that gain power by that form of connection, and it will be a one way street, power will flow from those who create power, and power will flow to those who steal it. Look at the measure of that type of connection, that type of bond, and see what happens when a criminal, involuntary, form of connection is enforced, or tolerated into being the form of connection that is the dominant form. The Debt Clock shows what happens in real time. Power flow from the only place power comes from, which, obviously, intelligently, logically, and reasonably, comes from the people who do manage to produce power (despite having much of the power produced stolen), and that power flows to those who steal it. How is that not obvious? What is the point of ignoring that very significant factor? The form of the involuntary connection includes such things as the form of money that is produced, but not the only thing, and that form of money thereby measures the factual transfer of power from those who create it to those who steal power. Once the criminals have the power that is stolen, do you really think that they will spend that power in any way that may reduce their power to keep stealing? Where are the smart people who once populated this planet? Sure, there is a need to invest some of the power stolen in the work of making sure that there continues to be some power produced, failing in that work would result in no more power to steal, everyone at that point, again, is either a criminal or a victim, or by act of God, or willful application of intelligence, the honest productive people figure out how to separate from the criminals, and begin using power to make more power, without an official order to do so, handed down by way of dictate, from a criminal with a badge, or a license to steal, torture, and mass murder, and, lets not forget, the legal criminals have even given themselves the license to threaten the survival of the human species. The Elephant in the room has grown very, very, large, and some people are waist deep in the bowels of it. How about a visual: Searching for an Honest Politician |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Capitalism, Chinese StyleAnd they will continue to do so not because they aren't bothered by what they see, by the fragility of our own system, but because there's no other place for them to put it. Anyone, Can you see a glaring omission? Power becomes so tremendously abundant that a situation comes into being whereby there is a high demand for places to send the excess? Someone, somewhere, or some group, somehow, accumulate such a vast and gigantic sum of surplus wealth that the supply of places to spend it, or store it, pale in comparison? A. Growing, vast, and gigantic, sums of surplus wealth (purchasing power). B. Shrinking, scarce, and miniscule, places to hide (launder) money. I have people tell me that my words are unreadable. Can you believe that? Here are supposed experts, or authorities, or supposedly knowledgeable people, reporting the facts concerning a global human condition whereby millions of people are starving, millions of people are being tortured, and millions of people are being murdered, lies, frauds, threats of violence, and acts of inhuman violence, radioactive plutonium, and other man made pollutants are reaching toxic levels globally, and some people, some groups of people, are claiming that they have too much purchasing power with no place to put it? Who is getting the short end of this stick, where the language appears to be favoring one set of people, at the expense of another set of people? The language is scripted, it is code, it is double speak, it is falsified, and it is fictional. How can the powerful group claim to be broke, and in dire need of larger flows of power transferring to them, in the form of higher prices, higher interest rates, higher taxes, higher fees, higher, and higher, and higher, demands of surplus wealth, money, flowing to them, from those who create that surplus wealth, and at the same time, those same people, those same groups, claim that they have too much surplus wealth, such vast quantities of surplus wealth, so overburdened with too much surplus wealth, that they no longer have safe places to put it? You complain about my writing, as my writing is unreadable, and you swallow this garbage whole? A. We are broke (legal criminals demanding more power) B. We are running out of places to hide our stolen wealth I may not have read, or communicated, the meaning of the words spoken in this Real News report well enough, accurately. So...
Please note that the dollar money supply total in early 2008 was increased to twice the total supply and then that new power to purchase went somewhere. Are you capable of understanding the significance of that news, without the falsified background noise that is produced by the same criminals who stole that power? A. We are broke, send us more power or else. B. We can spend on one day more money than the entire global supply of money if we decide to, so long as we can find ways to spend that much money. Who is too stupid to add simple math here, people? You may be better advised to consider looking in the mirror before you point your finger at me. I will listen further to this Real News report and continue to offer comments. SCHELL: [incompr.] they're collecting huge amounts of foreign exchange, and they've got to park it someplace. And in a certain sense there is a kind of a symbiotic relationship that's almost like some drunk and their spouse, which is they lend to us, we borrow, we spend in a profligate manner, but we buy their stuff, they make the money, get the foreign currency, and give it back to us so that we can go deeper in debt to buy from them. That's what's been going on until the financial crisis. How wrong can something get? A group of people based in China collect power and now they have vast sums of power. What is the connection between this powerful group based in China and all those poor desperate people in China who are willing to work for less than a living wage? A. The powerful people in China (legal criminals) B. The rest of the people in China (honest productive people) Group A gains power by collecting power from group B. What does the powerful group do when the powerful group gains too much money, too much surplus wealth? Put on your thinking caps. Lend the money to another powerful group? Does that really make any sense to you? The Federal Reserve group, or the Wall Street group, or whatever group is connected together by the dollar unit of currency, The Dollar Hegemony group, whereby power flows from those who create power to those who create and maintain The Dollar Supply of legal money, borrow power from the powerful Chinese group? Do you really buy into that legal fiction? The Chinese powerful group can add, certainly, they manage to add well enough to know when to demand more power from their victims, or subjects, or tax payers, or whatever word they use to label the sources of their power, and so, knowing that the Chinese powerful group can add, it can then be understood that they can add up all the Aircraft Carriers with U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) stenciled on the sides of those big ships, or some other label, some other flag, some other means by which anyone can know who owns those ships, who uses those ships, and what those ships are doing here and there, what those ships intend to accomplish, etc. It takes power, and lots of it, to sink into Aircraft Carrier production. Lots, and lots, and lots, of power, sunk into producing lots of Aircraft Carriers, for some reason. Where do the owners of all those military ships, and all those military planes, and all those military man hours, get the power they get to sink into those types of investments? Do the Chinese powerful people add those figures up, something not added up in this Real News Report? Now that's got to change. China recognizes it, and I think we do, too. They can't just be an export economy. They have to start generating a greater level of consumption within China. But there the Chinese run into a structural problem of their own, that they have a very high savings rate, which means people don't consume as much as they could. Why? Because they don't have a welfare system and a health care system that provides for people in their old age, so people lock up their money. So it's only to say--and one of the reasons why China comes up every other sentence here in Bretton Woods and everyplace else is because the US and China are insolubly locked together now with one set of sort of economic internal organs. Who controls the money supply in China? What is the interest rate charged to any Chinese person if a Chinese person seeks to borrow from their own capacity to create wealth? How much power is transferred from the honest productive workers in China to the legal money suppliers through the money system, as interest, in China? What is in place, in China, that moves the power that the honest Chinese workers, or business people, produce, from them to the powerful people who end up with so much power that they lack places to invest that excess power? Where do the powerful people in China get their power, how do they get it, and why don't they stop taking so much, if, as this story goes, they get it from the only place that they can get it, which is from the honest productive working population who produce surplus wealth? Why take so much that the powerful group has too much and the powerless group doesn't have enough? Why do the Chinese powerful people take more than they can ever spend from those who produce surplus wealth? Answer the same question about the American powerful people. What do you get? A. American powerful people (take surplus wealth from the source of surplus wealth, and take more than they can ever spend) B. Chinese powerful people (take surplus wealth from the source of surplus wealth, and take more than they can ever spend) C. American producers of surplus wealth (send their hard earned power, by whatever means it flows, to the American powerful people) D. Chinese producers of surplus wealth (send their hard earned power, by whatever means it flows, to the Chinese powerful people) What do the Chinese powerful people and the American powerful people have in common? What do the Chinese producers of surplus wealth and the American producers of surplus wealth have in common? The powerful people know how the game works and they no better than to let everyone know how the game works. It is crime, and they know it. The producers of surplus wealth, once they know, stop being victims, and since they continue to be victims, they are obviously ignorant, concerning how the game, the fraud, the legal crime, works. My words are unreadable? Seriously? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
What would happen if a person could offer for sale an insurance policy that pays the beneficiary in case the beneficiary cannot afford the price of a home? An insurance policy called Homelessness Insurance. Can you connect those dots? If you can't, do you know someone who can? If you don't, do you think that someone can? If you do, who? I can. The insurance business can only exist when competition is eliminated. What stops you from printing your own money? Do you even know what money is? What stops you from printing your own insurance policy, of any kind, whereby you pay yourself in case of any injury you suffer? If you can't do that, you have to explain why you can't do that, if you want to know what I know, as I can connect the dots that are explained above. If there were no forces forcing someone to refrain from printing their own money, what happens? The answer is, even if you refuse to know the answer, competition happens. Whose money will be good money, the highest quality money, and whose money will be not good, the lowest quality money? Whose money will be transferred from the producer to the consumer at the lowest price? If you can't conceive of such a thing, then you are exemplifying why a monopoly exists; there is, by your measure of it, a monopoly of ideas, whereby you, by your example, define that monopoly, and you can't even conceive of what it means when a money competition exists. If you, and everyone else, can't conceive of something, it doesn't exist, for you, and everyone else, who are as limited as you. A money competition causes, by the forces that exist when competition exits, higher quality money production, and lower costs of money - to the consumers of it. Money quality is what it is. Money cost is what it is. Would you buy money that is more or less powerful, if you have the choice? Would you choose to be paid, for your work, or for the things you sell, with powerless money, or powerful money, if you have a choice between powerless money or powerful money? If you are going to borrow money, from yourself, or from someone else, which money will you borrow, if you have a choice, will you borrow money that cost you a lot, or will you borrow money that does not cost you a lot, if you have a choice, if competition exists in money markets? If you don't have to pay twice the cost of a home, where you pay the previous owner of the home, or the builder of the home, the price of the home, and, in addition to that cost to you, you also pay the same amount you pay to the previous owner, you pay double the price of the home, as you pay an entire home price, a home that does not exist, to the people who run the Bank, or the people who run the Mortgage Company, as you pay mortgage INTEREST. Prices on homes are now low. Is that bad? Why is that bad? If you think I'm stupid, because I know that low housing prices are not (necessarily) bad, then back up your opinion, put your money where your mouth is, and challenge my viewpoint, offer a competitive viewpoint. Which will be the higher quality viewpoint. Which will be the lower cost viewpoint. Who produces the quality? Who pays the cost? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Part II Anyone, The discussion starts out as an exercise in finding the right label to pin to China. Is it capitalism? Is it socialism? They fail, as do most people reading from the false script, to accurately report on the true nature of all involuntary associations. They fail to accurately report the true characters of political economy. Is it voluntary socialism? Is it voluntary capitalism? Is it involuntary socialism (crime)? Is it involuntary capitalism (crime)? The accurate answer is: China is run by legal criminals, it is crime, whereby the honest productive people in China, within the legal reach of the legal criminals running China, must obey. There is no other choice. China is no different than U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) from that base, foundation, of political economy. China is not voluntary socialism. U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) is not voluntary capitalism. There is no free market within the Chinese legal crime enforcement network, the network that connects the legal criminals to the honest productive people, in China, in direct proportion to the flow of power from those who earn that power, involuntarily, to those who steal that power, and then use that stolen power in the work of eliminating competition. The free market is not free when it is no longer free as a result of people willfully making the free market no longer free, and that is self-evident. There is no free market within the U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) crime enforcement network, by the same accurate, self-evident, measure applied to China. It is not free, each time it is involuntary, in each case, where by a force would have forced quality up, and the same force would have forced cost down, had the involuntary force not prevented the voluntary force to be in force, in each case. Examples abound, following the actual money trail, whereby money (purchasing power) is stolen from those who produce the power, and then the stolen power flows to the thieves, and then the thieves spend the stolen power in the work of eliminating competition, such as a subsidy, or exclusive license, or whatever word excuses, or "explains", the transfer of power from those who produce power to those who use that power to out-produce the competition. I have to make higher quality stuff at a lower cost than my competitor in a free market. That is the working definition of a free market, that is how it defines itself, as it works, and as it works that way. When a competitor forces me to pay him, he force me himself, he gives me an offer I can't refuse, or he hires someone to take "protection money" from me, and then my competitor uses the money he takes from me, to make higher quality things, at lower prices, then that is the opposite of a free market, defining itself, working opposite a free market, as that works that way. One is one thing - free market The other is the opposite thing, even if you call it a "Free Market". I don't know how it works in China. I can illustrate how it works in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) with many examples not limited to the paper trail that documents the flow of power from tax payers, like Elon Musk, and from the people employed by Elon Musk, in the Electric Car "Free Market" business, and then that money is then spent on subsidizing the competition - bailing out General Motors, or flowing to Chinese Electric Car Companies, so as to make Elon Musk pay to strengthen his competitors, while Elon Musk's own Electric Car Company struggles for needed credit, becoming even weaker, as he is forced to use his own power to make his competition stronger, instead of using his own power to make higher quality electric cars at lower costs. That is not a free market. A free market is defined as a force by which competitors are forced to produce higher quality stuff, at lower costs, or be forced out of the market by someone who can produce higher quality stuff at lower prices. The opposite, may be a "Free Market"; whereby the social network is free from moral conscience, and free from competition, as power flows from those who create power to those who steal power, and then as that stolen power is used to make thieves and liars more powerful, and used to make the victims powerless. Why act as if a competitive free market is the same thing as an enforced reduction in competition? A free market is competition. Power used to end competition is not a free market, so why pretend, or act, as if one was the same thing as the other, when one is the exact opposite of the other? I hear: "Now, after we've come full circle around, after the economic collapse." That is an accurate, and concise, description of the legalized crime known as The Business Cycle. A monetary monopoly power increases the supply of money to cause an economic boom on schedule, and then the monetary monopoly power decreases the supply of money to cause an economic bust, on schedule, so as to be in command of the exclusive knowledge of when to sell (at the top of the boom), and when to buy (at the bottom of the bust), so as to transfer surplus wealth from those who produce wealth, to those who run The Business Cycle. Why does anyone act, anyone who supposedly knows something, as if The Business Cycle was some kind of accident of nature? Why does anyone ignore, anyone who supposedly knows something, the fact that The Business Cycle is created and maintained by actual people who plan for, and then execute, The Business cycle on their schedule? Can you guess? How about asking? Why do you, anyone, ignore the fact that The Business cycle is a serious crime in progress? Paul? Anyone? I hear "by not letting market forces run so free" Why do people confuse one thing with the opposite of the thing? A market force is not a crime. A crime is not a market force. If a crime is committed, then a crime in committed. Why would someone blame a crime on a market force? Example: If the "expert" authority on political economy is concerned about criminal cases of pollution, which I hear is a growing problem in China, why would said "expert" want to blame such crimes on the "Free Market"? Answer: Said expert confuses crime with the free market. Said expert thinks that crime is the Free Market. Said expert does not know that the free market is just a term that accurately identifies the process by which quality is forced up, and cost is forced down, by competitors competing for the scarce supply of consumer purchasing power. Said expert wants victims to think that the lie is true. Take your pick? A. free market = working competition B. Free Market = crime (people willfully injuring innocent people by way of pollution) Why confuse one with the other, what is the point of confusing one with the other? Confusing one with the other makes the good one appear to be less good as the bad one dilutes the power of the good one. Confusing one with the other makes the bad one look better as the bad one appears to be diluted by the good one. This is a function of the power of falsehood. The liar knows the truth, the victim of the lie is ignorant of the truth, otherwise the lie is harmless, and therefore powerless, and therefore not an effective lie. When the truth is shared, when the truth is no longer an exclusive property of the criminal fraud, the power of the lie is rendered powerless, a fable, a story, a joke, a fools errand that no longer has a fool to fool. Do you want to be a fool? I hear this "expert" claiming that the U.S. (open market) suffers, while China (authoritarian) wins, as a result of this recent crisis. How convenient can lies be? In the case of the example of Elon Musk, a producer of Electric Cars here in California, before the BUST of 2006/2008 (roughly), Tesla Motors was on track to begin producing a new Sedan model, in addition to their sports car already in production, and they then crashed along with everyone else. Tax payer money goes from those productive people, and many others, to "Washington" in this supposedly "open" market, and then that money flows where? They don't say. Mums the word. There are clues. Warren Buffet Did Warren get a bail out? Did Warren choose to invest in California, like Elon Musk, while paying all the costs required to meet stringent air pollution standards in California, or did Warren choose to invest in exploiting (criminalizing) honest Chinese productive people? Did some of the money go to General Motors so as to make more gasoline powered cars, or to make competitive Electric Cars, as power flows from Elon Musk, and his employees, to Washington, or The FED, or U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), and that stolen power is then used to subsidize the competition, effectively eliminating the force of competition. Money taken from a competitor, Elon Musk, and then spent on making another competitor more powerful, Chinese Electric Cars, and General Motors Electric cars, built in China, where the workers are paid less than a living wage, less then enough to pay for their own medical costs that they will suffer as a result of increased pollution, is not a free market, it is the opposite. This guy, in this Real News Report, is sounding more and more like a Snake Oil Salesman. I just heard something that stinks, as in: I smell a rat. Paul Jay asks something along the lines of: Why doesn't the Chinese leadership use all that power (capital) they have in the work of empowering the honest productive people in China. The reason why I smell a rat is because I have a good answer to that question. The good answer to that question is this: If the Chinese leadership invests the power they get from the honest productive Chinese people into empowering the honest productive Chinese people, then they will very soon be less powerful than the honest productive Chinese people, therefore they do not empower the honest productive Chinese people. There are very many honest productive Chinese people, so each of which having a little more power, is a whole lot of collective power, and there are very, very, very, few members of the Chinese Elite, "authorities", so one must be careful, no, in where one allows power to flow, if you have the power to allow, or not allow, power to flow. The Dictator's Dilemma is not a new thing. The smelly rat answer to the power flow question was something along the lines of dollar denominated capital has to be spent outside China, not inside China, which is stupid. If, for example, the Chinese leadership did want to empower the honest productive Chinese people, they could take those billions of dollars, and offer the honest productive Chinese people interest free home mortgage loans, and interest free business property loans, for farms, shops, offices, anything, and then the honest productive Chinese people can pay back the loans, in dollars, or in Chinese currency, either/or, and that would then begin an age of monetary competition in China, instead of a monopoly money extortion racket in China, which could be the answer, if the question really was asking for an accurate answer. Since the answer was a smelly rat answer, a political lie, and economic cost, the question remains unanswered, at least in The Real News Report. I'll listen further. I heard something along the lines of Chinese factory workers moving from the cities to the countries, and, here is another rat I smell, the next thing I hear is that food prices around the world are going up. So there you have more people ready and willing, able, to produce more food, as they move back to the farm lands, from the cities, while food prices go up? Why do food prices go up, if there are too many people ready and able to make more food? More rats. The expert says that Chinese food prices are going up due to inflation, or some other supposed fact. If food prices go up, then food producers can sell more food, hire more food workers, and meet the obvious demand for more food, and that is separate from the price or demand for money. If the money supply is being inflated, which is a major cause of inflation, the definition of inflation depending up how the word is used, then the additional money, the newly created money, the inflated money supply money, isn't going, obviously, to finance new farms, to make more food, or new water wells, to irrigate more food, because if there is too much food, the price goes down, not up. Who would pay for food if food rained down like sunlight? Who pays for sunlight? If a Chinese city is no longer getting any sunlight, in the middle of the day, because the legal criminals are pumping out enough pollution to block out the sun, then some people may move out, and pay the price they are then forced to pay for sunlight. When honest productive people, in China, or anywhere, learn to disconnect themselves from the legal criminals: power will no longer flow in the direction that makes honest productive people weaker, while that power flow makes the legal criminals stronger. It is not a capitalist versus socialist power struggle, it is a crime versus victim struggle. Confusing one with the other moves power from the victims to the criminals, it is a process called fraud. The victims are confused, not the criminals. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
How to Fix It Anyone, I am an example (perhaps a very poor example) of a modern day Journalist. I have spent about 3 decades working on Journalism, if, and only if, the term Journalism has a specific meaning. In the report by Real News there is information offered by someone to anyone. That means that someone has consumed their life, their power, their time, their energy, and their resources to gain the information and then to publish, or offer, the information that they have gained, and that means that there is a reason, a motive, for spending that power of life to accomplish that goal. 1. A choice is made to expend effort in the necessary work required to gain specific information. 2. The motive behind the choice to expend effort in the necessary work required to gain specific information is specific in each case that the choice to expend effort in the necessary work required to gain specific information is made. What is the motive behind the choice, in any case, to expend the necessary work required to gain specific information? I can assume a few things about motives in specific cases that I will offer as a response to this Real News report on journalism. 1. Paul Jay has a motive. 2. Dahr Jamail has a motive. 3. I have a motive 4. Alex Jones has a motive 5. Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn had a motive. 6. Edward Bernays had a motive. 7. Thomas Paine had a motive. 8. Opra Winfrey has a motive 9. Bob Dylan has a motive 10. Glen Beck has a motive In order to begin understanding the nature and purposes that exist in the decisions to expend human effort in the work required to gain information it may help to expend some work toward the accurate identification of the most common motives. Examples: 1. For fun. People decide to expend the work that is necessary to gain information because it is not work for them, it is fun for them. 2. For equitable monetary gain. People decide to expend the work that is necessary to gain information because it is work that produces something that can then be offered to someone else, or many other people, in exchange for money, or something of value, such as the value in money called Purchasing Power. 3. Necessity. People decide to expend the work that is necessary to gain information because people become aware of the necessity of gaining information, to avoid potential injury, or to gain necessary power, to know how to survive, and to know how to prosper while surviving. 4. Crime. People decide to expend the work that is required to gain information because people decide to target other people so as to exploit other people, to get something from other people inequitably, to gain at the expense of the targeted victims. 5. Generosity. People decide to expend the work that is required to gain information because people decide to use their own power so as to make other people more powerful. While listing many possible common motives a significant understanding emerges as the majority of reasons can be understood as reasons that are either productive reasons or reasons that are destructive reasons. A. Productive (equitable, defensive, productive) B. Destructive (inequitable, offensive, destructive) A few other obvious characterizations become apparent: A. Productive, equitable, and defensive reasons for gaining information tend to be open, public, free (open source), distributive (able to flow to anyone at any time and from anyone at anytime desired, or two way, not one way), voluntary, honest, accurate, desired, welcome, agreeable, reasonable, understandable, scientific, universal, competitive, inspiring, hopeful, concerned, sympathetic, empathetic, and subject to rigorous, and intense, scrutiny. B. Destructive, inequitable, and criminal reasons for gaining information tend to be closed, private, costly (for the victims, while profitable for the criminals), secretive, false, dishonest, inaccurate, fictitious, duplicitous, unreasonable, exclusive, monopolistic, apathetic, fearful, paralyzing, hurtful, torturous, murderous, and ignorant. Therefore the decisions to gather information can understandably belong to one of three possible general categories and those specific examples sited above are specific examples that can fall into these categories if the idea is to choose to gather information so as to know something. A. Productive reasons B. Destructive reasons C. Unknown reasons (not obviously productive or destructive reasons) Paul Jay, by his own words, reasonably falls into the category of productive reasons. The decision to gain information is decided upon so as to offer the information to anyone else, to give it away, so as to accomplish that goal, to give away the information, to make the information available to anyone, anytime, and to thereby help other people know specific things that Paul Jay thinks that other people may want, or may need, to know. The costs, or expenses, Paul Jay assumes, or consumes, in the process of gathering, and then publishing, information is paid, in part, by voluntary donations from other people who also give, generously, to help keep the information flow going, in the direction the information is flowing, in that network of people who make up The Real News Network. Voluntary, welcome, universal, networked associations. Moving down the list to Edward Bernays, by his own words, and his own deeds (when his words did not match his deeds), the obvious, reasonable, and understandable, category that Edward Bernays belongs in, is the criminal category, as his decision to gather information is a decision by which the information gathered will then be used in the process of exploiting a targeted group of victims. Anyone reading my words, here, may not yet understand this fact, and this forum isn't the place for me to cover all those facts, I'm just linking one source to the readers who may have an interest in knowing a criminal version of journalism. I can move then to my own reasons. My reasons for deciding to expend my limited power in the work that is necessary to gain information are selfish in the long term, and generous in the short term, a balance of reasoning, and one that I can honestly, and accurately, report to be productive reasons, and measurably not criminal reasons. I have worked, and I have found, for example, the information that clearly identifies two diametrically opposing forms of government, and now that I have this provable, supportable, reasonable, accurate, and useful information, I have decided to publish this information, to make it available to anyone, any time, for their own good, without any short term compensation from anyone to me, in return for my effort. In the long term I can profit as the power of criminals governments lessen in proportion to the power gained by honest productive people who may, or many not, decide to invest, voluntarily, in honest, and productive, forms of government. It has become clear to me that the decisions I make to publish information that uncovers the crimes being committed by the people running criminal governments is a decision that may expose me to some risk; risk that I can avoid having to face if I decide to keep the information I have found secret, in the short term, while in the long term my decision to keep the information that exposes the criminals governments a secret, are decisions that aid, and abet, and offer measurable support to the criminals governments, empowering the criminals, at the expense of the victims, including me. This is not news, this has been covered before: Thomas Paine: Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Moving then to Dahr Jamail the case can be made that the decision to blow the whistle on criminals running governments is life threatening, as the decision goes well beyond short term self enriching monetary gain, obviously, and much closer to some unexplained reasoning for exposing one's own life to extreme hazard, so as to gain first hand, timely, on the scene, information - and then use that information to accomplish another goal, such as the goal of informing other people. If the people running the governments are criminals, committing crimes, then the people deciding to gather information for generous reasons, to help other people, even while risking personal injury, are going to be subjected to laws, and actions, aimed at anyone making those decisions to expose the people who are criminals who are running governments, and aimed at them to make them less powerful, such as gag orders, and such things as Alien and Sedition Acts. At what point does a government turn from a productive one into a destructive (criminal) one? The answer is found inside the Real News Report. The idea is to demand, by way of deceit, and by way of threats of violence, and by way of acts of violence, payment from the targeted victims, a demand made by the criminals who run the criminals governments, in a word: subsidy, so as to get power flowing from those who create power to those who steal it. Involuntary taxation is the source of subsidy, and taxation, if it is involuntary (gained by deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence0, is deceitful, a self contained confession of deceit, since the accurate word is crime, not taxation. Where does the stuff that makes up a subsidy come from? If the source of the subsidy is the honest productive people who produce surplus wealth, and if the power that is employed in the work of transferring that subsidy from the honest productive people, to the government people, is a deceptive power, and a power that is made up of threats of violence, and a violent power, so as to move the productive power from those who produce it, to those who steal it, then, as that power flows from those honest productive producers, it flows to the criminals who employ deceit to get the power stolen by deceit, and it flows to the criminals who employ threats of violence to get the power stolen by threats of violence, and it flows to the criminals who employ violence to get the power stolen by violence, and it does so even if the criminals call themselves presidents, and congressmen, and journalists, and even if the victims call the criminals, presidents, and congressmen, and journalists. If the subsidy flows from the people who produce surplus wealth, the stuff of subsidy, the tax stuff, if the money stuff flows from the honest productive people voluntarily, without deceit being employed to cause the flow of power, then the subsidy flows without deceit being employed to cause that flow of power. Why call it subsidy if it is charity? Why call it subsidy if it is short term investment? Why call it subsidy if it is long term investment? Why call it subsidy if it is voluntary exchange between people who willfully decide to exchange, or donate, and do so without being subject to deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, false advertisements, subliminal messages, behavioral modification, lies, half truths, falsifications, hidden agendas, response conditioning, false propaganda, brainwashing, threats of violence, and acts of violence? Who is inventing, employing, supporting, and perpetuating subsidy, and what is it, exactly? That is all I have to say at this time. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
worcesteradam, I am interested in knowing the truth; or, if you prefer, a different wording, intending to mean the same thing: I am interested in improving the accuracy of my viewpoint. I can also report a progression of my viewpoint from what it was to what it is now, along a path that included much interest in Austrian Economics, since that group includes the work of Ludwig Von Mises, which helped me greatly in forming my current understanding of political economy. Within the Austrian group there are two factions. If I speak to someone who claims to be an Austrian Economist, proponent, or professional, whatever, I can begin to qualify, and quantify that divide between that group. Let me back up some. Most of the information that appears to me to be of any value, on political economy, is information written by dead people, or people who are not accessible to me. Some of the best stuff I've found so far was written in the 19th century. Very few living people are working on political economy, that I can find, to explain, better, how political economy works. I found out about the Austrian Economists and then I began to seek them out to ask them questions and, as it turned out, as far as I can tell, they are not answering questions, unless the questions are filtered. In the words attributed to Patrick Henry, I smell a rat. I think that the Austrian group has been infiltrated, and to say as much, to confess my thoughts, brings down upon me the force of fashionable knee jerk reactions known as "kill the messenger" as my confession inspires thoughts of "conspiracy theory". Just as the Federalists, back in the days after the American Revolutionary War, were infiltrated by the Nationalist, so have, apparently, the Austrian Economists, today, are infiltrated by their legal crime loving imposters. And you may have already stopped reading. It isn't as simple as my words may have the power to expose - accurately. Case in point: A person named James Madison, according to the source I have so far, appears to have been one of the people who were duped into a false belief that was generated by an imposter group; so if he, James Madison, an intelligent person, could be duped, then who else can be duped? You? Me? Who else? Pick anyone, anywhere, where the person is harboring a belief in something, and then ask questions, and find out if there are unresolvable contradictions in their beliefs? What does that indicate? Are you curious? What do you ask the Mormons or other religious people when they knock on the door? I've found out some very interesting, and unresolvable contradictions. Examples: Mormons think that their leadership have direct connections to God, and are infallible, while they claim that other religions have been influenced by evil forces, the Devil, and they are doing bad things while the Devil makes them think they are doing good things, and I'm paraphrasing, so I ask the Mormons, good young lads, my questions. Such as: If your Mormon leadership tells you to go to Iraq and fight the native population, will you do so? The answer was a surprise to me, considering all the information I know about why American military people are conducting these aggressive wars for the very few people who profit from them, since, the answer from the Mormon I asked, was an enthusiastic yes. So, to me, the Mormons are measurably infiltrated, as their leadership is, in a measurably way, convincing their followers to do evil things, based upon obvious lies. I can't conclude such a viewpoint, I'm reported my progress to date. Other religious people stop by, give me books, pamphlets, for free, and I ask things about war, and I get answers that indicate the same thing, someone at the top is filling these, otherwise good people, with lies. Lies that purport to excuse torture, mass murder, and all the things done with aggressive wars for profit, such as "giving" the land in Israel back to those who God says belong on that place on this planet. I can ask where God says that, and the answer is "The Bible" and I can then ask: What if the Devil wrote the Bible. They say: "God wrote the Bible". I ask: How do you know? They say: "It says so in the Bible." Mormons don't make that mistake, at least. So, I see all these people harboring all these obvious, measurable, inconsistencies, and unresolvable contradictions, and I want to know which lies I harbor still. Does that make any sense to you? It is clear to me. Are you friend, or are you foe? If you harbor lies, you may be your own worst enemy - or so I think about me. I'm curious about that, and I need help figuring out that, since if I were my own worst enemy, who could help me know that fact? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Cut and Pasted from Here Rebelitarian, Thanks; I am looking into that now. I know that help is needed for this crime spree to end, and for honest productive people to regain a measure of liberty, to slow down the rate of acceleration toward absolute despotism, stop that progress, and then begin moving the other way. I don't think that my viewpoints are going to work well with the Constitutional Party, since I know enough history behind The Constitution to know that it was, and is, a very bad thing. I can agree that the people using The Constitution, to do very bad things, is the real problem, not The Constitution. I'll shut up and get to work. Thanks again. Progress: I found an E-Mail Contact page and I submitted this:
To anyone: How do you know what is possible, if you do not do something to find out? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Can we expect reform in all these area (see above) or will it require something more profound from "We the people"? HCKaos, There are two fronts, basically, and at each front there is a power struggle over the numbers of people who are intimately connected on both fronts. A. Political (or the Psychological) Front B. Economic (or the Physical) Front On both sides are the criminals on one side and the honest productive people on the other side, and so as to remove any ambiguity passing from me to anyone else, there can be discussion, or a transfer of data along a connecting medium, in this case this forum and the World Wide Web Network. Along the lines of removing ambiguity I will define the difference between the criminals on one side, and the honest productive people on the other side as such: 1. Criminals People who willfully plan and then execute their plan to injure honest productive people for profit (transfer power from the injured to the criminal), employing deceit, threats of violence, and violence upon their targeted victims. 2. Honest productive people People who produce more than they consume through the use of specialization, division of labor, and economies of scale. On the Political Front the criminals gain power by deceiving the victims into a belief that only the few (criminals) are capable of commanding legal power. When the honest productive people are made to believe in that lie, they become victims. On the Economic Front the criminals gain power by creating a law that enforces a legal money monopoly and once the victims begin using that money the economic power created by the honest productive people begins to flow to the legal criminals through that single medium of exchange, as the legal criminals employ something called a business cycle. Honest productive people can regain control of legal power, with their own minds first, then with Trial by Jury, or with force of arms, or with honest legal representation, and then having regained that power, people can regain the economic power they create and do so by inventing, and maintaining a competitive honest legal currency. I plan on attending the upcoming Liberty Conference in Reno Nevada this September, so as to be in a better position to measure how well the power is currently shifting away from the legal criminals, and back in the hands of the honest productive people. Ron Paul is a scheduled speaker at that 4 day event. Ron Paul has been working on both the political and the economic front for as long as I've known, which is over 25 years, when I first saw his work on a newsgroup in the 1980s, and at that time Ron Paul was speaking like every other Conspiracy Theorist at the time, but oddly enough, he was, and still is, an elected Member of the House of Representatives. My questions, which most likely will not be answered at the upcoming conference, I've been at those things, and voices like mine are censored, but my questions concern what form of money will be legalized once the legal crime money is no longer enforced? The Dollar is on the way out, at least the current Federal Reserve System "Dollar"; and the new World Reserve Currency will either be better or worse for the legal criminals, and it will either be better or worse for the honest productive people, and the measure of how much better or how much worse will be easy to see, once the new regime takes over. Soon If that is too much to read, you are effectively out of the debate, I can't help that, since that is outside the range of my power. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Credit is given me by the bankers to incur debt based on the ability to repay that debt within the time frame they've set. HCKaos, Lies are invented by the legal criminals, and they higher bankers to lie for them, and where do you think those legal criminals get the money to hire bankers to lie for them? They say that there is such a thing as The Good Faith And Credit of The American People. Where do those legal criminals get the power they use to make their lies work? Credit can be anything you invent, not something given to you. Debt is the percentage of daily income I keep in my pocket. If you earn something, how do you measure such earnings? Enlighten if you can, but I am coming to the realization that no matter how it is explained, it's all a pile of BS. When something is created out of nothing, it is contrary to the most basic princples of life and science. Suppose you have two choices: A. Die for failing to gain help from someone else. B. Get help from someone else. Which do you choose? When you answer that question, we two will be in a position to help each other, as we solve this problem that appears to be just a pile of BS. I've read and re-read these posts Joe and I feel you've a breadth of knowledge I am striving to obtain for myself. It strikes me that you too understand as a whole that the monetary structure is inherently flawed, why is it you would propose restructuring loans to honest hardworking citizens? That must be understood from my viewpoint first, before the answer will make any sense to someone who does not understand my viewpoint. Example: the monetary structure is inherently flawed No, I do not measure such things that way, the opposite is true, since the monetary structure is working exactly as it is meant to work, it is flawless. The legal criminals invent that flawless monetary structure, and the legal criminals thereby gain the power to enforce the perpetuation of that very fine, perfect, flawless monetary structure. If you go on with this belief that the monetary structure is inherently flawed, you will fail to see how flawless the monetary structure is for those who invent it, and then maintain it. Once you do see how flawless the monetary structure is, in fact, you can then see why so much power is consumed in perpetuating it, and you may then no longer fall into the trap of thinking that someone else will fix it. It isn't broke, so it certainly won't be fixed. You have to fix it, because you are one of the victims, and therefore you see it as being flawed, but that is your mistake. Not mine, and certainly not a mistake made by the legal criminals, they know a good deal when the see one, invent one, and perpetuate one, especially when all they do is collect power at the expense of everyone else, and then use that collected power to keep the power flowing to them, from everyone else. It is a sweat deal, not flawed. why is it you would propose restructuring loans to honest hardworking citizens? Power flows from those who honestly produce power. Is that true? If true, then: power flows from those who honestly produce power to those who steal it with a legal system of extortion. Is that true? If that is true, then: it may be a good idea to stop that flow of power before that flow of power ends up causing the extinction of the human species. Is that reasonable, measurably factual, and worth considering? Does that answer the question? why is it you would propose restructuring loans to honest hardworking citizens? Is the question still unanswered? Power earned by most Americans flows to legal criminals through the mortgage system of extortion. Why not stop that flow? Why not stop making American earners less powerful as their earnings flow to the legal criminals at a rate that is roughly equal to the average cost of shelter? An average American earner pays double the cost of a home, one entire home cost (price) goes to the builder (or previous owner), and an entire extra price goes to the legal monopoly money extortion racketeers. That is a lot of power that continuously flows from the people who create power to the people who steal that power - legally. Why not stop feeding all that power to those criminals? You ask why? I ask why not? You may insist upon an answer. I can answer with the measurable fact that it is the right thing to do, and I can confirm, measurably, that it is definitely the wrong thing to allow that power flow to continue in that very way. Who would finance that loan when given the opportunity to make much more from a higher percentage loan? Who gives whom the power to increase the price of credit? What are you talking about, are you talking about the current legal money monopoly system of extortion combined with the current legal monopoly National government despotic State apparatus? Why allow the legal criminals to continue committing their crimes, perpetually, and with impunity? Why pay for it? How can someone sell a loan at a higher interest rate if a competitor offers a lower interest rate, you explain your own question to me. What do you think is the force that forces the current mortgage interest rate in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC)? If a person does not qualify for a loan, someone who has a long, long, history of defaulting on every single penny borrowed, then, that person is not what I refer to as Honest Productive Americans, and that type of person will find it very difficult to get a low interest rate, from anyone, unless someone is in the business of breaking the legs of those who default. If Product 1, and Product 2 are made legal, who would be able to sell loans at a higher interest rate, and who would buy those loans at higher interest rates when they can get lower interest rates? Not me. I have a good credit history, so far, despite many forces working against my capacity to maintain a good credit history, and if I do default, then, it is right that I should pay that cost, by having a lower credit rating, and therefore by having an increased interest charge charged to me, because of my past failures to pay back loans borrowed. Currently those who default are given bonuses, rewarded, and those who have good credit ratings are made to pay for those defaults. Are you looking through the false filter at this? I would never claim to be an authority on any subject, as that implies I am better than the conversants, I am merley trying to unlock my family and I from this flawed system. I am going to attend the events in Reno Nevada, whereby The Liberty Crew, or whatever they are calling themselves, are holding a 4 day conference. In the old days they held a congress, and at the congress they would decide what must be done, and what must not be done, to solve these problems. Now there is only one congress, and it is a legal crime organization, and any competitors are dealt with effectively. I can return here and let you know how far my perspective gains currency during those 4 days, at that event. I've been to one of these things before, I paid to go to the event, and I asked a lot of questions, and they dodged every one of my questions. Falsehood runs very, very, very deep. You have to find it yourself, no one else can help you. You have to be diligent, constantly diligent, and persistent, and resolute. Do not settle for lies, ever. How do you know when someone is lying? I don't know. I ask. If the answer is dodged, I can guess. What else can I do? One person at the last convention I attended answered all my questions, in a general way, and that person said, verbatim: If you can't beat'em: join'em. That is a false answer. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I choose B. HCKaos, You choose to accept help from someone else, and let's please work this two ways, from this point. A. Only one other person B. All other people willing to help You accept. One person offer's help, and you accept. More than one person offers help, and you accept. They offer help because you, according to them, earn credit. You are a source of credit, you produce credit, you earn it, and one other person recognizes that fact, and that one other person gives you credit. You accept. What transfers? How does the transfer happen? What happens if you default? The people helping you are in your debt when they help you, when they credit you, you place them in your debt. What do you do? Is this confusing you? Now add many people offering you help, many people that you place in your debt, they offer you help, you accept, they credit you, you place them in debt. Is that confusing? Why? Figure it out, find where you are confused, and then answer for yourself why you are confused. Go step by step. You will die or you get help. You are offered help. You accept. The first person offering you help credits you as being credit worthy, as you earn his help, and help is transferred to you, it is help, it is not a loan, it is help, they are weaker after they help you, you are stronger after they help you, they sent you needed help, you now have their power, they don't, what do you call it if you spend that power injuring the people who help you? Default? Question all things. You need help, you will die without it, you are offered help, where does the power you need to survive come from, if it does not exist, you are doomed, if it does exist, you live, how do you get it? If someone else has it, and they voluntarily transfer that power to you, you are the source of credit, and they are rendered in debt, as the power they had now flows to you. Now that time passes. You now have their power. What do you do with that power. You live. You survive. You don't consume the power to buy a lap dance, you use the power to preserve life. Why did the person help you? You needed help. The person helped you because, according to that person, you earned that help, somehow. What happens if the person demands repayment? That changes things. The first transfer from someone to you, as a loan, now, isn't a case where only you earned credit, you did earn a reasonable measure of credit, in the mind of the person helping you, but now, as a loan, the transfer is entirely different, now you are borrowing power from someone who has power, and you are now making a deal to return something, the whole amount borrowed, or even more than the whole amount borrowed. You are no longer the only source of credit, you are one source of credit, you are now worthy of a loan, and the lender is worthy of repayment. Who is in debt? Does that help in the work necessary in realizing the full measure of credit and debt? I think it does, and my thinking is based upon the concept that life is a power struggle. I'm going to leave that thinking alone for now, let you work on it some, and I'll move to the next exchange, the next transfer of stuff, as words are being transferred. The monetary system dictates what my "skill" is worth, I would value it much higher than it's monetary value. I thought nursing would be a "noble" profession, it has become a tool to dispense needless intervention. Get some sunlight, it really is good for you. I have a niece who is a nurse, and her future husband, or boy friend was a nurse, and I hear you loud and clear, but, you are expressing a measure of falsehood. The monetary system is a way of looking at a whole bunch of people doing individual things, it is not capable of any thought, and it is not capable of any act, it cannot dictate what your "skill" is worth. You now know how to help people who are injured. That is as valuable as life itself, precisely that valuable in fact, in each case where you do, in fact, help someone remain alive. How much someone will pay you is determined by many competitive forces, including how much you demand as payment for helping someone who needs help that you can supply. How much a hospital employer will pay you hourly is how much a hospital employer will pay you hourly to do whatever the employer may agree to pay you hourly to do, which can include helping a person survive, a person who is injured, or dig a ditch, and fill in the ditch, and do that many times, for your pay. My niece just switched from a paid nurse at a hospital to a paid job working hospice. My nieces boyfriend was forced out of nursing, fraudulently, and is now working in Real Estate, helping people move from house to house, for pay. Much of their valuable power is being transferred to legal criminals by way of taxation and by way of the monopoly money extortion racket, so they struggle. They are credit worthy, valuable people, as measured by that transfer of stolen power, and that power is then used against them, to make them pay even more. If they were not credit worthy, they would not have anything to transfer to the legal criminals. How can I respond better to what I read as a measure of falsehood in your words? What is the higher quality response, at a lower cost to both of us? Is that true? Ideally, yes Wrong. I'm not communicating fantasy, idealism, utopian-ism, I am reporting the accurately measurable facts, as they exist in reality. Honest productive people are defined exactly in that way, they are honest, because honesty is necessary for trust, which is necessary for production, and they are measurable exactly by their production, and they are people. Where do the legal criminals get their power? Do you think that they produce their power? Is that what you think? Does that answer the question? No, I applaud your idea but, unless you have the wealth to personally finance the products, who in this culture of greed is going to lend at such a discounted rate? What idea? Product 1 and Product 2? Applauding is worth what? Your failure to realize the answer automatically makes the answer moot in your mind? That is happening in your mind, as your idea, your way of perception, and that is, by your own power of will, disconnected from the answer to the question. The answer is Product 1 and Product 2, which do exist, but not as such, they exist at other prices, or in other places, because people like you refuse to even entertain such viable answers to the question. Absent an answer you have no answer. Once offered an answer you refuse to even see it, and then you willfully ignore it, as you decide, by your own power of will, that the answer doesn't exit, because you ignore it. Does that answer the question? No, I applaud your idea but, unless you have the wealth to personally finance the products, who in this culture of greed is going to lend at such a discounted rate? Who has the power to set the price? You claim that no interest is a discount? You claim that 1% is a discount? Where do you get the power to decide what is or what is not a discount? Am I talking to a member of the FOMC, or their employers? The top down perspective considered, the monetary system is flawless, thank you. A victims perspective. How does it work for you? You are not, then, a member of the FOMC. I knowingly took a >30% wage decrease in my move from CT to FL, any rationalization for that. (Not for the move itself). I'm guilty of rationalization, for having spent my time writing to you? I can reason out my choice to write to you, if for no other reason, I exercise my fingers. Rationalization, it seems to me, is a victims choice to remain one, when other choices are offered. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Your argument may seem linear in your mind Joe HCKaos, I can only trust that your topic title is honestly written by you, and from that assumption on my part I participate in discussion. You can then twist that around, in a false advertizement campaign, playing some game of your exclusive invention, a variation on "bait and switch", and turn a discussion into you claiming that I am arguing. I am not arguing. What is a legal credit? That is a question to be asked. That is a question to be answered. You can answer it. What does that have to do with me? Leave me out of your answer. leave me out of your question. If you have an answer offer it up. If your answer is worth anything, to anyone, then your answer is worth something to someone, and how do you manage to turn that around into an argument? A token for a video game, a voucher for cheese? There is only so much power in existence. How much of the power in existence is usable power that can be used to save one human life? If there is more than enough power existing to save every single human life, then how do you explain the torture millions, the dying millions, and the murdered millions, and even the murdered, and tortured billions of innocent people. Now you have my question, before you, plopped on the table, like a screaming innocent toddler, fresh from the torture chamber, writhing, screaming in agony, as the last breath of that innocent human being is exhaled. Plop. The wet sound of raw flesh slaps the table. You can play your games, you can argue with yourself, but what does that have to do with me, in your argument, your drama, your fantasy, your play? I'm not here to argue. I have no interest in arguments. What the hell did you dream up as a topic title? Allow me to quote it: Is there any meaningful debate to be had here? Is argument a synonym for debate? You tell me. Set me straight. I'll look elsewhere for a competitive viewpoint, and I most certainly will avoid any arguments. If I had a history of repaying 2 seperate loans, each paid on time exactally as it were structured, would that earn me this credit? From me? If you are targeted by the legal criminals, then you are transferring power to them, because you create power, you do that, that is what constitutes the target on your back. The target says: "Hey, legal criminals, I produce surplus wealth, so here I am, come and get me, enslave me, take what I earn." You are not targeted if you are an old person dying soon, on welfare, or social security, or in some measure powerless, having no stash of surplus wealth, nothing of value whatsoever, you are a bum on the street, old, worthless, unable to produce anything, begging, consuming, a net loss, a liability, a cost, a drain, a user, a consumer, nothing but cost. Who pays that cost? Legal criminals don't, they take, that is their version of earning. They take, that have no interest in the dying, homeless, non-productive, bums on the street, unless, perhaps, they vote, or sit on juries. They can help take all the power from the producers of power, if they can be made to behave as ordered. You, if your net measure of production is greater than your net measure of consumption, constitute a source of surplus wealth, to be targeted, and exploited, as the legal criminals convince you that you have no choice, you must pay, you must transfer all, most, or as much as humanly possible, transfer your excess production, the total amount, or as close to the total amount as you can, transfer to them all of your production over your consumption, to them. They want you to consume less, more for them. You consume X. X is less than Y. Y is your total amount of production to date. X < Y. You produce more than you consume. Who get's the extra? How does someone else get the extra? Why does someone else get the extra? Why does all surplus wealth flow to a few people, from all the many people who produce surplus wealth? What is the formula, what is the process, what is the means, what is the method, how, exactly, does all the production that is in excess of all the consumption manage to flow from the producers to the few people who collect all that surplus wealth, and can that flow of power slow down, or stop? If I had a history of repaying 2 seperate loans, each paid on time exactally as it were structured, would that earn me this credit? Do you know what is a FICO score? I have a very limited understanding of the FICO score, but enough to know that it is a competitive measure of credit rating. It is certainly not the best, there is certainly much room for higher quality, and lower cost methods of measuring credit more accurately. Is there a competitive measure of credit, where the competitor offers a much more accurate, and much higher quality, and much lower cost, measure of credit than a FICO score? Is there a method working in Belgium, Switzerland, China, Japan, Africa? If there is no competition working, then why is there no force of competition working to force the credit rating process to higher quality and lower cost? What power has been spent on removing competition? I don't know. I can guess. Meanwhile there is, absent nothing, a method of measuring credit. That monopoly measure is called a FICO score. Do you know what is a FICO score? What defines me as honest hardworking? I think that there is a very good way to find out. I think there is a very accurate method by which your question can be competitively answered, so that the answer is the highest quality answer, at the lowest cost to you, where you are the person who is asking the question. I think that your question is a good question. I'll repeat that good question: What defines me as honest hardworking? Do you pay any taxes? Do you know that inflation is a tax? Do you know how inflation works as a tax? If you are paying the inflation tax, then you are a net producer of wealth, you are not a net consumer of wealth, you have produced something worth stealing, and that makes you a net producer. If you acquire that which you have, which is worth stealing, or taxing by direct tax, or taxing by income tax, or taxing by way of inflation, and you had acquired that taxable stuff, by way of deceit, you lied to get stuff that is later taxed, you perpetrated fraud, then you are not honest, are you? I can't answer that, I don't know you. What defines me as honest hardworking? Are you taxed? Do you lie, deceive, perpetrate fraud upon some innocent targeted victim, so as to accumulate the stuff that you send to the tax man? I can't answer those questions for you. You asked. I offered a competitive answer. I do not argue. What would be the point of argument, or debate? Do you see argument and debate as one and the same thing? Is it, not using tax loopholes to avoid paying my fare share? Is it sweating while performing CPR, is it being ignorant? Do you produce value? If you save a life, how can you measure that up as anything other than a very high measure of producing value, as high as giving birth, as high as creating a new human being, saving a life, whereby failure on your part, ignorance on your part, irresponsibility on your part, in that specific willful act, ends life instead. Not only do you managed, without resort to deception (against a targeted victim), and without resort to threats of violence, and without resort to willful acts of violence upon innocent victims, to produce enough to keep your own life going, added to that great accomplishment, you also save the life of someone else, when someone else lacks the power to keep their own life going. How is that not measurable as producing much, much, much, much, more than you consume? Did the person you saved then go onward to kill millions of people, or billions of people, crushing the lives out of multitudes of people, and torturing them on their paths to early deaths, and all those victims were innocent of any crime? If so, then, perhaps you should have let that one die. I don't know. I'm not you. It seems to me, that the amount of power transferring to you, as payment for the value of what you produce, is less than right, less than equitable, less than reasonable, less than that which you earn, and all I have to do to prove it, is follow your tax return, and follow the rate of inflation if you happen to be paid in dollar units of money. Did you give that stuff to them? Is that your measure of some willful investment, or charity, according to you? This isn't rocket science to me. It is easy math. It is easy, documented, legal, crime, accounts, on paper, or on digital records, undeniable, accurate, factual, understandable, traces, from you, to the legal criminals, in dollar denominated units, pennies, nickles, dimes, and dollars. Leave me out. I'm not arguing. You have questions, you can get answers. I may not offer a competitive answer, compared to nothing? I do not offer argument. What would be the point? Are you here to win something? Win something, then, do you need permission to win something? Do you need a targeted victim, willing, and able, to lose something, because you are so, so, so superior? My understanding of credit has greatly improved since I no longer need it, thats not to say I may someday need it. Why do I get the idea that you are speaking about one thing, and I am speaking about something entirely different? You are asking for a measure of credit, when, apparently, you are asking for a measure of how many legal dollars someone is willing to transfer to you, at any given moment in time. Legal dollars are designed to be debt notes, debt based, legal, accounting instruments. You hold one. What happens to it? You get a dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve System of Extortion began to be enforced by the legal criminals. That dollar in 1913 is worth X. You hold that debt based legal accounting instrument for 98 years, up to today, how much is it worth today? Why do you want dollars? Why do you associate the concept of credit with the factual reality of the dollar unit of legal fraud? I'm asking. I don't do that, it makes no sense to me, credit is credit, and legal fraud is legal fraud, one is not the other, so why confuse the two, as if the two were the same thing? I was fortunate enough pre-bubble burst to sell my house in 05 for 3 times what I paid for it. I reevaluated what my family and I required to be happy, paid cash for a home down south which is modest at best compared to the previous, but none the less my only debts are to the government. No cash = no purchase. Why do I now get this feeling that you are playing the part of Devil's Advocate, taking me for a ride? I don't have magical powers of intuition. You write ignorant things, and then you write things that are measures of your exceptional intelligence, are you playing me for a fool? I've learned, through experience, that those who "play" Devil's Advocates are not playing. They are the real deal. There are, of course, exceptions to almost every rule. I am trying to imagine which vehicles exist in the financial market that would enable someone, anyone, to offer an interest free or one percent interest loan. Now you are back to being ignorant? Credit is directly proportional to potential, not accumulated surplus wealth. Savings, or amassed, or collected, or stored, or accumulated surplus wealth is surplus wealth, not credit, surplus wealth is here, now, existing, ready, spendable, fluid, powerful, liquid, ready, and all the spender has to do is turn on the switch, turn the valve, and the power flows, because the power to purchase has already been produced. A warehouse full of gold, oil, electricity, food, oxygen, iron, Solar Panels, weapons, ammo, hydrogen, lap dancers, whatever, beer, you name it, it is one door away, you have the key, you have the control, you own it, you open the door, and you spend the supply of surplus power because it has already been created. You had invested, you had avoided having your power stolen, you had produced more than you consumed, you had saved, you had stored, you had accumulated, you now have ready power to purchase. That is not credit. Someone else looked at you, before you did all that saving, and they said, that man earns my credit rating, he has the potential to make all that stuff, and I am measuring me as being in his debt, for that potential that he has, by my accurate judgement. That is credit. You earn it, as obvious potential, not as proven fact. So, there you are, before you prove the fact, and no one, anywhere, judges you, as credit worthy, so you are set back, you have to prove your worth, you have to start small, you have to inch every step of the way, you have to struggle, you have to do without, you have to pinch every penny, you have to do everything yourself, you have to cut corners, you have to set aside, put off, delay, forestall, procrastinate, and even avoid doing things that you know will produce much greater value much sooner, if only, if only, if only other people would give you the credit you so obviously deserve. What if you are back at that point where you will die, without credit, without help, and no one gives you credit, no one gives you help, you die, and that is the end of that story. They help. They gave you credit. That is you, just you, and just one other person. How about you, a family, and a group of families, and an impending drought, or a nearby belligerent army of criminals marching to your doors, but you have not saved, not yet, you were delayed, in saving, you were set back in saving, things were not working best, not yet, but the drought looms, the army marches, the legal criminals are at the gate, and you have no savings. What do you do? You have no savings. All the people threatened have to stop doing their individual things and all the people have to start rowing the boat, in unison, to reach the shore before you all starve to death, failure to give each other credit, at that point, amounts to certain death. You all have to stop making new inventions, stop consuming, stop using up, and you all have to credit each other with the power, and the permission, to go ahead and focus all remaining power into reaching one common goal, and that goal must be reached, or failure is death for everyone. The enemy is at the gate, you all had better start making weapons, and meet the enemy at the gate with a much larger force of ready arms, making those enemies think twice about invading, pillaging, raping, stealing, and enslaving you, and your family, and your neighbor, and their neighbors, and their families. A. None of you separately have the power to defeat the drought, or the invading army of legal criminals. B. Even if you all collected all your individual supplies of surplus wealth into one pile of surplus wealth, the form of the wealth, and the actual constitution of the wealth is not useable in the work needed to defeat the drought, or the invading army of legal criminals. C. The only possible path to survival as an individual, each individual in that group of families, is to agree to combine all effort to reach that one specific goal, and each person must do a specialized, individual job, so as to build the very things needed to defeat the drought, and the invading army, failure is death for all, or enslavement for all, there is no other way out. Does each credit each other, or does someone come up with a plan that doesn't measure up? It has nothing to do with me. Leave me out. I'm not arguing. People either invent credit, and then use it, or they don't, and credit is not used, no skin off my nose, I'm going to die eventually, and I've lived well so far. Leave me out. I'm not grinding an axe. I'm not arguing. I'm not on a crusade. You see bad things. I do too. There is a solution. Take it or leave it. Invent one yourself. When you do, let me see it. I'm curious. Is your solution viable, compared to the one offered by me? Absent one, it isn't, by default. The problem will not fix itself, it is not a problem to the people who cause it. To the people who cause the problem, it is the solution. Past performance is no indicator of future returns, is that rhetoric or is that a staple of investing? Or both? I don't look directly at the sun. I don't go running blindfolded across the I-15 Freeway at rush hour. I don't stick my hand in fires. I don't see any good in sending my power to legal criminals who then use that power to take more power from me. Call me a fortune teller. I don't have the schedule that the FOMC has, as they add double the supply of legal dollars, or cut in in half. They have that, not me. They aren't telling fortunes either, they have the facts, because they produce the facts. More people transferring their non monetary power to other people in the form of ideas is what we lack. A tool does no good if it isn't used, time spent on lap dances, or drinking beer, is a better investment, compared to making a tool that no one uses. I'm not offering an idea, you have before you one of many possible solutions to the most dangerous threat to human kind existing today. What you do with it is your choice. Your choices are beyond my power to control, and beyond my desire to control, if you ever need that tool, there it is, take it or leave it. You alone are the judge of the value of your time, and your time spent with me here through keystrokes. I am passing on knowledge gained while standing on the shoulders of giants, they deserve more credit than I can give them - alone. Your next response will have answered that question. I've been writing daily, for many years, thousands upon thousands of words, you are exceptional in that you respond. You are even more exceptional in that you respond without resort to willful deceit, or threats of violence, as I trust that you are doing, so much for my credit rating. That does not mean, to me, that this exchange, necessarily, measures up as a debate. I'm not really sure as to what one is, exactly. As to the measure of meaning, I can claim that such a thing can be measured in how much less power flows from you, or anyone, to someone who does not earn that power: if less flows that way, this exchange is as meaningful as that. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
You too have something to prove to me, don't you? Matt, You are a puppy, at 40, compared to my 50 odd years, I've lost count. Your state of youth, relatively speaking, can be measured as time spent working on what I call The Problem. I've been going to sleep with this problem, working on it every night, and waking up with new competitive solutions, for almost 3 decades. If you have been doing the same thing, you started at age 10, or so. Discussion (or Debate, or whatever word is the highest quality and lowest cost word) is a tool, by which, one single viewpoint is placed next to a competitive viewpoint, and by way of comparison, a new viewpoint can be constructed, through a process similar to The Scientific Method, or Trial and Error, or whatever word works best to describe the process of finding reinforcements in support of possible answers to questions, and finding information that contradicts possible answers to questions. Discussion, unlike reading books, and unlike one person working on a problem alone, inventing possible contrary, and possible supportive viewpoints, allows one person, with one viewpoint, with or without invented contentious, or supportive viewpoints, to actually borrow another person's viewpoint, assuming that the discussion involves honest people whose product, whose words, whose voices, are not all lies. The first time I encountered a "discussion" whereby the supposed other viewpoint was false, and false on purpose, or as a result of a false viewpoint being parroted, I learned something. OK, that was a lesson to be learned, running down a rabbit hole, or off a cliff, what was that called? An argument. The second time I encountered a "discussion" whereby the supposed other viewpoint was false, and either false on purpose, or as a result of a false viewpoint being parroted, I employed what I had learned. Hey, you are another one of those people who lie, so as to accomplish some goal, winning, or something, I don't know, can you help me know why you lie? I learned more, then, as the answer was either no answer, or more lies. By the time I've reached 1000 people, who lie, will-fully, or just "going with the flow", who knows, they don't confess, I've learned almost all the tricks, almost all the arguments, almost all the deceptive fabrications of non-reality, the tactics, the methods, the process, is knowable, and few new tricks come my way these days. 1. The Parthian Arrow (one of my favorites) 2. Transference/Projection 3. Collective punishment/prejudice 4. Diversion/misdirection/willful ignorance (the most common) 5. The Devil's Advocate 6. I agree but... Suffice to illustrate the point? Your offering: You too have something to prove to me, don't you? I am me. I am not someone like me. Just me, always me, no matter how much I try to escape me, I'm still me. No, I have nothing to prove, TO YOU. Product 1 and Product 2 ILLUSTRATE what has already been proven, time, and time, and time again, every time, each time, without fail. Competition ends monopoly. Good avoids evil. Words do not reach those who refuse to know. No, I don't have anything to prove to you, or anyone else, if you have an interest in knowing, then you will know, can I help? I don't know. Do you want to find out if I can help, if you have an interest in knowing? Is that the same thing as ME having to prove something to you? I do not think so, I think one is one thing and the other is not the same thing, and potentially the opposite thing. A. Me having to prove something to you (or else what?) B. Me offering help to someone who I think deserves help, and helping myself, by some measure, at the same time (also known as an equitable exchange) You tell me, please. One is one thing, not two things, not duplicity. A) We (now) mutually agree that the monetary system of values is a flawless tool for the people at the top of the pyramid, drainging excess power from the greater good, to emass insurmountable power for the lesser bad. (lets skip the good/bad/good/evil/right/wrong/left/right argument) I am not here to argue either. It is your choice, not mine, to skip morality. I do no such thing. Live is good, all things that work to ensure survival of life are good, that is the full measure of good. Look up ectropy. Ectropy No need to resort to any organized religion. Good is what it is, bad is what it is, as bad is that which works to end life. Entropy No opinion necessary. If there is no force working toward the work required to produce and maintain life, there will be no life. If there is a more powerful force working to end life, there will be no life. No life = no opinion. You can skip the moral question as you please. I don't. It is simple, why skip it? I am in totality FOR the free exchange of ideas, opportunities, and perspectives without monetary exchange. I am not. Money is a tool, it helps increase the quality of life, and lower the cost of life, for those who use it for that purpose. Why skip money? Why skip morality? Why skip money? Both are very useful in the work required to maintain life, increasing the quality of life, and lowering the cost of life, so why skip either, why skip both? I don't know, that is why I'm asking. Your products are based on a system which intrinsically favors the cheat. I cut that out of the context, since that stands alone as a false statement. That is a false statement. You obviously do not understand Product 1, and Product 2, which are definable as they exist, and they are not, necessarily, mine. They exist, here and there, not in exactly the form I describe, as I describe them, but in principle they exist, and the point is to point out, or to illustrate how the force of competition works in legal money markets, not necessarily any one competitor, it just so happens that the competitive legal money I use as an illustration, Product 1, and Product 2, are the highest quality, and the lowest cost competitor in my view, to date. If you can illustrate a higher quality legal product, at a lower cost, then you can, if you can't then you can't, and you sentence merely shows how little you know, or how much you are guessing wrongly, in reference to Product 1, and Product 2. If you trip over a rock, and it happens to be the largest diamond on Earth, you may look back and blame the rock for you carelessness, to what end? Someone else may find the same rock, and use it, to what end? A better illustration may be a case whereby someone right now, on this planet, has invented a devise that consumes the least amount of the most abundant form of power in the process of producing the most amount of the most scarce, usable, constructive, productive, power, and no one wants it. There it is, right there, it exists, it is there, you can argue about it not being there, because you don't see it, but it is there, as described, exactly as described, and no one, not you, no one, uses it. Not yet. Someone, other than the first to invent it, then prove it, then use it, first does so, then two, then three, and that has happened with the discovery of Whale Oil, and Petroleum Oil, and Solar Panels, and personal computers, and horse draw carriages, cars, planes, rocket ships to other planets, cures for diseases, to name a few examples of the same point. Your products are based on a system which intrinsically favors the cheat. There is no hidden meaning on my part there, I am not implying you are a cheat. The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power. No hidden meaning, there is no meaning, all that you are doing is presuming something that does not exist, and then concluding things based upon the initial false presumption, if you were not doing so, then you would have specific things, rather than ambiguous things, to report to me. Your angle of view could be inspected for validity, if it was specific. Since your expressed angle of view is nothing but hot air, it can't be inspected for validity. What exactly do you mean? There is no reference in your expressed viewpoint to the actual Product 1, or the actual Product 2 offered to you. You are stumbling on the rock, and blaming it for your carelessness. Is that an MO, a habit, a willfully repeated mode of behavior? The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power. What system? What are you referring to when you describe the thing you are referring to with those words? Are you describing the Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion? You cannot be referring to Product 1, and Product 2, because your words do not apply to Product 1, and Product 2. Your words do apply to the Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion? Your words apply to the Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion because that system is a legally enforced monopoly that is designed to accomplish exactly what you describe: The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power. That is a description of the design of The Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion and it works, as you describe, because the competition to it is rendered power less, or not powerful enough to end that process of moving power from those who create power to those who steal it with The Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion. As soon as any competitor, Product 1, and Product 2, or Gold, or Silver, or any legal competitor, or all competitors being made legal, as soon as there is a legal competition, not a phoney legal competition, the description you describe is rendered power less, and is exactly as less powerful, as the competition is more powerful, and that is the point. It is not "my" offering of an illustrated example of just exactly what competition can be, as competition can be higher in quality and lower in cost, it matters not whose offering what, since the full measure of meaning, the full measure of what matters, is that competition is, in fact, higher in quality, and lower in cost, that is what matters. You say: The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power. So how can that be made better? How can less power be relinquished as producers relinquish power to the legal criminals? How can any less power be relinquished while the legal criminals enforce the relinquishing of power from producers to them, with their legal money monopoly extortion racket? No competition: things keep flowing as is. This way: Dept Clock Those are the numbers that are for "public consumption", and as likely as not, that isn't even close to the full measure of the ongoing crime spree. Competition rears it's ugly head (not phoney competition): less of an ongoing crime spreed, in direct proportion to just how much higher in quality and just how much lower in cost the competition is, exactly, and Product 1, and Product 2, offers an illustration of just, exactly, how many less pennies, nickles, dimes, quarters, and dollars worth of surplus wealth flows from the producers to the legal criminals. If you are speaking about the monopoly power, then your words make sense, otherwise, what are you speaking about: certainly not Product 1, and Product 2? The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power. Those words apply to a working legal monopoly; which is the direct measure of non-working competition. Those words do not apply to working competition; which is the direct measure of a non-working monopoly. So stands my confusion, but offer that we are all a work in progress. To me, from my view, you trip over the rock, which is the diamond called competition in money markets, and you blame the rock for your carelessness in knowing better that which is before you, in reality, and for what purpose? Are you in such a hurry to get somewhere that your goal blinds you to any other perception on that path? I've been, alone, up, down, and sideways, on how Product 1, and Product 2 work in reality, and as yet no one, ever, makes any effort to expose to me how those products would not work as claimed. Why is that? Actual words do not exist, not yet, whereby any perspective, my own, or anyone else's, expose the faults of Product 1, and Product 2, as a means of avoiding, completely, all the worst things borne by all the victims of the legal criminals who perpetuate their crimes, all their crimes, empowered into existence by their enforced legal money monopoly extortion racket. This: Dept Clock Product 1, and Product 2 ends that above. I know it. You claim to know otherwise, from a position of ignorance. Is that an MO? Is that a habit? Is that the result of years, and years, and years, of exposure to behavioral modification, brainwashing, response conditioning, false advertizements, and deceit, and threats of violence, and witness to terrorizing, horrible, torture to millions, and the serial killings of those same millions, on your dime, as you work harder, and harder, and harder, to get less, and less and less, and as your earnings lend psychological (political), and physical (economic) support, making you accessory to those tortures of millions, innocent and guilty alike, and you continue, by this engineered habit, this unwelcome, this enforced, this invasive, and this undetected, method of operating, this knowing from a position of ignorance routine, that results inevitably, with millions, or billions of murdered innocent lives, and perhaps, even, the end of all life on Earth? I think some habits may be in need of avoiding. That isn't me trying to get something from you. I'm not, as you say, having to prove something to you, that is me, offering a competitive point of view. If yours, which looks like you claiming to know something from a position of ignorance, is higher in quality that what I offer, then it is, and if your viewpoint is less costly to you, for now, than the one I offer, then it is, and that is what that is: your viewpoint. It is not mine. Product 1, and Product 2, end the legal monopoly, and all that goes with it. Simple. Easy to understand. Workable. Obviously workable, until proven otherwise, by some accurate means, by some obvious contradictory viewpoint addressing Product 1 and Product 2, which so far, does not exist. So, as a closing question, thrown on the discussion table, a tabled question, to anyone: Would the honest productive people be able to realize a solution to the legal crime problem if they saw one, and if they saw one, where is it? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
What I don't understand is how to bring them into the physical realm? HCKaos, As I've said, they already exist, they are already in the physical realm, so your question applied to reality has to be rephrased. If I were to rephrase your question I would ask: How can competitive legal monetary product production, and use, be increased? If that is the question, then I have to point out that there must be a demand for increased production and use of competitive legal monetary products such as the illustrated examples I offer in Product 1, and Product 2. The demand has to come from the honest productive people, since the dishonest legal criminals will loose their gravy train when competitive legal monetary product production and use increases, so they are not going to demand that increase in those products. Example: Many legal monetary products have been produced and used in the form that has since become known as Liar Loans, or Stated Income Loans, and many of these loans were produced, sold, resold, sold again, sold in bundles, and there is much evidence showing how legal "Chain of Title" has been lost, enough evidence has become known to alert "The Public" by some measure. I mean "The Public" to mean the honest productive Americans, or the source of purchasing power behind Taxes, the source of surplus wealth is The Public. Liar loans, bundled up, sold many times, and sold fraudulently, include, possibly, loans where the current "benefactor" (payee of principle and interest), has lost legal claim to the property since the lawful requirements of recording possession have not been met, bypassed in the rush to sell the loans fraudulently. There is no question concerning the fraudulent production and sale of the loans, and there is a legal question concerning the chain of title, and the number of the loans falling into this possible description is an estimate, and your estimate is as good as anyone's, and I'll estimate at 10 million. 10,000,000 If it is true, and if 10 million people are in homes, legally, whereby they can stop paying mortgage payments, stop paying mortgage interest payments, and no one can legally remove them from those homes, because the holders of the loans have no legal claim on the loan, the holders of the loans have been victims of fraud, or are conspirators in fraud, then legally, that amounts to 10,000,000 new loan products produced and ready for action. Is there a demand for it? If I sent letters to all 10,000,000 people, once I found out the facts, and told them, all 10 million, that they can stop paying, and keep their homes, because the fact is, that the holders of their loans are either the victims of fraud, or are conspirators in fraud, how many of those people would demand new loans, or how many of those people would stop paying? I have personal experience with this, so your answer has to be weighed, or measured, relative to what I already know to be true in the few cased I know about at this time. What can cause an increase in the demand for competitive legal monetary products, so as to force the legal monetary product producers to increase their quality, lower their costs, or go out of business? What has to happen? Here is another possible answer to your question: Legal Monetary Competition If you read that link, and you don't see an answer to your question, then I can try to figure out how the question is not understood by me, since I see that link as a very good answer to your question. I've tried to express that notion in past posts, but was met with a bit of resistance by you. I have no better solution to offer in this specific category of legal credits, and certainly am not defaulting through ignorance as I've read the description numerous times. Honest productive people complain about taxes. That is a common demand made by honest productive people. Honest productive people are the source of power that is taxed, they are the source of the surplus wealth that is then measured by legal money, and taxes denominate, or measure, that surplus wealth, produced by honest productive people, as that power flows to the tax collection points, and then whomever gains control of that power, spends that power, invests that power, or saves that power. Honest productive people demand lower taxes, by their complaints. Honest productive people demand hospitals, firefighters, ambulances, city governments, county governments, state governments, and National governments, for all sorts of reason, not limited to protective expenses in defense against crime. Honest productive people are confused by increased taxes, and lower returns on those investments, more taxes, less quality in hospitals, more taxes, less quality in firefighters, more taxes, less quality in police forces, lower quality, less quality in military employment (6 wars now, and who is "winning"?). How many honest productive people know that a legal monopoly extortion racket is a method by which honest productive people are taxed? Where does the total sum of all surplus wealth (profits) flowing from mortgage buyers go? Add up all the mortgages, pay all expenses to everyone in the honest mortgage business, follow all the dollar denominated interest payments, minus those costs, and where do all the profits end up flow to? How much is that total sum of all profits on legal mortgage interest in American in 30 years time? Do you have any idea? How much tax money flows from all the tax payers to all the tax spenders who profit from those expenses, minus the costs, in the same 30 years time? Do you have any idea? Which is the higher tax? A. Legal monopoly mortgage extortion racket profits. B. Legal tax expenditure profits? Try 30 years time, give me your best guess. When honest productive Americans know the facts, they may then stop complaining and they may then demand higher quality, and lower cost, and then your question is answered as increased production and use of competitive legal products like Product 1, and Product 2, as those products intend to illustrate legal competitive financial products. A loan of 0-1% is a "dream come true" for many people, hell for all people. After all the text we have exchanged so far, that single sentence tells me the most accurate information I need to zero right in on one of our shared beliefs in falsehood. Either you are ignorant or I am ignorant concerning the facts. Why do you believe that low interest is "hell for all people"? Where do you come up with that belief? How do you propose to bring this idea to life? The problem is ignorance, and then there is an even more serious problem in the fact that many honest productive American's prefer to remain ignorant, and we are at a proving ground, right here, right now. One of us will walk away from this point with a dogged determination to remain ignorant, despite obvious evidence providing a way out of that state of ignorance. Who will it be, you or me? What makes you believe that low interest rates will be "hell for all people"? If that is what you believe, what makes you believe that, since from my understanding of much information gathering, working, thinking, reading, experimenting, the claim you make is false, and demonstrably false, so how do you come up with that belief? If I can see the reasons for that belief, I may believe that belief too. I will not accept blind belief, and certainly not blind belief in something that I've personally disproven. I am very receptive to evidence that supports your claim, so as to make sure that my understanding is either accurate or inaccurate. How is a low interest rate "hell for all people"? Why are your thoughts based upon such a false notion? What other false notions do you harbor as a direct result of harboring that one false notion? Or is it me, on the other hand, that have made a principled false step, from which many additional false steps accrue? How do you propose to bring this idea to life? People, when they know better, demand better, including me, and you, and anyone else. When people know better, they demand better, and that is how better is brought to life. No short cuts. I offer you do so sooner the better, as more and more are incrementally losing the standard by which they would be elligible. 20 million people is one persons account of the murdered in Stalin's regime, where people were led to slaughter by accepting lies instead of truth, but I ask you: Why so many murdered? Why didn't everyone join in on all the fun? The question is a direct measure of how many people refuse to join the liars club, how many, at risk of death, remain stoically honest and productive to the core (at least honest among friends if not honest in the face of criminals - legal or otherwise)? How bad will it get in America, before the honest productive people demand better? What form will better take? Will those who have had enough lying, fraud, legal crime, still use The Federal Reserve System of Extortion, after they have had enough? I don't think so. When the honest productive people in American have had enough, there will be a low point, where the cost of living is highest, and the standard of living is lowest, in America, and after that low point, honest productive people in America will not settle for lower standards of living, will not settle for higher costs of living, and honest productive Americans will demand higher standards of living, and lower costs of living, and what do you think they will find when the start looking for remedy? I think they will find the legal criminals who have been documenting their crimes on their money trail, the honest productive people in America will follow the money to the source, and God help those criminals left holding that empty bag, once their employers have moved on to greener pastures. Regime change is afoot. Will the new regime be more powerful criminals, or will this be the low point that honest productive Americans will refuse to stoop below? Please don't dodge the question concerning why you think that low interest rates will be "hell for all people"; I am planning on attending a conference in Reno Nevada where many Gold Bugs will be speaking about this same topic, and if it is anything like the last conference I went to, all my questions will be dodged, and dodging specific questions are answers. If you dodge the question, I'll have my answer. |
|||||||||||
