Sorry if I posted this in the wrong section...in local news this morning...Illinois senate passes bill for more protection for landowners....
http://www.wandtv.com/dsp_story.cfm?storyid=29221 .....JB
Not a problem JB -- it deserves more space.
I was surprised at my neighbor who is ex-LAPD bringing up this issue when a couple of years ago he told me he didn't talk politics. ( Fortunately I don't either. I only talk anti-politics. :)) That was before he realized how corrupt most of our government has become. He was absolutely outraged and said that there is not much the common man can do to stop it. He said that one bureaucrat gets dirty money - an honest one finds out and rather than straighten it out, they just share it with the honest one corrupting him too. This was from a law man who was for the system as little as two years ago. He is one of the few deserving respect in my opinion. He said he did the bad cop thing -- asked himself --Hey ---What am I doing --and turned himself around. He's one of the good ones.
I'm a member with a new computer at home that can't seem to get logged in. That's okay for this post...
I was sexually assaulted by the son of a government official in a small town that was the state capital. The only police officer that investigated sexual assaults for the whole county happened to be his good friend- actually an ex-girlfriend. Doing my own research, I found out he had assaulted 10-20 other women, and had gotten away with it. There were two restraining orders against him at the time. He also had committed several other felonies that had mysteriously vanished from the books. Even worse, this guy was able to get a job with the state maximum security prison transporting prisoners and carried a gun. The local newspaper wouldn't even do an article because the editor was his aunt. I called the police dept to get a copy of my report and it was "buried" under the investigating officer's name. The clerk that helped me find it was fired the next day.
I toughed it out for a few months (I was politically appointed to the job and it ended.) After I went back to my home town I went to the FBI and got several people fired from the police department, including the chief. One of the ladies I worked with dated one of the "good" officers and was very encouraging through this ordeal, although he couldn't do anything about it either. I know there are good ones out there, but they're few and far between, and sometimes it's hard to find them when you need them.
It's best to keep to yourself and take care of your own business, whenever possible.
Thanks for your comments. Hopefully you will be able to get the computer problem worked out and get logged in.
Problems like this are the reasons that the eminent domain issue is so far out of hand. If the whole string of corruption behind the issue were known, then the way it got there would be easy to see. Somebody is making big money off of this. Somebody knows what is happening. Somebody is in fear for their life if they talk. Most are smart enough to keep their mouth shut and close their eyes to it or are using it for leverage to gain wealth.
As you mentioned -- trying to do something about it could be deadly as the honest sheriff here found out in 1980--
ended up at the bottom of the lake. The coverup trail went to our state capitol and from there clear to Washington DC DOJ. We currently only have 1700 people in town - 18000 countywide total population. The issue has been ignored by the "law". -As the airline security person who lives up here told me, you leave them alone -they will leave you alone.
Wal Mart to Steal Organic Farm (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/030306_scf_eviction.shtml)
Note: Brought to my attention by Bart - The City of LA previously stole this land under false pretenses since they didn't use it for the purpose they stole it for- gave land they didn't own to the farmers -then sold it back to the previous owner - What a mess government theivery causes. Check Bart's links for more information -- the issue takes a turn --but remains the same---
Glenn, you seem to be really conflicted on the issue of eminent domain.
L.A. uses eminent domain to seize private land. The previous owner spends twenty years fighting in court to get his property back, and the city is eventually forced to sell the land back to him...
http://www.southcentralfarmers.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=7
After nearly 20 years of uncertainty, the fate of these 14 acres in South Los Angeles was finally decided in court earlier this month. The land, known as the South Central Community Garden, must be turned over to its owner, who plans to build a warehouse on it.... Horowitz, who has been through a legal odyssey of his own,...has a string of court victories to back him.... The land has been mired in dispute since the mid-1980s, when the city used its legal powers to forcefully buy the property from Horowitz.
But in the meantime, local residents have been using the land as a community garden. They call on government officials to again seize the land by eminent domain...
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/SCF_eviction_notice.pdf
We are calling on Congressman Xavier Becerra, Speaker of the California Assembly, Fabian Nuñez, County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and the whole city council to 1) nullify the sale with Ralph Horowitz, or 2) take the land by eminent domain
So Glenn, do you support eminent domain if farmers want to seize a developer's privately owned land (not Walmart's btw)?
I feel the need to throw my two cent's worth into this discussion. At stake here is the basis of liberty: when is it appropriate and morally justified to bring the force of government to bear upon an individual?
It doesn't matter one whit whether the property owner is to be dispossessed by force to open the way for a Wal-Mart warehouse, a community garden, or a strip club, he has still been deprived of his legally purchased property against his will by force of government acting on behalf of another private party. That is flat-out wrong. Moreover, he will likely be paid what government wishes to pay, not a price attractive to him; he will certainly receive absolutely nothing for lost future income/profit/enjoyment, which is the reason he bought it in the first place, or for the time, effort, and expenses incurred to reinvest the proceeds.
So, the property owner has spent his time selecting the property in which he has invested, has spent his money buying it and having his warehouse plans drawn up,and then everything stops because the strip club pimp convices (or bribes) the city council that he will pay more taxes than the warehouse would, or because a bunch of neighborhood gardeners really like the idea of having the use of productive land they have no investment in and pay no taxes on, and convice the city council that they would look like heros in the press if they "acquire" the land for the continued use of these poor urban minority wanna-be farmers. Where is the equal protection under the law in that? Where is the justice? Can we fool ourselves any longer into believing that we actually "own" something when it can be transferred to another private party against our will at any time? What would the Founders say? My guess is they'd say it's time for a revolution!
I have to admit I didn't dig as far into the story as you did, Bart. I saw the current issue, not the previous issue so in light of more knowledge I still have to say-- No I'm not conflicted on my views, just not completely informed --the issues are the same although the person who has been wronged is a different one at a different time than indicated in the original posting.
I agree with Harry -- stealing is stealing whether from the farmers or from Mr. Horowitz. Apparently this would make the farmers guilty of wanting to keep the property stolen originally by the city which is still the issue. Government is still the guilty party - they not only stole the property - they gave it to someone else making them losers because of their actions also.
Ok, I wasn't sure what your position was, now it's clear.
I don't particularly agree with your last statement though. I don't see that the gardeners have lost anything. On the contrary, they gained 13 years use of the land for absolutely free. Now that past wrongs are being righted, they are pulling out all the stops in order to get further advantage. The city has offered the use of other parcels as a new location for the garden. According to the L.A. Times article, one was rejected by the gardeners because of nearby transmission lines. It seems they would rather pretend to be oppressed and downtrodden instead of accepting a reasonable solution.
I can agree with you on that -- there are a lot of different angles to consider - sometimes what you first see is not the whole issue.
In reality if they worked at it, each of the farmers could grow enough food for their own families on a very small lot, back yard or possibly rooftop container garden. Apartments may pose a challenge but something can even be done there.
I suppose not all of them have over a foot of dirt on their roof. :-/
Here's a link to another article on land use - this one involving former Beatle Paul McCartney... interesting, whatever your views might be.
PAUL McCARTNEY: A VICTIM OF HIS OWN GIBBERISH (http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom46.htm)
Phew...Bart you and I think the same way...I thought something might be wrong with me ;D
I suppose this was a bad example of what is wrong with eminent domain once more of the issues have been brought to the front.
I am not totally against eminent domain as it originally stood - I don't like what it did to long time family property etc. but can see how it could benefit everyone to have for example a cross town freeway - but only as long as the public - reperesented but their humble servant, the government, paid the person fair market value or trade on the property at the value of similar properties that were not condemned reducing its value - or trade for equal value etc. The owner should not be a loser just because the public wants their land.
The new developer maximum tax revenue generation eminent domain. as ruled by the supreme court is just plain wrong. That is the one I have a real problem with - example or not.
According to this article, the previous owner was paid $4.7 million by the city so they could build a garbage incinerator.
That was a NIMBY, even for that area, so eventually the project morphed into the community garden. All the gardeners are officially below the poverty level, and it has become a truly successful community garden, growing mostly food.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/3/7/145627/2798
QuoteBut the birth of a thriving, productive community garden wasn't the only thing that changed in the area after the King riots. In the 1990s, the city of Los Angeles dropped a cool $2 billion building out the Alameda Corridor, "a modern rail and big-truck super-pipeline from the Port of Los Angeles straight through the warehouses of South L.A. and Vernon," Kuipers writes. And that made the once-depressed warehouse district an important hub for big-box retailers to organize the booming influx of goods from points west, including China. In turn, South Central land suddenly became very valuable.
In his dealings with the city in the 1980s, Horowitz had retained right of first refusal if the city ever decided to sell the land. In 2003, he successfully sued to force the city to sell it back to him for $5 million --a figure many observers find extremely low, given the city had a few years earlier valued it at $13 million. Since then, he's been wrangling to evict the farmers from the land, a goal he looks set to reach on March 13.
Well, I may see this issue come up very close to home in the next several years. The city council here have been disclosing their plans to build a new interstate bypass/access road,whatever ya want to call it, starting from the south side of town on US 51, then it would curve around town and end up on the northeast corner to lock into US 72, about a mile from my property here. If it goes as planned, I can guarantee you there will be folks forced into some pretty ugly situations.
Yes. But if you could sell your property for a gas station, it might be wonderful! :-/ If multiple gas stations in an area are going to be going concerns by the time they get around to doing it.
In Nashville, the wonderful idea was to split neighborhoods in the black community for the interstate. Ten years later I was in those areas talking to people in some of the split areas. Still not happy.
I keep thinking that all these people who are gung ho for interstate access, or making US 64 four lane all the way across Tennessee are going to be unhappy about having spent all that money fifteen years from now. But the powers that be are still thinking "all we need is more highways and there will be development--we'll all be rich." Somehow I don't think it's going to work that way. Nothing special about 15 years, though.
But then Judith Moffett's Ragged World is one of my favorite books.
I love the intelligence on this forum. :)
"Whatever Happened to Justice (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0942617460/sr=8-1/qid=1141948368/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-8820292-1223249?%5Fencoding=UTF8)", by Richard J. Maybury is probably the most readable legal history book ever written.
It cleared away a lot of legal fog for me...
Maybury says there are really just two laws that the whole legal system is derived from:
• "Do all you have agreed to do" (the basis of contract law)
• "Do not encroach on other persons or their property" (tort and criminal law)
Eminent Domain is about encroachment and the whole big issue of when does "the public" have the right to encroach on what the owner thinks of as private property.
I'd echo John's recommendation of Richard Maybury's books. He offers a very clear explanation of legal, economic, and political issues, which are all inextricably intertwined. And, the books are short! The longest one I've seen is around 230 pages, the others are 100-150.
On the original thread, in order to avoid abuse of power, it seems as if an action to exercise the power of eminent domain should have to satisfy some prerequisite tests. Among them might be:
Is there a clear and present, specific public need for the project the proposed condemnation will expedite?
Will the project be publicly owned and maintained during its useful life?
Will the project be of direct benefit to the public, like a road, bridge, etc., or only indirect, by providing increased revenue to government? (I could argue that increased government revenue is likely the greatest of all threats to our liberty! Maybe the best route to the Founder's ideal of limited government is through limiting gov't. revenue!)
Do practical alternatives exist that would confer the benefits of the project without the need for condemnation?
Examples: In the last several years, property has been condemned for the widening of Hwy.99, the main N-S artery through this area. It would be very hard for a reasonable person to argue against the need for the project after observing current traffic conditions and local demographic trends, so a compelling public need can be demonstrated. There is a direct public benefit, in that all can use the road. It will be owned and maintained by the government for public use, and no approach to satisfying the specific public need exists that would not require condemnation.
Conversely, a few years ago, the City of Merced condemned a large tract of land along 99 for the building of a privately-owned auto mall. One of the victims was a long-time locksmith who had just completed a large, new, state-of-the-art plant for his business. He fought the action and lost. Although he was compensated according to the rules, he was unable to replace what he had with what he was paid. The ordeal nearly ruined him emotionally as well as financially, and he no longer has any employees. Here, the case can be made that the government acted to enrich one private party at the expense of another, that no specific clear and present public need existed, that insufficient direct public benefit resulted from the action to justify it, and that viable alternatives existed.
The recent SCOTUS decision concerning eminent domain is nothing less than scandalous, and to me marks a new low in american jurisprudence. It clearly tramples upon an individual's rights of property, and his basic right to be left alone by government unless he breaks the law. It is, as Glenn pointed out, a prescription for the corruption of those controlling the levers of power. This is a question that screams out for reconsideration. The only question is, how much damage will we have to suffer before we come to our senses?
Sorry, Harry -- you're not supposed to question things like that, per the stated goals of our education system and the powers that be. :-/ :)
http://www.thememoryhole.org/edu/school-mission.htm
It is going to be interesting reading about this period of history. I just hope to be around long enough to see some objectivity develop.
I think if you listen to everything that is going on now, you will see that history is being re-written as we speak. Make it more pleasing to the ears of the masses. Tell a lie often enough--they will believe it. Later you will be able to take your pick of history any way you want to see it. If there was only some way of being sure of getting the true history, but it hasn't happened in the past --why would it now. All that is left of the true history of most ancient civilizations are the questions of why they actually failed. The real true details of why they failed were probably hidden and obscured just as they are being today.
Just as we can learn from true history, so can we apply results of the current events that we see today --greed, lust for power and money -corruption- self righteousness---- and we can assume that these also are part of the causes of the failures of the ancient civilizations.
Nota Bene
(I had to find a place to put it in somewhere!)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php
When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.
The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.
"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.
Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.
"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."
This is one of those subjects I have to tap dance around, on account of my blood pressure.
I liked Harry's precis of the subject, and particularly agree that tightening the purse strings a bit might reign 'em in some.
This will never happen as long as the electorate is composed in great part of the ignorant and indigent, whose rallying cry is "Gimmee, gimmee". Universal sufferage has resulted in an explosion of entitlements for the least common denominator such that no legislator, comfortably ensconced in what often appears a sinecure sine qua non, would dare suggest a return to a time when one worked or did without, or relied inpart on the kindness of friends, family, and charitable institutions, as applicable.
On the other side of the aisle are the fatcat neo-robber barons who see nothing wrong with the status quo as long as their record profit taking and tax sheltered fortunes continue.
I admit to some bias and bitterness about the whole idea of "Right of eminent domain", as the family farm in New Jersey was sacrificed to the failed Tocks Island dam project.
Glenn's point about history is interesting in that there are a number of seeming parallels between the current state of the U.S. and the Roman Empire in the period before its disolution.
It's good to be a barbarian!
I love your choice of words, Billy Bob. You, Amanda and Harry have my brain smoking. Lucky I have Google.
On the Hi Speed train in France several years ago, a French professor type kept telling Kathy and I to move because he had reserved all the seats in the area for his students. It seemed he was trying to impress his students with his manliness. I had a bag so big I could hardly carry it. He kept standing in my way telling me to move. I was putting up with his spouting off until he wised off to Kathy.
I said in an extremely loud voice (OK - so I yelled), "If you don't shut up and get out of the way so we can move I'll hit you over the head with this f*****g bag. We are barbarians from America." He whines --"I was just trying to talk to you in your own language."
His students were cracking up -probably early college students, and several of them broke into the "America"
song from Westside Story. It seemed they didn't like him either and I became an instant hero.
We stumbled with our luggage to the next car. So much for my fine example of my education. :-/
I've seen this in our neck of the woods. It seems that the Dallas Cowboys have more rights than a neighborhood full of tax payers. It seems that more taxes will be paid by the Cowboy franchise than the existing home owners. These home owners will have to try and purchase a new home else ware with the limited funds they received. I feel this is making a dangerous precedent. Since when has football become more important then land owners rights.
This is truly a sad day for folks. Greed is truly the word of the day
>:( >:( >:( >:( :'(
Picture this... The Dallas Cowboy game lets out...
The new stadium will hold 75,000 people
There are ALWAYS drunken fans leaving the stadium.
What is less than a mile away from the stadium?
Six Flags over Texas Theme Park!
Let[ch8217]s be conservative. 50.000 fans and only .01% are under the influence and driving home.
That is 5 intoxicated drivers within 1 mile of a family amusement park.
I know The Texas Ranger Ballpark is right next to the Six Flags Parking lot. But that is a totally
different crowd. And there are always problems when the Ranger games let out.
I am not an activist,
Just sad that safety of my childhood playground has been compromised by greed.
Government is a big pusher of sports in schools and other ways - Dubya was even set up with a team if I recall correctly. It is a massive distraction from what they are up to and encourages people to unwittingly pledge their support to a team or cause without questioning the values of the team or leadership they are following--not just speaking of sports. Pick one, no special reason --maybe the home team --cheer for it --fight for it--drink for it --fill the sports bars for it-- support commerce for it---spend your money for it --get drunk for it --- run off the road for it-- ruin your car for it- get thrown into jail for it --bet on it--- lose on it. Unquestioning support- no matter what the cause or why. Yea, team!!!! It makes it easy to get an unknowing public to support a broken system.
I suppose there will be others who don't agree with me. :-/ :)
That's one of the things I meant about parallels with Ancient Rome, Glenn. The Roman senate instituted a program of free bread and circuses, (NOT the kind with cute animal acts and clowns... gladiators!), to distract the populus from noticing what the government was up to. Georgious Caesar? Naw, couldn't happen! [smiley=undecided.gif] [smiley=undecided.gif]
QuoteMaybe the best route to the Founder's ideal of limited government is through limiting gov't. revenue!
Didn't work with the Bush administration. Tax cuts went hand in hand with a ballooning budget.
QuotePick one, no special reason --maybe the home team --cheer for it --fight for it
As The Onion put it, "you will suffer humiliation when the sports team from my area defeats the sports team from your area." I've never understood why fans are so loyal to a sports
corporationteam just because it happens to be based in their town.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33426
QuoteQuote from harry51 on Mar 12th, 2006, 2:23pm:
Maybe the best route to the Founder's ideal of limited government is through limiting gov't. revenue!
Here's a link to a short & sweet :o synopsis of the Federal Reserve Cartel... read it at your own risk :'(
Federal Reserve (http://www.worldnewsstand.net/book/enemywithin/contents.htm)
I'm currently reading the long version -
Creature From Jekyll Island - I thought the book I just read about Enron was bad, but this will knock your socks off!
Another good resource on the central banks & international banking (Bank of International Settlements, International Monetary Fund) August Review (http://www.augustreview.com/user.php)
No wonder the economy is in the mess it is. Guess I've been a bit naive & uninformed... :-/
Quote from harry51 on Mar 12th, 2006, 2:23pm:
Maybe the best route to the Founder's ideal of limited government is through limiting gov't. revenue!
Kathy, I read that book years ago after meeting Ed Griffin at a meeting where he was the speaker, and haven't found my socks yet! With reference to controlling gov't through reduced revenue, I was thinking at the local level. It's true, it won't work at the federal level because they don't and can't depend on revenue to fund their current agenda. Taxes are just a way for politicians to direct our spending/investments in the direction that will do them the most good (read: toward their political allies). The truth is, they just can't take enough away from us by force to make ends meet, and still keep most people docile. (Glenn, note I stipulated "most people"!)
Instead, they use the fiat currency system, personified by the federal reserve system, which, btw, is totally private and for profit, not federal or public, to create all the currency and credit they want when they want it. The most obvious effects are the dilution of the savings we have all worked so hard to put away (diminished buying power over time), and constantly rising prices in general.
An unconfirmed rumor posits that JFK had refused to sign the bill renewing the federal reserve franchise on the currency, instead kicking control back to the Treasury, and that the first official act of LBJ, performed on the airplane immediately after being sworn in as President, was to sign that bill. Is there any truth to it? Who knows? We do know the "money power" tried to assassinate Andrew Jackson for similar reasons.........
I haven't done the math, but it would be interesting to compare the total taxes collected last year with the dollar cost of prosecuting the Iraq war in 2005. Chances are the bills will be coming in, figuratively speaking, for a long, long, time, regardless of the actual need for the war.
Unfortunately, wars are not the only excuse for inflating the currency supply beyond what would truly represent the increase (if any) in the goods and services available in the economy across a given period of time; social programs work the same way. It's smoke and mirrors, it's a huge source of the power available to politicians, and it's one of the biggest hammers they hold over our heads to make us keep working for them whether we like it or not.
QuoteInstead, [politicians] use the fiat currency system, personified by the federal reserve system, which, btw, is totally private and for profit, not federal or public, to create all the currency and credit they want when they want it.
One the one hand you criticize the Fed for being private, on the other hand you criticize it for being completely subject to government control (in the same sentence no less). The Fed was structured the way it is in order to prevent politicians from meddling with the economy. Yes, the Reserve Banks are "private" in some senses. Commercial banks are required by law to purchase "shares" in the Reserve Banks, but that doesn't give them control. The Fed is governed by a board of governors who are appointed by the President. Once appointed, it is difficult for the government to remove them, which keeps the Fed independent from government manipulation. That doesn't mean the Fed can do whatever it wants. Its actions are governed by statute, it has to report to government twice a year, and if the government really didn't like the job the Fed was doing, it could rewrite the statute. The Fed's main mandate is to keep the economy running smoothly, which means keeping enough cash in circulation to facilitate economic transactions while avoiding excessive inflation.
Yes, the Fed does make a profit. By generating a profit it can be self-funding. That means it does not depend on government for funding, which again keeps it safe from government coersion. Any surplus does not go to the private member banks, it goes back to the government.
And no, the government cannot generate unlimited amounts of money for itself just by printing more. The money supply is controlled by the Fed, whose operations are purposely protected from government interference. Even if the government could, it doesn't. Over the past 5 years the money supply (M1, i.e. cash) has increased by $300 billion, or about $60 billion per year. That does go to government but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the $2000 billion it collects in taxes, the $500 billion it borrows and the $2500 billion it spends.
But lets pretend the government can print as much new money as it wants. If the government did get greedy and started printing trillions of new dollar bills, the effects would be... 1. massive inflation (which the Fed is mandated by law to suppress)... 2. As a result the dollar loses all its value... 3. Economy grinds to halt, major recession if not depression begins... 4. Tax revenues dry up as a result... 5. Government treasuries and bonds become worthless, royally p**sing off everyone who has lent the government its $8000 billion debt... 6. Because of that, no one will be willing to lend the government any more money (current deficit about $500 billion).
So, by turning on the printing presses the government would risk $2000 billion in tax revenue and $500 billion in borrowing. What would they gain? There is $1400 billion cash in circulation. That is the most government could gain, and it barely covers half a year's worth of spending.
QuoteThe most obvious effects are the dilution of the savings we have all worked so hard to put away (diminished buying power over time), and constantly rising prices in general.
It's true that inflation erodes the value of cash and can be viewed as a tax on cash. But it's easy to avoid just by not holding cash. Cash is intended to facilitate transactions, not to be a store of wealth. Keep your savings in cash in your mattress or in a bank account and your wealth will decrease over time. But put your savings into real assets and it will be protected from inflation. You can keep your wealth in real estate, stocks, bonds, precious metals, collectibles, etc. Those assets do not lose value due to inflation.
I guess since I started the discussion on the Federal Reserve - I should comment - I am still studying the issues. Harry, were you on the debate team in school? I'll have to look at the yearbooks... Bart, you must have been on the debate team, also! You both have me convinced. :-/ I have always been for private enterprise & the free market, but I think, from what I see going on in the world & from what I have read so far, the international banking interests, which are made up of the nations' central banks of which the Federal Reserve is a member, are basically controlling the economies. If I understand things right, this would make the politicians "beholden" to private banking interests whose bottom line is profit. If there are no national interests, only profit interests, where is their allegience? (looks like foreign interests own more of our country than its citizens due to the deficit.)
Thomas Jefferson said: "If we run into such [government] debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-suffers."
I have also read about Andrew Jackson's fight to get rid of the central bank in the United States. Originally, the US Constitution called for only Congress to print money & that had to be backed by gold & silver, so you couldn't print more paper money than what you had in precious metals to back it up. That money could then be loaned out at interest, therefore earning a profit to pay for running the gov't instead of levying heavy taxes on its citizens.
The Federal Reserve uses fractional banking, which means that they loan out most of what has been put in reserve, so the name "Federal Reserve" is a misnomer. At this stage in the game, it is questionable as to whether there is any reserve at all, since, in some of my reading, it is speculated that they loan out 97% of what they take in (probably more) - but the real :o is the Federal Reserve Bank has never been audited (they also don't pay taxes on their profits!) Supposedly the United States has 800+ million ounces of gold in Fort Knox? But that hasn't been audited either.
This all may be elementary to you... I took an economics class in college but dropped it as I had to study too hard ::) ---girls just want to have fun ;D ---- anyway, I'm now trying to understand the way things work. I know this started out on eminent domain - economics are a big part of the equation, so that's why the interest in it.
Which, brings me to another controversial subject :o National Heritage Areas & Corridors. Are we selling our communities out? At the same time, losing our property rights? I realize this isn't a political forum but if we don't have any property rights, all the discussion about building is moot... :( Any info or thoughts on that?
Interesting discussion. Bart does a good job of explaining the Federal Reserve system.
One point I'd make - profit is not a four letter word. Profit is a by-product of smart economic action. There has long been a thread of thinking (strongest in the Muslim world but also at the foundation of Marxism) that profit is somehow "bad" >:(- IE: a product of greed and selfishness - and most importantly is something taken at someone else's expense.
Nonsense - this is zero sum thinking and is not aligned with the economic environment (which is just as natural as the physical environment and has its own "rules of nature"). Most all natural systems evolve by non-zero sum interactions - sometimes called co-evolution or altruistic self-interest. There are lots of examples in nature and society and the economic system, where everyone is essentially doing each others laundry is a prime example of this higher function. For more information see NonZero (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679758941/sr=8-1/qid=1142707362/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6667468-3786400?%5Fencoding=UTF8), by Robert Wright.
Profit is not a taking but a necessary "expense" of the system. In open economic systems this expense is quickly minimized by competition and innovation.
Profit is the automatic feedback of an open economic system telling the pilot or operator (business person) that they are doing the right thing and flying into an uplifting current. When the opposite (losses) are encountered the pilot must quickly readjust to maintain lift and keep the business airborne.
When an economic system is working properly there are many planes in the air at once going many different directions. All are automatically adjusting to the currents and to each other. The role of government is not to tell the pilots when to go up or down or even when to take off or land, but to insure that as many planes as safely possible can be in the air at the same time.
The Soviets tried to run everything from the control tower with pilots being only bored robots. We know how well that worked - very few planes were in the air and they tended to fly poorly and burn a lot of fuel.
Problems happen (to all natural systems) when too much control is vested in one entity in what would otherwise be a self-balancing interplay of smaller competing organisms or forces. At this point the overly powerful entity can change the rules in their favor and start to control the natural system. In business this shows up as cartels and monopolies. Windfall profits themselves are not the issue since they could just be a strong uplift feedback. But excessive profits over extended periods of time are often an indicator of monopolistic practices and "unnatural" control over markets.
Then government should play its oversight role and step in to re-level the playing field.
There are some things government has to try to monopolize because it can't be done by a free and natural economic system:
• Violence is the big one. Government has to have a police force that will monopolize and stamp out unauthorized violence. This force must earn the faith of the people that they can be expected to have their rights protected. If this faith breaks down you have warlords and anarchy. This is tied into Justice below.
• Outside encroachment - this is what armies are there to stop. Some would argue (and I would agree) that the military in the U.S. is not so much interested in the defense of the nation - that is only the poster boy rhetoric - but is now used as the hammer of foreign policy and to protect markets. This is not its proper purpose.
• Justice - the governed must have faith in a system of impartial justice that all - citizens, businesses and government - must abide by. Americans have more faith in their justice system than most counties. Just look at the largely voluntary and honest system where people decide how much money to pay the government for taxes. In countries such as Iraq we can see difficult it is to build faith in such a system where none existed before.
• Roads, communications, power grids, and other large infrastructure projects. Most of this people are willing to pay taxes for or want it privatized. (Which can work if oversight is free from interference.)
QuoteOne the one hand you criticize the Fed for being private, on the other hand you criticize it for being completely subject to government control (in the same sentence no less).
The point of my comment was simple, the federal reserve is not federal in the sense that it is a department of the federal gov't. My experience is that this is a commonly held misconception. No criticism for being private was intended, only for using a name that seems to me misleading. As far as the reference to "for profit" goes, it was included as another distinction between a private business and a public not-for-profit institution. Profit is largely responsible for the abundance we all enjoy, most of which probably would not exist without that motivation. It's a win/win situation when the profit is earned through a transparent, honest, voluntary transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. Unfortunately, the transactions between the people of this country and their gov't, and between the people of this country and the Fed, often don't qualify as win/win, and it's not the man on the street with the smoke and mirrors. The ability to create currency and credit out of thin air confers incredible power. Power corrupts. Corruption has eventually destroyed every fiat currency system in history. Maybe the Fed will be the first to rise above human frailty. Maybe.
I hate politics as much as I distrust politicians :o
A necessary evil I guess ::)
This long C&P might interest some of you and does touch on parts of all that has been bantered about .
http://www.afr.org/mission.cfm%20
God I got to go build something , I feel dirty :-[
PEG
Good article PEG. See --I'm a true friend -- I'll still talk to you in your soiled condition. :)
The only problem I see with any of this is that too many people are still trying to fix the system with bandaids. Too many people still believe the system is fixable. There will never be enough support for a party capable of fixing the system because team spirit will not allow them to support a non-corrupt party. Any serious contenders, with the possibility of doing good will be destroyed by one of the two current corrupt parties ie: John John Kennedy. The system must fail just like ancient Rome -- everyone must end up in the gutter and only the strongest will be able to crawl out. Survival of the fittest. The ones who have spent their lives being supported by the system, welfare dependents, government employees, politicians will be left floundering, victims of the excesses they have supported. When their support system has failed they will be lost. Benevolent working class members will be so busy caring for their own, they will be unable to take care of the leeches, picking them off like the parasites they are and throwing them off onto the ground to wither and die or be consumed by the roving masses of carrion eaters.
I call it the Glenn driving a junk truck theory. Doors banged in --it still moves --
tail light's broken --enough red showing -not a problem. Leaks oil out the bottom--pour more in the top. I will keep it going until a catastrophic failure because in that way I can still get more other toys. Pure greed and lust for other material things causes me to continue to patch the old thing up. When it drops me on the street and is a broke down worthless shell, I will consider replacing it. Until that day, I will continue to add the patches in the hope that it will last forever. Only when the harsh reality strikes---when I finally realize that it is a broken down, beat up piece of crap and it is not going to take me any farther, when all my worldly friends abandon me because they don't want to associate with a guy who will even ride in a piece of junk like that, -------then I will replace it.
Cool, eh???? I just felt like pursuing an abstract idea for your enjoyment. :)
Lets go build something, PEG. ;D
John,
[size=16]I LIKE PROFITS!!![/size] I also like living in a country with a good infrastructure (roads, services ie my job as a nurse in a Veterans Adm Hosp.) I like living in a safe environment but not in a
[size=16]police state[/size] so feel I can be a good citizen by keeping informed on current events, knowing what my constitutional rights are, protecting them & also being a good neighbor.
QuoteGood article PEG. See --I'm a true friend -- I'll still talk to you in your soiled condition. :)
The ones who have spent their lives being supported by the system, welfare dependents, government employees, politicians will be left floundering, victims of the excesses they have supported. When their support system has failed they will be lost. Benevolent working class members will be so busy caring for their own, they will be unable to take care of the leeches, picking them off like the parasites they are and throwing them off onto the ground to wither and die or be consumed by the roving masses of carrion eaters.
;D
(by the way, Peg, I joined the AFR organization... great article)
Gee Glenn, I hope you are part of the benevolent working class since my "federal gov't" job will have disappeared.... ;) will you take care of me?
As my good friend, PEG always says,
(https://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d184/glennkangiser/glenn-depends.gif)
I should probably clarify my above statements -- referring to leeches was from an article by Murray N. Rothbard stating that there are two ways of making income. Producing goods -having a tangible product. The other way is political leeching off of the producers.
From Rothbard's The Anatomy of The State (http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp)
QuoteThe great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the above way of production and exchange, he called the "economic means." The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another's goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed "the political means" to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy in production is the "natural" path for man: the means for his survival and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic, for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it. The "political means" siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer's incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply. But not only that; even in the short-run, the predator is acting contrary to his own true nature as a man.
I am not against working for the government as long as the system is working. You pay for it-- do your best to get your little piece of it back. I always encourage friends and family to get a gravy train job if it is to their advantage. There -- I put my foot in it again -- ::) :)
Here are a few more interesting quotes:
1862: By April $449,338,902 worth of Lincoln's debt free money had been printed and distributed. He went on to state, "We gave the people of this republic the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper money to pay their own debts."
That same year The Times of London publishes a story containing the following statement, "If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce.
It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
1881: President James A. Garfield (The 20th President of the United States who lasted only 100 Days) states two weeks before he was assassinated,
"Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce...and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."
1913: Congressman Charles Lindbergh stated following the passing of the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, "The Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this Bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized.......The greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
Again, the privately owned Federal Reserve does NOT pay any taxes on their profits! Is that what is called "Corporate Welfare"?
So what does it all mean? :-/
There was an interesting article in today's local paper about the whole "Eminent Domain" issue. There are a couple of legislative attempts being made here in Connecticut to limit or wholly abolish the usage of "Eminent Domain" protocols to seize property when the sole purpose is "economic developement". One bill would require stringent proofs that the real purpose is to benefit the community, and not feather somebody's nest. Along with that, it would require payment of 150% of the fair market value of the property.
The other bill would prevent the seizure of property under the "economic developement" theory all together.
Will (some) sanity prevail in the Nutmeg State?
[smiley=shocked.gif] [smiley=shocked.gif]
Nice to see some trying to come to their senses -thanks for the good news, Billy Bob. I hope they follow through with it.
Just read that March 20, 1968 was the date that the United States went off the Gold Standard...
Harry, my apologies for misinterpreting your comments. I read too much into that Griffin reference.
QuoteBy April $449,338,902 worth of Lincoln's debt free money had been printed and distributed.
Sassy, I truly hope you don't share the views of whoever wrote that "article". Anyways, it suggests that Lincoln struck a blow against the big banks by printing his own money when he was not able to borrow more to finance the Civil War. The "debt-free" claim is wrong. Lincoln's greenback was backed by debt just as it is now...
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1428&id=71
QuoteThe Legal Tender Act authorized the issue of $150 million in government currency and a bond issue of $500 million. The notes, soon known as "Greenbacks," were made legal tender for all private debts, receivable by the government for taxes and land sales (but not import duties), and were fundable into the bonds.
And as for striking a blow against bankers...
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/economichistory/presimoney.html
QuoteAnother important consequence of Lincoln's term was the creation of a new, quasi-centralized, fractional reserve banking system. This laid the groundwork for the Federal Reserve System, which was eventually established in 1913. The National Banking Act of 1863 forever ended the federal government's separation from banking. Lincoln built upon the Federalist/Whig policy of central banking, implanting the soft-money tradition permanently in the United States.
John's economy to airplanes analogy can be extended to the design of the planes. Once in a while, someone will design a plane that flies very well, outperforming all existing planes. Competitors copy the new design, maybe tweaking it a bit for even better performance. Occasionally a plane will crash. Someone may investigate the crash and discover that it was caused by a defect that can corrected, resulting in a better design. Over time, the economy "learns" how to design better performing and safer airplanes.
If that Times article quote is true, people of 1860 believed that real wealth could be created just by printing money. I doubt they were
that naive (and so I doubt the quote is real), but it is still clear that the country's leaders had a lot to learn about the money supply and running an economy...
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1428&id=71
QuoteThe consequences of the legal tender law and emission of irredeemable notes were such as any economist would have expected. First, it destroyed American credit abroad. Foreigners dumped their holdings of American bonds and would not buy the war bonds. Second, it drove specie out of the country, much of it going to pay for the augmented imports incident to an inflated currency. Third, they depreciated. Fourth, the Treasury printed more.
Now we know that printing excess money is inflationary and that it ruins a country's credit rating. When the Fed was created, it was set up at arm's length from government to prevent abuse from politicians who forget those lessons from history. That is not to say that all the lessons have been learned. There will be times when the Fed doesn't react quickly enough to an economic crisis, and there will be other times when it over-reacts. Hopefully those lessons don't cause too much pain.
QuoteAgain, the privately owned Federal Reserve does NOT pay any taxes on their profits!
That is because, first, it isn't really private, it is an independent agency of government much like the Supreme Court is; and second, any surplus it generates goes back to the government treasury!
Thanks, Bart, for all your scholarly research. I'll have to look at the sites you've posted. I have a question, if all the profits go back into the treasury, how does the Fed make money? Have you read any articles on banking from the August Review site?
http://www.augustreview.com/index.php Just wondering what you think of them, you seem to be pretty well read on all of this. I worked in a bank for 10 years & although I took some classes on banking, etc, never really used the info for more than helping me with my job. I like to read all sides of the argument, then, hopefully, I get to the truth? :-/ I especially like links to info backing up the claims. Glenn keeps telling me, "where's the proof, where's the citation? - Bart's gonna call you on it... " ;)
Hi Sassy, I'll have a look at the August Review site, I don't know anything about it. Mises is a very libertarian organization. I used that as a source because I know Glenn has quoted from them in the past, and the fellow he quotes above, Murray Rothbard, has written for the site as well, arguing for a gold-backed currency and abolition of the central bank... http://www.mises.org/story/1503
The other quote actually references a publication of the Cato Institute... //www.cato.org (I couldn't find the source document on the Cato site though, hence the link to the other site). I'm not as familiar with Cato, but they claim that "the Institute is named for Cato's Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution."
Since both you and Glenn seem quite libertarian, I thought it would be best to refer to libertarian sources. I consider myself libertarian as well, but definitely not to the extent that Mises (or at least some of their writers) advocates (multiple and competing private police departments, a privatized army, multiple governments, etc). But even though I don't agree with everything they suggest, at least I know that they have a very good understanding of history, government, and economics. By comparison, Griffin just comes across as a quack. I don't know if he believes it himself or if he's just trying to sell his book, but he doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of either economic theory or fact.
For example, he spends a lot of time dwelling on the "Mandrake Mechanism", which economists call the money multiplier. According to Griffin, the money multiplier is the result of having a central bank and "fiat" money. It's not. The multiplier exists even if there is no central bank and the only cuurency consists of minted gold ducats. Someone has 100 gold ducats and deposits them in a bank. The bank promises to pay interest. To generate the interest, pay for the bank's own overhead, and generate a profit for itself, the bank has to loan part of the gold out again. They might keep 10% of deposits in reserve to handle withdrawals by other customers, so they loan out only 90 ducats. The borrower spends the 90 ducats on a horse, and the horse trader deposits the 90 ducats in his account. Keeping 9 in reserve, the bank has 81 ducats to lend out again, which will generate the interest to pay the horse trader plus some profit for the bank. So the result is that having 100 ducats in circulation actually results in 100+90+81+72+... ducats extra in the money supply. They is really nothing magical about that, but Griffin would have us believe that the devious banks are making a profit "on nothing". (Interestingly, he never seems to mention the interest paid "on nothing" to depositors.)
On facts, Griffin claims that due to inflation, families now require two wage earners in order to match the standard of living of a one-income family of the seventies. He claims that real wages (i.e. inflation adjusted) have fallen when in fact they've been mostly flat. The reasons that two-income families may not feel much better off is that they have to pay for a second car and child care. They also pay more in taxes than a family of the seventies did. Lastly, the typical family of today chooses to live in a much larger house than the family of the seventies did (I've read somewhere that there are now 2.2 rooms per person versus 1.6 30 years ago). If you account for those factors, then inflation has not been an issue at all.
Conspiracy theories can be entertaining, but unfortunately they also cause people to focus on non-issues (inflation) while ignoring the real issues (high taxation, gross over-consumption). (Could it be that that is the real purpose of conspiracy theories??????? nahhhhhhhh)
As to how the Fed makes money... This is my understanding of where most of the money comes from but it may not be fully correct...
The Fed sets the reserve ratio. That is the 10% I used in the example above. The banks deposit that reserve, usually in the form of interest-earning bonds, into the Fed Reserve banks. So the Fed has the bonds and collects the interest, but it doesn't give the interest directly back to the banks who own the bonds. It first uses the interest to pay for its own salaries and expenses. With the leftover, it pays a dividend to the member banks (i.e. the bond owners). There is a limit on what it can pay out (set by the Act that governs it), so there may be a surplus. If there is, it can hold onto that surplus in order to pay its expenses and the dividend in following years. However, if the accumulated surplus grows large enough, a chunk of it will be transfered to the government. I don't know how often those transfers occur or how much it amounts to, but $3.75 billion was transferred in 2000.
Thanks Bart. You could say we are a combination constitutionalist/libertarian - I really like what the site Peg posted had to say. They made the most sense of all & seemed to espouse some workable solutions rather than extreme ideologies -- Recommending educating & bringing about a gradual change - like John has mentioned.
http://www.afr.org/mission.cfm
Quote from Bartholomew:
Quote(Interestingly, he never seems to mention the interest paid "on nothing" to depositors.)
Griffin would likely argue that the depositors are paid interest on deposits that they have earned by the sweat of their brow, and properly so, as opposed to the central bank collecting interest on currency they have created out of nothing.
Call it a conspiracy theory if you will, but it's indisputable that 1913 marked a sea change in the U.S. In that year, between the establishment of the central bank, the imposition of the graduated income tax, and the direct election of U.S. Senators, the balance of power shifted massively toward the Federal government. Convincing arguments have been made by Griffin and many others that this was, and continues to be, a major blow to liberty as envisioned by the founders.
I have to disagree that inflation is a non-issue. It must be factored into every investment decision we make, and the fact that it exists complicates everyone's life to some degree or another. What's the answer? I certainly don't claim to have a sure-fire solution to all the world's economic ills, but money that really is a store of value, that would relieve us of having to put our saved earnings at risk in the markets as we try to maintain their purchasing power, doesn't seem like asking for too much.
The AFR manifesto was a mixed bag for me, some interesting ideas and some goofy ones. I'll post more tomorrow if I get the chance.
I'm still studying the Federal Reserve/Central Banks etc & how they're effecting our economy the way they are currently run... I still think the August Review website is excellent for an overall picture of the various money systems that in place around the globe... their credo is: "Follow the Money...Follow the Power"
Here is a link to National Heritage Areas & Corridors (http://www.newswithviews.com/Morrison/joyce27.htm)
Again, this might sound like
Quote
Re: Sustainability
Reply #1 - Mar 20th, 2006, 11:53am Quote Quote
A bit frothing at the mouth, some of it, but interesting. I don't tend to believe that They are as organized or as good at planning as some of those articles would have it. Not that this makes Them nicer or less needing to be watched, of course.
(by the way, the quote is by Ailsa
But worth being aware of... anyone else know much about these?
I'm still studying the Federal Reserve/Central Banks etc & how they're effecting our economy the way they are currently run... I still think the August Review website is excellent for an overall picture of the various money systems that in place around the globe... their credo is: "Follow the Money...Follow the Power"
Here is a link to National Heritage Areas & Corridors (http://www.newswithviews.com/Morrison/joyce27.htm)
Again, this may sound like
Quote from Ailsa:
"A bit frothing at the mouth, some of it, but interesting. I don't tend to believe that They are as organized or as good at planning as some of those articles would have it. Not that this makes Them nicer or less needing to be watched, of course."
Nations, empires, kingdoms... have been built up & destroyed countless times throughout the ages, I think it is the legacy we leave that makes a difference... :-/ if I could remember some good song lyrics, I'd add them here :D
Sassy, you probably won't be surprised to learn that I don't think much of AFR's Pillar 1. Pillar 2 has more substance, and I agree with the general objectives.
Pillar #1 -- RESTORATION OF A "GOLD-ORIENTED" MONETARY SYSTEM
Obviously AFR and I disagree on whether currency needs to be backed by gold, and whether having a central bank helps or harms the economy. That's ok. My big problem with this pillar is that AFR is whitewashing history and twisting facts in order to support its argument:
QuoteHistory clearly teaches us that no stable, prosperous country can remain so very long if it leaves the control of its money supply up to the machinations of corruptible men in power at the government's Treasury and central bank. The temptation is simply too great for such men to promote excessive monetary expansion in order to create an illusion of prosperity so that the electorate will reward them with four more years in office.
Such temptation began in 1914 the minute the ink was dry on Congress' legal authorization of the Federal Reserve banking system. It was then greatly expanded with Roosevelt's confiscation of gold from Americans in 1933, along with his initiation of J.M Keynes' "new economics." This led to the disastrous spending policies and inflation-deflation cycles that we now endure.
AFR implies that America did not experience economic cycles or experience periods of severe inflation or deflation before 1913. That is just not true... there were severe economic "panics" in 1819, 1837 (leading to a 6-year long depression comparable to the depression of the 1930s), 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1907. The increase in gold following the California discoveries also led to significant price inflation. Aside from the 30's depression, the recessions since then have been relatively mild compared to those before the Fed was created. It is pretty widely accepted that the Fed bungled by contracting the money supply during the depression instead of increasing it. Since then, the Fed seems to have been pretty successful in reducing both the frequency and severity of downturns.
The theory that governments juice the economy before elections is not a new one; this is the "political business cycles" theory. However, the growth of the money supply does not show any pattern of regular increases on 4-year intervals. That is because the Fed controls it, not politicians. If politicians are juicing things, they are doing it by spending (using either tax dollars or borrowing).
QuoteThe Keynesian monetary philosophy of trying to increase demand with increases of fiat money is what led to the runaway inflation of the 1970's
The high inflation of the 70's was due to the OPEC oil price shocks of 1973 and 1979. There was also high inflation in 1813 (13.7%), 1863 (23.3%) and 1864 (27%). Those all topped the 13.5% of 1980, the year of highest inflation due to oil prices.
QuoteFor example, America's GDP increased over 500% in just the years 1870 to 1914, averaging 4.3% annual growth
AFR has cherry-picked a period when the largely agrarian economy was rapidly industrializing. There was the Civil War recovery, a boom in railroad construction, electrification, and great industrial expansion.
QuoteAs a result from 1915 to 2001, the CPI has risen 1,663% from 30 to 529.
That works out to an average 3.3% per year. Since WWII in particular, inflation has generally been held in the 1% to 4% range, excluding the oil shock inflation. I believe that a little bit of inflation is a small price to pay for that kind of stability, compared to the pretty wild oscillations from deflation to inflation and back of the 1800s.
Pillar #2 -- ENACTMENT OF AN "EQUAL RATE" TAX
I certainly agree that the income tax system should be simplified. I think it is wrong that the tax system has gotten so complex that most individuals can no longer really understand it, that it takes people hours to complete their returns, and that so many give up and turn to accountants to do it for them. I'm not sure that a flat tax is the best answer, but it could be.
The argument that a flat tax would help limit spending was interesting but I'm not convinced by it. There will always be some people who pay more in taxes than they get back in benefits, and others who benefit more than they pay. I don't think a flat tax will make anyone forget which category they fall into.
A shift from income tax to a consumption tax would be good economic policy. Taxing income reduces the incentive to work. Taxing consumption increases the incentive to save, especially for one's own retirement. I'd like to see income taxes shifted to consumption taxes to at least the extent that more was collected from consumption than from income.
However the tax system is arranged though, I would absolutely oppose disenfranchising the poor.
The Two Fundamental Third Party Mistakes
I think AFR has nailed the problems with previous alternatives. Badnarik came across as a nutjob to most Americans. However, I don't foresee AFR having a whole lot more success.
Sassy had to go to work for a few days, but I'm sure she'll be checking this out if she gets a break.
This is deep stuff, Bart. Is this a specialty for you or just a great interest?
Glenn, it used to be a job, years ago before I headed into something else, so now it's just an interest.
Ranchers recruiting help to block Pinon Canyon plan (http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1160640100/1)
"For the record, what the Army officially has requested is to expand the 235,000-acre training area by an additional 418,000 acres. Whose land they would purchase is not known because Army officials say no plan is final"
from the Pueblo Chieftan - Colorado 10/12/06
The state can take your dreams, too by Debra J. Saunders
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/15/EDG3IQ8JHE1.DTL
"JOHN REVELLI vividly remembers the day the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous Kelo decision that allowed local governments to condemn private property under eminent domain, not only for public uses such as roads and schools, but also to accommodate private developers. "The Kelo decision," the former owner of Revelli Tires in Oakland noted over the phone, "that came out on June 23 of '05, and the deadline that the city put up against us to move out was July 1." The 5-4 ruling spelled curtains for Revelli Tires.
The U.S. Constitution states, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The big bench wrongly ruled that "public use" could be whatever states want it to be -- including private developments designed to expand the tax base. The ruling allowed the City of New London, Conn., to seize the land under Susette Kelo's "little pink cottage" and hand it over to a private developer for a development featuring high-end waterfront homes. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
RSS Feed White House News
Fact sheet Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy con't at link above...
What does this mean? Who are they talking about? US citizens! What type of contributions to what organizations do they mean? Anything that doesn't agree with Bush & Cheney?