Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_21/b3834001_mz001.htm

Who put on the pants in your house.

... in response to Great article about boys and men, posted by wsbill on May 16, 2003

Bill - good link with gets me going, and I will have a tie-in to FSU with the comment below.  I will try to not inflame the skirt wearing liberals on this board as much as possible with this post - but sometimes the truth must be told.  We men have been giving away the farm for far too long.  This country was built by men with real women at their side, with real values, women who knew their role and their place.  Since the 1960's our government has set out on a course, whether intentional or not, of doing what they can to make boys girls and girls boys.  What we are seeing today is the fruit of our government's policy.  

What will end up happening here is what happened, for what I believe is different reasons, in the Former Soviet Union, where women became as a group highly educated and men shunned school - forcing the most valued jobs in society to be male dominated.  With it came the collapse of their society, although too much government emphasis on guns and not butter did play a role.  Those were the roots of their problem - albeit in a different way - but very similar roots of the problems we see today.  We see that here already.  As women move to the legal, medical and other professions requiring a "higher" level of education the salaries for these professions go down.  Men migrate to other professions where they can be men.  Business, where men can be men is still luckily dominated by men.  Construction / Contracting work - especially really dangerous construction work will increase in salary because they will be male dominated - as will male dominated careers such as fire fighters etc.  Men will become more and more macho -the gap between men and women and with it the over-all progress of our society will have a downward spiral.  It is great that men can dominate in physical related activities but over all bad for society.  The reason is that over-all creativity is extremely male dominated.  I am in science and no matter how many females get degrees etc., no matter how much the educational system tries to elevate and make something out of the nothing that "bright" women accomplish - it still is the men who more than 90% of the time have the scientific break-throughs.  When you get right down to it engineering and scientific breakthroughs form the basis of US superiority.  Even in science men are now forced to spend endless periods of time "justifying" and "pandering" to discussion groups and concerns of fellow women co-workers - decreasing mens ability to do what they do best - think and create.  Men have to be careful of everything they say or do around their female co-workers.......it is a joke.

Unfortunately, there is not much we can do as individuals to change things.  We are doing the smartest thing - hedging our bets ie. getting a girl from the FSU, having the ability to easily migrate back to Europe - which over the next 30 years easily could re-emerge as a country your children will be better off in.  

Now, immigration policy is just another big log our government has added to the fire.  I have made myself quite clear on the problems with this policy on other posts - which has led to discussion.

What can we do?  As white men we have no choice other to vote Republican right now - and pray that what has been done, especially since the Johnson administration, can be reversed.

... in response to It goes back to the vote........, posted by Bobby Orr on May 17, 2003

Although I agree with you about voting Republican, I think my basis for the decision is very different from yours.

My reasons for voting Republican are as follows:

1. I think the whole idea of a "progressive" tax structure is really stupid. If one person makes 20 times what another person makes, they should pay 20 times as much in taxes. As it stands now, they pay something along the lines of 150-200 times as much in taxes if they make 20 times as much as an average taxpayer. This isn't equitable or fair. What we have now is nothing more than wealth redistribution from a smaller demographic group to a larger. In one sense, its a vote-buying scheme whereby liberal politicians buy the votes of lower income people with the money earned by the higher income people who would not vote for them anyway. The lower income people take out more than they put in and higher income people pay more in than they ever take out. They try to rationalize it with slogans about the rich paying their fair share, but its all a bunch of BS to make people feel better about spending other people’s money for their own benefit. Simply put, its a sham and should be stopped.

2. I think the capital gains tax should be killed. Nothing would spur investment better or do more to strengthen everyone's preparation for retirement.

3. I think estate taxes should be lowered not raised. If someone earns wealth, then they should have every right to give it to whomever the wish. Goes back to respecting private property rights.

4. I like what George Bush is doing regarding foreign policy and what Donald Rumsfeld is doing with the military. Part of the reason I will be voting for George W. in 2004 is to make sure he keeps doing the same things for another 4 years.

5. I like the idea of adding a voucher alternative within the educational system. Lets face it, the educational system needs to be shaken up and there is nothing like competition to create a better system. Monopolies are inherently inefficient and that is a big reason why the state run industries of the Soviet Union could not compete. If you look at the current US educational system as a monopoly, then you can see how a voucher system could function in a manner similar to privatization of industry. Simply put, competition forces more efficient choices.

On items 1-3, its a matter of respect for private property. If one person earns more than the average, it does not mean the government or any vocal special interest group is entitled to what this person has earned. Sorry, but this seems pretty obvious to me. Even if that person wishes to spend their earned wealth on fancy cars, fancy homes or gifts to their children, it should be their right to do so. They earned the money and should be allowed to keep it. They created the wealth and should be allowed to benefit from it. Its not right for a government to unduly tax this person no matter how many opinionated and sanctimonious people think they know better ways to spend this person’s money.

As for all the drama about gender equity, its all been talked to death. Nothing here is new. From high school and college sports to the business world, its been said a million times. We will never have true gender equity, because its not some static term with a commonly accepted definition. What we are seeing now is nothing more than the swinging of a pendulum. 30 years ago women had unfair barriers, now we are seeing the pendulum swing against men.

At the end of the day, we want to maximize our human potential (as a workforce). That should be the underlying goal for all issues of race or gender equity. As long as we do not compromise performance standards or discriminate against anyone (including white males), I am in favor of including all people in every aspect of our society.

I mean, if you were on the hospital table and you were about to go under the knife, I am sure you would want to know that the best possible doctor was doing the surgery. You would not want the best Christian white male doctor. You would want the very best doctor possible. By the same token, you wouldn’t want to know about how your hospital values gender and racial quotas more than skill or experience. See what I mean. Its the same with the office of president, teaching positions, policemen, etc. When the most qualified are in the right positions, then good things are more likely to happen for everyone. Its a really simple point, but a lot of people seem to forget about it somewhere in the discussion.

The big thing we should be focusing on is not the favoritism of one gender or race over another, but how to achieve a true merit-based system, that does not discriminate against any group, have quotas or lower standards. In such a system, the best will move forward regardless of who they are. If you are correct about the inherent superiority of white males, then you will see them disproportionately represented in the best jobs. If you are wrong, then you won't see it. Either way, society will be better off for having the most capable where they are needed most.

Just my 2 cents.

... in response to Re: It goes back to the vote........, posted by DanM on May 19, 2003

I agree with what you say and the rationale behind it.  See how it is possible to come to the same conclusion from a different fundamental thinking.  You definitely are well versed in economics.

... in response to Good post., posted by Bobby Orr on May 20, 2003

Thanks for the compliments. I agree we can find a lot of common ground even though we have some very big differences on some other issues.

The thing that makes economics interesting to me is that I will never really understand everything that affects the equation. In that sense, the challenge never really ends. At best, the questions can only be improved and refined.

... in response to It goes back to the vote........, posted by Bobby Orr on May 17, 2003

Well my cousins boyfriend had very good grades in Engineering and when he was graduating he had to search hard to find a job. He was pretty p!$$ed off when the women where offered about 20 jobs apiece so the firms could show women engineers in employment. The men still do most of the designing women are smarter in many ways but men are still the inovators of the world. Ever since this  equalization that fanatic Feminists have pushed they lowered both men and women.
If men and women were equal we would not of had seperate sexes to begin with. How much equality between males and females in the animal world? None, equality doesn't exist it makes me angry when I see women complain about a job held by men for centuries and they sue to open the labor market. Proof is the fire department I saw a television show where the NOW and ACLU sued local fire departments to get women in. They contended in court that the strict physical requirements should be lowered to give a woman a better chance. They were showing two women trying to lift a latter and they couldn't, when it takes one man to do it. The department argued that you had to be strong enough to lift a 200 lb man and carry him out. Do you know what the ACLU and NoW said? They said it was safer to drag the person out so they would not breath the smoke. Now imagine a woman dragging you down a flight of stairs while your head is bouncing of the cement steps, real safe. If a woman is strong enough to pass the male requirements then she should be offered the job but don't lower the standards just to be politically correct.

... in response to It goes back to the vote........, posted by Bobby Orr on May 17, 2003

But I have to admit, the mexicans are population in my town has like double and growing.  Tyson Chicken, prefers to hire out of towner vs locals.

We'll probably live the rest of our lives here in America, but by getting a foreign wife of our ethiniticy(?) our children will be able to travel to and from with ease in the coming globalization world/economy.

... in response to Great article about boys and men, posted by wsbill on May 16, 2003

This book came out a few years ago. The popular media bombards us with the politically correct lies of special interest groups, as we all know. This book documents the deception regarding the systematic demonization and ghettoization of boys that our public educational system is all too eager to enable.

Makes you wonder if we are living in a Matrix, and spoon fed diarrhea through a cord in the back of our brains. Unreal!

But really, it reminds me of the communist Soviet Union where everyone knew the truth-- that the system was a complete failure, yet had to pretend it was working. In America, we spout how we believe in equality, but obviously there is widespread, intentional, systematic discrimination against half of our own children by people who are supposed to know better, but are too ignorant and blinded by their politically correct ehjukayshunul system.

... in response to "The War Against Boys" by Chri..., posted by Scaught on May 17, 2003

yeah, whoever thought that when the cultural marxists in the universities talked of 'deconstruction' they *actually* meant it.

There is definitely something Orwellian about the phenomenon or as you say Matrix like. An entire gender deconstructed in 30 years and a new one built on top of it.

By the way, a long article by Sommers similar to the book can be found online at

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/05/sommers.htm
entitled coincidentally "The War Against Boys".

One of the sad things about the BW article is it shows how parochial Americans have become in their self-interest. For instance, if I have 2 daughters, which would be fairly common, then this situation actually benefits me - maybe people don't make that calculation explicity but it is probably there and in sufficient numbers to quell any outrage by the broader society.

... in response to Re: "The War Against Boys" by ..., posted by fencer on May 17, 2003

The guy thinking he is looking out for his two daughters is actually hurting society - and his own interests as well in the long run.  Men need to be men and make sure the women are women - period!

... in response to Selfish, posted by Bobby Orr on May 17, 2003

Also those 2 daughters will have more trouble finding a good man. Just something to think about. We are all connected and all dependent on the greater good.

... in response to Great article about boys and men, posted by wsbill on May 16, 2003

The problem must be so dire that even the liberal media publications can’t ignore it. By its own admission the problem has been festering for 30 years – now they congratulate themselves for bringing it to our attention, but only as a way to cut themselves slack. Note they are smart enough to do the mea culpa's when the problem is effectively irremediable.

This is malfeasance by our American institutions – they even admit to it: “Indeed, many administrators saw boys..as the problem.” – Administrators ostensibly charged with these (poor) boys’ education.

However in the best American tradition where there is a problem there is money to be made – and slightly relevant to the nature of this forum: a mail order husband service.

The article bemoans the new inequities facing American [their victimhood never ceases to amaze]– not enough high earning men with the same status education to be suitable marriage partners, leaving tons of American Women stuck on the sandbar of spinsterhood like beached whales. Not to be bitter about it – but it serves them right.

Anyone got 100K to invest?

... in response to what a betrayal by our so-called educati..., posted by fencer on May 16, 2003

Well didn't you know I had to search in South America since I never finished college. AW don't want Blue collar workers we are trash and throw aways. Now I wonder what do you do with children today. If you have a son will the school force you to drug him because he touched a girl. Wow to think of it in Brasil women greet you with a kiss on each cheek but in America you would be labeled a future rapist.

Makes me wonder if I should bring a woman to America or flee to her country. I don't agree about many things with Bush but I think he does need to get rid of some of the AA laws. Maybe we need open season on lawyers also, there are to many in our society today. Women today complain that men don't act like men anymore but the school system tries to destroy any pride in boys at an early age.

... in response to Re: what a betrayal by our so-called edu..., posted by stefang on May 17, 2003

The stock market to crash on a epic proportion size.  Down to a level where women have stay at home.   Right now with all the companies laying off people, it's like a role reversal - women can find work, men cannot.  We're being descriminated against.  So the crash, will have to be very severe.

... in response to Re: I think what America needs is for, posted by wsbill on May 17, 2003

Wishing hardship on anybody is just nuts.
And as for the discrimination against men --
we've always had to endure it -- just now
it has a name.  Suck it up and deal with it.

What I mean is that this country has always
had men that had to deal with the extra
complication of (depending on the decade)
being italian, norwegian, polish, german,
irish ... and that's just the whites.
Black brown and yellow always have to deal
with it -- whether their women stay home or not.

Suck it up and deal with it.

... in response to that's nuts, posted by vagn on May 17, 2003

Where do you get off on that idea.  It's going to happen!
America are up to their eyeballs in debt and still spending money.  Factories are closing up and moving to China or Mexico, were at 10% unemployment (Fed sez 6-8%, but that's not counting all those whom have given up looking).

How to get those jobs back?

Crash the economy, which will lower working wage.

Inflation has pushed everyones pay scale up, but with the jobs being relocated to the far east and nothing to support those high wages, people expect to be always paid a higher wage.  But without jobs paying big bucks, even unions are having a hard time surviving.

Look what Warren Buffett is doing.  He is hunkering down and buying up infastructure companies for his Berkshire Funds.

He's right now in the process of buying up Clayton Homes (mobile home type maker), WHY?

Because when the economy collapses, people will be forced to move out of their $200-500K homes and down grade into a cheaper priced $35-50k... So long as you have a roof over your head, who cares.  I image the folks who have those expensive homes will or might be able to take whatever equity they have now and buy a $35-50K home.

Do you agree, we as America have it better than most people in the world?  Our standard of living is much higher than anyone else.  But without jobs, I don't know how much debt you have (car, house, credit card, boat, etc....).

But if you lost your job tomorrow would you be able to find another quickly at the same wage.  Granted, I'm sure a few of  you guys would be able to.  But the vast majority of americans would not.

You should read this book.  Called Deflation by Gary
http://www.agaryshilling.com/deflation.html

Shilling, has a column in Forbes Magazine every once and a while.  I read the book prior to this one back in 1987, which he highlighted saying car makers would be offering zero percent financing... I told my friends about it at the time and they just laugh.  -- wonder who's laughing now.

Though he doesn't say anything about it in the book, but my logic sez.. The current situation with SARS virus, sure looks pretty interesting...perhaps a way to twart companies from relocating overseas.  I wouldn't be surprised if a FSU country released this virus, because the FSU with it's fairly high skilled workers are going to miss out on a industrial revolution like we enjoy as well as CHINA is enjoy.

The Gov't has some deep thinkers, who think ahead of the curve, we want to preserve our way of life and so they'll do anything to setup our economy for the coming future generations.  If we don't do it some other country will.

If it means hard times ahead, so be it.  Get out of debt and downsize to a much simpler why of life.

... in response to Re: Hardship, a deflation book everyone ..., posted by wsbill on May 17, 2003

Bill - I agree Gary Schilling is an excellent read.  I subscribe to Forbes and look forward to reading his column.  Usually he is correct - it is quite amazing.  

Never the less, I strongly disagree with the bulk of your argument:  

"Though he doesn't say anything about it in the book, but my logic sez.. The current situation with SARS virus, sure looks pretty interesting...perhaps a way to twart companies from relocating overseas. I wouldn't be surprised if a FSU country released this virus, because the FSU with it's fairly high skilled workers are going to miss out on a industrial revolution like we enjoy as well as CHINA is enjoy."

The above paragraph is just goobley-gook in my mind.  

... in response to Re: Re: Hardship, a deflation book every..., posted by Bobby Orr on May 17, 2003

Made america what it is today.  The FSU is going to miss out totally on one.  They'll have some infastructure building, heck, SARS just might have came from North Korea or Tawian or Japan or USA.

More so the latter.  We really do want to see Eastern European countries prosper and China is very still a very closed up nation, hence they're helping themselves rebuild their nation at everyone elses expense...especially in the way they keep devalueing their dollar.

Just like in Kosovo we bomb the Chinese embassy (sorry-oops).  The Chinese sold Saddam alot of advance technology, I even think it was those Radars were from China/Ukraine.

... in response to Re: Hardship, a deflation book everyone ..., posted by wsbill on May 17, 2003

Not when everyone else puts there 200K-500K homes on the market.  Just imagine our economy in crash mode, we are talking about mass forclosures!!  Who will own those homes, banks.  What do banks do with all the repo cars they get back, the sell them for less than book value to move them off their lot.  They'll do the same thing when they get homes, but who is going to buy your lofty estate, when they can get it from the bank for less.  

Deflation is across the board and into everyones business.

What is Federal Gov't going to do about it.  They're going to dump massive amounts of money into our economy, trying to get people to spend (sounds like the Bush tax plan).

Only problem is - the rich will not spend their money, they tend to save it and the poor will probably use it to pay on any old debts /some will blow it of course.

Should be noted it's the poor people, middle class and lower who actually support this economy ... more of them.

What happens when their jobs vanish, or have to go to a lower pay scale.

After the crash, our economy will come back when companies start to rebuild our infastructure (probably 2 years after the crash), bear in mind this recession is now 2 years old.
I for see our current economy growing, but not at the massive clip as from 1998-2000, when the stock market rocketed to new highs.

Ever hear of Kondratieff Wave, ask your russian wife who he was?

... in response to Re: Sell your home NOW, posted by wsbill on May 17, 2003

I won't say this will never happen because it has before (depression). But, first off, banks don't want to forclose on homes in large numbers! If they do, they are still liable for the property taxes. Those are state taxes, not federal. Second, the Bush tax plan does make sense. Rich people's spending habits don't drive the economy in this country, it never has. It is the middle class that primarily makes our economy work. Keep an eye on consumer confidence, that is really the indicator of where the economy is at and going. Wwith the tax cut, middle class Americans will have a little more spending capacity, that will boost confidence and hopefully right the economy. After all, isn't the overall economy built on confidence?

I do agree with you about jobs going overseas to an extent. I don't like it much but I see the point in the end. Regarding China, I think the end goal is to make them a consumer nation as we are. They currently are not but there are a billion of them +. How many Chinese own anything currently with a Made in the USA label? My guess is just a handfull, because they can't afford it. Same with Russia, Ukraine and other FSU countries.

Crashing the economy won't help anything! I wouldn't want to see this country in that kind of mayham. Demanding corporate responsibility, absolutely. Telling our congressman and senators to stop spending money on stupid things, absolutely. Do I really need to spend my money to find out how a pig reacts to chicken pox? NO! But our goverment does this sorta thing very often.

Regarding the stock market of the late 90's. It was a bubble and needed to be burst. The market does ajust itself every few years or so. There were company stocks that were WAY over valued!!! Investers new that! They were just hoping to get in there and get a piece of the pie. The real down side, and what hurt most of us, was that most middle class people don't directly invest in the market, we use brokers or have retirement funds. The brokers were playing the game (with our money) and investing in companies that they knew had no real value.

... in response to Re: Re: Sell your home NOW, posted by Travis on May 17, 2003

Mortgage companies and banks don't want to foreclose for a lot of reasons, but the property taxes usually are not a big reason. Property taxes will not become a big issue unless the home is vacant for years. In that case, they mortgage company has much more exposure from the standpoint of a lower value in a property. When it is vacant for years, usually things happen to lower the value.

Usually the lender can recoup the value of the loan in a foreclosure sale unless it was either a poorly underwritten loan or a higher LTV loan. In the case of high LTV loans, the lender should have charge a higher rate of interest and created a cash reserve to compensate for losses due to the higher LTV. At the end of the day the lenders are all going for the same yield on their loans and they view the higher interest as a cushion for forecasted losses on higher risk loans.

Even when the lender is fully reimbursed, however, you still have the issue of run off (ie interest-paying loans leaving your books).

... in response to Re: Re: Sell your home NOW, posted by Travis on May 17, 2003

It'll jam packed full of facts and graphs, etc... real simple read, but to the point.

The exodus of jobs must come to a stop.  Like I say, the market ain't gonna crash tomorrow, but in 3-5 years when the American people wake up from the current spending sprees that've been on, everyone will turn into savers.

And what do you think that'll do to our economy.  Last time I looked consumer confidence was in the toilet with job losses.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/030517/column_newbiz_1.html

New word'olgy to the average joe is deflation.  You will see it more and more.  And that's going to scare the daylights out of everybody.

Most will probably ignore the warning signs, those that don't will capitalize at the expense of others.

Remember buy low or wait til it goes lower, like morgage rates will.   I think Al Queda knows how our economy works and just when the market was getting some steam up, out of the blue come these recent bombings and now they're saying to be on your guard for something in the US.

... in response to Re: You should get that book on deflatio..., posted by wsbill on May 17, 2003

Jobs are only going to leave this country because of non-competitive labor prices. These labor prices will not change unless we lower the acceptable standard of living for a big part of our population. Since that is not likely to happen, lets look for ways to create new jobs that better fit the wage prices within this country. To me that seems a lot more constructive than trying to return us to the 1950s when most people just don't want to go back in time. That time is gone and its never coming back so lets just move on into the 21st century together and make the best of it. You just aren't going to find people who will try to live on 12,000 per year. Its not going to happen.

The problem is that our people are not properly trained or educated to staff the jobs needed by our economy. We are importing doctors and computer programers like crazy. Most areas of the country are in dire need of skilled workers such as electricians or certain specializations within the field of construction. If more people would become educated in the fields we need, then we could give these jobs to Americans instead of giving them to peope from other places.

... in response to Re: Re: Sell your home NOW, posted by Travis on May 17, 2003

"Do I really need to spend my money to find out how a pig reacts to chicken pox? NO! But our goverment does this sorta thing very often."

The reason there are cures to any disease directly comes from research like you site as being useless.  If you do not have health you have nothing - period - end of the game.  So, it is in the direct interest of any citizen for the government to do their best to prevent disease - especially highly infectious disease.  

One of the  way viruses work is that they change over time -just like mammals do - only faster.  Viruses also periodically jump from one species to another.  Many of the flu fears that occur during the "flu season" are viruses derived from bird or swine viruses.  The current SARS problem occurred most probably when a swine or bird virus jumped into humans.  How did this occur?  There are a number of possibilities.  

It is just the latest and most visible virus in which this has occurred.  By studying how viruses move between species we are better able to understand how to combat similar viruses that jump into our species.  Without animal models of human disease I believe the statistic is that the average American would live 28 years less (albeit I give you data published Americans for Medical Progress - a research advocate group - but there numbers do make alot of sense).  Do you really want that?

... in response to Mis-informed, posted by Bobby Orr on May 17, 2003

We are getting all sorts of new virus.  But has the world really changed all that much ?  NO.

... in response to Re: Sell your home NOW, posted by wsbill on May 17, 2003

Now your argument makes sense - buy low, sell high.

... in response to Now you are making more sense, posted by Bobby Orr on May 17, 2003

This will make the sense of my economy crash, that will be arriving soon than you think.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2003/nf20030516_8652_db042.htm

... in response to Re: Bobby read this..., posted by wsbill on May 17, 2003

I agree the US needs a strong not a weak dollar, and it may contribute to your theory of a coming deflationary depression, but you need the confluence of alot of other factors for it to occur.

... in response to True but not necessarily related, posted by Bobby Orr on May 17, 2003

A weak dollar makes imported goods more expensive.
That means we will buy locally produced goods
rather than imported goods.

A weak dollar makes our products more attractive
to the rest of the world.  They will buy from us
instead of from germany and the surrender monkeys.
That means greater production and more jobs for us.

A weak dollar means the real value of your home
is higher than the dollar amount you paid for it.

A weak dollar is like a weak case of the flu.
It has its charms in comparison with the strong version.

On the down side, the price of oil goes up.
But most of us can arrange our lives so that
we drive less, walk more, and use less fuel for
heat, and less electricity.  So for most of us
the fuel cost rise is something to
complain about, not a real problem.

... in response to weak dollar has its charms, posted by vagn on May 18, 2003

A weak dollar means that standards of living decrease because our money will by us less. What politician is going to vote for that? Who is going to volunteer for a lower standard of living?

A weak dollar means millions of retail jobs and small businesses will go away, because people will be spending much less on consumer goods. Are you sure there will be an incremental lift in jobs when you net these job losses from the manufacturing gains? Are economy is built on consumption and not production. To change so abruptly would be very painful for tens of millions of Americans. Maybe you would be right in a long-term scenario, but it would be a very painful net loss for several years in the best case scenario.

A weak dollar means that people from other countries will stop depositing their money in the USA. Do you have any idea what that will do to us if foreign investment left the country in large amounts?

I used to think like you about how we should devalue the dollar and enjoy the benefits of a weak currency. The benefits are really cool and even seductive when they are viewed in a vaccum. When you look at things in the aggregate, however, it does not make a lot of sense.

Our standard of living dictates our options and this is not likely to change.

... in response to Re: weak dollar has its charms, posted by DanM on May 19, 2003

"Are economy is built on consumption and not production." If everybody here is consuming and no one is producing, where does the money come from to "consume"? There are thousands of people out of work in the furniture and textile manufacturing business, in the southeast, that would love to hear that answer. Of course, un-employment benefits and welfare checks could provide a little monetary imput;)

... in response to Re: Re: weak dollar has its charms, posted by Lynn on May 19, 2003

As for the unemployed people in fields such as textile and furniture manufacturing, I am afraid they will most likely watch these job sectors continue to shrink.

American consumers are price driven. When labor is such a significant part of the equation (Labor+Materials+Overhead = cost), then it is just a function of algebraic logic to see that a job market such as the USA with a higher cost for labor will not be an attractive place to locate these jobs. Jobs will continue to move to China and Latin America because the labor costs in these countries is a small fraction of our labor costs. Even when you factor in the cost of shipping the finished product to the USA, the manufacturers still come out way ahead by not using expensive American labor. The lower prices for these good and the flight of these jobs from the US market are both a direct function of globalization.

Unfortunately, people do not realize that employee cost is a huge driver in the number of unskilled manufacturing jobs available in this country. Employee cost includes salary and benefits such as health insurance. Every time the liberals try to raise the minimum wage levels or increase the employee costs of companies (can you say universal health insurance paid by the employer), they are compounding the problem and sending more companies overseas for their assembly plants. Then the very same liberals who exacerbated the problem blame the greedy Republican corporate interests for not taking care of the little guy.

The best way to help the people who have lost these jobs would be for the government to offer some form of job training program that allows the workers to move into job sectors that have a future. Long term, our higher standard of living requires us to emphasize education and training more than we have, because the jobs available in the future will not be attainable with a high school degree or a GED.

... in response to Re: Re: weak dollar has its charms, posted by Lynn on May 19, 2003

Sorry for all the grammar mistakes in my previous post. I was in a hurry and I didn't proof it.

Yes our economy is consuming more than its producing, but that does not mean we are producing nothing. We produce a lot. We just consume a lot more than we produce.

If you take a linear extrapolation and compare the trade deficit to something like water pouring out of a cup, then you are right. Under this logic, a critical mass will soon be reached and we would have an economic meltdown. Luckily, however, things are not that simple.

I will do my best to explain it to you, but I am afraid my explanation will be rather crude and incomplete. I have a general working knowledge, but I am very far from being an expert in any sense.

Are you familiar with how the Federal Reserve Bank controls money supply? I am not asking if you could give me a dissertation. I am just asking if you understand the basics. If so, then you know money supply is largely dependent on demand for our currency. Since demand for our currency is driven by a sort of international "consumer confidence" in the dollar, it is very important to have a strong dollar.

If you can accept this explanation, the you can see that a very big part of how we pay for our trade surplus is simply by printing more money. Now before you take this example to a ridiculous extreme to prove that it will cause an economic crash, I want you to realize there are other mitigating factors working in our favor and also that we are well within the mathematical tolerance for such behavior. Sorry, but I just don’t have the time or depth of knowledge to explain this as well as I would like.

In short, we pay for our trade deficit partially by printing more money and partially by movement of large amounts of investment capital into this country. Its nothing new. We have been doing this for a very long time. Its just hard for people to understand or accept, because it does not work under the same principals as their checking account. Although comparisons are a great way to extrapolate from a familiar subject to an unfamiliar one, the checkbook comparison does not adequately address all the moving pieces of our monetary policy or issues related to our trade balance.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: weak dollar has its charms, posted by DanM on May 20, 2003

[This message has been edited by Lynn]

I am privy to insider info at least in the furniture manufacturing industry and the points you made about overhead are all true, but the flaw in the equasion is as the guy in the next post points out--greed at the top management levels. No matter how much they save by manufacturing outside the country, the price won't come down at the consumer level, the quality has gone to crap, and the top level salaries are going way up. The companies spend a lot on fixing returned goods, the consumer and the work force who relied on the manufacturer are getting screwed without the benefit of a kiss. I have seen all this first hand. First they went to Mexico, quality dropped and the workforce started wanting the same pay as here, then they went to Slovenia, quality improved but they found they couldn't squeeze them as much as they wanted, then on to China----quality went to hell in a handbasket, labor is dirt cheap, recalls and lack of people willing to travel there to work quality control were killing the hope of making it work, now they are courting Brazil.

The only thing it would take to turn this country around and bring back our manufacturing base is a import tax on foreign made goods. No matter of education will help when there are no jobs to be had, the FSU is a perfect example of that. Heck, I know this Russian lady who was a chemist and a college professor in St. Pete---here she works in a R&D lab for a mattress company sewing special patterns in the ticking. Our educational system here has been dumbed down so that the average college graduate here is little more than a drone for the government, a worker bee, one purpose, go to work punch the buttons, operate the computer, go home and never wonder how the world came to be. I garantee that not one in ten college graduates here could pass the 1895 Kansas 8th grade end of grade exam as it was given then. There will always be a certain ammount of people who are only qualified to work in a mill type job, if all those jobs are shipped offshore, what's left for them? the soup line? welfare?  

Oh yeah, I am very familiar with the workings of the Federal Reserve. Is the Fed part of our government? Just what do you think backs the money that "we" print? Who benefits the most from this process of printing more money?

And my last question, do you know what the difference is between a Kennedy $5 bill and the $5 bills produced now? Do you know what the Kennedy $5 represented and why they were taken up soon after his death?

The last 90 years has been a steady downhill slide for this country and the sad thing is most people are unwilling to recognize the truth. Usury and debt money is choking this country to death along with the UN agenda of globalism (read communism). The exchange rate yesterday US dollar to Euro was 1.16 to 1, as I remember a finacial analyst review about a year ago said that 1.18 was the danger zone for the dollar.

... in response to Usury, is what is killing us..............., posted by Lynn on May 20, 2003

Hey Lynn
Nice to see you up and about again. Im still looking for that specific info on those pieces of paper here, the ones we sign!

Just a snip from your post;
The last 90 years has been a steady downhill slide for this country and the sad thing is most people are unwilling to recognize the truth. Usury and debt money is choking this country to death along with the UN agenda of globalism (read communism). The exchange rate yesterday US dollar to Euro was 1.16 to 1, as I remember a finacial analyst review about a year ago said that 1.18 was the danger zone for the dollar.

You and the *rest* of us all headed down the same path, who will change it? No one.

Yep, guess who is looking after the Eu? Just another wee confirmation of the big picture!

Cheers, catch U on email !
john

... in response to Re: Usury, is what is killing us..........., posted by JohnL on May 27, 2003

[This message has been edited by Lynn]

"You and the *rest* of us all headed down the same path, who will change it? No one." But, I suggest you read this:

Sirach 33:20  Actually my aunt, who knows nothing of my studies into government, law, rights, etc., pointed this verse out to me on a recent visit. The strange thing about it was there was "no" prompting. I just ask her where she had purchased the study bible on the top of the pile of bibles on her end table. She picked it up and said "I have something to show you", turned the pages, found the verse, showed it to me and hobbled out of the room.
In some of my recent studies, I have discovered so many ways how we are tricked into doing what that verse warns us about.

... in response to Usury, is what is killing us..............., posted by Lynn on May 20, 2003

Sorry to answer your post a little out of order, but I am just listing these things as they come into my mind.

As for the stuff about corporate greed, please look at what I said to the other guy. Corporate greed cannot exist without investor greed. Since you, me and almost everyone else on this board is an investor, we are the source of the problem. Until we decide that return on investment is not our number one goal, nothing will change. For the record, I do not think anything should change.

I don’t equate globalism with communism. In fact, if you look at the comments in this thread about globalism crushing the American working man, then it might be more accurate to characterize globalism as some form of neo-capitalism. Could you please explain more about your thoughts on how globalism equates to communism? Is it more of a Marxist or Stalinist form of communism? Any other thoughts you have on the subject would be helpful, because I don't really follow.

Could you also talk more about how usury and debt money are choking the country? Most economists would say increased debt spending has been one of the biggest reasons for our prosperity over the past 10 years. It might be more accurate to describe it as the fuel of our economy. As for the composition of debt, most of it is far below usury limits. In fact, most people take out the higher interest debts such as credit cards by cashing in the equity on their own (ie a cash-out refinance or a home equity loan). In either case, prevailing mortgage rates are at historic lows. I think you can even go as low as 5.25% on a 30 year fixed rate mortgage right now if you have very good credit. As for the credit card debt, it usually ranges between 12 and 21 percent. These levels are also below usury limits as defined by the US government. Please elaborate on your thoughts regarding usury. Is it more of a judgmental name to use against prevailing rates you do not like or is it intended to actually conform to the definition of usury?

Could you please tell us a little more about why the current exchange rate between the dollar and the euro has entered some analysts idea of a danger zone? I would be interested to know the thoughts behind the sound bite.

No I do not know anything about the Kennedy $5. Could you please tell me more?

Actually the Federal Reserve Bank is a quasi-governmental entity. It inhabits that gray zone between government and private sectors as do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As for the question about who benefits more from the printing of money, I would have to say everyone. We are all dependent on one another. If we could not create money out of thin air, we would all be much worse off given the current economic climate. If you have a 401K or IRA, then you are dependent on the Fed to keep corporate profits rolling. If you have a job in the retail sector, then you are dependent on the Fed to print more money to float our trade deficit. We all need the Fed more than we know.

The idea of putting import taxes on foreign goods is really a very, very, very bad idea for lots of reasons. Too many to list, but I will hit the ones that come to me off the top of my head. Yes I understand the desire to help out people in specific job sectors. The problem is that none of the protective tariffs will be done in a vacuum. If you impose tariffs on  the rest of the world, don’t you think they will reciprocate? Our export sectors such as aerospace, medical, technology and agriculture will be crushed. Millions of jobs will be lost. The final result will be to have a more inefficient allocation of our resources from the sectors that are more economically viable to the ones that are less economically viable and there is no guarantee that aggregate unemployment will not rise as a result. So if we do create protective trade barriers that are reciprocated by the rest of the world, then we will all pay more for what we consume, produce less in the aggregate and maybe have a net loss of jobs. Sorry, but its really hard to see the charm of this proposal. We simply are not set up to base our economy on manufacturing in the current global environment. I don’t care what worked great 50 or 100 years ago. We gotta live in the now. Sticking our head in the sand as to this fact will not do anything but hurt us.

My opinion is that protectionism is more like communism in the fact that it inhibits natural market driven decisions with government mandates. Its anti-competitive and anti-free trade. Seems to me like globalism is a lot more of a capitalist idea. It allows market forces to determine the most efficient allocation of capital. If you think about the problems of the Soviet Union, then I think you can see the dangers of ignoring market driven choices.

... in response to Re: Usury, is what is killing us..........., posted by DanM on May 21, 2003

I beg to differ.

I certainly respect the fact, you've the ability to grasp the important elements of, well, what differentiates our nation from others (I just read some of your recent posts, quelling that wretched notion of class-envy - a vile notion, indeed).

Yet, Dan, it's not just manufacturing; nor, is it the importation of H-1B workers, at a faction of the cost of Americans (I might add: despite the precarious situation presented to our nation's people - job losses, et al - H-1B is being pushed further, still).

I would venture to say: you look at our constitution, and, well, something burns in your heart to keep it. Despite, the beauty of the document - in comparison to others - you see an inherent differnce. Yes... no?

It isn't about Americans doing menial tasks: It is about the very notion of the nation-state. What Lynn is saying (excuse me Lynn, if I'm incorrect), in a different fashion, than myself, is: why give up our sacred birth-right as Americans. Dan, look at Europe. They've given up their nations eternal rights to govern away. Why? To Brussels?

You appear to be a sound 'conserative,' so, I'll ignore your analogy: "... protectionism is more like communism..." Perhaps you might understand why I no longer read National Review, eh?

Free trade, well, it isn't free; nor does it benifit the largest 'real consumer' on the the planet.

... in response to Excuse me, Dan, for jumpin' in, yet..., posted by BURKE89 on May 22, 2003

Hey Burke,

Please don't apologize for entering the conversation. I always enjoy your comments, even when I do not agree with them. Your responses are always logical and reasonable.

As for my feelings about the constitution. I really like it. It was great for its time and its still great now. No doubt about it. A lot of what has made this country great is due to the guidance and leadership the founding fathers provided us via this great document. On the other hand, its not a Bible. It can and should be altered to fit the times. I am not talking about any specific article of the constitution. I am only saying that we should not be closed to the idea of altering it when needed.

Sorry, but I must profess ignorance to the H1-B worker definition. Is that a special class of documented foreign worker or does it cover all people in such a category? On documented foreign workers in general, I am for it in measured and controlled way. The sad fact is that we need it to shore up the sorry output of our educational system. Don't get me wrong. Some great people come out of the American educational system. The problems is that we do not have enough American-grown workers in many job fields that are critical to the US economy. To that end, I have no problem importing qualified, productive doctors, engineers and computer programmers from India, China or Europe. These people fit a specific need and create a disproportionate increase in the aggregate good of the country.

As for unskilled foreign labor, I am not so enthusiastic. We should restrict this sort of immigration, because it usually results in an aggregate resource drain.

As for the idea of globalization being akin to loss of our national sovereignty, I think there was a misunderstanding. I am not for the idea of a merged world government administered through the UN or some other agency. I am only talking about the free trade between national markets. I think George W has shown that a country can encourage free trade and retain its political independence. Heck, the French and Germans are hopping mad at us and the business still flows. Anyway to clarify my point, I am for free global trade and not for some global government or other loss of political sovereignty. We do not have to follow the EU model because we are the 800 lb economic gorilla. People will come to us on our terms if we are strong. On the contrary, I think globalization of markets will cause something akin to an American economic colonialism. It will strrengthen the hand of our multinational corporations and it will open up new markets to the things we do well. I think it will add a new deemision to the leverage we currently hold on many other countries and, therefore, be a source of increased political strength.

As for the idea of protectionism being like communism, I stand by my original post. For a government to restrict free trade is for a government to place an artificial barrier to the natural flow of market driven choice. As such, protectionism remind me of a communist command economy.

Another analogy is to say that protectionism reminds me of welfare. Lets suspend disbelief and say that you can create a net gain in jobs in the USA via a massive projectionist move. At what cost would this be bought? GNP will go down and inflation will go up. As a result, we will all have less money and the money we do have will buy less than before. So even if you could somehow create more jobs, you would only be able to do it by taking money out of the pocket of every American consumer. Hence the welfare comparison. I contend it would be cheaper to give the same people a welfare check and not economically isolate us from the rest of the world.

I eagerly await your response. : )

... in response to Re: Excuse me, Dan, for jumpin' in, yet...., posted by DanM on May 22, 2003

eh? As a fan of Samuel Francis - a un-abashed European-American, well, equalizer - we must look at this ( in particular issue) further, indeed.

Unlike others on the board: I respect and love the "South," as an historical entity - a stablishing force, if you will. The rural elements, despite 100+ years of insults, deserve a special place in the history of the "Republic."

Enough pro-southern thoughts. It's jobs and our manufacturing base, that our quarrel begins:

I'm deeply sorry; however, these Communist inferences to the "Old-right" is dead wrong! To compare the proctection of our: food supply (now under threat, with Dubya's "here to Tierra del..., " or WTO, NAFTA et al, to the benefit of my nation. Well, I don't want a $7.29 Iron from a China - while Americans are tossed from their jobs - who no longer have the ability to purchase that simple little tool.  Nor, do I wish to see upper-midddle class families thrown from their homes.... well, because we can send "every job" for a 10th of an American worker -tech - IT - manufacturing - etc.

Nor, do I wish to see the land I was raised in: look and act (enormous crime, i.e. California) like a Bannana Republic. I just can't see how so many individuals call themselves... Republicans?

I, however, noticed: you didn't seem to have any qualms with what has recently transpired in Europe? And, yes, what is England's future. Friggin Brussels, eh?

For Freedom.... and Mel's new flick, too!

PS. I realize that I didn't respond to all of your questions, however, my desertion of the G.O.P., might explain my motives.

... in response to Re: Excuse me, Dan, for jumpin' in, yet...., posted by DanM on May 22, 2003

"On the other hand, its not a Bible. It can and should be altered to fit the times. I am not talking about any specific article of the constitution. I am only saying that we should not be closed to the idea of altering it when needed."

lol, you ain't a conservative, you're a Southerner. Who decides "when needed"? The people? Guess again....

Altered to fit the times? Jeesh. I suggest you look at the most recent amendment to it, the last one made: XXVII. Yeah, thats a sign of the times! A good example of the people who you're trusting things to. I thought the Constitution should only be changed for important things.

I guess them deciding their own pay is important enough huh? It literaly takes an act of Congress to make sure they get more than they're worth. They even altered the Constitution to make sure of it.

I guess the oft told joke is true: America has changed greatly in the last 50 years. Oh, except for the South.

... in response to Re: Re: Excuse me, Dan, for jumpin' in, ..., posted by LP on May 23, 2003

With the way the government runs the country I wish the south would of won. I don't believe in slavery, wait a minute we are slaves, we are taxed and can be forced into the military under draft.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Excuse me, Dan, for jumpin' ..., posted by stefang on May 23, 2003

...but try to convince a Southern conservative of that, they think everything is hunky dory. I suppose it is if you never probe too deep. I'd better be quiet though, as a recently deputized fed I could get my azz in a sling for exercising my first amendment rights. Thats a hoot huh? What a country....

... in response to I hear ya...., posted by LP on May 24, 2003

Social Security is another form of slavery. Why do I have to pay taxes to my retirement? I feel I can do better than the government in saving for my future since at my age SS will probably be wiped out. We should have a choice but since the government never invested the tax funds, they are now in a jam and will never let us have our freedom back. I will pay more in, then I will ever recieve back. I am trying to invest as much as possible so I don't have to rely on a single dime from my SS.

... in response to Re: I hear ya...., posted by stefang on May 24, 2003

status. If you are a United States citizen, then you are to be considered as a "ward" of the corporate government, therefore you are considered not capable of taking care of your own affairs. It is a multi layered system by which they tacitly assume dominion over you and you not knowing the difference accept it. The corporate US only has power inside of it's territory, some ten square miles as prescribed in the original documents and all lands (military bases,dock,parks, etc) owned by the corporation. Where the trick is, is the federal zones and that is a very layered deception. Do you use the two digit, all caps, abreviation for the state you live in on your mail? Copyrighted material, owned by the government designating zones. The official abreviation for the states have not been changed.

... in response to I hear ya...., posted by LP on May 24, 2003

[This message has been edited by Lynn]

I am from the South, born and raised here, 8th generation, and I have to agree with you on many points.
I tried to explain to a friend of mine that the churches here are under just as much control as the Eastern Orthodox church was under communism in the FSU. When you accept gummit benefits, you dance to their music as told, or else. Ended up pissing serveral people off about it. I have found that most poeple are in denial, conditioned to be afraid, especially the truth.

The best answer is:   "Am I therefore made your enemy because
          I tell you the truth?"  Galations 4:16

... in response to Re: I hear ya...., posted by Lynn on May 24, 2003

..Thanx Lynn, I was afraid you might not uunderstand. Your's is a voice that instills hope that not everyone south of the Line is clueless.

I'm staying clear of this in the future. In case you don't know, recently implemented law allows a certain branch of the government to destroy the careers of people in my business in the blink of an eye, with no avenue of appeal except back to them. The amazing part is they're not required to tell us why they did it and any "evidence" remains classified, even to us, the accused. No due process at all. Add to that those of us who're now federal law enforcement officers during certain working conditions and you can see why it puts us between a rock and a hard place if we don't tow the line.

... in response to Yep...., posted by LP on May 24, 2003

No problem LP and thanks. Actually there is quite a movement here of people becoming aware of the terrible mess we are in. There are study groups being set-up from Georgia up thru South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia. They all vary somewhat in focus, but all are studying ways to retain what rights we still have and to try and take back those who have been stolen.

I know what you're talking about. I do not envy you in the position you have been put into. One of those damned if you do and damned if you don't deals. Sounds more like the gestapo is looking over your shoulder.

With the recent blatant disregard of the 1st and 5th ammendments is several totally unpublished events, I am sure none of our rights are safe. Now, if were some worthless bunch of crap the news would be all over it.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Excuse me, Dan, for jumpin' ..., posted by stefang on May 23, 2003

[This message has been edited by LP]

This message was deleted

... in response to Re: Re: Excuse me, Dan, for jumpin' in, ..., posted by LP on May 23, 2003

...just forget the first response I wrote.

Your post was an obvious attempt to "troll" for a fight. When I think about it, I really don't care about your disapproval or disdain for me or anything I have said.

I have better things to do than waste more time with your silliness.

... in response to Re: Re: Excuse me, Dan, for jumpin' in, ..., posted by LP on May 23, 2003

The only really coherent thing I could take from your post was a disregard for the south. Hey if it makes you happy to judge a lot of people you do not seem to know, then be my guest. Just don't expect us to get too upset if you do not approve of us.

Yes the people should decide when the law of the land changes. A government of the people is an idea I support because I have faith in the people of this country. If you don't then that is your perrogative.

Just as an act of morbid curiosity, could you please tell me why the "backwards" nature of southern people is responsible for Congress giving itself a pay increase?

Sorry little buddy, but your attempt to insult here did not add much to the conversation and really is not worth more of a response.

... in response to Re: Usury, is what is killing us..........., posted by DanM on May 21, 2003

[This message has been edited by Lynn]

I agree that without investor greed there could be no corporate greed. I have to dissagree on , "Until we decide that return on investment is not our number one goal, nothing will change. For the record, I do not think anything should change." When all you see is corporate management raping and pillaging once viable companies for their own self-centered interest, then closing down what is left-----sooner or later it is going to catch up to the point where all your durable goods and foodstuffs are coming from "other" sources, if a nation cannot fend for it's self then it is at the mercy of it's enemies.

"I don’t equate globalism with communism." Sorry that you don't see the connection. First, the UN's goal of having a one world government is the driving force behind all the free trade agreements that have opened the doors to companies going overseas. Those jobs going overseas has lowered the standard of living for a lot of people here, while raising the standard in other countries. Sure the top executives and some wise investors have made a good lick here and there, but the populus at large has suffered. You can label it anything you want, but the fact is the UN is a communist organization with the intent of making the whole world communist, don't believe me, read the facts form the inception and the failed starts under other titles, heck the secretary general of the UN has almost always been from a declared communist country.

On the subject of usury, I wasn't refering to your average consumer loans.

Usury, now lets define that, modern definition is charging illegally excessive interest. Hmm, as I said before, what backs up this money created out of thin air, I don't believe you addressed that. First of all the Federal Reserve is no more "Federal" than Federal Express, it is a private for profit banking cartel with a bridge to the government. The owners are:
1. Rothchild Banks of London and Berlin
2. Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
3. Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy
4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Germany and Amsterdam
5. Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
6. Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
7. Goldman Sachs Bank of New York
8. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (Controlled By Rockefellers)

From it's creation it took only 20 years to bankrupt this nation and we have never recovered. If they create money something has to back it, that something is your and my willingness to work and pay "taxes" which are in turn used to pay the "principal" and "interest" on the government bonds, etc. that our government produced and gave to the Fed to stand as collateral for the "thin air money" and it's "percieved value", all with our tacit approval. With income taxes alone coming to nearly 1/3 of the middle class income----If that is not usury what is it? And to top it all off we are considered as chattel property used as collateral to back up these and other loans----don't believe it-----try to get a copy of your "original" birth certificate, it's not in the county or state you were born in if that gives you a clue. Even the back of your SS card tells you what they are doing, but most people are ignorant of the facts. I offer this tidbit for your reading pleasure: http://www.celestia.com/SRP/AS95/Html/StateOfNation.html

The fact is, the financial power of the US was built on it's ability to produce, not consume. Just where did you get that it wasn't the work force and the raw material wealth that made this nation what it is?

Sorry, I have lost the link to the article on dollar vs euro valuation in a recent computer meltdown.

"No I do not know anything about the Kennedy $5. Could you please tell me more?" Not many people remember it, it was a United States Note, meant to be debt free money. Here's a link to a photo of one:

http://mccraw.zoovy.com/product/BN_USA_383

"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans freedom and before I leave office I must inform the Citizen of his plight. PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"(10 days before he was murdered)

Why don't you know anything about it? Like many other things, you were taught only what the government wants you to know.

Nikolai Lenin once said, "The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debase the currency." With the fiat currency we have today, that is exactly what has happened.

So by your last two paragraphs, I take it that you agree with:  Baron M. A. Rothschild: "Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes it's laws." "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is master of ALL its legislation and commerce."

                And the article that Rothchild's "The London Times" printed in the 1860's:

"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."

... in response to Re: Re: Usury, is what is killing us......., posted by Lynn on May 22, 2003

Hey Lynn,

First of all, I am glad that we can agree that corporate greed as an extension of investor greed is not a bad thing and does not need to be changed. That is a really good point we can build on for future discussions.

As for loss of our capacity to create durable goods and foodstuffs, I also agree. This is a bad thing if it gives someone else an undue advantage over us. Fortunately, our agricultural sector is an exporting strength. We produce much more food than we consume and we still have the capacity to produce multiples of what is currently being produced. If anyone uses food supply as political muscle against other countries it is us. Secondly our durable goods production is moving overseas. Its inevitable. Some things will stay here when market driven forces show it to be economically viable, but most will eventually go. As for the production that does move overseas, it can only be leverage if we make poor strategic choices. For example, if all of these jobs went to China, then China would have leverage. If some jobs also go to India, Latin America and Europe, then China does not have real leverage. I think our economy could survive a temporary interruption in the supply of crappy office furniture. Besides, the countries that would try to use such trade as a weapon would hurt themselves more than us. Do you honestly think China will tank its economy be giving up its major source of hard currency? Thats what they would have to do if China wanted to use trade as a weapon against us.

As for my definition of globalism, it was along the lines of free trade and not one global government. They are 2 distinct concepts that do not have to be related. Since our earlier talk was about the economic impact of protectionism, I assumed that would be obvious. Sorry for any confusion I may have created by assuming we were still all on the subject of economics when we were talking about globalism. Please look at my response to Burke for clarification on my views of globalism.

As for corporate management raping and pillaging once viable companies for some profit, I would like to go back to my first point of this post. We both agree that corporate greed as an extension of investor greed is a good thing and does not need to be changed. As a result, we cannot fault corporations for maximizing profits unless we are willing to accept some of the blame for their decisions made on our behalf and according to our own wishes. I think we can all agree that a management team that does not maximize profits will be replaced by investors. We can probably also agree that corporate managers, like everyone else, are interested in self-preservation. For this very reason, a corporation will close any plant if there is a more profitable alternative. In short, the desire to put profitablity first means that profitability is the primary justification for each plant’s existence. For this reason, I would contend that plant closings are a direct result of being a less profitable alternative. In the case of American plants, that is usually because of the labor component of the cost accounting model. In short, these plants were not viable in a

Not sure where you are going with the usury comments. If you are not talking about the average consumer loans or mortgages, then what are you talking about? Since these make up the overwhelming component of loans in this country, what relevance would this other group have to the national economy. Its gotta be relevant somehow if its killing America.

I have to disagree with the point about the Federal Reserve being no more federal than Federal Express. Have you noticed how many times Alan Greenspan goes before Congress? There is a reason for that you know. Also I am pretty sure the president of Federal Express does not need any sanction or support from the President of the United States when he assumes his position.

As for what creates the value behind the US dollar, its simple. Nothing tangible. Only demand supports it and that is a function of confidence in the US economy as a whole. What gives gold value other than a perception if value? The value of gold is no more real than people’s desire to have it. Same  for diamonds, art and other things. Why do you think DeBeers would so tightly control the diamond supply for years? You lessen or remove the demand and you have something with little or no value. The same value vs demand relationship applies for the US dollar. Its one of the many elements Greenspan juggles when he controls money supply.

As for equating taxes with usury, I am sorry but this seems to be a misapplication of terms. Usury applies to interest on a loan. Taxes paid to the government are a different category. To be a loan, there has to be consideration (ie an original amount that was loaned), a stated interest rate and some schedule of repayment. Since none of these things are applicable to the taxes we pay to the government, I think your usury comments about taxes miss the mark.

As for secret loans against modern day slaves (us), I am a little skeptical. Sounds a little like the talk of black government helicopters that make no noise and watch us at night. Sorry but I am not a big conspiracy theory guy. Maybe this would be good for Oliver Stone or something. Yes I am sure there are loans for all sorts of things I do not understand, but I need something a lot harder than a link to a website before I will be convinced of your statements on this subject.

I never said manufacturing did not work 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. I said it does not fit our country today because our labor costs are not competitive in a world where somewhat free trade exists with markets that have significantly lower wages scales. If you read what I wrote more carefully, you will see that I said what works 50 years ago is not what works today.

Since the implementation of Lenin’s economic theories (ie the Soviet Union) did not work out too well, I am not sure I would go to him for advice on economic issues. Same for his theories on how to destroy capitalism. Also our currency has a pretty high value relatively speaking. Remember WSBill was the one who wanted to debase our currency in order to help our trade balance. Do you think WSBill is somehow wanting to bring down the US economy (joke)? : )

I look forward to your response.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Usury, is what is killing us..., posted by DanM on May 22, 2003

[This message has been edited by Lynn]

" Usury applies to interest on a loan. Taxes paid to the government are a different category. To be a loan, there has to be consideration (ie an original amount that was loaned), a stated interest rate and some schedule of repayment."
What are the bonds etc. that the government puts forth to the Fed? Are they not a contract to pay for a principal (the money the Fed creates) with interest and do they not have a maturity date or payment schedule. The money is loaned into existence, just like when you borrow money at the bank----the bank does not loan you money, it loans you debt. When the IRS collects the taxes, the money is deposited directly into the Federal Reserve. The Fed has loaned us debt, the money that they created out of thin air, just like when you get a morgage.

"As for secret loans against modern day slaves (us), I am a little skeptical."   Ok, just tell me where your original birth certificate is.

And while you are at it, explain this: obtain a fairly newly issued SS card (last 10-15 yrs.), the front side looks like all the others, turn it over, lower right hand quadrant, now take out any piece of fiat money from your wallet---lay it face up and place the inverted SS card on top---notice anything vaguely simular? Hmmm, same style, maybe one or two more characters----what the heck is that all about----------what is that for anyway, never heard of anyone asking for it, why is it there? I am sure you have a good explaination.

"Since the implementation of Lenin’s economic theories (ie the Soviet Union) did not work out too well"
They didn't? Wow, I thought we got plank #2 & #5 of the communist manifesto fulfilled in the thirties, I must have missed something. He was a communist wasn't he? Do a little checking on Col.Edward Mandell House, Woodrow Wilson's chief advisor, you will find that he was a strong advocate of #2 & #5.

Caution someone may offer you a choice between a blue or a red pill.

;)

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Usury, is what is killin..., posted by Lynn on May 22, 2003

I just gotta be different...  :-)

... in response to Um,  Do you have any in green?, posted by John K on May 23, 2003

The funniest thing I have heard today other than LP's talk about how much he does not like people from the south. : )

... in response to Um,  Do you have any in green?, posted by John K on May 23, 2003

.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Usury, is what is killin..., posted by Lynn on May 22, 2003

Although we do not agree on these points, I really like the blue or red pill joke. Nice one. I am also a big Matrix fan.

As for the tangent that says the taxes we pay are under the category of usery because the government issues bonds, I think the ties are a little thin. First of all, the interest rate on these bonds are incredibly low. No where near usery. Secondly, almost every government in the world issues debt. This country starting selling bonds when it was created. Its not some new invention. States, counties and cities issue bonds all the time. Finally, and most importantly, the taxes you pay are not a loan to the government. Just because the government uses some of your taxes paid to pay off very low interest loans does not mean that usery has entered the equation.

As for the stuff about similarities with social security cards and money, I want to know where you are going. I really do not see Alan Grgeenspan as the evil puppetmaster who is pulling the strings of the world. Do you? Who do you see behind this supposedly sinister plan to control our lives?

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Usury, is what is ki..., posted by DanM on May 23, 2003

[This message has been edited by Lynn]

as the "Oracle" would say.

First, the interest is not the primary concern, it's the whole process:

Following is a simplified explanation of the inane method in which currency and credit is currently created in the United States. This system benefits a few elitists at an exorbitant cost to We the People! The average American contributes one third of his hard earned dollars to support this corruption!

Let's say, for example, that to carry out its legitimate functions, the United States needs $300 billion in credit and $100 million in currency :

1. The U.S. Bureau of Printing and Engraving at the U.S. Treasury is instructed to print $100 million in Federal Reserve Notes, as currency for the privately owned Federal Reserve.

2. The privately owned Federal Reserve System pays the U.S. Bureau of Printing and Engraving $20.60 per 1000 bills it prints! That is approximately two and a half cents for each bill, regardless of their face denomination, ie. $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100 bill. WHAT A DEAL!!

3. Next, the United States orders the same U.S. Bureau of Printing and Engraving to print $300 billion, $100 million worth of U.S. Treasury Bonds.

4. The privately owned Federal Reserve then purchases $100 million of U.S. Treasury Bonds (redeemable at full face value plus interest) from the United States. To pay for these, the Fed uses the privately owned Federal Reserve Notes that they just purchased for two and a half cents per bill! Next, the privately owned Federal Reserve purchases the other $300 billion in U.S. Bonds with a simple ten second computer entry that transfers $300 billion in credit into the United States Treasury account. Where did the privately owned Federal Reserve System get the $300 billion? It created it from NOTHING.

The People are then obligated to repay the privately owned Federal Reserve, with their tax dollars, at full face value, plus interest (which is converted to gold at par, through the International Monetary Fund). The privately owned Federal Reserve Notes and federal government credits were created for virtually nothing.

Conversely, the repayment of just the interest on these bonds requires a Citizens¹ physical labor from approximately January 1st until May 1st and giving 100% of their substance to the privately owned Federal Reserve. What does the privately owned Federal Reserve or the federal government give back to We the People in exchange for the sweat of our brow? NOTHING! ZIP! NADA! That constitutes servitude without just compensation.

COST TO WE THE PEOPLE: $300 Billion, $100 Million, plus continuously compounding interest.

COST TO THE PRIVATELY OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE: About $26,000

"PERMIT ME TO CONTROL THE CURRENCY OF A NATION AND I CARE NOT WHO MAKES ITS
LAWS!" Baron de Rothschild

You know the funny thing is that my high school history teacher understood this and tried to teach us what really goes on. I ,and my other classmates I suspect, could not grasp the concept as being possible. I guess that comes from growing up in a place where crime was almost non-existant and believing that the government was benevolent. After 30 years, I ran into him at the supermarket and in our conversation I told him that I finally came to grips with what he had tried to teach us so long ago, we both had a good laugh.  

The Currency Act of 1792 defines a "dollar" as 412.5 grains of 9/10 fine silver ( originally 371.25 grains fo 11/12 fine silver). This act has never been revoked. FRN's are not redeemable in silver. Consider this, your property tax notices never show a dollar sign, why, because property is tangable---there is no real money, it would be fraud to attach the dollar sign to a bill that is attached to something that is real.

No I don't see Greenspan as the puppetmaster, he is just the front man for the reserve and the corporate government, for a "fiction" to appear "real" it has to employ a human being to appear to be the authority. The international bankers are the ones pulling the strings.

Anyone who has a SS card also has the secondary number, it may not be on your card now, but if you get a duplicate card it will be there. Each and every one of us are considered to be "collateral" for unknown (to us) ammounts of this fiat money each piece bearing that number that was assigned to you. What else does the government have to back the fiat money? If all the national debt were called in, the whole value of the US x 3 would be required to pay it off. Are we going to impregnate the country and hope it has twins?

Now, just where is that birth certificate?????????

How about Executive Order 13037?  Smoke this over: http://www.freedomdomain.com/redemption/eo13037_1.html

Are you "human capital"?

Did you know that one of the first major operations for the IMF, which is funded by the Fed, was the funding of the Bolshevic Revolution in Russia?

And now to toast that noodle---------It is a documented fact(in court records, no less) that the IRS is not a USG agency and neither you nor they can show us a law that makes us liable to file or pay income taxes---don't believe me, go to their own code book and read. My what would all those people do if they were suddenly out of "work"?
First you must know who you are and who they are. Are you a person or a individual? Heck, form 1040 is not even a stand alone document----do they tell you that? Sure they do, that is if you know where to look.

Better yet, show up in Austin, Texas this saturday at the corner directly across from the IRS building and explain to the crowd there that you can answer the question that the gentleman there who is into 40+ days of a hunger strike to the death or answer of (1) question from the IRS. I truly wish him success in his quest, but as of yet there has been no official response from them or our government even though the question has been asked in petition after petition over the last few years. My, did you see anything about that on the evening indoctrination (news)program?

Remember the training program, when they were walking against the flow of the crowd? Where are you? Are you ready?

... in response to This will cook your noodle later...., posted by Lynn on May 23, 2003

.........SHHHHH...................

... in response to DanM, the Matrix must have you......., posted by Lynn on May 26, 2003

.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: weak dollar has its charms, posted by DanM on May 20, 2003

The problem in America right now is the greed of top mgmt. Look at executive wages they are almost 400 times the average wage of the workers. They close plants in the US send the manufacturing overseas and bring back the product at the same price even though they make big savings in labor, they actually shift the savings to their pockets. This was one of Adam Smith's worries of Capitalism. Even Smith believed in fair wages since you need to have consumers who can afford the products you make.
Now their are world economists saying the same thing and actually calling for the third world countries to unionize to raise their standard of living so they can become consumers instead of slaves for multinationals.

Truthfully I believe we will see a global crash coming in the near future. We could avoid this by having a government retraining program and national healthcare. The retraining could be paid by a small excise tax on incoming goods. Free trade should never totally exist you should collect some taxes, so if jobs leave then the incoming tax will provide the money for retraining. I believe in  national healthcare. There are many people who would like to start businesses right now but can't since they can't afford to lose a medical plan if they have a family. With national healthcare I could quit work and try to develop a business knowing that my family is at least covered in an emergency. We can afford national healthcare get rid of VA, medicare, medicaid, etc.. I don't believe we should cover everything. No plastic surgery unless a burn victim. If your 80 years old and you need a liver and heart the national plan should not pay if you want extra coverage then you would have to get it yourself. A lot of businesses would like to see this and they may not move jobs overseas since it would cost less with a national plan. Most major corporations would see a decline in the amount they pay. Remember we already have 40% of Americans with no healthcare.  That means the other 60% are picking up the difference let alone all the illegal immigrants getting free care.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: weak dollar has its char..., posted by stefang on May 20, 2003

If the definition of corporate greed is a desire to generate as much profit as possible and maximize return on investment, then you are correct. Corporations are greedy. Let be honest, however, about who is greedy here. Its not just the Jack Welch's of the world who are greedy. Its every stockholder and every mutual fund owner who is just as greedy. Anyone who gets upset when their 401K shrinks instead of grow is just as guilty as the big, bad corporate CEOs. The "greedy" wall street investor is the one who creates and environment for corporate officers to do everything they do. In short, you, me and every other investor are the source of the behavior you dislike so much.

Business is about profit. Yes its wonderful to talk about fair wages and to characterize unskilled labor as some sort of Gary Cooper type quiet hero, but that does not mean its economically viable in the 21st century to pay someone even low scale US wages for assembly and more simple manufacturing jobs.

These corporations can make it somewhere else with cheaper labor and still save a very big bundle when the tack on shipping costs. The company makes more money. The stock price goes up. Shareholders are happy and the corporate officers are then rewarded by grateful shareholders.

It makes a lot more sense to be pragmatic and talk about how we can actually help people in need than to talk about pie in the sky changes that are never going to happen anyway. Like lowering the value of the dollar or forcing companies to keep jobs in this country. Yes retraining for more viable jobs is a great starting point, but we also have to stop the bleeding. Our society produces way to many unfocused and ignorant people for its own good. If Playstation was a viable job skill, then we would have absolutely no worries. Unfortunately the day when playstation will put us over the top has not come yet. Bottom line is that we need to educate our young people better and channel them into more productive job fields. It needs to be a strategic deeicison made at the federal level or it just won't work.

As for the national healthcare idea, I agree with you to a point. I would love to see everyone get good, reliable healthcare. No one with a heart could say anything else. Unfortunately, someone would have to pay for the tremendous outlay of cash that would be needed. Who do you think will pay it? Most likely it will be a government mandated burden imposed on employers. Yes you heard it right. Universal health coverage will most likely be paid for by business via a government mandate. Unfortunately, this will only speed up the flight of manufacturing and assembly job to other countries because it will increase the employee cost here.

I don't really see a global meltdown of the economy, but who knows. Could you tell us a little more about the reasons for your statement regarding a global crash?