How does the right feel about Obama pushing domestic goods at the APEC summit?
It seems as if the trade currency issues with China are less volatile.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11748433
Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Last edited by fun4fish on Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Mark Hiser
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 7:14 pm
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Wellll, I am not sure I would spin it as pushing domestic goods at this summit (APEC) not OPEC 
.
At this point in his political career, I don't think Obama has any other choice than to appear to be campaigning for the greater good of the USA. I am not convinced that much comes from these summits in all actuality, just a lot of posturing and jousting between supposed representatives from carefully chosen countries.
As long as imports are a greater value than domestic products, americans will buy imports.
It will take much pain and suffering in the USA's Unions and Manufacturing companies before we are able to produce competitive products.
Mark
.At this point in his political career, I don't think Obama has any other choice than to appear to be campaigning for the greater good of the USA. I am not convinced that much comes from these summits in all actuality, just a lot of posturing and jousting between supposed representatives from carefully chosen countries.
As long as imports are a greater value than domestic products, americans will buy imports.
It will take much pain and suffering in the USA's Unions and Manufacturing companies before we are able to produce competitive products.
Mark
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
sorry APEC 
Just curious as to what Obama has to do to look like he's in the countries best interest? His healthcare (although took on a different shape) is a huge step forward for people with preexisting conditions and certainly the people that were bound to file bankruptcy in years to come. While he may lack experience I do believe he has less puppet strings attached than former presidents.
While these summit meetings may not show direct results they are making headlines and creating awareness for buying domestic. This imo creates more of a buzz and incentive to promote and buy "Made In America". Thinking baby steps here. Hopefully our govt will put some kind of incentives in place over time that don't step on our masters' toes (China). The fact that the Chinese are acknowledging their inflated market is huge, of course that doesn't mean things are changing just yet.
Just curious as to what Obama has to do to look like he's in the countries best interest? His healthcare (although took on a different shape) is a huge step forward for people with preexisting conditions and certainly the people that were bound to file bankruptcy in years to come. While he may lack experience I do believe he has less puppet strings attached than former presidents.
While these summit meetings may not show direct results they are making headlines and creating awareness for buying domestic. This imo creates more of a buzz and incentive to promote and buy "Made In America". Thinking baby steps here. Hopefully our govt will put some kind of incentives in place over time that don't step on our masters' toes (China). The fact that the Chinese are acknowledging their inflated market is huge, of course that doesn't mean things are changing just yet.
-
Greg_Cornish
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm
- Location: Clear Lake
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Watching him after he got into office makes me believe he finally found out who is really pulling the strings in this country and quickly attached the strings left from George Bush to his body.
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet, is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Before Obama left on his trip, he flood our economy with worthless money (600 Billion) bring down the worth of your hourly pay. Making what produces we do make cheap for other Countries to buy, the reason for his trip! If you want to know what it is like to live in Mexico you will soon see.
The problem it will increase the cost of everything that is imported to our Country as in oil and steel. Which will bring up the cost just to live.
The problem it will increase the cost of everything that is imported to our Country as in oil and steel. Which will bring up the cost just to live.
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
I have to say it does look like the Fed is pumping more money into the market to combat China's currency, but I'm no econ expert.Marty wrote:Before Obama left on his trip, he flood our economy with worthless money (600 Billion) bring down the worth of your hourly pay. Making what produces we do make cheap for other Countries to buy, the reason for his trip! If you want to know what it is like to live in Mexico you will soon see.
The problem it will increase the cost of everything that is imported to our Country as in oil and steel. Which will bring up the cost just to live.
Marty how do you think Obama should try to get the unemployed back to work ?
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
You have to bring the taxes down where the ones that have the money will start using it and not hold it back. John F Kenny knew that (but he was one of the last real Democrats). Why is it fare to rise taxes on 1% of the population when 48% don’t pay any taxes? “The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.”
We don’t even know what are taxes will be next year! That is why businesses are not hiring!
Take all of the regulation that prevents the start up business and piling on cost to do business. Take Obama care – the fine to not have insurance is cheaper that the insurance – one smart move.
Bring down that cost of oil and that only can be done if we drill here in our country. Our country runs on oil and I don’t care what the Environmentalists say we need alterative sources – they are not here yet! Build Nuclear Power Plants!!!!
Close the border and just deport the illegals that are not married – even that much will bring jobs back.
We don’t even know what are taxes will be next year! That is why businesses are not hiring!
Take all of the regulation that prevents the start up business and piling on cost to do business. Take Obama care – the fine to not have insurance is cheaper that the insurance – one smart move.
Bring down that cost of oil and that only can be done if we drill here in our country. Our country runs on oil and I don’t care what the Environmentalists say we need alterative sources – they are not here yet! Build Nuclear Power Plants!!!!
Close the border and just deport the illegals that are not married – even that much will bring jobs back.
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
A friend sent me this link about the Bush Tax cuts...give it a read.Marty wrote:You have to bring the taxes down where the ones that have the money will start using it and not hold it back. John F Kenny knew that (but he was one of the last real Democrats). Why is it fare to rise taxes on 1% of the population when 48% don’t pay any taxes? “The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.”
We don’t even know what are taxes will be next year! That is why businesses are not hiring!
Take all of the regulation that prevents the start up business and piling on cost to do business. Take Obama care – the fine to not have insurance is cheaper that the insurance – one smart move.
Bring down that cost of oil and that only can be done if we drill here in our country. Our country runs on oil and I don’t care what the Environmentalists say we need alterative sources – they are not here yet! Build Nuclear Power Plants!!!!
Close the border and just deport the illegals that are not married – even that much will bring jobs back.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02671.html
While I agree that business' are gun shy about rehiring or investing I think many now realize that we are going to have a long recovery say 10-15 years. Common sense tells me that taxes are going up with a smaller tax base.
Another thing that isn't talked about among the unemployment numbers is the merging of internet sales and it's effect on the retail market. This in itself has created a wave of consolidations, something we started to see before '08 but was compounded with the market.
As for oil I suspect we will be slaves to public transit as oil goes up along with registration,smog,etc.. I see a great deal of money going into the advancement of electric cars and hybrid electric bicycle mopeds. It would be good to see microhydroelectric plants being built as well with some form WPA group.
I agree with you on our border problem...Obama a few months ago signed some new legislation granting $600 million to go towards 1500 new border agents,drones,and surveillance equipment.
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
f4f,fun4fish wrote: While I agree that business' are gun shy about rehiring or investing I think many now realize that we are going to have a long recovery say 10-15 years. Common sense tells me that taxes are going up with a smaller tax base.
Your common sense is correct, now, what does common sense tell you is the root to the dwindling taxpayer base
You may not want to admit it but it's obvious that the continual cycle of high taxation, over paid union labor and crippling regulations are the driving force of why U.S. businesses are relocating overseas and California businesses are moving out of state.
70% of the taxes are paid by the top 10% of earners,it's simple, we are running out of the top 10%. If we continue this cycle, where will the revenue come from?
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Read this. You will not be wasting your time. You will see it much better.I have to say it does look like the Fed is pumping more money into the market to combat China's currency, but I'm no econ expert.
http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf
To get people back to work you need to reduce or eliminate the overshadowing political risk that keeps anyone from risking all they have for returns that will surely be raided by taxes.
Investors are both wealthy people and ordinary savers. This savings is the capital that all enterprise is built on (not the disastrous credit that we have been running on for decades) but it was hard to collect. It took hard work and sacrifice to save it and anyone who has the sense to get that far in the first place isn't about to cast it into unknown winds. They will find the best shelter they can and wait for more predictable times or they will move it out of this country into one with better forecasting potential.
Not until these people can feel reasonably safe in investing will we see anything being produced here again.
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
I thought it was because the economy fell out because of a mortgage crisis?2ndsuks wrote:f4f,fun4fish wrote: While I agree that business' are gun shy about rehiring or investing I think many now realize that we are going to have a long recovery say 10-15 years. Common sense tells me that taxes are going up with a smaller tax base.
Your common sense is correct, now, what does common sense tell you is the root to the dwindling taxpayer base
You may not want to admit it but it's obvious that the continual cycle of high taxation, over paid union labor and crippling regulations are the driving force of why U.S. businesses are relocating overseas and California businesses are moving out of state.
70% of the taxes are paid by the top 10% of earners,it's simple, we are running out of the top 10%. If we continue this cycle, where will the revenue come from?
Do you not think business' are going overseas because the competition is? I see Nafta as a giant loophole that turned into a black hole. Coupled with illegal immigration these are the two things killing our jobs.
There will always be a top 10%. The top 10% are not investing and creating jobs out of fear. Obama could extend the tax cuts for 5 years and the top 10% would still be holding up their guard. There's no quick fix. I say we need to
place incentives on domestic goods
start up a WEP program and start employing people to build microhydroelectric plants and natural gas digging sites
focus job creation around public transit and rail lines
place a higher tax on internet sales or make business licenses more expensive
put term limits on the house/senate
cut back on military and prison spending
legalize marijuana for it's cash crop already
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Really dude, read the book and then come back and read what you just posted.
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Vince a lot of what's in the thread makes sense, but it's only a printed up mirage. How would you suggest instilling these kinds of policies into our system? riot,civil war?
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
fun4fish wrote:
There will always be a top 10%. The top 10% are not investing and creating jobs out of fear.Your common sense is right again, the fear of higher taxes, more regulations and the fear of uncertainty. Obama could extend the tax cuts for 5 years and the top 10% would still be holding up their guard.Of course they would, businesses need a long term commitment to free up investment capital and create growth, 5 years is nothing.There's no quick fix. I say we need to
place incentives on domestic goods The incentives will never out way the burdens in this country without cutting taxes, regulations and outrageous labor costs.
start up a WEP program and start employing people to build microhydroelectric plants and natural gas digging sites Would these be private sector jobs?
focus job creation around public transit and rail lines Here we go, where is the money coming from, government doesn't create economic growth my friend just bigger government.
place a higher tax on internet sales or make business licenses more expensive More taxation, more burdens!!
put term limits on the house/senate Scratching my head on this one.
cut back on military and prison spending Not a very popular decision come 9/12/200 was it, cut back on the waste and I'm on board.
legalize marijuana for it's cash crop already You're kidding, right?
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Fish, if a family has been living way beyond their means on credit and the whole thing has run it's course what do THEY have to do?
They have to wake up and admit to themselves that they cannot now nor could ever afford to live the way they have been.
Will it hurt? Sure. Will they be pissed? Probably but maybe using pissed to cover embarrassed or ashamed.
The people who have been living through govt policy one way or another have to face economic reality. Govt has to come clean and admit (perhaps first to themselves) the pozi scheme of govt bloat that has replaced what was once national prosperity.
Riots just may be inevitable as the growing pains work themselves out. Seeking to avoid the cure will make the problem worse and the cure even harder to take.
That's why politicians without the guts to just do it and watch it unfold are nothing but enemies of the people, regardless of the compassionate and saintly appearance they wish to cultivate for the next election season.
Most important of all REAL economic education needs to permeate through govt and the public alike.
If you don't know economics you shouldn't be setting policy and probably shouldn't be armchair quarterbacking it either.
Just read the damn book. Our conversations will make a lot more sense to you if you do. Less questions.
They have to wake up and admit to themselves that they cannot now nor could ever afford to live the way they have been.
Will it hurt? Sure. Will they be pissed? Probably but maybe using pissed to cover embarrassed or ashamed.
The people who have been living through govt policy one way or another have to face economic reality. Govt has to come clean and admit (perhaps first to themselves) the pozi scheme of govt bloat that has replaced what was once national prosperity.
Riots just may be inevitable as the growing pains work themselves out. Seeking to avoid the cure will make the problem worse and the cure even harder to take.
That's why politicians without the guts to just do it and watch it unfold are nothing but enemies of the people, regardless of the compassionate and saintly appearance they wish to cultivate for the next election season.
Most important of all REAL economic education needs to permeate through govt and the public alike.
If you don't know economics you shouldn't be setting policy and probably shouldn't be armchair quarterbacking it either.
Just read the damn book. Our conversations will make a lot more sense to you if you do. Less questions.
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.
-
Greg_Cornish
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm
- Location: Clear Lake
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
What book?
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet, is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
6 posts up.
Load it in your ipad.
It is what I should have suggested before Human Action.
"Economics in one lesson" is a clearly written intro to the effects of opportunity costs, the unseen, unrealized potential that is lost by choosing any one thing while forgoing others. The lesson is to keep your eye on how all of the other groups are effected when acting to favor a single group.
To flesh in the skeleton described in Hazlitt's book, there is no better than Human Action with the exception maybe of Rothbard's "Man, Economy and State". I haven't read that one yet but Rothbard's writing was definitely less dry than Mises'.
Load it in your ipad.
It is what I should have suggested before Human Action.
"Economics in one lesson" is a clearly written intro to the effects of opportunity costs, the unseen, unrealized potential that is lost by choosing any one thing while forgoing others. The lesson is to keep your eye on how all of the other groups are effected when acting to favor a single group.
To flesh in the skeleton described in Hazlitt's book, there is no better than Human Action with the exception maybe of Rothbard's "Man, Economy and State". I haven't read that one yet but Rothbard's writing was definitely less dry than Mises'.
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.
-
Greg_Cornish
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm
- Location: Clear Lake
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
I'll keep an eye out for the English version of Human Action.
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet, is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Vince I did read quite a bit of your link and have read Lew's links. Quite a bit of it makes sense, but the point I'm making is how can you instill this kind of system within "our" reality without causing total anarchy? Do you think the career politicians want to be educated economically? Are the bought and paid for mass media going to educate the public?Vince E wrote:Fish, if a family has been living way beyond their means on credit and the whole thing has run it's course what do THEY have to do?
They have to wake up and admit to themselves that they cannot now nor could ever afford to live the way they have been.
Will it hurt? Sure. Will they be pissed? Probably but maybe using pissed to cover embarrassed or ashamed.
The people who have been living through govt policy one way or another have to face economic reality. Govt has to come clean and admit (perhaps first to themselves) the pozi scheme of govt bloat that has replaced what was once national prosperity.
Riots just may be inevitable as the growing pains work themselves out. Seeking to avoid the cure will make the problem worse and the cure even harder to take.
That's why politicians without the guts to just do it and watch it unfold are nothing but enemies of the people, regardless of the compassionate and saintly appearance they wish to cultivate for the next election season.
Most important of all REAL economic education needs to permeate through govt and the public alike.
If you don't know economics you shouldn't be setting policy and probably shouldn't be armchair quarterbacking it either.
Just read the damn book. Our conversations will make a lot more sense to you if you do. Less questions.
LOL as for me "setting policy and armchair quartbacking" I'm expressing my views. Do my views have to be the most economically stimulating and as drastic as yours in order to be valid?
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Stimulating? Drastic? Don't you get it? There are naturals laws and there are consequences for trying to break them. Period.Do my views have to be the most economically stimulating and as drastic as yours in order to be valid?
You can't just twiddle with the "knobs" without effecting every part of the economy.
Everything we are experiencing is a direct result of those laws being ignored.
Every seeming "injustice" can't be simply done away with by a well meaning whim of the power group "in charge". The very act of trying throws the whole economy out of balance and when out of balance in starts to wind down. Sure some groups or sectors may seem to get the wanted boost but it comes at a cost to economy as a whole. Total production of real consumable goods decreases, and continues to do so with every well meant (yeah sure) forced adjustment. This means a reduction of overall wealth as a nation and indeed, a world. When you consider wealth is and probably always will be distributed along Perato's principle of 80's and 20's (20% hold 80% of the wealth) who you really hurt the most with any intervention ends up being the poorest people.
The fact that it has taken so long to come this far, that the engine of wealth production has been able to carry the parasitic body of special interests to such a degree before dropping to it's knees, is an amazing testament to the power of the nature of the market of exchange among humans, but it can be hobbled to a degree where many starve if they don't cut some of (all preferably) the parasitic mass loose, take their hands off of the "knobs" and let the thing spool up again.
If you had read and gave serious contemplation to the book I wouldn't have to be typing this.
The book says nothing about libertarian theory. Not all Austrians were anarchists. Mises wasn't an anarchist. They only approached economics as a science (praxeology- the science of humans acting, and catallactics- the science of exchange between humans or groups of humans) and payed close attention to the unintended consequences of intervention of any kind into to modern industrial exchange economy.
If anybody read only one book on economics it should be Henry Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson" and the damn thing is free.
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Chinese factory workers get something like .64 cents hr., even less for India workers. Other emerging third world markets will compete at those levels. The US starts at minimum wage, 7 to 8 bucks an hr., then the employer matches social security withholding, pays work comp insurance and some cases health insurance. US pay scale rises rapidly after that and then you have unions and their demands. Putting aside whatever is said in our worthless (to the US anyway) trade agreements, how can the US compete? Any ideas Vince?
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
I'm going to answer this under the (probably false) assumption that people know that REAL wages have nothing to do with the numbers on the hourly wage section of their pay stub. REAL wages are what you can buy with a given unit of you productive time. Raising wages to $1000/hr is meaningless when a loaf of bread now costs $1000. Ask the Germans who remember the Wiemar Republic (if there are any left) or the Argentinians....or the Zimbabweans.
The short answer is simple....lassize faire. It means HANDS OFF!
But it isn't enough to stop the obvious (to some) social intervention that has resulted in an uncompetitive situation. You have to stop the not so obvious stuff too.
Tariffs....gotta go. Protecting certain sectors (at the expense of all others) was the very beginning of all international trade problems. Look up what happened in the cotton industry here and the rubber industry in Britain. They should have learned something from those lessons but people are so easily moved by the obvious benefits they CAN see now and not the costs that are not seen now and misunderstood when they show up later.
Govt programs that subsidize production or pay for non-production are similarly poisonous to lasting prosperity but are allowed to continue for the very same reasons.
Central banking....gotta go. Giving the status quo power body (bodies when all nations are considered) the ability to manipulate the value of a forcibly accepted legal tender was the next big blunder on the path to the international trade problem we have now.
Money was natural manifestation of the market to facilitate human exchange in an ever expanding division of labor and needs no overseer to control it. Let the market (the international market as well) set what is money and what the relative values of what ever that may end up being.
Just those two would clean up a great deal of the international trade problems we now face but of course there is a major hurdle it seems.
The old "we can't get there from here" problem. How do we implement it now that trade and currency wars are abound? Who will let down their guard first?
Well one thing is for sure. There is going to be a lot of suffering. The kind of suffering that gets "compassionate" politicians a lot of votes mind you. But that won't stop the suffering as a whole, only the specific area of suffering that they will try to keep the cameras focused on. Suffering will continue to accelerate "off camera".
The thing people need to get through their heads is this....is it better to suffer at rate X now or rate 10X later? Is the relief seen in sector A on the nightly news worth the slow death of sectors B-Z over the long run?
The piper is here, we can pay him now or pay him later.
As an idea for how to "get there from here".....become TRULY isolationist, for a time anyway. We have what we REALLY need to survive here and what we would trade for we can do without until international balance is restored in trade. We could mine our garbage heaps and scrap yards for what isn't in the ground naturally and we would develop new tech for efficiency and recycling in the process.
Bring back our military and all of its resources and build a very strong but local defense.
It would cost a fraction of what it costs now. That military's equipment all runs on oil, drill here for some and develop the algae tech that shows promise for home growing a petrol replacement.
Next we need food, it is what is most important after all. STOP paying people NOT to grow the stuff. That is moronic. How could paying people to NOT produce what we need EVER lead to a wealthier people? Well SOME people get wealthier. Food production should be a rate that has food costs low enough that the poorest Americans will be able to afford it.
Next focus on domestic energy. A huge section of the population wants to find cleaner sources of energy. Great, I'm OK with that. If food and defense have had the huge waste cut out of them maybe we could afford to spend a little more on the energy we use to move about, heat our homes, cook and run our industries.
A massive (voluntary mind you) surge in support for that goal (minus the protectionist racketeering like restrictive regulations and patents mind you) would rapidly accelerate the expansion and subsequent fall in consumer costs for this technology.
We could learn a lot from what Nicola Tesla wanted to do as far as distribution of power too. A wireless power distribution network (fashioned much like the servers of the internet) would allow for huge flexibility in distribution, thus breaking down the worst part of modern energy to the consumer.... the despotic nature under which they must live, with little choice or option, in whom and under what terms they buy their energy. Failing that a similarly fashioned network of superconductors would suffice.
The ability for anyone to start up a generation facility near the node of their choice (presumably a decision based on an agreeable contract with the specific owners of THAT node and/or section of the system) would bring to us what "deregulation" of PGE could never have provided given the distribution system as it is.
Give the people the chance to become providers and the choice of whom they will connect to and give people the chance to both buy from whom they want and have routed to them by whom they want (some limits would be present but it would be nowhere near the despotism we see now).
These changes along with lassize faire on the part of govt and market based money would allow us to build our wealth greater than it ever was. Our wealth being not gold or currency but stuff, consumables readily available to even those of the most meager means.
What we would need from other nations would be minimal. In time other would follow the example and international trade could be cautiously entered into once again. But with collective lesson learned....that once trade restrictions are started, in the name of "protecting" a failing group or industry, that it can only snowball into what we now have.
The short answer is simple....lassize faire. It means HANDS OFF!
But it isn't enough to stop the obvious (to some) social intervention that has resulted in an uncompetitive situation. You have to stop the not so obvious stuff too.
Tariffs....gotta go. Protecting certain sectors (at the expense of all others) was the very beginning of all international trade problems. Look up what happened in the cotton industry here and the rubber industry in Britain. They should have learned something from those lessons but people are so easily moved by the obvious benefits they CAN see now and not the costs that are not seen now and misunderstood when they show up later.
Govt programs that subsidize production or pay for non-production are similarly poisonous to lasting prosperity but are allowed to continue for the very same reasons.
Central banking....gotta go. Giving the status quo power body (bodies when all nations are considered) the ability to manipulate the value of a forcibly accepted legal tender was the next big blunder on the path to the international trade problem we have now.
Money was natural manifestation of the market to facilitate human exchange in an ever expanding division of labor and needs no overseer to control it. Let the market (the international market as well) set what is money and what the relative values of what ever that may end up being.
Just those two would clean up a great deal of the international trade problems we now face but of course there is a major hurdle it seems.
The old "we can't get there from here" problem. How do we implement it now that trade and currency wars are abound? Who will let down their guard first?
Well one thing is for sure. There is going to be a lot of suffering. The kind of suffering that gets "compassionate" politicians a lot of votes mind you. But that won't stop the suffering as a whole, only the specific area of suffering that they will try to keep the cameras focused on. Suffering will continue to accelerate "off camera".
The thing people need to get through their heads is this....is it better to suffer at rate X now or rate 10X later? Is the relief seen in sector A on the nightly news worth the slow death of sectors B-Z over the long run?
The piper is here, we can pay him now or pay him later.
As an idea for how to "get there from here".....become TRULY isolationist, for a time anyway. We have what we REALLY need to survive here and what we would trade for we can do without until international balance is restored in trade. We could mine our garbage heaps and scrap yards for what isn't in the ground naturally and we would develop new tech for efficiency and recycling in the process.
Bring back our military and all of its resources and build a very strong but local defense.
It would cost a fraction of what it costs now. That military's equipment all runs on oil, drill here for some and develop the algae tech that shows promise for home growing a petrol replacement.
Next we need food, it is what is most important after all. STOP paying people NOT to grow the stuff. That is moronic. How could paying people to NOT produce what we need EVER lead to a wealthier people? Well SOME people get wealthier. Food production should be a rate that has food costs low enough that the poorest Americans will be able to afford it.
Next focus on domestic energy. A huge section of the population wants to find cleaner sources of energy. Great, I'm OK with that. If food and defense have had the huge waste cut out of them maybe we could afford to spend a little more on the energy we use to move about, heat our homes, cook and run our industries.
A massive (voluntary mind you) surge in support for that goal (minus the protectionist racketeering like restrictive regulations and patents mind you) would rapidly accelerate the expansion and subsequent fall in consumer costs for this technology.
We could learn a lot from what Nicola Tesla wanted to do as far as distribution of power too. A wireless power distribution network (fashioned much like the servers of the internet) would allow for huge flexibility in distribution, thus breaking down the worst part of modern energy to the consumer.... the despotic nature under which they must live, with little choice or option, in whom and under what terms they buy their energy. Failing that a similarly fashioned network of superconductors would suffice.
The ability for anyone to start up a generation facility near the node of their choice (presumably a decision based on an agreeable contract with the specific owners of THAT node and/or section of the system) would bring to us what "deregulation" of PGE could never have provided given the distribution system as it is.
Give the people the chance to become providers and the choice of whom they will connect to and give people the chance to both buy from whom they want and have routed to them by whom they want (some limits would be present but it would be nowhere near the despotism we see now).
These changes along with lassize faire on the part of govt and market based money would allow us to build our wealth greater than it ever was. Our wealth being not gold or currency but stuff, consumables readily available to even those of the most meager means.
What we would need from other nations would be minimal. In time other would follow the example and international trade could be cautiously entered into once again. But with collective lesson learned....that once trade restrictions are started, in the name of "protecting" a failing group or industry, that it can only snowball into what we now have.
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.
-
Greg_Cornish
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm
- Location: Clear Lake
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Is that post above, the whole book?
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet, is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
"Economics In One Lesson" is 234 pages.
It was written in 1946 and revised around the late 70's.
With the exception of a few references that show the date such as a reference to Eleanor Roosevelt it reads like it was written yesterday.
The last chapter was written during the revision and looks at whether govts had adopted sound policies that the warnings put forth in the original book which of course they hadn't and shows that the expected results all appeared.
There is a reason Austrian economists have been marginalized since the progressive era. Govt does not want to hear it or have anyone else hear it either.
If Austrian policies were heeded govt expansion could not happen and that is not in the interests of everyone connected to govt.
Since economists find work mainly in govt or govt controlled academia, if at all, economists like Keynes, Greenspan, Bernake and Paulson live rich and large while people speaking the truth their whole lives like Mises and Rothbard could only find unofficial teaching posts paid not by the universities but by donations.
Similarly, there is a reason why the Koch funded "libertarians" at places like the Cato Institute and Reason will never breathe the words "Mises" or "Rothbard".
It was written in 1946 and revised around the late 70's.
With the exception of a few references that show the date such as a reference to Eleanor Roosevelt it reads like it was written yesterday.
The last chapter was written during the revision and looks at whether govts had adopted sound policies that the warnings put forth in the original book which of course they hadn't and shows that the expected results all appeared.
There is a reason Austrian economists have been marginalized since the progressive era. Govt does not want to hear it or have anyone else hear it either.
If Austrian policies were heeded govt expansion could not happen and that is not in the interests of everyone connected to govt.
Since economists find work mainly in govt or govt controlled academia, if at all, economists like Keynes, Greenspan, Bernake and Paulson live rich and large while people speaking the truth their whole lives like Mises and Rothbard could only find unofficial teaching posts paid not by the universities but by donations.
Similarly, there is a reason why the Koch funded "libertarians" at places like the Cato Institute and Reason will never breathe the words "Mises" or "Rothbard".
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
Been busy sorry for the late reply.Vince E wrote:If you had read and gave serious contemplation to the book I wouldn't have to be typing this.
The book says nothing about libertarian theory. Not all Austrians were anarchists. Mises wasn't an anarchist. They only approached economics as a science (praxeology- the science of humans acting, and catallactics- the science of exchange between humans or groups of humans) and payed close attention to the unintended consequences of intervention of any kind into to modern industrial exchange economy.
If anybody read only one book on economics it should be Henry Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson" and the damn thing is free.
My point to you is and always has been "how can you instill this kind of system within "our" reality without causing total anarchy? Do you think the career politicians want to be educated economically? Are the bought and paid for mass media going to educate the public?" how do you instill these beliefs without riots and a civil war?
I agree with much of what you have to say along with the book, but maybe lack the optimism and am living in the present
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
The massive expansion of govt was predicated on the formation of a central bank and legal tender laws.
The govt finances far more of its bloat through inflation (which ends up redistributing real wealth from fixed income people to those closely connected with banks and govt) than it ever could through taxation. Even hard left types would double take when they saw the true costs currently hidden by the operations of the super secret Fed.
The central bank allows banks to behave in a manner that would be suicidal without the safety net the Fed provides. Crises like we have seen since 1914 could never get so far out of hand before the initiating or enabling banks folded.
Legal tender laws force us to accept dollars for payment no matter how poor the quality of those dollars might be. Without those laws competing currencies would give people alternate choices and bad money would find no users.
With both of these addressed the inflation scheme and nearly all manners of irresponsible lending and financial slight of hand would fade away, its purveyors bankrupted.
Govt would have no choice but to begin shrinking and becoming less wasteful. Would there be some unrest among those who slop at the govt troff? Of course but there will never be any other way. Unless those folks can look in the mirror and say "Damn, I've been leaching off of my fellow man. I'm going to stop." then there will be unrest.
That said, you're a smart person, what do you think the best first move would be? How about the immediate repeal of the Federal Reserve Act?
Of course politicians don't want to know the truth about how their self centered policies do far more harm to us a whole than any good they do to a specific group.
More to the point, they don't want us to know either. That's why they hail the obfuscation of neo-classical/Keynesian economics and do everything possible to either bury or discredit the Austrian school, especially the Misesian branch.
The govt finances far more of its bloat through inflation (which ends up redistributing real wealth from fixed income people to those closely connected with banks and govt) than it ever could through taxation. Even hard left types would double take when they saw the true costs currently hidden by the operations of the super secret Fed.
The central bank allows banks to behave in a manner that would be suicidal without the safety net the Fed provides. Crises like we have seen since 1914 could never get so far out of hand before the initiating or enabling banks folded.
Legal tender laws force us to accept dollars for payment no matter how poor the quality of those dollars might be. Without those laws competing currencies would give people alternate choices and bad money would find no users.
With both of these addressed the inflation scheme and nearly all manners of irresponsible lending and financial slight of hand would fade away, its purveyors bankrupted.
Govt would have no choice but to begin shrinking and becoming less wasteful. Would there be some unrest among those who slop at the govt troff? Of course but there will never be any other way. Unless those folks can look in the mirror and say "Damn, I've been leaching off of my fellow man. I'm going to stop." then there will be unrest.
That said, you're a smart person, what do you think the best first move would be? How about the immediate repeal of the Federal Reserve Act?
Of course politicians don't want to know the truth about how their self centered policies do far more harm to us a whole than any good they do to a specific group.
More to the point, they don't want us to know either. That's why they hail the obfuscation of neo-classical/Keynesian economics and do everything possible to either bury or discredit the Austrian school, especially the Misesian branch.
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
OK, instead of a whole book read a short paper that explains the fallacies that this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard125.html
view is built on.place incentives on domestic goods
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard125.html
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.
Re: Obama warns nations not to rely on exports to US
I agree without question the federal reserve act needs to be repealed, but who's got the balls to give it legs right now? I do bet that we see someone running in a few election cycles (when we really hit rock bottom)with the fed reserve repeal in their tag. Until then everyone that borrows money for their car,home,medical bill,etc.. is a slave to the corp banks that run the world.Vince E wrote:The massive expansion of govt was predicated on the formation of a central bank and legal tender laws.
The govt finances far more of its bloat through inflation (which ends up redistributing real wealth from fixed income people to those closely connected with banks and govt) than it ever could through taxation. Even hard left types would double take when they saw the true costs currently hidden by the operations of the super secret Fed.
The central bank allows banks to behave in a manner that would be suicidal without the safety net the Fed provides. Crises like we have seen since 1914 could never get so far out of hand before the initiating or enabling banks folded.
Legal tender laws force us to accept dollars for payment no matter how poor the quality of those dollars might be. Without those laws competing currencies would give people alternate choices and bad money would find no users.
With both of these addressed the inflation scheme and nearly all manners of irresponsible lending and financial slight of hand would fade away, its purveyors bankrupted.
Govt would have no choice but to begin shrinking and becoming less wasteful. Would there be some unrest among those who slop at the govt troff? Of course but there will never be any other way. Unless those folks can look in the mirror and say "Damn, I've been leaching off of my fellow man. I'm going to stop." then there will be unrest.
That said, you're a smart person, what do you think the best first move would be? How about the immediate repeal of the Federal Reserve Act?
Of course politicians don't want to know the truth about how their self centered policies do far more harm to us a whole than any good they do to a specific group.
More to the point, they don't want us to know either. That's why they hail the obfuscation of neo-classical/Keynesian economics and do everything possible to either bury or discredit the Austrian school, especially the Misesian branch.
As for the career politicians I think most are smart enough to know the truth, but opt for a career and not a future. So they take a side/stance and become part of a chess team that gets caught up with beating the other team and not truly winning. It's easy to see why there's so many in the middle right now and why the right wants less govt with the amount of corruption there is, but that is why we need to put term limits on all these clowns and bleed them out!
http://www.termlimits.org/content.asp?a ... ntentid=28
Advertising
Copyright © 2013-2025 WesternBass.com ®