The Era of Living Dangerously

[omarali50]

As an immigrant, some random thoughts: There seems to be very little (by world standards) retail corruption and a high level of trust in daily life; If I get ticketed, I dont expect to buy off the officer, and we have left a wallet and a phone in a major mall and had if turned in to the lost and found both times, and so on. But expectation of incorruptibility in govt is rather low.... There seems to be more corruption in the county aldermen and suchlike, and then there seems to be quite a lot of higher level corruption (Congress, for example). Since it seems to have been even worse in the 19th century, one wonders if its actually compatible with long term growth? Or does it eventually filter down to the retail level and then the whole culture decays and looks more like India or Pakistan? How does a culture of basic honesty and trust get transmitted? how long can it survive? And does it even exist or is Wisconsin just an illusion? (leftists tell me that its only because most of the country is so "rich"...let them become poor and watch the trust evaporate..I am not sure I buy that either) And why is guvmint expected to be corrupt in a society that is not so corrupt in everyday life? Does that mistrust in guvmint fuel corruption or reflect a healthy aversion to corruption?
Just wondering...

[slapout9]

As an immigrant, some random thoughts: There seems to be very little (by world standards) retail corruption and a high level of trust in daily life; If I get ticketed, I dont expect to buy off the officer, and we have left a wallet and a phone in a major mall and had if turned in to the lost and found both times, and so on. But expectation of incorruptibility in govt is rather low.... There seems to be more corruption in the county aldermen and suchlike, and then there seems to be quite a lot of higher level corruption (Congress, for example). Since it seems to have been even worse in the 19th century, one wonders if its actually compatible with long term growth? Or does it eventually filter down to the retail level and then the whole culture decays and looks more like India or Pakistan? How does a culture of basic honesty and trust get transmitted? how long can it survive? And does it even exist or is Wisconsin just an illusion? (leftists tell me that its only because most of the country is so "rich"...let them become poor and watch the trust evaporate..I am not sure I buy that either) And why is guvmint expected to be corrupt in a society that is not so corrupt in everyday life? Does that mistrust in guvmint fuel corruption or reflect a healthy aversion to corruption?
Just wondering...

Real News interview on the subject. Economic instability leas to Political Instability leads to Insurgencies....living dangerously.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...4&jumival=7169

[Ken White]

Real News interview on the subject. Economic instability leas to Political Instability leads to Insurgencies....living dangerously.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...4&jumival=7169

Who knew...

His comments are supported by this Study (LINK .pdf) and 5,000years of history. Poor people riot...

Particularly if they are incensed because their government told them everything was great and all would be well -- and then had to pull the rug out from under them due to its own flawed policies of trying to do too much in efforts that would obtain votes while not doing things that were needed for the nation.

"“It is simply, and solely, the abundance of money within a state [which] makes the difference in its grandeur and power.”"

"“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing.”"

Jean Baptist Colbert, circa 1680

[slapout9]

Who knew...

His comments are supported by this Study (LINK .pdf) and 5,000years of history. Poor people riot...

Particularly if they are incensed because their government told them everything was great and all would be well -- and then had to pull the rug out from under them due to its own flawed policies of trying to do too much in efforts that would obtain votes while not doing things that were needed for the nation.

"“It is simply, and solely, the abundance of money within a state [which] makes the difference in its grandeur and power.”"

"“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing.”"

Jean Baptist Colbert, circa 1680

It is all about who controls the money and Rothschild the Banker said this:

“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”

[Ken White]

That's always been true and isn't going to change, it's a feature not a bug. It is also a people thing, thus my comment above that you could take all the money in the world and redistribute it and within a year or so, pretty much the same people would be controlling most of that money.

After WW I, when the US Troops arrived in Russia one mission was to aid the Czech Legion in getting to Vladivostok. When the 27th Infantry got to large PW camp full of Czech, German and Austrian PWs, the Russian Guards had fled, the Camp was ruled by huge Czech Corporal and they has Cops and Carpenters, Hunters and Farmers -- the best shoemaker was a former German Colonel IIRC. The Prisoners used wooden money they made. They had created a capitalist society from absolutely nothing other than the clothing on their backs when they'd arrived. That's the way humans operate...

Instead of trying to change something that isn't going to be changed, better to accept it as a feature and design processes that employ it rather than futilely objecting to it as unfair or illegal or whatever.

Big government fans -- Marx was far from the first -- have always believed, quite wrongly, that they can change it. Every attempt has failed -- but they will keep trying. They obviously still are trying. They can't. Better to harness it and use it...

[Fuchs]

Let's not fool ourselves. Our societies are more than 50% planning economies. The government runs as a planning economy and all corporations do.

[slapout9]

After WW I, when the US Troops arrived in Russia one mission was to aid the Czech Legion in getting to Vladivostok. When the 27th Infantry got to large PW camp full of Czech, German and Austrian PWs, the Russian Guards had fled, the Camp was ruled by huge Czech Corporal and they has Cops and Carpenters, Hunters and Farmers -- the best shoemaker was a former German Colonel IIRC. The Prisoners used wooden money they made. They had created a capitalist society from absolutely nothing other than the clothing on their backs when they'd arrived. That's the way humans operate...

No Capitalism there Ken. No Bank Debt money no Capitalism! That is staright up Marx Labor Theory of Value. All value (usefullness)comes from Labor (people) thats why he(Marx) hated banks they BS people in to thinking money is the source of value. It is the "PRODUCT" being produced that has value to people. Which is why he said focus on the LEFT side (the production side)and you want have to worry about the concumption (consumer credit side)!

Congress does not control the Federal Reserve Banking System....that's the problem.

[slapout9]

Here is a picture of real guvmint money vs. federal reserve money. One was printed DEBT the other was and still continues to be printed as DEBT not money with interest tacked on to it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note

We need Guvmint Money. Incidentally some these US notes may still be out there (they a red seal) if you ever run across one they are very valuable. All this saving the world economy stuff has made me hungry.....gonna go fry me some chicken and make some corn bread and some Baptist iced tea

[Fuchs]

Yeah, he described "market economy", which ain't necessarily the same as capitalism.
Capitalism's central feature is that some of the worker's "value added" goes to the capital-owner(s).

In early capitalism, the factory owner is a natural person and in late capitalism the factory owner is a juristic person. The latter tends to involve much more banking than the former.

Marx basically decried mostly what we do nowadays know as a market failure: power asymmetry.


Market failures and the topics of safety/security and public organisation (such as traffic lights, assignment of radio frequencies) are the core justifications for a state.
Sadly, way too many people do know very little if anything about market failures. Only the monopoly is quite well-known by name.

[Ken White]

No Capitalism there Ken. No Bank Debt money no Capitalism! That is staright up Marx Labor Theory of Value.

Except they had a bank in the former PW compound at Irkutsk and it made loans to include construction loans. It was also responsible for marketing products made by the former prisoners to get real money and / or tools plus ammo for the hunters (from Trotsky's troops -- more capitalists...).

There was capitalism pure and simple

By late 1918 there were also conflicts between the Austrian and Germans on one side, joined by a few Czech allies and most of the Czechs joined by the few Italian on the other side. The former wanted to go west on foot and fight for Germany and its allies, the latter wanted to go east by train, travel by ship to France and fight Germans. Interestingly, As I recall, there was a healthy trade during that break up using the wooden money to build up supplies for the two sides based on their preferred or presumed modes of travel...

Congress does not control the Federal Reserve Banking System....that's the problem.

That's not a problem, that's the myth. Check this LINKIt's common knowledge and I'm sure you're aware of all of it -- I post it here only to note the first paragraph of the article and where the Chairman ate lunch -- and / or with whom...

Then there's the Feds mission. This is from their Web site, the Monetary Policy .pdf: ""The goals of monetary policy are spelled out in the Federal Reserve Act, which specifies that the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee should seek “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”"

Why is the Fed keeping interest rates so low in the face of some say a very definite need for them to be raised to aid the economy and force more money into circulation to get employment going. There are also those who say that the -- so far -- mild inflation we're experiencing is due to that hold down in a perverse effort to get more money flowing...

Of course, if the Fed allowed the rates to climb, it would drive our interest on the national debt up which would thoroughly screw up the smoke and mirrors of the Great Deficit Reduction Scam by the Gang of Twelve. It would also adversely impact a number of reelection campaigns next year (that would be 2012...). Yet in spite of its own instincts and its Charter to do good for the Country and aid employment levels, independent of politics, the Fed not only holds 'em down but says it plans to do that until 2013. Why 2013? Ain't that weeeird...

Note also that those goals are specified in the Federal Reserve Act. Who does Acts? Beyond that:

Who spends funds the Federal Reserve plays with? Who can pass laws impacting the Fed's ability to do its job? Who must confirm the President's choices for the Fed Board and Directors?

You real sure you don't want that bridge?

[Pete]

After WW I, when the US Troops arrived in Russia one mission was to aid the Czech Legion in getting to Vladivostok.

When my Dad arrived at his U.S. Army reception station at the Presidio of Monterey, California in 1943 the recruits asked an older master sergeant there what his ribbons stood for. The sergeant obliged and named them one by one, saving the best for last, the one he was proudest of -- " ... and this one gentlemen is for the Siberian Expeditionary Force!"

[Ken White]

...And does it even exist or is Wisconsin just an illusion? (leftists tell me that its only because most of the country is so "rich"...let them become poor and watch the trust evaporate..I am not sure I buy that)

I do not buy it either. Not at all. I'm old enough to recall the so-called Great Depression and the US was several orders of magnitude more poor than we are today. There was a bit more corruption at lower levels but less at higher levels and the national trust factor reflected that. People did more for themselves -- government also had little money -- and cooperation at all levels was less grudging. I have watched this slowly change through the intervening decades and most corruption and malfeasance has been modified, often but not always for the better, as more wealth accrued to the system.

IMO cooperation between the levels of government today is generally only fair. While it is somewhat facilitated by the process of Federal grants and transfers of money to states and localities, it is impeded -- harmed, even -- by the Federal penchant for excessive interference and ill-thought out laws and regulations. The arrogance of Federal agencies in dealing with other entities is real, palpable and is, I think, due to patronizing engendered by the fact that they have the power of those transfers. Individually or en masse, the wealthy tend to look down their noses at the proles.

I suspect a shift in tax policy to more correctly place tax authority at the point of need -- education and medical care are State, not Federal responsibilities would be helpful in that regard. Such an effort would also curtail the elements of corruption induced by excessive amounts of money that can be obtained from the Feds.

And why is guvmint expected to be corrupt in a society that is not so corrupt in everyday life? Does that mistrust in guvmint fuel corruption or reflect a healthy aversion to corruption?...

Good question and something to ponder.

I wonder if the explosion of media outlets by sheer volume and which have to raise issues to garner attention has not caused an attack dog mentality on the part of that media and caused them to be aggressive to the point where they overstate issue and thus, deliberately or inadvertently, sow distrust?

I think your point on low level (city and county) and high level (federal) corruption may be explained by the visibility factor. The local issues are always readily apparent to everyone while the federal level is heavily if usually poorly covered by the national media and punditocracy -- the equally human State level is generally noted only by political junkies and those close to particular issues; State government news and event coverage in the dozen or so states in which I've lived as an adult is generally poor. My perception mirrors yours, that it was worse in the 19th century and my belief is that it was worse in the 1940s and 50s than it now is as I wrote above...

We are, I believe, improving -- if only slowly. People are people, after all.