Financial topics

[aedens]

If you think they did not take for the cult you are mistaken. http://www.zerohedge.com/article/panic- ... p-500-pits

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-0 ... impossible

They will shake the piggy bank when they want to and you are mistaken if you assume anything else. I had a conversation
some years back with the head of the Univercity's computer department. He was candid and said I have no idea what you are doing
now. I had another conversation with another on a wireless project and yea we want your code so we can jointly come to a compromise.
After that a few years we allowed University student to have at it and bring a patch when you get in. This was Calvin and Hope Colleges.
If you think for a second the public market had any idea then what is going on then you know better than that anyway. Like as it was
conveyed I got out before the bubble for a number of reasons left in the forums. To be blunt it took about 10 years longer than I considered then
on the rate of sector maturity's. Second problem was I had one more scruple than them. It was said that if you consider trust a
problem you are percieved as needed to go. This advise did not suffice for other implication they would not consider.
When we did lets say some files got closed. We seen it coming but I did meet some great people along the way. I also had some
that you would not want that data across the gateway so I decided its time to get out intact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtsxFHz6ueI

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

[reviresco]

Mr. 1953,
I agree with you that we will not see classic Leninism here in the U.S., but that was not the point that Mr. Churchill was trying to make, nor the one I was trying to convey by quoting him.

I have placed you at a disadvantage because you don't have the entire essay on George Bernard Shaw or Leon Trotsky,alias Bronstein at your fingertips, and I only typed in the "scary" fruits of full bore Communism from each essay. I apologize.

In fact, his point is similar to your own; that while we may never see classic Leninism in England (or the United States), the weak step-sisters of Communists (namely the leftists, pink liberals (as opposed to classic visionary liberals), collectivists, and socialists) all travel the same road, and we must keep in mind where that road can only lead, as evidenced by post Tsarist Russia ( as Churchill described in his essay) up until Andropov and Gorbachev, and China until Deng.

Churchill's two essays are a call to the common man for an awareness of that danger, and to help them recognize the duplicitous nature of those who gather unto themselves as much of the Capitalist fruit they can, while simultaneously espousing and implenting the wonders and promise of Communism for the rest of the population.

Not unlike many in office today, which is the main point.

Communism/Collectivism is sharing on a grand scale. And as all parents know, sharing must be taught, and if a youngster does not share, they are often punished or made to share. This is no different than any collectivism proffered. It is not in mans nature, and the sad hope and goal of the Fabians is that it can slowly and gently be instilled, and when necessary for the common good, imposed. With Amtrak, Federal land holdings, the grabbing of the stock and bonds of Chrysler and GM from the hands of their investors by the government on behalf of the unions, and the various financial sectors brought to heal, the end result for investors and liberty is the same.
That is the ultimate goal of the Fabians anyway, to have society travel the Collectivist road without bloodshed.

However, it is the built in creep of the creed toward Communism that alarmed Churchill so many years ago, and why so many others see the same danger today and how, with every election, we have the chance to tell our collectivist brothers and sisters, " we understand your goals and dreams of equality, but the manner of bringing it about is against man's nature and ripe for usurpation by tyrants and criminals, so no thank you".

Tuesday's Choice should be "no thank you".

[aedens]

I agree on the contextual consideration rev. We take great liberty on each other with the GD narrative.
Does any one have a clue why they put 3 Syrian tanks have entered the demilitarized zone.
If you pull the wolves tail....
http://duckduckgo.com/?q=operation+nickle+grass

Back at the ranch http://www.borderlandbeat.com/

https://twitter.com/Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/ ... H620121104

http://www.thespec.com/news/business/ar ... e-services atm

http://www.panarchy.org/keynes/laissezfaire.1926.html http://library.mises.org/books/Ludwig%2 ... Action.pdf

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/tod ... -at-tours/

how not why it works http://www.theburningplatform.com/

[Higgenbotham]

I agree on the contextual consideration rev. We take great liberty on each other with the GD narrative.

weak stream » Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:03 pm

Yes, absolutely Burt. And I think that the modern day oppressive force which seeks to take our private property, autonomy and identity is a political class armed with central bank/fiat currency/legal tender laws. As they influence, to a greater or lesser extent the decision making within ALL transactions within our system we have capitalism in name only. What we have throughout the US and Europe would best be described as interventionism. Because various interventions both fail at their original objectives as well as cause many unintended consequences, more, greater and farther reaching interventions become necessary. Whether this results in fascism or socialism is unimportant. They are both anathema to the US constitution and the enlightened folks that created it. From a generational dynamics perspective, it's my observation that during an unraveling period, this slide toward socialism/totalitarianism makes great strides because GenX and previous Lost Generationers are the most intellectually superficial of all the generational archetypes. Thus, selling them easy fixes becomes easy pickings for sly political types.

[aedens]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt_Igoe Poster child to remember.

http://jppi.org.il/uploads/Uncertain_Re ... dscape.pdf Ahead

http://www.hfalert.com/ trends

Alfred Marshall I admit, because they have been biased by the traditions of the subject, they have begun by assuming a state of affairs where the ideal distribution of productive resources can be brought about through individuals acting independently by the method of trial and error in such a way that those individuals who move in the right direction will destroy by competition those who move in the wrong direction.

1926 Keynes Nevertheless, I may do well to remind you, in conclusion, that the fiercest contests and the most deeply felt divisions of opinion are likely to be waged in the coming years not round technical questions, where the arguments on either side are mainly economic, but round those which, for want of better words, may be called psychological or, perhaps, moral.

[OLD1953]

In all discussions of communism, collectivism or what have you, a common problem always comes up early in the discussion. And that problem is the definition of exactly what you are discussing. Moreover, this gets compounded by people who will not date their references, Russia of 1940 was not Russia of 1960, and neither had much similarity to Russia of 1990.

By extreme or radical definitions, any action to even form a government is collectivism. This is the classical anarchist position, and they have been a presence in the US for a very long time.

http://ucblibrary3.berkeley.edu/goldman ... oyles.html
***
I realise that most of you have but a very inadequate, very strange and usually false conception of Anarchism. I do not blame you. You get your information from the daily press. Yet that is the very last place on earth to seek for truth in any state of form. Anarchism, to the great teachers and leaders in the spiritual aspect of life, was not a dogma, not a thing that drains the blood from the heart and makes people zealots, dictators or impossible bores. Anarchism is a releasing and liberating force because it teaches people to rely on their own possibilities, teaches them faith in liberty, and inspires men and women to strive for a state of social life where every one shall be free and secure. There is neither freedom nor security in the world today: whether one be rich or poor, whether his station high or low, no one is secure as long as there is a single slave in the world. No one is safe or secure as long as he must submit to the orders, whim or will of another who has the power to punish him, to send him to prison or to take his life, to dictate the terms of his existence, even from the cradle to the grave.

It is not only because of love of one's fellow-men--it is for their own sake that people must learn to understand the meaning and significance of Anarchism, and it will not be long before they will appreciate the great importance and the beauty of its philosophy.

Anarchism repudiates any attempt of a group of men or of any individual to arrange life for others. Anarchism rests on faith in humanity and its potentialities, while all other social philosophies have no faith in humanity whatever. The other philosophies insist that man cannot govern himself and that he must be ruled over. Nowadays most people believe that the stronger the Government the greater the success of society will be. It is the old belief in the rod. The more used on the child the finer will it be when grown to manhood or womanhood. We have emancipated ourselves from that stupidity. We have come to understand that education does not mean knocking in, does not mean crippling, warping and dwarfing the young growth. We have learned that freedom in the development of the child secures better results, both so far as the child and society are concerned
**********

Change a dozen words in that century old speech, it would get applause today, if given in the correct political circles. That there is a huge similarity between Emma Goldman's words and words you can find in CNN transcripts is not a coincidence, she was from the same part of the generational cycle and was subject to the same generational forces as our current Anarchists, who of course do not use such an antiquated name for themselves.

The growth and decay of belief in anarchy as the proper means of "governing" mankind exactly follows the generational cycle. And the opposite of anarchy is collectivism. As neither term is possible of definition by specific example in reality, both are merely ideals or ideas, figments of the human imagination, either one can mean whatever the person using the words wants it to mean. And that makes rational discussion of such matters as difficult as rational discussion of the nature of God.

So when you refer to collectivism, define exactly what you mean so we can have a meaningful discussion. Is collectivism represented by roads and schools, by public sewer systems or by something else? Is requiring business to provide insurance collectivism or is it enforced anarchy? I could certainly find people making arguments for both ideas, because of the lack of fixed definitions. Krugmann would certainly say it's from the right, Will would say it's all from the left. They are both correct because they are using different definitions of matters that don't allow for external definitions.

Therefore, the ball is in your court now. What is your definition of anarchy and/or collectivism? Answer that, and we might manage some meaningful discussion. Otherwise, we're just pushing words around. I'm perfectly happy to use whatever definitions you propose, I just want them in the open to avoid those nasty shocks when we're a mile deep into discussion, and I find out what you mean by those words.

[Higgenbotham]

Problem we see today is most people feel they could lose the advantage of having a highly complex government because government is behaving very badly. Citizens may feel inclined to want to accept the disadvantage of taking care of more of their own needs to get the badly behaving government monkey off their backs that is lowering their living standards anyway. We see government trying to "talk up" this previously existing advantage with Obama's "You didn't build that" speech. Many people aren't buying the rhetoric. The roads were built a long time ago. The education system was put in place a long time ago. And so on. The infrastructure is poorly maintained. Obama is trying to point to the past glory of past presidents to sell cover for looting the citizenry.

[aedens]

Just because they do not understand the season it does not change the effects of it. I pointed to three examples
to convey that and around here we try to avoid a 6 inch pain brush on topical issues of the day.
Still we are bound to those who have for decades done what the letter warned off. We are subjects not citizens.
Those effects arching over the pointilism's of generaral dynamics have given us a olive branch to understand
tempered with our age. Really the issue is local, state then national. State and national are a dubious to say the least.
I heard a expert that conveys the public must be educated on a land war in asia and our goals. These idiots never cease to amaze us.
Poor planning on there part does include details on ours. Simply put taxpayers are idiots. Both party's have done all they could to deny
what we see of facts. As we note here there are no accidents.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/s ... ary-voters
Again those that fight for us are denied again this election. They should all come home now.

[aedens]

On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, "National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture. The bogus arguments that Kissinger advanced were not original. One of his major sources was the Royal Commission on Population, which King George VI had created in 1944 "to consider what measures should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend of population." The commission found that Britain was gravely threatened by population growth in its colonies, since "a populous country has decided advantages over a sparsely-populated one for industrial production." The combined effects of increasing population and industrialization in its colonies, it warned, "might be decisive in its effects on the prestige and influence of the West," especially effecting "military strength and security." NSSM 200 similarly concluded that the United States was threatened by population growth in the former colonial sector. It paid special attention to 13 "key countries" in which the United States had a "special political and strategic interest": India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. It claimed that population growth in those states was especially worrisome, since it would quickly increase their relative political, economic, and military strength. Locally for us the whole sale theft of land noted went along the educational State mandate lines to the movements of groups. I will never forget this evil done until my dying day. It worked on the Indians so they included later the old order Amish which was a significant part of the county in our area. After this the Union’s are never trusted to this day. Later an extension agent conveyed the MSU studies on the effects to production and the federal land bank numbers. For those who noted the per acre profit margin they never came close to the model of production of the old way. I know, I went to the University also and looked. For those who wish to include the scaling of effect look no further than the warning posted later by Sir James Goldsmith's 1994 Globalization warning later. As I alluded to before my wifes people escaped to the mountains and hunted from the evil. Votes do not matter since you are a subject. http://dusp.mit.edu/
Do you know what is coming? I do so I hope you do homework.
Another view of observation can help even if you disagree with the macro idiots. http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2012/10/i ... art-i.html
It appears when "or else surfaces" you already know what needs to be done. One thing to stumble in life and another is to listen. Look these people have one thought and you are not it. One says poverty will disappear, and the other for small Government. Guess what you got both so what does that tell you...
As we are warned when you fold your hands you end up as warned. If you think I advocate living in a cave who is the fool.

[OLD1953]

I don't think anyone knows what is coming. There are a lot of people who think they know what's coming, and I'll certainly admit it could be a bad time indeed. However, I've listened to predictions that "the end is near" for so long that I'm not very impressed by them any more.

Poorly planned and run government only goes on so long, then it will either be reformed or there will be a wholly new government. Myself, I see two major problems in the US government that aren't even close to being fixed, and these have to be fixed before we'll make progress on anything else. First is the fear of new ideas, which is partly a fear of the public resistance to new ideas and partly a fear that any change will cause the US to lose power or prestige or wealth. Fear of change is both common and futile in human affairs, we will have change whether we want it or not. Controlling the direction of change is the political task, and we aren't doing well at it. Our second problem, and certainly the largest, is the desire to run our affairs in accordance with strict ideology. There is no give and take no room for political compromise in our current environment, there is only the demand that it will be done my way and no other. This is certainly not the way republics are supposed to operate, and in fact our republic is not operational for the most part now. We cannot even pass a national budget. This won't get better until it has gotten so bad that ideology breaks under the strain, and rational compromise can again take hold.

All political ideas or ideals have a logical fallacy in common, they all assume something is perfect or perfectable. This may or may not be stated openly, but the assumption is always there. It is not possible to govern an imperfect country filled with imperfect people in an imperfect world from such an idealistic standpoint.

Whenever the practical is forced to submit to ideology, then the people and the state both suffer. And that's where we are now.