Worth knowing 2 other 'men of the year' from Time Magazine

[Newb]

http://www2.bc.edu/~heineman/time.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~lowe9101/mussolini/time.jpg

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/12/17/time.personoftheyear.ap/story.bush.cover.jpg


The fact is, all 3 of these men are chosen by the financial establishment paper, 'Time', and many others as 'person of the year' because their financial austerity is fascist and anti-American. All 3 of these men ruled over a scared population on false pretexts of war and terrorism, during a global economic meltdown. The financial powers that be, centered in London and Wallstreet, use their influence to back fascists that will have no problems passing austerity measures which will kill their own civilians, to give the bankers an unpayable intrest payment on a fraudulant debt. That is why we have an Iraq war and a huge housing bubble, along with looting social security.

[Dark Knight]

Bill Clinton shared the title with Ken Star because of the scandle.

Nice to know sex in the whitehouse can get you that title.

[Marky]

Ugh...

Newb, although I have an economics degree, I don't dare lend credence to your "points" by discussing them. I can only suggest that you stop getting your international and economic information from the LA Times, and look to The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and Business Week.

And you're right, "Man of the Year" does not mean "BEST Man of the Year". Of course, those who love President Bush read "Man of the Year" as "BEST", and people like yourself read it as "WORST". So be it.

[Ai Lek Ou Seun]

Is this a political thread?

[Marky]

It's a thread about economic studies and Time Magazine.

[Newb]

Originally posted by Marky
Ugh...

Newb, although I have an economics degree, I don't dare lend credence to your "points" by discussing them. I can only suggest that you stop getting your international and economic information from the LA Times, and look to The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and Business Week.

And you're right, "Man of the Year" does not mean "BEST Man of the Year". Of course, those who love President Bush read "Man of the Year" as "BEST", and people like you read it as "WORST". So be it.


Oh so you have an economics degree, eh? Would you care to tell me what we can do about 400 trillion dollars in derivative bets that are failing, on a global 40 Billion GDP? How about the fact that JP Morgan holds over 25 trillion in failing derivative bets, fannie mae holds over 9 trillion, and the entire US GDP is only 11 Billion. This is worse than the 1997 GKO blowout that almost collapsed the system. We are in a continuation of that today.

How about the dollar collapse? Seeing how the dollar has fallen over 60% in value against the pathetically bankrupt Euro, most of in the last 4 years, countries are getting nervous. Hell, solid materials such as gold, steel, copper, iron, even wood, and so fourth, have more than doubled in price, many of which in less than 1 year. Top investors all over the world have been bidding against the dollar, and dumping it. Now we are in a bad situation where if countries hold on to the dollar, they will slowly lose their holdings, and if 1 person dumps it, they all dump it and lose their money quickly and cause chaos. Are you going to tell me the dollar collapse isn't relevant either?

How about the most ****ing fact, that over 48 of the states cannot afford the basic necessities needed to provide basic services, which means they are bankrupt? When the states go bankrupt, the fascist bankers like Shultz and Rohatyn come in, and demand that the bankers collect their unplayable and unfair 'loan shark' interest rates first, before the people get a penny. As a result of their work, in our own states like NY we have in certain poor areas cut off all police, health, fire protection, and all federal funding. This is economic fascism. The bankers demand they get paid on an unfair unplayable debt, while the population suffers.

The US Housing bubble, one of the biggest and final bubbles in history is set to pop. Foreclosures are at an all time high. Personal bankruptcies are at an all time high. People are losing jobs left and right, and getting hired at 'McDonalds' (which this administration hast he gaul to call a 'manufacturing job'), and the housing prices have near tripled. This is a great way to keep a bubble economy going, but it only works for so long, and we are near that end.

Do you propose Schactian economics that is widely thought today at school but known as 'Friedman economics'? What is your suggestion then sir? We have an unfair unplayable debt shoved down the throats of most of the world, in a fashion that would make any loan shark proud and envious. As a result of our anti-American economic policies most of the world is much worse off than they were into eh 1970s, we have lost our manufacturing base, and import cheap slave labor from abroad for things we used to make better at home. What is your solution? Solutions people give often show their degree of living in reality, humanity, and understanding of economics. I look foreword to your reply.

[Marky]

Hi Newb,

Here are my responses, numbered according to the paragraphs they were asked in.

1. It looks like you plucked those numbers out of the air, or perhaps moveon.org or democracynow.com (or whatever). You talk about 400 trillion in debts, and don't name debtors or debtees. Consider that the US has the largest economy in the WORLD (unless you consider the EU as a single "economic entity"), and our national debt is 5.5 trillion. 40 billion in global GDP is UNTRUE. And as I said, the US Government has 5.5 trillion in debt... And yet JP Morgan and Fannie Mae have two to five times as much debt?! Furthermore, an 11 billion GDP in the US? It's acually about 11,000 billion, according to about a dozen government sites that I found through one search on Google.

2. When the value of one currency is greater than another currency, the nation with the higher value currency can buy imports from the other country for a relatively cheaper price. Conversely, the country with the lower valued currency would have to pay more, after considering purchasing power parity, to buy imports from the higher-valued currency country. So imports increase in the high-valued currency country (from now on called A), and they decrease in the low-valued currency country (from now on called B). This causes a positive trading gap in country B (exports > imports), and a negative trading gap in country A (imports > exports). In country A, unemployment rises because what was once being produced there is being produced more cheaply overseas (much like what's happening in the US with a higher-valued dollar, until recently). As a result, wage expectations lower, and GDP increases at a slower rate than in country B, where wages are increasing to meet the need for exportation. Eventually a "centerline" is crossed, and country A is producing things more cheaply than in B, and the process is reversed. To make a long story short, relative values of currency fluctuate CONSTANTLY, throughout history there are oscillations due to changes in trading gaps, and the notion that the US dollar is the first currency to decrease, and it will never increase again, is playing on the fears of those who don't understand global economics.

3. States have deficits, they don't go bankrupt (you can't exactly "start over" with a new government in a state when the old one spends too much). Second, interest rates are regulated by the federal government. Yes, a single loan originator could charge a higher interest rate than everyone else, but they aren't going to sell any loans because everyone will take their business to the lower rated businesses! Second, banks don't grant loans to people they don't think will be able to pay, because trying to track them down is a hassle, and the foreclosure process is both time-consuming and troublesome. Also, no one forces someone to take out a loan, so don't blame the bankers for actually wanting to COLLECT THEIR PAYMENTS, God forbid (it is a business, after all). And finally, if you're going to tell me America is in trouble because there are poor people, or people who don't have jobs, or can't make ends meet, or don't receive all the services they want, then you'll never be happy, because there will always be people like that. The poverty rate is 5%, and before WWII it was over 30%, so don't act like things are so bad all in all. The point of Capitalism is to promote normal economic distribution. There are rich people, but there are poor people too, and nothing can get rid of either of them under capitalism. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE POOR PEOPLE IN AMERICA... Your goal should be to get an education and produce for society in such a way that you aren't in that group (if everyone did this, the "lower-class" bar would be set far higher than it is now). That's an option everyone has, no matter how poor your circumstances.

4. As to your "housing bubble", real estate prices almost NEVER go down, they either go up slowly, go up quickly, or stay stagnant. Due to the fact that everyone needs a place of residence, and the population continues to grow. As to people being fired, that's the way a global economy works... Everyone has one of two priorities; EFFICIENCY or DISTRIBUTION. Think of the economy like a pie. Efficiency-minded people seek to make the pie bigger. Distribution-minded people seek to cut the pie in different ways to suit particular needs. I'm an efficiency-minded person. When a manufacturing job in the US can be done more efficiently overseas, I think the business will righly go overseas to get the job done because it makes the global economy pie bigger. You, on the other hand, seem to think that all the businesses should come to America, and give us all the pie we need, before bringing the scraps overseas. Whereas, from MY perspective, Americans who no longer find themselves getting enough pie will think, "what can I PERSONALLY learn or do that will make the pie bigger, thereby entitling me to a larger piece for myself?" Of course, I don't expect people to be excited about losing their jobs, but economically speaking, America has two choices at such a fork in the road: complain that our piece of the pie is smaller, or go out and find a way to make our piece bigger. In the past we have opted for the latter, and I hope the same will happen now.

Let me ask you this... if you worked for a car manufacturer in New York, and one day the owner decided to move the site to Florida for some reason, would you say, "Manufacturing jobs are being outsourced?" Because, from a global economic perspective, complaining about state outsourceing is as silly as complaing about national outsourcing.

5. I like Friedman and Keynes, and I believe both have their place. Again you mentioned us "shoving debts down nations' throats", but they didn't have to take our money.

As to losing our manufacturing base, I'm going to tell you several stylized facts of economics in case you don't know them... one, GDP growth of national economies tend to converge over time (as they have been), and two, near the end of that convergence there is commonly a "leapfrog" effect whereby the fastest-increasing GDP country is overtaken by another country which "revolutionizes" the world economy. For example, America did this in the industrial revolution by embracing it, while Europe tried to add industry but still focus on their previous economic system. Now, manufacturing and industry have become common-place and accepted throughout the world, technology among nations is becoming uniform, and so GDP growth is converging. Now, America has two choices... do what every other country has done in our situation, turn our backs to change and try to cling to industry, OR we can accept that we no long monopolize the comuter or technology business, and begin to specialize in those services that will cause the next economic revolution.

You, Newb, seem fit to sit and complain about the change, but if you're going to blame anyone, you'd best blame the rest of the world that's moving ahead while you try to stay with what you're used to. I, on the other hand, have accepted the fate of the manufacturing industry in America, and so I've come to provide services that can't be outsourced to another country.

Now, as to your "scoring" of my answer:

Reality: I'm talking about what did happen and what will happen, whether anyone likes it or not. I didn't spend my time complaining about how things are changing, but instead discussed how these changes must be prepared for and accepted, or they will shatter us economically.

Humanity: You might think that my opinion on outsourcing is inhumane. But the fact is, it's far more humane to tell someone to their face that they have to adapt, instead of trying to "Make them feel good" and letting the problem get worse.

Understanding of Economics: I know what I know. I don't see any nation or a national economy as a "Hero" or a "Villain", so you'll probably disagree with my perspective.


Take care!

[MonkeySlap Too]

Marky,
Thank God we've got folks like you on the board to keep the uneducated shrill factor down.

Oh, by the way, the sky is fallning Newb - want to buy an umbrella?

[Marky]

Hi MonkeySlap Too,

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, so thanks for the compliment and sorry for the lengthy post!

Adios.

[Newb]

Originally posted by Marky
Hi Newb,

Here are my responses, numbered according to the paragraphs they were asked in.

1. It looks like you plucked those numbers out of the air, or perhaps moveon.org or democracynow.com (or whatever). You talk about 400 trillion in debts, and don't name debtors or debtees. Consider that the US has the largest economy in the WORLD (unless you consider the EU as a single "economic entity"), and our national debt is 5.5 trillion. 40 billion in global GDP is UNTRUE. And as I said, the US Government has 5.5 trillion in debt... And yet JP Morgan and Fannie Mae have two to five times as much debt?! Furthermore, an 11 billion GDP in the US? It's acually about 11,000 billion, according to about a dozen government sites that I found through one search on Google.


I actually would never bother reading moveon.org, or any other George Soros backed Jacobin movement. George Soros IS one of top financial predators. He personally has made billions upon millions by distroying nations such as Mexico and Thailand, through his manipulation through unregulated financial institutionals. He backed John Kerry, and Ralph Naders campaign to play both sides. He has bailed out George Bush Jrs failing oil companies such as Spectrum 7 all the time. He is good friends with the chief archetict of the Neo-Con team, George Shultz!! They are both financial predators.

So let's move on to the real issue at hand, the economic collapse. First I did mention a US GDP of 11 Billion, which I realized was wrong, but still does not change the outcome. I was looking at some diff figures regarding GDP *growth* amount. The point is there is no way to handle this financial system, which needs to more regulated to stop this form of looting. Fannie Mae, JP Morgan, and other banking establishments hold more paper money in the sum of hundreds of Trillions, that are failling fast.


2. When the value of one currency is greater than another currency, the nation with the higher value currency can buy imports from the other country for a relatively cheaper price.[/quote]

That's great, but what about the fact that we don't export anything except mostly bombs that blow up on contact? Our manufacturing base has eroded away. On top of that, the worlds largest held deposits are in *USD*. What would you do if you held billions of US Dollars that are spiraling downward? Well if you sell, you make it fall faster. If you hang on to it, you might be the last one holding. This is what is goign on in world leaders minds right now.


Conversely, the country with the lower valued currency would have to pay more, after considering purchasing power parity, to buy imports from the higher-valued currency country. So imports increase in the high-valued currency country (from now on called A), and they decrease in the low-valued currency country (from now on called B). This causes a positive trading gap in country B (exports > imports), and a negative trading gap in country A (imports > exports). In country A, unemployment rises because what was once being produced there is being produced more cheaply overseas (much like what's happening in the US with a higher-valued dollar, until recently). As a result, wage expectations lower, and GDP increases at a slower rate than in country B, where wages are increasing to meet the need for exportation. Eventually a "centerline" is crossed, and country A is producing things more cheaply than in B, and the process is reversed. To make a long story short, relative values of currency fluctuate CONSTANTLY, throughout history there are oscillations due to changes in trading gaps, and the notion that the US dollar is the first currency to decrease, and it will never increase again, is playing on the fears of those who don't understand global economics.




It's nice and dandy to quote from textbooks or put them into your own words, but the problems still remains. Even with this textbook answer, we have no solution given to so many paradoxes that rise in your answers. For example, you stated that a weaker dollar will help exports, but yet, our manufacturing forces have completely collapsed. A weaker dollar will yeild more exports, yet we have a growing trade deficit. Things are supposed to be stable, yet housing prices have more than doubled, everything we need to live off has continuiously raised in price, most of the states (Such as bankrupt california) cannot support their own population anymore and will face severe austerity. These textbook memorized formulas don't seem to be working.


3. States have deficits, they don't go bankrupt (you can't exactly "start over" with a new government in a state when the old one spends too much).

California didn't spend too much. We had a $6 Billion surplus, before enorons energy piracy cost us tens of billions of dollars (that we are still paying for today). The fact is, when a state is bankrupt, you don't cut credit, you have to increase it for them to build development projects so the population can work, grow, and pay us back.


4. As to your "housing bubble", real estate prices almost NEVER go down, they either go up slowly, go up quickly, or stay stagnant. Due to the fact that everyone needs a place of residence, and the population continues to grow. As to people being fired, that's the way a global economy works... Everyone has one of two priorities; EFFICIENCY or DISTRIBUTION. Think of the economy like a pie. Efficiency-minded people seek to make the pie bigger. Distribution-minded people seek to cut the pie in different ways to suit particular needs. I'm an efficiency-minded person. When a manufacturing job in the US can be done more efficiently overseas, I think the business will righly go overseas to get the job done because it makes the global economy pie bigger. You, on the other hand, seem to think that all the businesses should come to America, and give us all the pie we need, before bringing the scraps overseas. Whereas, from MY perspective, Americans who no longer find themselves getting enough pie will think, "what can I PERSONALLY learn or do that will make the pie bigger, thereby entitling me to a larger piece for myself?" Of course, I don't expect people to be excited about losing their jobs, but economically speaking, America has two choices at such a fork in the road: complain that our piece of the pie is smaller, or go out and find a way to make our piece bigger. In the past we have opted for the latter, and I hope the same will happen now.

Let me ask you this... if you worked for a car manufacturer in New York, and one day the owner decided to move the site to Florida for some reason, would you say, "Manufacturing jobs are being outsourced?" Because, from a global economic perspective, complaining about state outsourceing is as silly as complaing about national outsourcing.

5. I like Friedman and Keynes, and I believe both have their place. Again you mentioned us "shoving debts down nations' throats", but they didn't have to take our money.

As to losing our manufacturing base, I'm going to tell you several stylized facts of economics in case you don't know them... one, GDP growth of national economies tend to converge over time (as they have been), and two, near the end of that convergence there is commonly a "leapfrog" effect whereby the fastest-increasing GDP country is overtaken by another country which "revolutionizes" the world economy. For example, America did this in the industrial revolution by embracing it, while Europe tried to add industry but still focus on their previous economic system. Now, manufacturing and industry have become common-place and accepted throughout the world, technology among nations is becoming uniform, and so GDP growth is converging. Now, America has two choices... do what every other country has done in our situation, turn our backs to change and try to cling to industry, OR we can accept that we no long monopolize the comuter or technology business, and begin to specialize in those services that will cause the next economic revolution.

You, Newb, seem fit to sit and complain about the change, but if you're going to blame anyone, you'd best blame the rest of the world that's moving ahead while you try to stay with what you're used to. I, on the other hand, have accepted the fate of the manufacturing industry in America, and so I've come to provide services that can't be outsourced to another country.

Now, as to your "scoring" of my answer:

Reality: I'm talking about what did happen and what will happen, whether anyone likes it or not. I didn't spend my time complaining about how things are changing, but instead discussed how these changes must be prepared for and accepted, or they will shatter us economically.

Humanity: You might think that my opinion on outsourcing is inhumane. But the fact is, it's far more humane to tell someone to their face that they have to adapt, instead of trying to "Make them feel good" and letting the problem get worse.

Understanding of Economics: I know what I know. I don't see any nation or a national economy as a "Hero" or a "Villain", so you'll probably disagree with my perspective.


Take care! [/QUOTE]

[Newb]

Originally posted by Marky
Hi Newb,

Here are my responses, numbered according to the paragraphs they were asked in.

1. It looks like you plucked those numbers out of the air, or perhaps moveon.org or democracynow.com (or whatever). You talk about 400 trillion in debts, and don't name debtors or debtees. Consider that the US has the largest economy in the WORLD (unless you consider the EU as a single "economic entity"), and our national debt is 5.5 trillion. 40 billion in global GDP is UNTRUE. And as I said, the US Government has 5.5 trillion in debt... And yet JP Morgan and Fannie Mae have two to five times as much debt?! Furthermore, an 11 billion GDP in the US? It's acually about 11,000 billion, according to about a dozen government sites that I found through one search on Google.


I actually would never bother reading moveon.org, or any other George Soros backed Jacobin movement. George Soros IS one of top financial predators. He personally has made billions upon millions by distroying nations such as Mexico and Thailand, through his manipulation through unregulated financial institutionals. He backed John Kerry, and Ralph Naders campaign to play both sides. He has bailed out George Bush Jrs failing oil companies such as Spectrum 7 all the time. He is good friends with the chief archetict of the Neo-Con team, George Shultz!! They are both financial predators.

So let's move on to the real issue at hand, the economic collapse. First I did mention a US GDP of 11 Billion, which I realized was wrong, but still does not change the outcome. I was looking at some diff figures regarding GDP *growth* amount. The point is there is no way to handle this financial system, which needs to more regulated to stop this form of looting. Fannie Mae, JP Morgan, and other banking establishments hold more paper money in the sum of hundreds of Trillions, that are failling fast.



2. When the value of one currency is greater than another currency, the nation with the higher value currency can buy imports from the other country for a relatively cheaper price.

That's great, but what about the fact that we don't export anything except mostly bombs that blow up on contact? Our manufacturing base has eroded away. On top of that, the worlds largest held deposits are in *USD*. What would you do if you held billions of US Dollars that are spiraling downward? Well if you sell, you make it fall faster. If you hang on to it, you might be the last one holding. This is what is goign on in world leaders minds right now.



Conversely, the country with the lower valued currency would have to pay more, after considering purchasing power parity, to buy imports from the higher-valued currency country. So imports increase in the high-valued currency country (from now on called A), and they decrease in the low-valued currency country (from now on called B). This causes a positive trading gap in country B (exports > imports), and a negative trading gap in country A (imports > exports). In country A, unemployment rises because what was once being produced there is being produced more cheaply overseas (much like what's happening in the US with a higher-valued dollar, until recently). As a result, wage expectations lower, and GDP increases at a slower rate than in country B, where wages are increasing to meet the need for exportation. Eventually a "centerline" is crossed, and country A is producing things more cheaply than in B, and the process is reversed. To make a long story short, relative values of currency fluctuate CONSTANTLY, throughout history there are oscillations due to changes in trading gaps, and the notion that the US dollar is the first currency to decrease, and it will never increase again, is playing on the fears of those who don't understand global economics.




It's nice and dandy to quote from textbooks or put them into your own words, but the problems still remains. Even with this textbook answer, we have no solution given to so many paradoxes that rise in your answers. For example, you stated that a weaker dollar will help exports, but yet, our manufacturing forces have completely collapsed. A weaker dollar will yeild more exports, yet we have a growing trade deficit. Things are supposed to be stable, yet housing prices have more than doubled, everything we need to live off has continuiously raised in price, most of the states (Such as bankrupt california) cannot support their own population anymore and will face severe austerity. These textbook memorized formulas don't seem to be working.

[Newb]

3. States have deficits, they don't go bankrupt (you can't exactly "start over" with a new government in a state when the old one spends too much).

California didn't spend too much. We had a $6 Billion surplus, before enorons energy piracy cost us tens of billions of dollars (that we are still paying for today). The fact is, when a state is bankrupt, you don't cut credit, you have to increase it for them to build development projects so the population can work, grow, and pay us back.



4. As to your "housing bubble", real estate prices almost NEVER go down, they either go up slowly, go up quickly, or stay stagnant. Due to the fact that everyone needs a place of residence, and the population continues to grow.

And housing prices almost NEVER more than double in 3 years, now do they? Intrest rates almost NEVER go down to what Alan Greenspan took them down to. Personal Bankruptcies and Foreclosures have NEVER been this high. Unregulated financial establishments such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac almost NEVER have had trillions of dollars derivative bets either! The world has almost NEVER gotten into such a economic mess.



Let me ask you this... if you worked for a car manufacturer in New York, and one day the owner decided to move the site to Florida for some reason, would you say, "Manufacturing jobs are being outsourced?" Because, from a global economic perspective, complaining about state outsourceing is as silly as complaing about national outsourcing.

Wrong. If Florida were to cut workers comp and minimum wage, you had a wave of poor workers being exploited while I lose my job in NY, yes I would. Let’s fit this into perspective and cut the sophistry. This is what we do to nations we outsource too. Some really messed up Aholes say ‘what, we’re giving them Mexicans and Chinese a chance to make me cheap crap! If we didn’t let them do that, they would all die!’ It’s like you’re the mafia boss who goes in a murders a guys family, burns down his house, offer him a job selling his ass on the street for a few cents; and say ‘what, I’m giving him a job’.


Sorry if I sound kind of upset, but economic fascism is blatantly clear in our face, and defending it is anti-human.

[Marky]

Hi Newb,

After you expressed your utter distaste for Friedman Economics, I had a feeling that no amount of factual evidence or historically proven cyclical occurences would appease your distaste for the United States economic system. Given that, I'm going to keep this set of answers much shorter, and numbered as before.

1. Your only new point was that you want economic regulation. I agree in some ways, but not so much that we should turn the US to Communism.

2. The first portion of your response was nothing but complaints. In the second, I elaborated a step-by-step process by which ANY economist seeks to examine long-term effects of some cause that can be altered in the present. So you called it textbook and moved on. Though to be fair, you complained some more before moving on. Given your lack of qualitative arguement, I rest my case.

3. You took the first line of my arguement and thought up another complaint about "big business", then ignored the rest. Again, I rest my case.

4. More complaints. The difference is, I said real estate values almost never go down because it's true. You just made up some bad stuff and sarcastically said it never happens. And a lot of it isn't happening. The one point you made that was 100% true was the low interest rate, but I suggest you remember what Paul Vocker did (I believe rightly so) in the 70's to remind yourself of exactly what strains the interest rate and inflation have been through, strains that blow the "troubles" of today's economy out of the water.

5. More pointless complaints. The car company moves from NY to FL because it can produce more cheaply, and it moves from NY to Mexico because it can produce more cheaply. For one final time, since you had no logical arguement to provide, I rest my case.

And now, Newb, I will sum up my arguements against you, not in five paragraphs, but five words... Five words that may save both of us from posting on this thread again...

I DESPISE LYNDON LaROUCHE'S ECONOMICS!

[Newb]

Originally posted by Marky
Hi Newb,

After you expressed your utter distaste for Friedman Economics, I had a feeling that no amount of factual evidence or historically proven cyclical occurences would appease your distaste for the United States economic system. Given that, I'm going to keep this set of answers much shorter, and numbered as before.

Wait, the US Economic System is based on Hameltonian Banking. I personally love the American System of Political Economy. The American System of Political Economy was founded against anti-humane British Free Trade (Similar of the Roman Empire) system. When the US System was founded, Communism wasn't even a idea yet. The US System of Political Economy works and it regulates essential commodities needed to protect the general welfare; as the constitution states. The Economics of Milton Friedman and so fourth, is a pro British Anti-American system of economics, that leads to a form of financial system where people are abused and taken advantage of. it gives the financial elite more space to loot more people with less regulation by a Government of and for the people.



1. Your only new point was that you want economic regulation. I agree in some ways, but not so much that we should turn the US to Communism.

No one ever said Communism, however, Enron should have not happened. I was in the fight, and it was a classic example of how Adam Smith Free Trade policies (free to loot) are used to fool stupid citizens into losing billions of dollars. Electricity, healthcare, and deffinately forms of speculation should be regulated to allow a nice controlled growth, and less space for runaway financial looting.


2. The first portion of your response was nothing but complaints. In the second, I elaborated a step-by-step process by which ANY economist seeks to examine long-term effects of some cause that can be altered in the present. So you called it textbook and moved on. Though to be fair, you complained some more before moving on. Given your lack of qualitative arguement, I rest my case.

I showed you paradoxes which rise from your reply. If that is supposed to work, then how come we are faced with these ugly paradoxes I laid out above? It's like someone breaks their arm in a unusual way and go to the Doctor. The doctor tries his traditional methods that would fix most simple broken arms, and it only ends up hurting the patient more; then the doctor says 'all you're doing is complaining'.



4. More complaints. The difference is, I said real estate values almost never go down because it's true. You just made up some bad stuff and sarcastically said it never happens. And a lot of it isn't happening. The one point you made that was 100% true was the low interest rate, but I suggest you remember what Paul Vocker did (I believe rightly so) in the 70's to remind yourself of exactly what strains the interest rate and inflation have been through, strains that blow the "troubles" of today's economy out of the water.

Paul Volker was a horrible mess to the real physical economy as well. "Controlled Distenegration" was a policy that closed down our real manufacturing base,. The points I made are valid, you are choosing to ignore the fact that real estate prices has doubled, the dollar was being given away for cheap, foreclosures and bankruptcies are either at new or close to record highs, and so fourth.



5. More pointless complaints. The car company moves from NY to FL because it can produce more cheaply, and it moves from NY to Mexico because it can produce more cheaply. For one final time, since you had no logical arguement to provide, I rest my case.


it's quite funny saying I provided no argument, when I answered your question and provided a example. Let me speak as plainly as possible. Your analogy is a very bad one, you compare moving states withen a union; to moving jobs to a totally different country. Are you serious about this, or just kidding with your analogy?? We also need to see why we can get this so much cheaper from Mexico. The reason the car company can produce cars cheaper in Mexico is because the Mexican standard of living is MUCH less than it is here. The Mexican people get paid alot less, to do the same things we could do here. This is also true of the child labor sweatshops our clothes are from. The reason the Mexican people get paid less than we do is because their government wasn't strong enough to stand up to the financial elite largely in wallstreet and london. One president tried, President Jose Louis Portillo to stop the distenegration of Mexcio, but failed. Other leaders who tried going against the 'be our slave' system were shot or ousted out of government. It's not because the Mexcian people are 'stupid' or 'unlucky' or 'inferior' that they are in this mess. It's not because we are sooo much better than they are, so we are winning and they are losing. No, our governments have distroyed countries like Mexico, and we use them as cheap labor farms. It is not right to treat the Mexican people as our slaves who work under horrible conditions so we can get cheap goods. This distroys the Mexican economy, as well as our own economy. This is one of the problems with Friedman economics. You guys think the cheaper you get something, the better it is as more profit for you! Wrong! Cheap goods mean a low paid low tech workforce, with no real investment in the industry or country. You want a high paid skilled worker working in your own country, and you would want ALOT of hem.



Last point: What isn't there to like about LaRouches economics?

[iblis73]

"That's great, but what about the fact that we don't export anything except mostly bombs that blow up on contact? Our manufacturing base has eroded away"

Sorry, but this is wrong on many levels. The US does export quite a bit-airplanes,petro/chemicals,pharmacuticals(sp),autos.....well you get the picture. The innovation going on right now in our small and mid sized businesses will be turning out another slew of high tech products for the world. True we have lost a lot of manufacturing-but much of it was low end or large cyclical consumer autos. American manufacturing now required much more skill to be employed in it and turns out first rate high tech products.


As for a living/minimum wage, all the argument is for naught. Those who normally support living/min wage also support mass immigration to the US. Basic econ101-with that much labor supply you CANT have a living/min wage! Not to trudge into a pro or anti immigrant message, but if all the illegals disapeared you would see a massive spike in working class jobs.

[Newb]

Originally posted by iblis73
"That's great, but what about the fact that we don't export anything except mostly bombs that blow up on contact? Our manufacturing base has eroded away"

Sorry, but this is wrong on many levels. The US does export quite a bit-airplanes,petro/chemicals,pharmacuticals(sp),autos.....well you get the picture. The innovation going on right now in our small and mid sized businesses will be turning out another slew of high tech products for the world. True we have lost a lot of manufacturing-but much of it was low end or large cyclical consumer autos. American manufacturing now required much more skill to be employed in it and turns out first rate high tech products.


As for a living/minimum wage, all the argument is for naught. Those who normally support living/min wage also support mass immigration to the US. Basic econ101-with that much labor supply you CANT have a living/min wage! Not to trudge into a pro or anti immigrant message, but if all the illegals disapeared you would see a massive spike in working class jobs.


These people work very cheap for us, most under minimum wage. I have an animation for you that shows the process of deindustrializing, and it's effects to immigration:

Free Trade Means Slave Labor:
What's Behind the Immigration Crisis
http://asx.ljcentral.net/wms/eir/animations/2004/041208_mexico_en_lo.asf


The dollar has fallen over 60% agains the Euro and almost every single natural or physical good has skyrocketed in price. I was explained when this happens, our exports naturally take over as they are more easily obtainable. I am stating that with the very limited exports we have, it will not be enough to balance the effects of a further collapsing dollar.

[Marky]

Hi Newb,

1. As to Friedman Economics... Friedman believed that by and large, a national and global economy are self-regulating and self-correcting. And to get STARTED with why LaRouche's outlook on economics is so despicable, he and his supporters throw around words like inhumane, fascist, and "Slave Trade" when they can't prove a point. "Free trade involves bringing jobs from America to a country that can produce more cheaply? Let's call it 'inhumane'. And since the new workers will get paid less, let's call it 'slave labor'". My suggestion to you, Newb, is that if you want to continue a discussion with me, don't say "Fascism" or "Slave Trade" or "Anti-American" with the notion that somewhere, someone will ASSUME you're speaking an obvious truth. I don't buy it, and if I see it again I'm not going to waste my time talking to you (so far, I do not consider the discussion a waste, for the record).

Also, I believe that some regulations and man-made corrections on the economy (tax cuts, tax increases, anti-trust laws, etc.) should not be scoffed at, so we are in agreement that some regulation is good.

2. These are from your original "Paradoxes" that you pointed out, and my responses:

--Even with this textbook answer, we have no solution given to so many paradoxes that rise in your answers. For example, you stated that a weaker dollar will help exports, but yet, our manufacturing forces have completely collapsed--

This is because we are no longer the sole provider of manufacturing products in the market. However, we do have an opportunity to export specialized American goods that have no effective substitute in the market. However, your proof of a "Paradox" ignores two important facts: One, there are more than two countries in the world (even though I only used two in my example, for the sake of simplicity), and two, America doesn't just provide manufacturing products.

--A weaker dollar will yeild more exports, yet we have a growing trade deficit.--

Economic effects re-regulate themselves over the course of years. It's not like the dollar is suddenly lower in value, and in that instant all the people in other countries who will now buy our products purchase them, and we instantaneously produce them. In addition, if manufacturing exports are decreasing at a faster rate than other specialized imports are increasing, we'll still see years of a trading gap increase before imports overtake exports. Now, to provide a silly, regular world example of YOUR assumption, it would be like ordering something from a catalog, and being furious that, at the exact second you gave the person on the phone your credit card number, the item you're purchasing doesn't magically appear in your house.

--Things are supposed to be stable, yet housing prices have more than doubled, everything we need to live off has continuiously raised in price--

IT'S CALLED INFLATION! Furthermore, when the interest rates are lowered, demand for property will increase and the price will go up!

--most of the states (Such as bankrupt california) cannot support their own population anymore --

Bankruptcy of a state is another phrase you bring up too often, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. Furthermore, this has to do with poor fiscal and monetary policy in California, coupled with a federal deficit. It has nothing to do with the value of a dollar.

3. Paul Vocker saved the U.S. economy. If you can't provide real evidence as to how horrible he was, I will GLADLY explain how excellent his decision was to raise the interest rate to 20%. As to your following points:

Real Estate Prices: As long as the interest rate is increased at a slow and steady pace, there will be no decrease in real estate values. At worst, there will be a short-term plateau.

Currency Valuation: I didn't ignore it, I explained the IMPORTANCE of value oscillation.

4. What's the difference between moving between states and moving between countries? You're moving a job from one location to another, the new location and it's distance from the old one is irrelevant. Your ultimate arguement is one of distribution, because you want America to get its piece of the pie before anyone else.

Now, as to your "slave labor" theory. If someone in Mexico is willing to work for $3/hour, it's because the local job down the street is only offering $2/hour. And this is where we part ways... I don't think a business should be forced to pay a certain wage or offer jobs in a certain place. We just won't agree on that.


And as to LaRouche's economics, the man is living in the past and if anyone has a policy that could destroy the U.S. economy, it's him!

1. He lives in the past because he wants to reinstitute the gold standard for the dollar, and he doesn't want the government to make loans on the assumption that inflation will allow it to pay back a dollar that is less valuable, after it's made a small return on it's investment (he calls this "too risky"). He also wants a total regulation of business policy in the name of the "little guy", even though this stagnates business growth due to reduced incentive (there's no room for "problem-solving" or "creative thinking" between producer's and consumers in LaRouche's world, where the government acts as a profilactic between the two). These are policies for small countries, not a country of 300 million people, where 3% of the world's workforce produce 20% of the world's output.

2. When LaRouche is in a "debate", it involves him screaming words like "fascist", "slave trader" and "Anti-American" (much like you do!) until the opponent gets so sick of it they have to go throw up, then he says he WON THE DEBATE! There's a reason he wasn't allowed in the Democrat Primary debates, and it's not because he would have been a shoe-in! From Lyndon's perspective, if you disagree with him, he'll insult you until you get bored and walk away, then he'll take the prize and be proud of it. That's not a method of professionals, let alone logical economists.

[Newb]

Originally posted by Marky
Hi Newb,

1. As to Friedman Economics... Friedman believed that by and large, a national and global economy are self-regulating and self-correcting. And to get STARTED with why LaRouche's outlook on economics is so despicable, he and his supporters throw around words like inhumane, fascist, and "Slave Trade" when they can't prove a point. "Free trade involves bringing jobs from America to a country that can produce more cheaply? Let's call it 'inhumane'. And since the new workers will get paid less, let's call it 'slave labor'". My suggestion to you, Newb, is that if you want to continue a discussion with me, don't say "Fascism" or "Slave Trade" or "Anti-American" with the notion that somewhere, someone will ASSUME you're speaking an obvious truth. I don't buy it, and if I see it again I'm not going to waste my time talking to you (so far, I do not consider the discussion a waste, for the record).

Let's look at the animation I linked above. How Free Trade has been used historically, and today, is purely a system of looting nations of their natural resources and work force. The whole conception of Adam Smith Free Trade is fraud. If everyone leaves the market forces alone, no one, espcially a government tries to 'intervene', then the market will regulate it self and you'll get the best price and service for your buck. Some people get rich, others get poor. hah. Too bad for them, it's the wild baby! Man Vs. Man! Darwin Economics! You're not cutthroat enough to kill your competition, then you just aren't tough enough. Like it or not, that's what it comes down to.

You show me anyone or anyones policies LaRouche has called Fascist, anti-human, nazi, whatever, and we'll discuss it. He doesn't throw around those words as insults, but as real definations of peoples behaviors or actions.


Let's set one of the ironies of Free Trade out in the open. The axiomatic assumption is that Government interference will mess up the system, since govt. is evil and corrupt. If you let private businesses set the price together, then you wont have corruption like you will with Government controlling prices. However, we face another paradox.

Our Constitutional Republic is our Government. We have a Constitution that states we have a duty to provide for the general welfare of the population. In order to defend the general welfare and promote the posteraty of this nation, we can use taxes, tarriffs, and so fourth to secure ourselves as independant economically. A private business has a bottom line wether you like it or not. To make money. What keeps them in check? The Government does. Laws and rules do. In lending, the Government passed predatory lending which made it illegal for mortgage brokers to charge over 6% in fees. The Government had to step in to defend the general welfare from predatory lenders (and since I also work in real estate, I can tell you they are mostly money hungry hustlers). If left to the private markets, you would be paying 10-12% on your refinances.

A GREAT example of the fraud of Adam Smith Free Trade (free to loot) is Californias deregulation. We heard the exact same song and dance. The Government regulated electricity of $30-$35 MWatt/HR is too much to pay Kenneth Lay said. The state is ripping us off. Kenneth Lay wrote Californias deregulation policy which stated we will sell off our power plants to the highest energy company bidders, they will fight between themselves to sell us electricity, and since there is more competition, we will ge ta better service. The Republcan legislature of 'Prop 187' Pete Wilson passed it, but they had to wait 4 years to raise prices. 4 Years later, electricity prices went from $35 mwatt/hr to $4,900 Mwatt/HR by Enron (Kenneth Lay is the CEO of Enron and top corporate financer of Bush/Cheney 2000). The Energy cartels were found guilty by the Senate Judiciary Committee for gaming the market. The Cartels like Reliant, Duke, Dynergy, Enron, etc. worked together to rape California. Our lame duck Democratic opposition was too busy being bought out to do anything about it (except LaRouche of course, who at this point was excluded). Because of Kenneth Lays actions, people in California died of heat exhaustion. In the Friedman and Adam Smith system 'TOUGH! They weren't Strong enough to stand up, so they died. Old people don't do too much anyways, so it's not bad that they died. Now there's less people to collect on SS and Medicare.' This is *fascist*, like it or not, you are dwelling into Roman and Nazi economics. People being killed for a financeer is *not* something to take light hearted.

This type of 'free trade' comes to the exact same end as it did in Rome. Roman armies would invade the nearby lands, turn the population into slaves, and loot their resources. If you look at the resource cartel grabs, they do this exact same thing. They lend money to a nation with certain stipulations which allows them to bankrupt the nation, and own them financially. They pay some of the people of that state a few measly pennies to do the hard work, and to suck all of the minerals and resources they can dry out of the nation.


Also, I believe that some regulations and man-made corrections on the economy (tax cuts, tax increases, anti-trust laws, etc.) should not be scoffed at, so we are in agreement that some regulation is good.

However, you look at it from a Keynesian model instead of a Hameltonian system, so even here we are at odds. Certain things should always be regulated, not just to correct the financeers who loot it and let it go out of hand, but to promote a constant growth of the physical economy to meet the needs of the growing posterity.



2. These are from your original "Paradoxes" that you pointed out, and my responses:

--Even with this textbook answer, we have no solution given to so many paradoxes that rise in your answers. For example, you stated that a weaker dollar will help exports, but yet, our manufacturing forces have completely collapsed--

This is because we are no longer the sole provider of manufacturing products in the market. However, we do have an opportunity to export specialized American goods that have no effective substitute in the market. However, your proof of a "Paradox" ignores two important facts: One, there are more than two countries in the world (even though I only used two in my example, for the sake of simplicity), and two, America doesn't just provide manufacturing products.

--A weaker dollar will yeild more exports, yet we have a growing trade deficit.--

Economic effects re-regulate themselves over the course of years. It's not like the dollar is suddenly lower in value, and in that instant all the people in other countries who will now buy our products purchase them, and we instantaneously produce them. In addition, if manufacturing exports are decreasing at a faster rate than other specialized imports are increasing, we'll still see years of a trading gap increase before imports overtake exports. Now, to provide a silly, regular world example of YOUR assumption, it would be like ordering something from a catalog, and being furious that, at the exact second you gave the person on the phone your credit card number, the item you're purchasing doesn't magically appear in your house.

The big elephant in the room is that the dollar is the largest held and traded currency in the world, and has lost over 60% of it's value since the introduction of the Euro. It has been falling faster when Bush took office. Almost every country in the world holds dollars for reserves, and they have lost alot of money. THey are also facing severe financial problems that they can't solve. There is no sign of any end of a dollar collapse, and only signs of a futher collapse, like it's been goign for the past several years. Whatever exports we have are not enough to cover a strong dollar (that this administration supposidly has as their policy), and unfortuantely, our exports are *not* covering the loss of the value of the dollar. Your analogy that I expect something to be here this instant is also void, since our exports have been collapsing repeatedly, in relation to our industrialization. The factories are shutting down, your buck isn't buying what it used to and it is collapsing, the prices of raw minerals and items such as steel, copper, wood, etc. have more than doubled in price in under a year, and it's continuing. On top of that, we are printing out trillions of new dollars, and trying to control intrest rates, none of whch is having any real effect.

[Newb]

--Things are supposed to be stable, yet housing prices have more than doubled, everything we need to live off has continuiously raised in price--

IT'S CALLED INFLATION! Furthermore, when the interest rates are lowered, demand for property will increase and the price will go up!
[/b]

It's actually called *out of control* inflation. When was the last time housing prices doubled in 3 years? When was the last time intrest rates were as low as Greenspin made them a year ago? You seroiusly think house prices doubling in 3 years, with the dollar being printed out so cheaply and given away is simple inflation??



--most of the states (Such as bankrupt california) cannot support their own population anymore --

Bankruptcy of a state is another phrase you bring up too often, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. Furthermore, this has to do with poor fiscal and monetary policy in California, coupled with a federal deficit. It has nothing to do with the value of a dollar.

Californias bankruptcy *yea, we are bankrupt, like NY in 1971* does have something to do with the value of the dollar. We are the 5th or 7th largest economy in the world, what happens to us effects the USA and the world to a degree. California didn't have poor monetary policy, we had a 6 Billion dollar surplus. It is when the energy cartels came in that we lost tens of billions of dollars. The Stock Market Crash (continuing today) had a big hit on us. Of course, you bring up a point of the federal deficit, which too is a big problem put on top of all of these.

New York itself went bankrupt in 1971, something you just claimed couldn't have happened to a state.
Volume 23, Number 2 · February 19, 1976
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8940

Felix Rohatyn, big time financeer for the Oligarchy and member of the DNC passed through a Schachtian plan that even Goering would have liked. Schacht was able to get anti-american (yup, anti constitutional) mandates passed in the state of NY. They declared certain parts of the state dead such as 'queens', 'bronx', and other parts. They cut ALL health care (hospitals, ambulances, etc), police, education, and government programs. The idea was simple. They are already dead. Either they will die, or move out. People died and people moved out, NY lost over a million people. Felix Rohatyn recently wrote that same plan needs to happen in the USA coast to coast, to get us through this next financail crisis. He is of course a enemy of the people, and wants to get as much money out as he can, but it shows you what htey are thinking.






Now, as to your "slave labor" theory. If someone in Mexico is willing to work for $3/hour, it's because the local job down the street is only offering $2/hour. And this is where we part ways... I don't think a business should be forced to pay a certain wage or offer jobs in a certain place. We just won't agree on that.


Would you also be the one whipping the black and mexcian workers who are getting paid $1 an hour on the plantation? After all, the market says that's all they are worth, so it must be true, right?



And as to LaRouche's economics, the man is living in the past and if anyone has a policy that could destroy the U.S. economy, it's him!

1. He lives in the past because he wants to reinstitute the gold standard for the dollar,

Wrong. The British Gold Standard system was used to stop growth. The idea of a Gold Standard is that if you as a bank lend money to someone, you'd better have that money in your bank. Seeing how most of the Gold in the world was in London, it was good for them. Abraham Lincoln introduced the greenback which is how we beat the British in the Civil War. LaRouche wants a Gold Reserve policy similar to FDR. The Idea is that the gold is supposed to cover leverage for the deficit you will incure the first few years of a regulated Super "TVA" to rebuild the USA and train the population in development toosl again.


and he doesn't want the government to make loans on the assumption that inflation will allow it to pay back a dollar that is less valuable, after it's made a small return on it's investment (he calls this "too risky").

He doesn't want the govt to make loans to financial institutions that rely *solely* on that. Physical Development projects have a *guaranteed* return. Science Drivers such as the Space Program got us $10 back for every dollar we put in. We got all kinds of new technologies such as Cat scans, microwaves, the PC industry, uses of velcro, heart/breath monetaring devices, i mean all kinds of great things came out. You use the technology you get back in development projects to make better industry, thus getting more money back. If you build a Super-TVA, and let your workforce invest in that, they have something solid and physical to continue getting ar eturn on when they retire. It wont be like the millions of people who lost everythign since they had it invested in fraud paper transactions.



He also wants a total regulation of business policy in the name of the "little guy", even though this stagnates business growth due to reduced incentive (there's no room for "problem-solving" or "creative thinking" between producer's and consumers in LaRouche's world, where the government acts as a profilactic between the two).

Absolutely not. If you read some of his works on the independant farmer for example, you will see how much technology development and creative freedom are some of the most important things. For example, he defined true wealth as the 'creative potential of the population' which is true. The government will regulate the enrons, the government will make sure a company like Fannie Mae and JP Morgan do not invest tens of trillions of dollars in deriviative bets which will fail. Wallstreet needs to be regulated, and it's about time. However, that is very far from regulating everything, which wont work either.



2. When LaRouche is in a "debate", it involves him screaming words like "fascist", "slave trader" and "Anti-American" (much like you do!) until the opponent gets so sick of it they have to go throw up, then he says he WON THE DEBATE!

Oh yea? give me one debate where this happened (and the guy wasn't a fascist). Let's look at it on a per debate basis. I'm sure you can refrence at least one.



There's a reason he wasn't allowed in the Democrat Primary debates, and it's not because he would have been a shoe-in! From Lyndon's perspective, if you disagree with him, he'll insult you until you get bored and walk away, then he'll take the prize and be proud of it. That's not a method of professionals, let alone logical economists. [/B]

Again, not true. Felix Rohatyn, George Soros, and the 'get Bill clinton' crowd of the DLC have hated LaRouche because he will regulate their financial looting and predatory lending systems. THese people have a great way of looting other nations, and they dont want anyone standing in their looting. If you are a mafia loan shark who lends money to people, then you make them your slave pretty much, you are not going to stand by and watch someone come in and stop it.

[Marky]

Hi Newb,

1. As to free trade, this is simply a position where you and I will disagree. Ultimately, I believe this is because you're looking at it from an "international trade" perspective, and so look at the gains and losses of individual countries. I am looking at it from a "global trade" perspective, and I watch the net gain (or loss) of ALL ECONOMIES COMBINED.

As to California in general, if you believe the Friedman economics always leads to a cartel scenario, then your opinion is skewed. Furthermore, energy production should be taken from a "Natural Monopoly" perspective, in my opinion, and should have been regulated such that they received 0 economic profit or a fixed economic profit. But my perspective STILL falls under Friedman economics, because it views energy as a natural monopoly market. Refusing to regulate such a market is not any branch of economics, but sheer stupidity on the part of a legislature.

It should also be noted that, since most markets are NOT a natural monopolistic scenario, if all the firms form a cartel, a single new firm can enter the market and sell for a fairer price, and they will be undercut again by another firm entering the market. The point being, the case of Enron is far from the norm, both in business ethics AND in the rules by which new firms enter the market. You may be "throwing the baby away with the bathwater" when you bash Friedman economics, to use a poor cliche', based on the actions of a single cartel operating under peculiar circumstances.

2. When it comes to dollar devaluation, you always bring up two things that have little impact: One, that our "manufacturing base" is disintegrating, and two, that natural resources are increasing in value.

If you think that the government is able (or even SHOULD BE ABLE) to force manufacturing jobs to stay in the U.S., we will butt heads 'til kingdom come. Putting all your eggs in the manufacturing basket is a tremendous mistake, both from a practical standpoint and a data analysis standpoint. For the sake of practicality, manufacturing will no longer be the forte' of the U.S. It's not the fault of any politician, it's simply due to the fact that, over time, technology and information will normalize in a system, and the entire world is one economic system. So, over the years, technology has been exported from the U.S., as has information, and now other nations are perfectly capable of competing with us from a manufacturing standpoint. So as I said, the U.S. will NEVER AGAIN monopolize manufacturing, and it's up to America (or another nation) to set the new goal bar for the next economic era.

Furthermore, from a data analysis standpoint, when you observe net imports/exports from an EXCLUSIVELY manufacturing perspective, you are looking at two simultaneous economic shifts. One shift occurs when manufacturing jobs leave the U.S. for other countries, so the U.S. SHOULD be able to compete more on a global level. But there is the second shift, which occurs when those jobs are brought to ANOTHER COUNTRY, so while our manufacturing prices are dropping, firms are creating more product abroad with prices that will seriously undercut any price we can name (otherwise, the firm would not have outsourced!). So yes, the manufacturing portion of the trading gap will continue to widen, and as I said in my last post, we will not see a positive export surplus until our exportation of SERVICES (other than manufacturing) overshadow our manufacturing failings.


3. "You seroiusly think house prices doubling in 3 years, with the dollar being printed out so cheaply and given away is simple inflation?? "

There was a thorough explanation of the primary factor leading to an increase in house valuation (though you had asked why "prices were going up", as if that had never happened before!). For ease of reading, I'll repeat it here... The low interest rate increases the demand for houses while supply remains constant for the short-term, leading to an increase in price.

As for your statement about "out of control" inflation... Inflation has been at around .1% for over a year now, when the historical benchmark is around 3-4%!

4. Not once in the article you provided did I find a statement that New York went bankrupt, however much a depression it had fallen into. If I simply missed the paragraph, please let me know. Furthermore, let's not forget that it was in the 60's that tax cuts were passed to increase the GDP, and the government tried to regulate the economy in such a way that it would steadily keep the economy in an expansionary state, which so many people seem to think is a great idea. The results of such a quest hit in the early 70's, when the inflation rate reached 15%! The point being, on one hand you think heavy regulation of the economy will improve the well-being of all, but when the results come a decade later, you blame "business" as if it somehow fell through on a promise it had made. What happened in the 70's only reinforces my opinion that the government should not be heavy-handed in it's regulation of business.

5. "Would you also be the one whipping the black and mexcian workers who are getting paid $1 an hour on the plantation? After all, the market says that's all they are worth, so it must be true, right?"

Though I don't say this in earnest very often, such a statement is not only inflammatory but downright idiotic. The fact is, a Mexican worker can work wherever they can find work, and they can work for the highest bidder in their market, or for that matter, they can choose not to work at all. Slaves have no such choices; they work for one firm, for one price, no if's, and's or but's about it.

No matter how much you call working in Mexico for $3/hour "slave labor", the Mexicans call it "opportunity", or they work somewhere else. Keep relativity in mind. Is $100/week a lot to live on? OF COURSE IT IS, in Mexico where purchasing power parity shows us that it costs them 30$/week to live an "average" Mexican life!

Now, having said that, is your desire not to make business a slave to the government?

6. Two points about your defense of LaRouche.

"Physical Development projects have a *guaranteed* return. Science Drivers such as the Space Program got us $10 back for every dollar we put in. We got all kinds of new technologies such as Cat scans, microwaves, the PC industry, uses of velcro, heart/breath monetaring devices, i mean all kinds of great things came out. You use the technology you get back in development projects to make better industry, thus getting more money back."

None of these returns were GUARANTEED before the space program. Most people thought space travel would be a waste of time and money, much as they think modern discussions of such endeavors will be. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but today's "Speculations" may be tomorrows "Guaranteed Returns", according to your statements.

"The government will regulate the enrons, the government will make sure a company like Fannie Mae and JP Morgan do not invest tens of trillions of dollars in deriviative bets which will fail."

They'll fail? How could you POSSIBLY KNOW THAT?! How could those companies have known that before they made the investments?! For every 10 investments made, there will be one that bears fruit. To say, "We're only going to put money in the investments that will yield results. We're going to ignore investments what won't bear fruit," would be enough to make any investor laugh.

And Larouche doesn't attack people personally, he's always literal? So when he calls Cheney a BeastMan and Rumsfeld the Child of Satan, he's being quite literal? I don't care how much you may dislike either of those men, but if you say THAT about them, I'm not going to bother listening to you. And here's this, because two examples aren't enough.

http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/institutional_analysis/lhldefd.html

And if you think LaRouche was kept out of the '04 debates because he would blow the lid off the government conspiracy, I would think the screaming of racial attacks on Lieberman and Sharpton during those debates followed by calls of, "LaRouche! LaRouche in '04!" would be enough to disprove your conclusion.

I would also suggest you read his '04 campaign manual, but since I'm guessing you already have and still feel the way you do, I think this is where our conversation ends. You don't have to respond to this post. I'll read any post you make, but I'm only going to reply if something particularly interesting catches my eye. As it is I've noticed very few differences between any of your posts, but you might prove me wrong.

It's been fun!

[Newb]

I would like to take ur points 1 at a time. Let's start with the very first one.


Originally posted by Marky
Hi Newb,

1. As to free trade, this is simply a position where you and I will disagree. Ultimately, I believe this is because you're looking at it from an "international trade" perspective, and so look at the gains and losses of individual countries. I am looking at it from a "global trade" perspective, and I watch the net gain (or loss) of ALL ECONOMIES COMBINED.


You mention I look at it from a 'international trade' perspectice, while you look at the numbers of just 'ALL ECONOMIES COMBINED.'

By that you mean that instead of looking at the effects of your economic actions on a per country basis, you look at the 'bottom line' figure. Am I correct in my presumption?

edit:
To clarify, what I mean by 'bottom line' figure, is the combined world GDP.

[Newb]

Aww come on, it's been 2 days now. You can write a entire paragraph and talk about how much you support having no miminum wage and call it 'humane', yet you can't take 20 seconds to reply to a question about your first point?