The only meaningful reform for healthcare would be policies that take aim to reduce costs in the dysfunctional healthcare market.
For instance, by cutting state-line restrictions and allowing healthcare insurers the ability to sell coverage anywhere in the United States, and by decoupling healthcare insurance from employment agreements (that is, allowing consumers to buy coverage just as they do auto insurance), this would provide a tremendous rise in competition and thus lower healthcare premiums.
Such actions, however, are not favored by the healthcare insurance industry, so we’ll have to wait for a real crisis in the healthcare market to occur before substantive reform starts.
In the meantime, I must ask: If this recent healthcare reform that was rammed through the House of Representatives over the weekend truly has any meaning in terms of reducing costs, then why are healthcare stocks on the rise today?
So, where does china fits in, what seems to be an issue of individual countries and their money management?
It’s just as simple as this, u are running a wholesale shop in a market. Some one brings (exports) tomatoes daily… there are other tomato suppliers for you but he supplies it cheap and in huge mass. So most of the shop owners buy tomato from him. But, he is not buying anything from you. Even though you want to settle his balance with some potatoes and dal from your shop, he says, just give me money, and you have been doing this. One fine day you realize that, all your goods are stagnant/ no demand for your products and money leaves from your pocket daily. You wanted to see, what the tomato vendor is doing in the backyard after getting payments from you…
1) He is not giving money to his wife and other labours who work in the family to spend the money.
2) He spends all his money in buying new fields and investing in producing cheap tomatoes
3) He indirectly lends you money to run your shop, through bonds which you issue.
4) He gets more customers by selling tomatoes at low price and eliminates small farmers from market.
One fine day, u and ur relatives, wake up and tell him, boss, better u spend the money on other things, otherwise we will levy tax on your tomatoes and you will suffer, because ur neighbour is ready to give tomatoes and will listen to us..
He retaliates back that,
1) If I don’t give tomato, Ur shops will need to buy at a higher price and as such u idiots don’t have the habit of saving money, will find very difficult to buy products from others which will be costlier than mine.
2) I will stop lending you money and will sell all the loan bonds given to you in the market at a cheaper rate, and your money value will go down since I sell in huge quantity and less demand will be there , and because you are the leader of all shops, everyone will collapse.
This is what exactly the situation happening between China and US. But is this a matter of concern only for US and not for other countries? Why are they silent on these issues? To understand in a broader manner, we need to understand
• What role currency plays in economy,
• What appreciation or depreciation means for one country and relative countries,
• How currencies are related to each other etc, in detail.
Dr. Kiggundu is gone for good but there is still hope for the revival of the Greenland bank one day if what we read in the newspapers was true. I’m among the few Ugandans and muslims who are still confused as to why Greenland was closed abruptly like that. My understanding is that General Saleh secretly purchased UCB through Greenland bank. General Saleh himself announced that he took over the bid from the Malaysian investors to keep the bank under local hands and this was in December 1998.Immediately after General Saleh’s announcement, Greeenland bank was placed under state management. Greenland bank had subsidiaries in Tanzania and Kenya (commercial Bank and foreign exchange in Kenya respectively) which were also later closed. Nobody in the government has come up to give us a detailed explanation of why the Greenland Empire was closed and whether this was necessary at the time. It is the kind of pain we have been carrying for ages and it became so much when the death of Dr.Kiggundu struck us.
Secondly, Greenland was closed when the country’s savings were improving. Before the emergency of Greenland, the savings stood at 3% of the GDP compared to 6% of GDP in 1998. At that time, Kenya had a savings rate of 22% compared to the now ill-managed Zimbabwe which had a savings rate of 32% by then. When the savings rate is higher it means there are more funds that can be borrowed for development. Ugandans can borrow money in great number to their things. All this went into decline after the closure of Greenland Bank because so many people were relying on that bank. Was the closure of Greenland an act of a president who loves rapid development in the country?
The only major management error I blame Dr. Kiggundu is the principle of disclosure in the banking sector and he was jailed for 6 months because of some of these errors. Disclosure is about providing information to the outsiders about the organization. This includes corporate social disclosure. This is where the society wants to know what it gets from the business for supporting it. It is when the society and other third parties see such benefits that they see the organization as legitimate. Whereas developed countries have disclosure measures, the developing countries like Uganda don’t have the culture of disclosure. No ends of year accounts are shown! Even banks that should display their financial statements don’t do so! That is why in 1998, Greenland Bank Ltd, and Cooperative Bank Ltd were closed by Bank of Uganda, without any sign of financial weakness being known by the customers. So this was wrong on the side of Dr. Kiggundu but still the state should not have closed the bank. The Gordon Brown government used all the means at its disposal to save the Northern Rock Bank despite the problems they were having because Gordon loves his country and he loves the common man on the ground in the UK.
Other reasons which were given by the economists in the country for the closure are all considered just schools of thought including: failure to meet the minimum capital requirements, insider lending, corruption and mismanagement as the causes. This is all nothing when you are a politician who loves your people.The root cause of commercial banks’ problems lies in their desire to increase profits by rapidly expanding their asset portfolio (by extending loans) for which there are no adequate provisions in the form of a capital buffer. Greenland bank did this by investing in a variety of businesses and lending to people without security, and it would have worked if they had been given a chance with time to rectify their mistakes. Remember, these were long term investments NOT short term investments. Yes, Dr.Kiggundu was running the risk of the inadequacy of minimum capital standards in accounting for the risk in banks’ asset portfolio but so many international banks run this risk. In the UK here, people access credit without any security and there was nothing weid that Greenland was doing in the banking sector. I also heard that a Saudi investor offered to fix the capital problems Greenland was experiencing at the time but still the government declined the offer. All they wanted was to close the damn Greenland Bank.
Lastly, Bank of Uganda (BoU) introduced new banking rules after the closure of Greenland to justify their act but why didn’t they give Greenland more time to operate under the new rules. According to the BoU new policy, all banks will be required to maintain sufficient capital, while those under-capitalised will not be bailed out. Under the revised minimum deposit requirements, all commercial banks – both local and foreign-owned – are required to maintain at least a minimum balance of USh1bn (US$750m). All banks are required to comply with all the provisions of the Financial Institutions Statute (FIS) of 1993. According to the BoU, they will only intervene in banks that either fail to meet the capital requirements or comply with the laws and regulations as stipulated in the FIS Act. ´Where a bank is intervened and closed, the BoU´s commitment to the depositors will be limited to USh3m per depositor, covered under the Deposit Insurance Scheme´, the bank stated. My question is how is a Ugandan in USA going to recover her money now if she wakes up one morning when one of the banks in Uganda is closed particularly if her savings exceed USh3m? Can anybody also convince voters in Uganda that Kiggundu’s Greenland had failed to raise the capital of USh1bn to keep itself in business? Can you also tell voters in Uganda of what the judicial inquiry commission found and recommended after the closure of different banks in Uganda that year? This was a commission set up by Finance Minister Gerald Sendaula. Why isn’t all this information made public up to now?
KUHNER: Impeach the president? – Washington Times.
The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.
One only needs to turn on Fox News to hear that communism is going to destroy us all, or that Obama is a socialist and wants to turn us into the USSR. Conservatives seem to be convinced that communism will be the end of us all. On the other side, there are those that believe that capitalism takes advantage of the poor and marginalized. Examples like Nike or Wal-Mart show that people can use the economic system of capitalism to do just that. Some even go as far as saying Jesus was a communist or a capitalist, both sides proof-texting their point. I have my problem with people saying that Jesus held to one economic system but that is another post.
The truth I think that most fail to see though is neither system is inherently evil. They are two different systems that try to distribute wealth equally. Although, they have two different definitions of equal. This leaves the largely not talked about side of the equation, humans. Humans are not only corruptible but corrupting agents. It is not hard to look for examples of where communism was corrupted, historically, Stalin did a number to Russia and innocent people died. In the modern day we see North Korea, under the iron fist of Kim Jong Ill, is perhaps one of the most terrifying examples of government tyrannical control. For capitalism, we see the example of sweat shops used famously by Wal-Mart, and Nike, and many other companies. Historically, while the industrial revolution was a time of great advancement, it was an age of human rights violations that caused the death of men, women, and children.
The truth is that if we want either of these systems to work, we have to become better people. Changing these systems starts on a personal level. We have to become conscious consumers. We have to be aware of the evil things companies do, and then shop at the ones that do as few of these as possible. Many times that means that we cannot shop at the cheapest place, but the trade-off means we are not hurting anyone. Also, we have to vote for laws that protect the marginalized groups. While this at times can seem like socialism, if at the end of the day it saves lives it is the right thing to do.
I was having an interesting conversation yesterday with a friend while discussing the proposition of finding someone from among the foreigners we know in Korea to fill an open position at my company. As we went over the various people we know, evaluating their Korean language skills, where they are in their careers and whether they would be interested in a job in the field in question, we managed to narrow down the field to a small number of individuals, and yet with seemingly all the appropriate candidates we repeatedly found the same problem. None of those most suited to the job appeared to be particularly motivated to start or continue careers. In most cases, the people we dismissed for this reason were dabblers. They came to Korea without any particular aim, and although they may have learned Korean here or known it already, for the most part they learned it without any particular career goal in mind. A few of the most qualified candidates were not interested in working at all, while others among them were not ready to decide what field they wanted to enter. I should mention that the people we were discussing are all current students at or recent graduates of Yonsei GSIS, and the ones we were primarily discussing were concentrating in trade and finance or management.
We were having a hard time explaining why this would be. Why would so many people who had taken their education to this level nonetheless be unprepared to begin their careers? What are they studying for, if not to help their job prospects?
I brought up, as I often do, leisure studies. Here’s an abridged excerpt from Thorstein Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class that I’d had in mind:
The great, pervading human relation in such a system is that of master and servant. The accepted evidence of wealth is the possession of many women, and presently also of other slaves [i.e. servants] engaged in attendance of their master’s person and in producing goods for him . . .At the same time those servants whose office is personal service, including domestic duties, come gradually to be exempted from productive industry carried on for gain. . . This process of progressive exemption from the common run of industrial employment will commonly begin with the exemption of the wife, or the chief wife. . . By virtue of their serving as evidence of the ability to pay, the office of such domestics regularly tends to include continually fewer duties, and their service tends in the end to become nominal only. . . [T]here arises a subsidiary or derivative leisure class, whose office is the performance of a vicarious leisure for the behoof of the reputability of the primary or legitimate leisure class. . . his leisure normally passes under the guise of specialized service directed to the furtherance of the master’s fullness of life.
Compare this to a recent entry in the Stuff White People Like blog on picking fruit:
Many of you might be familiar with the process of harvesting a crop, some of its more intense variations are often referred to as “migrant labor” and “slavery.” Under these conditions, laborers are expected to work extremely hard in order to live up to large expectations about their fruit picking output.
When white people harvests a crop it’s known as “berry picking” or “pick your own fruit.” Under these conditions, white people are expected to work leisurely with no real expectations and then they pay for the privilege to do so. In other words, berry picking is the agricultural equivalent to a private liberal arts college. It’s no surprise white people like it, because much like a liberal arts degree it feels like you’ve done real work when you really haven’t.
Based on the same line of reasoning, I argued to my friend that those students that we know who have no intention of finding gainful employment in the near future and particularly those who lack even an idea about how to do so should be viewed as luxury accessories of their parents. In this way, I would say that raising one’s children in the suburbs, away from where gainful employment is performed and money is actually made, turns the sheltered suburban child into a human status marker for the parent. Among US baby boomers in particular, where there sometimes seems to be a marked lack of concern for one’s children’s economic success, and any higher education is anachronistically viewed as a gateway to one or another form of success, this appears to be the rule rather than the exception.
Of course this doesn’t hold true in every case, but then again if it did you’d probably already have noticed it and I wouldn’t need to write this, would I?
I have followed David Rosenberg, who is the Chief Economist/Strategist at Gluskin Sheff, for about 2 years. He is known to be out of consensus and really gives you an alternative look at where we are in this recovery cycle versus many of the main stream views that are currently circulating. In today’s morning note, Rosenberg highlights where we would be if this was a “normal” cycle:
Employment would already be at a new high, not 8.4 million shy of the old peak.
The level of real GDP would already be at a new cycle high, not almost 2% below the old peak.
Consumer confidence would be closer to 100 than 50.
Bank credit would be expanding at a 14% annual rate, not contracting by that pace.
The Fed would certainly not have a $2.3 trillion balance sheet.
The government deficit would not be running in excess of 10% of GDP or twice the ratio that FDR ever dared to run in the 1930s.
There would be a ‘clean’ 5-6 months’ supply of homes on the market, not the 21 months overhanging as is the case now when all the shadow inventory is included from the foreclosure pipeline.
The funds rate would not be near zero and one in six Americans would not be either unemployed or underemployed.
Mortgage applications for new home purchases would not be down 13.9% year-over-year (just reported for the week of March 12) on top of the already depressing 29.4% detonating trend of a year ago.
If you are interested to receive Dave’s morning note, you can sign up here: Gluskin Sheff
I just read an irritating article from CBSnews on China in Africa.
Irritating because it is filled with mistakes, emotional appeals and shallow analysis.
Irritating because most of the reader’s comments at the bottom of the article think that this is an excellent piece of writing.
*SIGH*
George Bush’s Aids policy has been a success and welcomed across Africa? Really? His no condom policy was great?
I think other people with more expertise beg to differ.
USA does not have baggage like Europe does in Africa? Does this author know anything about Africa’s history? Ever heard of Patrice Lumumba? As one of the commentators says:
“The United States does not carry baggage from a colonial past as do European countries.? Not from a colonial past, yes. However, propping up dictators who abuse their people and ruin their countries?that is a baggage. So is overthrowing revered leaders like Kwame Nkrumah and spearheading the assassination of beloved patriots such as Patrice Lumumba.”
Then you have the scare tactics such as the false claim that China has leased half of Congo’s farmland (media articles always seem to need to put some random statement with no evidence on this type of “neo-colonialism” by China these days).
In essence the author of the article argues that China’s involvement in Africa is driven by nothing other than China’s quest for political and economic power. There is no such thing as good will involved.
“Roads in Nairobi, notorious for their clogged traffic circles, are being widened and repaved with large billboards telling Kenyans that the work is a gift from the people of China. The fact that the roads will ease congestion for Kenyan motorists is an afterthought to the benefactor which requires modern infrastructure to move African commodities to ports for shipment to China.”
Yes, China’s investments do serve Chinese interests aswell as African interests, but this is the concept of “win-win” situations. And what is the problem with a situation in which both sides can derive benefits?
Isn’t this the very fundamental principle of a free market economy? With out the possibility of win-win outcomes there would be no trade and no interaction. In short there would be no market for anything.
One could of course say that genuine altruism entails the willingness to do something (such as building that road in Kenya) without there necessarily being any advantage to oneself. But let’s be realists here for a second.
Do you honestly think that any country out there is making investments and giving off aid in a purely altruistic manner? The driving force behind any country’s actions is self-interest, in particular in democratic countries because those elected governments are accountable to their people above all other things.
I am not saying that individuals working with aid is doing so with their own country’s national interest at heart. I know lots of people who work in the aid industry, my parents included, who are genuinely committed to assisting other countries in reducing poverty and improving living conditions. But the state as an apparatus does not have a heart or emotions or feelings of empathy even though individuals working within these institutions may have this.
The article also talks about how America must come forward as a leader and promoter of human rights and liberty. Similar to what I said above, do you really think that America is just in Afghanistan to promote progressive values?
No doubt this is part of their job there, my brother is in the army in Afghanistan. I know he is there because he truly is fighting for these values and with the aim of creating a better place for Afghanis.
But again lets ask ourselves, why Afghanistan? Why not Sudan? Why not Swaziland or the DRC?
The answer is that a government will have to prioritize, the American’s can’t use military pressure everywhere it is needed. They have to prioritize. And of course they will prioritize Afghanistan which pose a security threat to America. I don’t think this diminishes the importance of their work in promoting human rights in Afghanistan, but my point is that in this world where resources are limited, governments will always have to prioritize. And they will prioritize in their national self-interest first and foremost.
Something else that comes up constantly when China’s aid to Africa is mentioned is how they give indiscriminately to all governments including those who are sanctioned by the West such as Mugabe.
However I object to this vilification of China in an attempt to whitewash Western donors relations with African countries. Of course, just because the West has also been engaged in some pretty gruesome behaviour in Africa it does not make it right for China to do so aswell. But I think we need to look at what is actually being done.
Unlike the West, China are not engaged in creating coup detat, assassinations or install a puppet government in Africa. They are enablers yes, but not actively scheming out political plots . They are simply businessmen, not politicians in a quest for global dominance.
China is pragmatic and adhere to the principle of non-interference. This means that they enable African governments to do as they like. This can be bad in the case of Zimbabwe and Sudan. On the other hand, it also enables African governments who genuinely want to develop their economies to persue the policies they would like to. This is in starch contrast to Western donors who impose policy prescriptions in the name of good governance.
The emergence of China as an alternative source of funding is not just welcomed by sanctioned leaders such as Mugabe, but also by those governments who have their own nation’s interest at heart. Decades of SAP’s have not lead to a miraculous change the economies of African countries. The imposition on policy restrictions and prescriptions is void of any democratic value (that the West proclaims to promote).
Looking at the development process of economies such as Korea, Taiwan and Japan one finds that the exact policies used to develop those economies are being banned as conditions for aid in Africa. Despite having good intentions, these policies have amounted to nothing spectacular. The conditions imposed on aid-recipient countries has denied developing countries to implement necessary policies for their economic development, thereby rendered them aid-dependent.
China thus presents an opportunity for countries wishing to emulate the development process of success countries such as Korea, Japan and even the United States itself. Of course, “bad” countries such as Mugabe will not improve with Chinese funding, but at least the “good” ones will now finally regain some bargaining power ower their own policy decisions.
Does this mean that I am against imposing conditions on aid? No.
I see no reason why tax payers in Norway or Sweden should pay for Mswati’s children to go shopping in Paris and Milan. A lender and giver should of course have the right to be assured that the money goes to the people it was destined for, not some greedy individuals pocket. So conditions for transparency and corruption control are important measures. I do think it is immoral to back up regimes that violate human rights.
But the conditions attached to Western aid today does not stop at that. The conditions extend into policy decisions, social policy, economic policy, matters that we normally would consider the job of an elected government to execute are now being imposed by donors abroad. The West tiptoe around issues such as the discrimination against homosexuals (a true human rights issue) in the name of “cultural sensitivity” but instead demand the recipient economy relinquish any economic policy autonomy.
What do we really mean by good governance? A government that is transparent and combats corruption? A government that do not violate human rights? Or a government that opens their trade borders for Wester products? A government that follow specific economic policies that Western countries deem in their best interest (African’s can’t think for themselves seems to be the reoccurring motto amongst Western donors). To give a quote from one of my favourite economists, Erik Reinert:
“Race was convenient for explaining poverty in the colonies, thus exonerating the colonial prohibition of industrial production from blame….African’s were not poor because they had not been allowed to industrialize, they were poor because they were black. Today we when we emphasize the role of corruption n in creating poverty, we are a little bit more politically correct. African’s are no longer poor because they are black, they are poor because blacks are corrupt. In the final analysis the difference is marginal”
Ah that heavy white man’s burden.
We don’t have to choose between ignoring recipient government’s actions completely and imposing our own policies on them. If we want to demonstrate the value of democracy and freedom, the best way is to practice what we preach.
Yesterday, I wrote about the possibility of control fraud existing in the for-profit trade school industry. The weapon of choice when it comes to control fraud is accounting fraud.
This morning, I read an article from the Christian Science Monitor about how Lehman Brothers employed accounting fraud “amid [the] financial crisis.”
It appears Lehman was using repurchase agreements (repos) “at the end of each quarter to make its finances appear less shaky than they really were.”
A repurchase agreement is a financial instrument or contract. According to Phillipe Jorion, a repo is:
An agreement between two parties under which one part agrees to sell a security and buy it back on an agreed-upon date and at an agreed-upon price. In return, the seller receives cash. The difference between the original sale price and the subsequent repurchase price acts as interest on a loan, which, when expressed as an interest rate, is commonly known as the repo rate. (Jorion, p168)
It appears Lehman created “a materially misleading picture of the firm’s financial condition in late 2007 and 2008.”
Repos also face interest-rate risk, and especially extreme risks if you leverage them. Should yields go up, the value of the securities goes down. (Jorion, p34)
Some people insist that the current health-care bill is the only option to resolve rising health-care costs…does the Ryan plan address their needs enough? An enormous bill and an enormously complicated debate.
Also On This Site: From Youtube Via Althouse-’Paul Ryan: Hiding Spending Doesn’t Reduce Spending’
The most knowledgable articles I’ve read that make the case for some government involvement are here:
Atul Gawande At The New Yorker: ‘The Cost Conundrum Persists’
Did you know that you could be prosecuted for the possession of stolen goods if those goods were given to you for free, whether or not you knew it was stolen?
Okay, here is the law: If you bought goods without knowing it was stolen, you wont be prosecuted. In order to be prosecuted you have to be aware that the goods were stolen when you bought them.
The problem is, however, that the State has made the assumption that if you dont pay for goods – that is, you received them for free – then you should have suspected they were stolen and turned them down. Ultimately, the State can prosecute you for receiving stolen goods that you didnt even know were stolen… simply because you received them for free.
The only difference, the only variable, between the two scenarios is… the price!
Should you inadvertently accept goods that were stolen though you didnt even know, whether or not you received them for free makes the sole difference between prosecution and not!
I find this to be highly socialist. Here is a perfect example within our society of laws being highly socialist.
Never mind the fact that the goods were stolen… it is apparently an irrelevant variable. What matters is whether or not you paid for them. What matters is whether or not the exchange was one of capitalism. What matters is whether or not the parties participated in the capitalist agenda, whether there is… sales taxation? (I guess?!)
I am quite upset about this. Not that I have anything against socialism in general, but the shear fakery of our own society… of the corruption of a capitalism government to interfere with law. Socialism.
For law to step in and dictate to me that any price other than zero is the only acceptable price for a transaction… well, that is just interference by the government in the economic trade of goods. How is that anything short of socialist?
I understand that thieves should be prosecuted. I understand that stolen goods should be given back to their rightful owners. I understand that anyone who willingly accepts stolen goods (for any price) only aids the thief’s and promotes the problem of thievery. But I dont get where the government gets off letting the naive go simply because they paid while prosecuting other naive simply because they didnt. How does that make sense? How is that fair or just?
Why doesn’t the judicial system just step in now and dictate prices altogether? It makes more sense to regulate all transactions rigorously just to prevent thievery, instead of prosecuting people for taking advantage of a good deal… which, by the way, is what capitalism and entrepreneurship is all about.
Can an individual protect themselves from prosecution if they have a receipt proving the transaction occured, even if the price on the receipt is a zero?
CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF EDUCATION AND WORK – UPDATE 12th MARCH 2010
EVENTS
BRIDGING THE GAP: RALLY IN SUPPORT OF SUDBURY STEELWORKERS
USW Local 6500 is in the hometown fight of their lives. Our members have been fighting strong for 8 months.
On Monday, March 22nd at 4:30 pm we are having a massive rally to show the solidarity and support that our local has from our members, our community, our province, and from around the world. There are 30 delegates from around the world (Brazil, Germany, Australia, Geneva, Indonesia, Zambia, and more) who have already committed to attending. Can I count on you to attend as well? Can I count on you to share this message with everyone you know?
We are looking for community members, organizations, clubs, unions, political groups, and community businesses to attend. Show up in large numbers and bring your banners, your flags and your signs! We need your help!
For more info, email: usw@uswsudbury.ca
+++++
NORMA SCARBOROUGH: TRIBUTE TO A PRO-CHOICE FIGHTER
Saturday, April 17
3:00pm – 5:00pm
Koffler House
569 Spadina Avenue, Room 108, Toronto
Join us to pay tribute to Norma Scarborough’s life of feminism and pro-choice activism. Memorial donations will be accepted for the Canadians for Choice Norma Scarborough Fund.
For more information or to donate to the fund, please contact Canadians for Choice at info@canadiansforchoice.ca
+++++
THE FIFTH (AND FINAL) ANNUAL SOUTHERN ONTARIO SOCIAL ECONOMY NODE SYMPOSIUM
April 12 (8:30-4:30) and 13 (8:30-3:30)
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto,
252 Bloor St W. (St. George subway station), Ground Floor Library
Interactive sessions with academic and community researchers who will share their work and insights
Short workshops on topics relevant to social economy organizations
A preliminary program is below and more information is posted on our website: http://sec.oise.utoronto.ca/english/symposium_10.php
There is no cost for this event. However, registration is required: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/95GS5NH
+++++
THE GREEN ECONOMY: PRACTICAL STRATEGIES TO CREATE COMMUNITY-BASED ECO-ECONOMIES
Taught by Brian Milani, author of Designing the Green Economy: the postindustrial alternative to corporate globalization
30 Hours over 10 weeks, Thursdays
April 8-June 10, 6 to 9pm
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE)
U of Toronto, 252 Bloor St. W.
(directly above St. George subway stop)
Eighth Floor, Room 8-214
Cost: $180
The Green Economy is an overview of radical potentials for reorganizing the economy for social and ecological purposes, while at the same time showcasing exciting alternatives being built right now in the existing economy.
The premise of the course is that today’s social, economic and environmental crises are not problems of management, but of design. A process of economic conversion is necessary to create economic structures which facilitate human self-development, social justice, community enrichment and ecological regeneration.
Sponsored by the Transformative Learning Centre, OISE.
For more info: http://www.greeneconomics.net/cour2010.htm
+++++
APRIL 28: DAY OF MOURNING FOR INJURED, KILLED, OR SICK WORKERS
On Christmas Eve 2009, four workers in Toronto were killed and one seriously injured when a construction swing stage snapped in half and plummeted 13 storeys to the ground. Another 400 Ontario workers were killed the same year and about 374,000 were injured.
On Wednesday, April, 28th, we remember our sisters and brothers who have been killed on the job or who have died as a result of workplace diseases. This special day also offers an opportunity to re-dedicate our efforts to achieve healthier and safer workplaces and seek justice and fair compensation for injured workers.
For more details visit: http://www.whsc.on.ca/events/day_mourn.cfm
+++++
CITY IS A SWEATSHOP: MARCH 19 & 20
As we prepare to flood the streets of Toronto on May Day (May 1, 2010), and as we build our resistance to the G8/G20 Summits coming to Toronto in June 2010, this series of events will lay out a vision for a city that includes everyone that lives, works, loves and struggles here.
More details: http://toronto.nooneisillegal.org/node/422
+++++
NEWS & VIEWS
WE’VE SOLD OFF ASSETS SO OFTEN, BRANCH PLANTS ‘R’ US
In a global economy, a country needs global companies, headquartered at home. Canada doesn’t have enough of them… Other countries know this. In Brazil, Vale is shielded from unwanted takeover by the government’s “golden shares,” which give authorities veto power. No Brazilian government would dream of allowing Vale to fall into foreign hands, whereas Ottawa waves takeovers through like a cop trying to speed traffic along.
To read more: http://bit.ly/bGCUnJ
+++++
WOMEN’S EQUALITY HAS DECLINED UNDER HARPER TORIES
Describing it as a “Reality Check,” labour and women’s groups have issued a stinging new report describing Canada’s lagging performance in achieving women’s equality.
The report, entitled Reality Check: Women in Canada and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action Fifteen Years On, cites regression in everything from pay equity to child care. It was prepared by the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action and the Canadian Labour Congress.
To read more: http://www.nupge.ca/content/womens-equality-has-declined-under-harper-tories
+++++
WORKERS, BANKING, AND CRISIS IN MEXICO
A striking feature of the global financial crisis is the narrow and technical focus on banks and financial corporations without accounting for ordinary workers in these institutions and in society more broadly. Yet through the intensification of work, workers have also underwritten the profitability of finance. This has been generally ignored.
In the nexus between workers, banking, and crisis, the case of Mexico is revealing due to the nature, evolution, and history of its emerging capitalist banking system. Examining the conditions of workers in Mexico is particularly important because it helps to explain not only the increase in bank profitability leading up to the global financial crisis but also the capacity of banks in Mexico to weather its worst consequences.
This focus seeks to complement, not replace, analyses concerned with large interest differentials, rising commissions and fees, as well as usurious consumer and state debt servicing.
To read more: http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/323.php
+++++
BUDGET 2010: OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY
This budget includes two major measures: another tax cut for business and ongoing cuts to federal public services.
Check out CUPE’s comprehensive budget analysis on everything from climate to child care to EI to education, water, women and more.
To read more: http://cupe.ca/budget/budget-2010-overview-analysis-summary
+++++
VIDEO: TORONTO RALLY FOR STEELWORKER LOCALS 6500 AND 6200 ON STRIKE AT VALE INCO
Three years ago, Vale – a giant multinational corporation, based in Brazil – bought Canada’s mining company Inco. Now it has forced 3,500 miners and smelter workers in Sudbury, Port Colborne and Voisey’s Bay out on strike. It’s demanding huge rollbacks in pensions, nickel bonus and seniority rights.
+++++
JOB POSTINGS
COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR, RAINBOW HEALTH ONTARIO, TORONTO
Deadline: March 29, 2010
Full job description: http://www.sherbourne.on.ca/PDFs/jobs/RHO-10-0207-Comm-Coordinator-FT.pdf
+++++
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISOR, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH, TORONTO
Deadline: 5pm March 15, 2010
For more information on this position follow this link: http://www.charityvillage.com/cvnet/viewlisting.aspx?id=209592&eng=true&
+++++
COMMUNITY URBAN FORESTRY INTERNS (3), SUMMER, GREENHERE, TORONTO ON
Start Date: June 14 2010
End Date: August 13 2010
Employment Type: Full time
Closing Date: March 19 2010
Organization: GreenHere http://www.greenhere.ca
Please submit your cover letter and resume by mail or email to: info@greenhere.ca
Mail: 21 Blackthorn Ave., Toronto, Ontario M6N 3H4
(from Canada’s Green Job Site, http://www.GoodWorkCanada.ca)
++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++
OUR MANDATE:
The Centre for the Study of Education and Work (CSEW) brings together educators from university, union, and community settings to understand and enrich the often-undervalued informal and formal learning of working people. We develop research and teaching programs at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (UofT) that strengthen feminist, anti-racist, labour movement, and working-class perspectives on learning and work.
Our major project is APCOL: Anti-Poverty Community Organizing and Learning. This five-year project (2009-2013), funded by SSHRC-CURA, brings academics and activists together in a collaborative effort to evaluate how organizations approach issues and campaigns and use popular education.
This is a moderated list. To send postings to the list, please email them to rhonda_sussman@yahoo.ca
To change your subscription settings, visit http://listserv.oise.utoronto.ca/mailman/listinfo/csewbroadcast
For more information about CSEW, visit: http://www.csew.ca
Fluvanna’s Board of Supervisors met in work session on March 10th to set the framework for the FY 2011 budget. By the end of the meeting, the Board agreed to hold a public hearing on increasing real estate taxes by ten percent (to $.55 per $100).
The supervisors also opted to take $600,000 from the county’s “savings account” (the undesignated fund balance), restored $2 million to the school budget contribution. They retained another $ 600,000 in budget cuts. Collectively, the measures would erase what would have been a $3.9 million deficit.
Questions surfaced after the meeting as to what exactly transpired. There was no clear articulation from the Board, for example, that the tax increase was to fund the school bond debt – there is a dedicated line for that purpose in Fluvanna’s budget. Previously, five cents of the real estate tax had been set-aside for debt retirement: the aggregate debt requirement for FY2011 is 17 cents. By FY 2013, that figure will rise to 21 cents.
The Constitutional officers were seen asking what happened to their accounts. For the most part, staff recommended no cuts for those budgets, but supervisors did not confirm that. Indeed, very little was confirmed. Supervisors wanted to restore proposed cuts to the social services department, but it still stands to lose a one employee.
At one point, one supervisor supported his ideological polar opposite to spend down the fund balance, only to realize after the meeting that his stated position would have double-taxed constituents.
As it stands now, the two liberal supervisors: Ms. Mozell Booker (Fork Union) and Mr. John Gooch (Palmyra) emerged the clear winners. The school system was only reduced by $1 million – despite the fact that three supervisors were prepared to cut $1.5 million. There will be only minimal layoffs in non-school employment. The School Board makes its own budget decisions.
Just where all this ends up is anyone’s guess. The broadest of outlines are there but the practical implications for taxpayers and county functions remain elusive.
“We are working with Caribbean (Airlines) towards a transaction date concurrent with our major schedule change on April 12, 2010,” Nobles disclosed.
He, however, acknowledged that the date was a “target” and could change.
“The plan is that all employee positions at Air Jamaica Holdings Ltd will be made redundant effective with the transaction date,” he revealed.
He said Caribbean Airlines will be financially responsible for the transition operation after the transaction date.”
via Jamaica Gleaner News – April 12’s the day – Lead Stories – Thursday | March 4, 2010.
“The plan is that all employee positions at Air Jamaica Holdings Ltd will be made redundant effective with the transaction date,” he revealed.
That line especially doesn’t bode well for the already overcritical unemployment rate. This deal doesn’t seem to have any lasting advantage to Jamaica. Yes, we get it of our books but over 10,000 people stand to lose their livelihood not to mention the prospect of the resultant dependence on external entities to work in our interest.
It is understandable that we must divest. It makes logical sense! But wisdom must be practiced in every avenue of governance. This is an incredibly frustrating situation, but our Government is increasingly ignoring us, so what can we say?
We must be careful with this administration, it is increasingly seeming to have someone’s interest in mind that is not ours. Stay alert out there!
Anthony Randazzo at Reason Magazine writes a fairly length piece on how the economy, despite the White House’s reassurance, is not recovering. In fact,most of the conditions that cause the economic collapse are still in bad shape, and unemployment is still increasing.
“The Recovery Act has created jobs and spurred growth,” President Barack Obama said in a December speech trumpeting the success of his economic policies. “We are in a very different place today than we were a year ago.” Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, concurs. “Everybody agrees that the recession is over,” Summers said that same month on ABC’s This Week.
But a closer look reveals those appealing numbers sit on a dangerously shaky foundation. Economic growth in 2009 was largely dependent on a historic level of government spending that even the president acknowledges is unsustainable in the long term. The root problem of mortgage delinquencies has yet to be worked out. Bank lending is sparse amid ongoing uncertainties surrounding regulatory reform. As a result, manufacturers and small businesses continue to struggle with limited credit. All that translates into historic job losses and a bleak outlook for meaningful growth in 2010 and 2011.
Worst of all, many of the core problems in the housing, banking, manufacturing, and service sectors are being perpetuated and exacerbated by the very federal programs the president credits with jump-starting economic growth. Instead of confronting the roots of the crisis head on, as Obama has repeatedly boasted of doing, his administration and the Democratic Congress have kicked the can down the road, postponing the day of reckoning for real estate, the auto industry, and the toxic mortgage-backed securities that were at the heart of the economic meltdown. These unsolved problems will keep looming over the economy until they’re finally addressed.
I was going to chatter about a certain interesting food product from a NY restaurateur, segue into Obama fucking up our nations space program, but instead I’ll simply base this off of that human nature bit I’d have flowed in to.
The fact that, no matter what culture you belong to, there is a word or phrase for this simple fact: What goes around, comes around. This article triggered the thought, not the whole point. You know you can’t get good fruit from bad seed, plant seed in bad ground it doesn’t grow, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, you get what you give, all of that “karmic platitude” bullshit that has existed since the first form of life existed on Earth however you believe that happened. You can push yourself on things but so far before they push back. The law of returns is as intrinsic now as it ever was.
I’ve hopefully given you something to mull. Think of my meaning, and tremble.
Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt’s concept of “Empire” is “in contrast to imperialism, Empire establishes no territorial center of power and does not rely on fixed boundaries or barriers…Empire manages hybrid identities, flesible hierarchies, and plurarl exchanges through modulating networks of communication” (xii-xiii). While I’m not convinced, one of its most important turns in their argument happens here:
Lenin recognized finally that, although imperialism and the monopoly phase were indeed expressions of the global expansion of capital, the imperialist practices and the colonial administrations through which they were often pursed had come to be obstacles to the further development of capital. He emphasized the fact, noted by many critics of imperialism, that competition, essential for the functioning and expansion of capital, declines necessarily in the imperialist phase in proportion to the growth of monopolies. Imperialism, with its trade exclusive and protective tariffs, its national and colonial territories, is continually posing and reinforcing fixed boundaries, blocking or channeling economic, social, and cultural flows…Luxemburg argues in economic terms, imperialism rests heavily on these fixed boundaries and the distinction between inside and outside. Imperialism actually creates a straightjacket for capital–or, more precisely, at a certain point the boundaries created by imperialist practices obstruct capitalist development and the full realization of its world market. Capital must eventually overcome imperialism and destroy the barriers between inside and outside.
It would be an exaggeration to say that, on the basis of these intuitions, Lenin’s analysis of imperialism and its crisis leads directly to the theory of Empire. It is true, nonetheless, that his revolutionary standpoint revealed the fundamental node of capitalist development…either world communist revolution or Empire and there is a profound analogy between the two choices (Negri and Hardt, 233-234).
I would still argue that we live in a time of imperialism and that, while it could be true that we are in Empire (or that we are headed toward Empire), the increasing militarization of the world by the U.S. and its continued use of “hard” and “soft” power to further extract more variable capital is a counterpoint to this. However, it could be noted that this over stretch of U.S. power is due to it trying to stem the “tide of Empire.” I’m assuming Multitude has an answer to these questions.
Source
Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Today, Richard Nixon would be considered a flaming liberal. In Nixon’s day, Barack Obama would have passed as a typical conservative; except, if you remove considerations of civil rights from consideration, he might even be a fairly hard line conservative.
The Bill of Rights is pretty well shredded. Freedom of speech is fast becoming the special privilege of corporations. Economic pressures, fueled by greedy shareholders, have eviscerated the press, leaving freedom the press virtually meaningless.
The most important part of the Fifth Amendment is probably the takings clause, which is interpreted to restrict the right of the government to regulate property.
Perhaps, the Second Amendment is the most important amendment, giving people the right to arm themselves with anything short of a nuclear weapon.
All this right-wing nonsense might be somewhat understandable if it were necessary to provide for a good life; however, the economy is becoming as dysfunctional as the ridiculous political system.
Watching people rebel politically or in the streets in Iceland and Greece, while people in the United States express their frustrations with the tea party, makes me noxious. My problem with the tea party movement is one of political jealousy. Many of the participants share my frustration at the class bias of the system, but they seem confused, mistaking late capitalism or socialism. Sure, the tax system is rigged against ordinary people, but it works in favor of the same people who are running the tea party movement.
Unfortunately, the left (if there is such a thing) seems unable to articulate a strong call to action. Instead, our anger bubbles up periodically — today, over the evisceration of education; tomorrow, over an escalation or extension of the war; or maybe even the promotion of a protest candidate, but a systematic program is nowhere to be found in the public dialogue.
Last week President Obama sanctioned “reconciliation,” a complex tactic that would jam ObamaCare into law on sheer power politics. But what if this gambit is really a false-flag operation, meant to lure House Democrats into voting for a bill that they would otherwise oppose? That’s the question many rank-and-file Members are now asking themselves, and they’re right to be worried.
The cleanest option for Democrats would be for the House to pass the Senate’s Christmas Eve bill word for word, thereby bypassing a Senate filibuster under the normal rules and forwarding ObamaCare directly to the Rose Garden signing ceremony. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said the votes simply don’t exist for the Senate bill as is.
Liberals don’t think the middle-class insurance subsidies are large enough. Big Labor hates the “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health coverage because extremely generous benefits typically come out of collective bargaining. The pro-life Democrats led by Michigan’s Bart Stupak can’t abide federal funding for abortion. Everyone detests the enveloping corruption, such as the Nebraska Medicaid bribe for Ben Nelson, which has become so politically toxic that the opponents now include Ben Nelson.
Thus the convoluted scheme the White House has mapped out. The House would first pass the Senate bill, and then pass a reconciliation bill that addresses these objections—in effect converting the process into a makeshift and unprecedented vehicle for amendments. Mrs. Pelosi can’t rope in the 216 votes she needs without an iron-clad promise of another round of Senate action.
Iron-clad promise—or double-cross? After all, the White House would much prefer the Senate bill, because by its lights the cost-control programs are tougher than what the House prefers. And from a political perspective, a bill that can be signed immediately and that the press will portray as an historic achievement is far better than the drawn-out and gory battle that would be reconciliation. Republican Senators will have many procedural knives at their disposal, and the process will force Democrats to cast further votes and spend more months debating a deeply unpopular bill.
In other words, perhaps Mr. Obama has embraced this reconciliation two-step only to renege as soon as the House gives him what he wants. While some House Democrats would be furious, they’d soon be defending the Senate bill by necessity against the GOP. The moderates who vote for it might be collateral damage, but the White House has already concluded that this is the price of building its cradle-to-grave entitlement citadel.
Mr. Obama’s closing arguments are lending credence to rank-and-file fears that they’re getting played. Democrats are telling reporters that Mr. Obama has been telling them in private meetings that his Presidency, and the party’s claim to any achievement, rests on passing a bill. With barely any mention of substance, the right bill is any bill, by any political means necessary.
The White House also announced that it now wants the House to pass the Senate bill by March 18, before Mr. Obama departs for a foreign tour in the Pacific. But this barely leaves any time for the Congressional Budget Office to score Mr. Obama’s reconciliation fixes. Then there’s House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s far-fetched suggestion to Mr. Stupak and the antiabortion bloc that Democrats can take care of their concerns in a third bill, which everyone knows will fail in the Senate if it even comes to the floor.
In this wilderness of political mirrors, anything is possible. Spooked Democrats shouldn’t be surprised if they wind up being double-crossed for the ostensibly greater good of Mr. Obama’s legacy. (WSJ)
Trust Mr “Hope and Change”?
Mr “No tax if you make less $250,000 per year”
Mr “they (Republicans) have no ideas”
Trust Me.
Why ever would you be worried?
Look at that face. And he speaks so well (and put on a Negro Dialect when he wants to- according his aides).
It’s Not all about Him.
<>
Then you read this, also in The Wall Street Journal:
Everyone knows Democrats are planning to use the budget reconciliation process to get ObamaCare through the Senate. Less well known is that Democrats are plotting add-ons to that bill to get other liberal priorities enacted—programs that could never attract 60 votes.
One of these controversial measures rewrites the Higher Education Act to ban private companies from offering federally guaranteed student loans as of this July. Congress has already passed laws in recent years discouraging private lenders from making loans without a federal guarantee. But most college financial-aid departments still want private companies to originate and service the guaranteed loans. That’s because the alternative—a public option run by the Department of Education—has been distinguished by its Soviet-style customer service.
The Democratic plan is to make this public option the only option mere days before colleges send out their financial aid packages to incoming students. The House and Senate budget committees issued instructions last year to look for savings in the student-lending program, so the Democrats have prepared in advance their excuse to jam these changes through the reconciliation process.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan portrays the changes as eliminating subsidies to private companies, but no one should misinterpret these comments to mean that taxpayers will benefit. The plan that passed the House includes $67 billion in “savings,” according to a Friday estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. But the bill also has more than $77 billion in new spending.
The net loss to taxpayers isn’t limited to $10 billion. After inquiries from Senator Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) and Rep. John Kline (R., Minn.) last year, CBO explained that “savings” estimates are artificially high because of government accounting rules that undercount the risks of default when the government is originating the loans, while the new spending estimates are artificially low. This could be significant. Many colleges oppose the government plan specifically because the feds don’t make the same effort to prevent defaults that the private lenders do.
Taxpayers have even more reason than academics to fear the impact, in part because the public may not learn the details before this plan becomes law. Democrats aim to bring their education revolution to the floor without a committee vote or even a hearing in the Senate.
Democrats might seek to enact the bill passed by the House last summer, an even more ambitious plan sketched out in the President’s 2011 budget, or some mystery meat prepared by chef Tom Harkin, who chairs the Senate education committee. So far he won’t tell anyone what’s on the menu, and he may not have to. The limited 20 hours of reconciliation debate will no doubt be consumed by ObamaCare, but another new entitlement could be hustled into law under cover of bloviating lawmakers.
Both the House-passed bill and the President’s budget increase Pell Grants and also create automatic future increases, so individual grants will grow faster than inflation every year. Colleges will pocket the money by raising tuition, so we have yet another federal program ensuring that higher education costs continue to rise even faster than health-care spending.
Mr. Obama’s budget also calls for making Pell Grants a mandatory entitlement. At least now they are subject to annual appropriation and their growth can be slowed when tax revenues fall or other priorities rate higher. Mr. Obama would prefer spending that is quite literally out of control.
“Various changes that the President proposes to the Pell Grant program would add another $0.2 trillion to the deficit between 2011 and 2020,” CBO said Friday. That could turn out to be a very optimistic estimate if unemployment remains high and more people seize the educational opportunity to which they have just become entitled. Still another taxpayer trap will be sprung if the President’s proposal to forgive some debt incurred by “overburdened” borrowers is included in the bill.
The federal education takeover is another example of the Democrats’ willingness to use whatever tactics are necessary to advance their agenda to concentrate power in Washington—while they still can.
Then you have your answer.
Second Amendment — Still ‘The Palladium of Liberties’
“The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” –James Madison
James Madison’s words regarding the “ultimate authority” for defending liberty (Federalist No. 46) ring as true today as in 1787, when he penned them.
Likewise, so do the words of his appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his 1833 “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
In recent decades, the “enterprises of ambition” and “usurpation and arbitrary power” among Leftist politicians and their corrupt judicial lap dogs have become malignant, eating away at our Essential Liberty and our constitutional Rule of Law. This has never been more so than since the charlatan Barack Hussein Obama duped 67 million Americans into seating him in the executive branch.
Now more than ever, armed Patriots must stand ready, in the words of Patrick Henry, to “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.”
In June 2008, the Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 vote (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy), reaffirmed, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the people’s inherent right to keep and bear arms is plainly enumerated in our Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right, that DC could not ban handguns, and that operable guns may be maintained in the homes of law-abiding DC residents.
This was an important decision affirming the plain language of our Second Amendment and its proscription against government infringement on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
However, Heller pertained to a federal district, and while our Bill of Rights has primacy over state and municipal firearm restrictions, a Supreme Court case to give judicial precedent to that primacy has yet to be decided.
In his dissenting opinion in Heller, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens expressed concern that the case “may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table,” should “the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home.”
One might only hope!
This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, the next test case for the Second Amendment, which will determine if Chicago’s onerous gun restrictions are in violation of the Constitution’s plain language prohibition of such regulations by states and municipalities.
Otis McDonald, the 76-year-old plaintiff in this case, is challenging Chicago regulations that make it unlawful for him to keep a handgun in his home for self-defense.
My colleague Dave Hardy, a scholar of constitutional law, particularly the Second Amendment, summarized the arguments as follows: “McDonald v. Chicago illustrated the dichotomy between a government of laws and a government of men. One wing of the Court (perhaps the majority) looked to the essential enumeration of the right to arms; the other seemed to argue that since they, as powerful individuals, did not care for the right, or thought it was one of the Framers’ bad ideas, they could disregard it.”
That is an apt summary of how all cases are handled by the federal judiciary.
Typical of Leftmedia summations, The New York Times opined, “At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms.”
Expand?
Only the most uninformed opinion would suggest that asserting the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in Chicago is an expansion of the Second Amendment’s scope. But considering the source…
Mr. McDonald’s lawyers insist that the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause (“no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”) is grounds for overturning Chicago’s gun restrictions, and those of other states and municipalities across the our great nation.
Unfortunately, trying to establish a 14th Amendment precedent in and of itself undermines the authority of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Recall that there was great debate among our Founders concerning the need for any Bill of Rights. It was argued that such a specific enumeration of rights was redundant and unnecessary to the Constitution and that listed (and unlisted) rights might then be construed as malleable rather than unalienable, as amendable rather than “endowed by our Creator” as noted in the Constitution’s supreme guidance, the Declaration of Independence.”
To that end, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 84, “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. … For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?“
Madison prevailed, however, and for clarity he introduced a preamble to the Bill of Rights: “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution…”
In other words, the Bill of Rights was enumerated to ensure against encroachment on our inherent rights. Read in context, the Bill of Rights is both an affirmation of innate individual rights (as noted by Thomas Jefferson: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time…”), and a clear delineation of constraints upon the central government.
Note that the Second Amendment is unique in the Bill of Rights in that it expressly asserts the “right to keep and bear arms” is “necessary,” more so than just important, to a “free state.”
But as feared by those who argued such rights should not be recorded, the “despotic branch,” as Jefferson presciently dubbed the judiciary, has endeavored to limit those enumerated rights by way of convoluted and fraudulent precedents.
Likewise, citing the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause suggests the Second Amendment was and remains amendable. That, of course, is an egregious affront to Essential Liberty — but that’s the way the game is played today.
Currently, 41 states issue concealed handgun carry permits, or don’t require them at all, for law-abiding citizens. Seven other states allow local municipalities to determine gun restrictions; Illinois and Wisconsin do not even allow that option.
Much of the debate about the need to infringe upon the right to bear arms is framed in terms of safety. Gun-control advocates argue that more guns equal more crime. Those advocating for more lenient gun laws argue that more guns equal less crime. Only one of these diametrically opposed views can be true.
While the latter group is factually and demonstrably correct, basing Second Amendment arguments on the issue of safety is as fallacious as attempting to assert the 14th Amendment argument.
In an editorial this week, the conservative Washington Times opined, “The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city’s murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind…”
No, they should not.
After all, violence is a cultural problem, not a gun problem, and certainly not a Second Amendment problem.
What each member of the Supreme Court must only keep in mind is the plain language of the Constitution, the Second Amendment and the First Principle of his or her oath: “To support and defend our Constitution,” as should everyone who has taken that oath.
Accordingly, the High Court should find that the gun restrictions in Chicago, and by extension, those in any other state, are in direct violation of the inherent rights of the people “to keep and bear arms.”
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US
(To submit reader comments click here.)
*****
(Please pray for our Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families — especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)
Here’s an interesting paper by Sala-i-Martin and Pinkovskiy on the evolution of poverty in Africa, and it contains exciting news: African poverty is falling and is falling rapidly since 1995 (this contradicts some older research). Moreover, this evolution is remarkably general across African countries, and not just explained by good news in a few large countries. Poverty is falling even in countries which are believed to burdened by geography, bad agricultural prospects, a history of slave trade, war, or lack of natural resources. And, to make the good news complete: income inequality has also decreased, and the Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people earning less than $1 a day will be achieved on time.
You can see the reduction of the poverty rate in Africa in the graph below. From a “high point” of almost 45% of the population surviving on less than $1 dollar day in the late 1980s, that rate has fallen to 32% in 2006. How come? As you can also see in the graph, at the time poverty began to decline around 1995, GDP began to grow (after three decades of zero or negative growth). The graph shows a striking correlation between poverty reduction and economic growth, something I have written about before in another context, see here and here).
(source)
Of course, poverty reduction isn’t the automatic result of GDP growth only. Other factors are at work as well, but the paper is silent about those.
What’s interesting is that this African growth spurt since 1995 (probably briefly interrupted by the current recession) isn’t just caused by growing oil prices. If that had been the case, we would have seen increasing income inequality, since revenues from the oil industry are typically appropriated by elites. But that’s not the case. Poverty reduction has gone hand in hand with a reduction in income inequality. You can see the extent of this reduction in the following two graphs from the paper:
(source)
This means that growth has benefited the poor. However, although the reduction in poverty is impressive, it’s not quite as impressive as poverty reduction in China.
More on poverty measurement. More poverty statistics. More on Africa.
I just read of the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the 9th Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco. This is the “fruits and nuts” Court, as Mark Twain would have said. It’s the one that has had more cases overturned by the Supreme Court than any other in the country and typically takes the most progressive view of the law and the Constitution of any of the Appeals Courts. You never know what zany new interpretation of the Constitution they’ll come up with.
Professor Liu comes from Boalt Hall at UC Berkeley, which is situated in the middle of San Francisco, basically Ground Zero for liberal lunacy. The term Ground Zero has been used three times, really. Twice at the end of World War II when the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, and on 9/11. It should not be used lightly.
But Professor Liu has some rather odd beliefs. According to Wikipedia he is a nationally recognized left wing activist. He argues that welfare rights reflect the “contingent character of our collective judgments rather that the tidy logic of a comprehensive moral theory”. He clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and his views are, according to all of his supporters “ambitiously progressive”. In other words, the ends justify the means and the law means what we say it it means. New rights are conjured up out of thin air in such an environment.
Dr. Liu has taken a noble stand on the right to a good education. As we see our schools fall apart in the blue states, perhaps his decisions would emphasize excellence of opportunity rather than outcome. Frankly, the deck is stacked against a good education in most large urban school districts. Bureaucracy, cronyism, and incompetence are the enemies.
But when I read one of his key papers, “Improving Title I Equity Funding Across,States, Districts and Schools” there is no discussion of how the money is spent. Equity is important, but wisdom is more important. As the former chair of a parochial school finance committee which consistently outperformed the public schools in our area, we found long ago it is not about how much money is spent but how it is spent. California spends over $8,000/year per public school student but has one of the lowest graduation rates in the country. The parochial schools spend half as much with double the graduation rate.
On the 2nd Amendment, he argued with Hillary Clinton that in seven instances in the past 10 years, the Supreme Court’’s interpretation of that amendment is wrong. Virtually every time the Court upheld the 2nd amendment, he argued against the majority. As we see Chicago’s gun free zone laws being challenged in the Supreme Court, this should give one pause. After all Washington D.C. and Chicago have the highest gun crime rates in the country despite having been gun free zones since the 1970’s. Where is the logic there in Mr. Liu’s opinions?
The Constitution is a funny thing. It was conceived of by some of the most brilliant minds in history and may be the document closest to political perfection yet conceived. And yet it contained certain flaws. The whole 3/5th’s thing really bothers me still. And yet at the time there was a certain logic. It was the world as it was but even then Washington and Jefferson, slave owners both, knew that the central evil of slavery was wrong and was a time bomb for future generations. But it would be for those later generations to resolve. That is why the bar for the amendment process was set as it was, a 2/3 majority of all of the states.
One of the central tenets of progressivism is to short circuit this process. Progressivism is centered on using subterfuge and the legal process and litigation by any means necessary to forward the agenda. The ends justify the means. But the Constitution is a pesky thing. There are established procedures for enacting change and the they get in the way of the agenda.
By all accounts, Professor Liu is a brilliant and skilled attorney and a decent and just man. But if he does not understand and agree with the central tenets of the Constitution, he should not be confirmed.
Much of the proposed cost to improve health care will be paid for by cuts in Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals. Clearly, that should improve health care.
Next, we can improve education by having our federal and local governments cut teachers’ salaries and support of schools.
Then, we can improve public safety by cutting police salaries.
And, we can strengthen our army by cutting military pay and investment in weapons research and production.
We can improve America’s brain power by deporting all those aliens, and not letting anyone new in.
And, we can increase medical drug research by restricting profits of those rich, greedy, pharmaceutical companies.
And, we can improve our infrastructure by spending less to repair roads and bridges, along with the electrical and communications grids.
And we can achieve energy independence if the government limits those rich, greedy, oil companies’ profits, while spending less on solar, wind, geothermal and atomic power.
Finally, we can increase economic and jobs growth by raising taxes, particularly on businesses and on the rich (people making more than $200,000 per year).
Taking all of the above steps will complete the anti-deficit, anti-government, xenophobic, Tea Party, class warfare, populist initiatives that seem so much in the news.
Most people worry that they won’t have enough for retirement … often too late. Since I know there are lots and lots of books and articles out there that attempt to tell you how much you need to save, I’m going to approach this a little differently. I’m going to tell you about a basic philosophy that will enable you to get prepared. This article is for those not yet retired. It is based on the wisdom of those of us already retired.
A Little Background
Our future is one that has a lot of uncertainty. In my opinion, the old guidelines to invest in the stock market since it will always go up over the long haul, don’t necessarily apply anymore. Have you looked at what has happened in the market? Usually your broker will show you the following chart plotted on a logarithmic scale but I have chosen to show you how it looks on a geometric scale since the log scales tend to hide a very important characteristic. Take a look at the following plot of how the market has performed.
If you had invested starting after the 1930s and then were to retire before the late 1990s, the market would have been a pretty safe bet regardless on when you retired. But if you put your money into the market anytime in the last ten years, you would be gambling. The big question is “what will happen before taking out your money” and lately the market has been very erratic. Given everything else that has gone on, I expect the market to be very erratic in the future. Why I think this is most likely might be the subject of another blog article, but for now, I don’t think you should plan on steady increases. Another thing to consider: the Japanese market has been down for about the last 25 years … markets can go down and stay down for a long time.
All you can do is attempt to save prudently and to build up a large enough cushion to enable you to better survive the coming roller coaster.
Government Support
I imagine that they will eventually partially fix both social security and Medicare, but don’t expect it to be as generous. Take a look at the following site and follow some of the links for more information.
Medicare and Social Security in Trouble
What Should You Do?
Prepare for a roller coaster ride. If you were planning to take a major roller coaster ride, I don’t think you would eat a big meal right before hand; in fact, you would probably be very conservative in your eating. You need to do the same with your life style.
The key to having enough in your retirement years requires two adjustments. First, reduce your style of living long before you retire, and second, save a lot more money than you think you might need. Actually the two go together. If you reduce your current style of living long before retirement, you will be able to save a lot more. The goal is to reduce your style of living, right now, down to a level that you think you can maintain after retirement. That way you won’t be making a big adjustment when you retire. You probably won’t hit it “right on” but you can reduce the difference considerably and you will have lots of time to learn to make the necessary adjustments while you are saving significantly.
Have you thought about adjusting your expenditures to the point where you are living on only 50 to 80 percent of your income and saving the remainder? You probably can and should. If you think this is too hard or that you can’t do it, take a look at the blog referenced below. It is written by a guy who retired very early in life. If you read the articles in his blog, which I highly recommend, you can see how he managed to retire early and how he lives now. It will give you some ideas on how to do it. Even if you prefer to not be so radical, a little of his philosophy will take you a long way towards being better prepared.
As I approach my 100th post since beginning this blog, I wish to turn my attention to a serious of topics that I hope will culminate in an exceptional 100th post. With that said, I would like to turn our attention towards the topic of the rightness of our actions. Simply put, whether our actions can be judged morally correct or wrong in relation to their ends, or the action simply. The famous expression taken out of context from Niccolo Machiavelli is that, if the ends justify the means then they are morally acceptable. However, at what point does the end of our actions because judged solely on our means of attaining that end? This statement presupposes that there is nothing else by which to judge our actions. Can this, though, be the case? Friedrich Nietzsche supposes that there is nothing by which we can judge our actions, rather it is up to the Uebermensch to impose his own variety of morality. This question was brought to me through the television show The Secret Life of the American Teenager. As some of you know, I watch that show as well as others including fellow ABC Family show Greek.
To provide some background, a few episodes back the main character Amy went on a date with a boy, named Jimmy, who she met at the beginning of this part of the season. Amy, fearing that things may become sexual and not wanting to take chances of becoming pregnant yet again acquired condoms. One thing lead to another and Jimmy found those condoms after him and Amy spent time discussing how they did not want to have sex until marriage. Amy was unaware that Jimmy found the condoms, and so when Jimmy stopped calling her she began to worry. Enter her “friends” who suggested that Jimmy didn’t like how Amy kisses, which upset her. The father of her son John, Ricky, attempted to reassure Amy before offering to let her “practice” kissing with him. She accepted the invitation. In the episode three weeks ago, Adrian, who is dating Ricky, found out that Amy was carrying condoms and began to suspect she was having sex. She immediately jumped to the conclusion that Amy and Ricky were having sex, which prompted Adrian to have sex with Amy’s ex-boyfriend Ben. Two episodes ago Adrian and Ricky confronted each other, and she informed him that she had sex with Ben to get back at him for having sex with Amy. Ricky responded by admitting, finally, that he and Amy had simply kissed.
Adrian’s belief is that the sex she had with Ben, the simple act of sex, is in itself not wrong. She also admitted that her having sex with Ben as a way of getting back at Ricky and Amy for allegedly having sex was also not wrong in of itself. Finally, she struggled with admitting that it was wrong even after finding out Ricky and Amy only kissed. This is what lead me to ponder the question of whether or not our actions simply must always be morally right, and whether or not our ends justify the actions we do take. In this instance, whether or not Adrian is correct in assuming that sex by itself is morally wrong, and whether sex as a means of getting back at someone for hurting you is itself wrong.
There are some actions that are themselves not morally wrong in and of themselves. Rather, we must look at the motive behind the act in order to find whether or not that act was acceptable. In this situation, we must look at the kind of sex rather than simply stating sex as sex itself is not morally wrong. However, sex outside of marriage is generally looked upon as being wrong and this is the kind of sex that Adrian and Ben engaged in. This leads to our general quandary, by what means can be determine that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and if we can determine what causes sex out of marriage to be wrong then we can determine if other actions can be judged based on the same principle.
By what measure can we determine sex outside of marriage to be wrong? Our first investigation must turn to the conventional law, often refered to by the Greek word nomoi. These are those laws created by man in his particular political situation. And since, at least in the United States, sex outside of marriage is not classified as illegal it cannot be wrong in accordance with American law. However, some acts are wrong based upon the assumption of the nomoi and therefore those actions can be judged solely based on whether or not the law prohibits them such as murder. The second source by which we can judge actions is through the revealed Law. That Law given to us by God. Since there are three Laws, the Old Law, the New Law and the Law of Islam, we must investigate whether any permit or prohibit premarital sex. Since it is commonly accepted by followers of the Law that premarital sex is in fact wrong, then we can assume that they receive this from the Law itself. This is the same for those things which the Law also explicitly prohibits.
Yet, what of those who are not followers of the Law? Those of non-revealed religions or those lacking faith all together. By what means can they determine the rightness of their actions? It would appear as though parts of the revealed Law are not only found in the books of religion, as there are those nations not followers of the Law that have nomoi akin to the Law. By what means was the Law revealed to them? Accordingly, there are two prime manners in which the Law is revealed to man and that is that it is implanted on his very soul or through his observation of nature. Since according to the revealed Law all things are created by the same God, it must be assumed that all living things are subject in part to the same law. It is found often in nature that some animals mate only with one partner for their entire life. Many pack animals have one male, with multiple females and often times only one female for procreation. In particular with wolves, there is an Alpha male and Alpha female, both are solely responsible for the continuation of their species with each other. Other animals, such as the Emperor Penguin, mates for life similar to the method by which humans have traditionally mated. Therefore, if we may find examples in nature of the revealed Law then we must assume that it is revealed to all. We may therefore find whether or not our actions are right, not by their ends, but by the Law.
But what then of those people who will state, “But those animals were not married, they simply have sex with each other; can I then mate with only one person the rest of my life as they do?” But what is marriage except the act of procreation? God said unto Adam and Eve, “Go forth and multiple” signaling that they were bound together as man and wife. So to, according to both the nomoi and the Law, when two people get married they are not married until they consummate the marriage. Similarly one might state, “There are examples of animals who have sex with multiple partners, how then can we say that as humans we are expected to remain with only one person?” All living things have an impulse inscribed on their hearts to continue their species through the act of procreation. That impluse exists in human beings, but what makes us different than those animals is that we have the faculty of reason. Our reason controls our passions, and leads us to our right actions. Those who deny that there are overruling laws by which all living things must adhere are denying their reason in favor of their passions. As humans, we are called to advance our species in it’s highest form; quality rather than quantity. This is why God only created Adam and Eve, for if it was intended that man should procreate with multiple females then it would have been proper for God to create multiple females.
It is therefore clear that our actions are not judged only by whether they right or wrong in relation to their ends, but that there is a standard by which we may judge our actions simply either through conventional law or the Law revealed to us either by religion or through nature, rather than in relation to their ends.
Reuters – U.S. manufacturing grew in February, though more slowly than expected, while consumer spending rose for a fourth straight month, showing the economy continued a modest recovery.
U.S. consumer spending up again (Reuters) Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:16:13 GMT
Okay boys and girls let’s not get too excited here. One of the reasons that spending is up for the fourth straight month is because of the stimulus money that has been going out to the general citizenry. Another reason is because the credit card rules have been rewritten to make it easier for people to use their credit cards. So let’s not take spending increasing for four-month as anything indicative of a possible recovery because it’s not you’re looking at false information if you think that it is. Just remember there was a huge amount of stimulus money that when out the Pvt. citizenry. Additionally, the credit card rules were rewritten so the credit card companies can’t act like money lenders anymore. So those two things together are fueling a little bit of the purchasing going on.
But let’s look a little more closely. When you consider that companies. When they get their annual budget which they do in January these budgets are primarily mapped out months before the budget actually goes live January. And when it does go live there are certain sections during the calendar year. When certain amounts of people are to be hired and certain expenditures are to take place. So consequently, what you’re looking at is a certain amount of hiring that is going on, pursuant to the budgets of these companies have.
Is the hiring that these companies doing indicative of any kind of recovery? Not likely. And the reason it’s not is because it has to be considered that $800 trillion of market loss was realized in the third business quarter of 2009. Now that is the amount of loss that was initially impacted by the American market system. That loss has not permeated the entire American economy yet. Which means it has not spread out or extended through all the businesses in the United States that are going to realize a share of that loss. That loss only represented the amount of loss of all the companies in the entire American market system was worth cumulatively realized I the in the third business quarter. So as far as accounting, we have in one column $800 trillion of market loss. And now all the money that has been lost are all the value that has been lost is going to begin to expand through all the different companies across centers of the United States, which will take about a year. And as it does that you will see various degrees of more loss in many different ways.
Now, the smart companies, will begin to shift a lot of their in-house profit margins and the cost of their goods and services in order to try to run, what is called in a more lean or cost-effective manner. Which means they’re going to start trimming some of the waste. Because that’s going to be the key to survival over this year, where they United States market is going to try to deal with the $800 trillion of market loss that realized during the tail end of 2008 and all the way through 2009.
But that’s the actual truth about what’s really going on. That’s not all the happy talk that the people on Wall Street are the bankers were the government or anyone else is telling you. I’m telling you what’s really going on because of a financial analyst and I know what’s really going on, because that’s what I’ve done for 42 years. I’m not being paid to tell you anything by some political group or business group and telling you the truth. Because I happen to care about business I happen to care about the United States. And I happen to love the world and the people in the world, because I’m basically at the point where I almost have 1 foot in the grave. And so as a result. I’m going to do everything I can to give back as much as I can to the world before, I suddenly not here.
It’s like I wrote in some of my articles were all during my life. I did make a lot of money, because I wasn’t interested in making a lot of money as a financial analyst. I was more interested in giving people who never had the benefit of financial analysis, financial analysis. And like I said, I’ve got a 1930s shortwave radio that I got in barter for one contract. I’ve got a Steelcase desk that I got in barter for another contract. And as I also wrote in one contract. I was working for a man who only owned one gas station. And when I was done, projecting his growth over the next 18 months in figuring out some ways to do things with the extra money he would have every month. He said that he didn’t really have the money to pay me. And I said well why don’t you take me to dinner. And he said that’s it. And I said well, don’t you feel pretty good about getting the kind of financial help that mostly large companies get most of the time? And we shook hands and went to dinner. And that dinner, I actually said to him I said, you are buying me dinner and will call it Jake. And as I said in this other article Jake is a term that used to be used during the Depression in the United States. Between two parties to indicate that everything was going to be square or okay. And so I have used it a lot in my life, because that was one of my father’s favorite terms.
So, what I’m telling you is the truth. Now the important question is whether or not there is going to be a recovery and when. Any recovery that might take place depends on two very significant factors.
1. The first thing that has to happen is that companies mean the banking industry and the insurance industry and most of these morons who are living really high on the hog, need to get it through their brains that they don’t stop demanding these high and compensation packages they’re going to basically ruin the economic system to the point where it simply going to capitulate and fail. And that is one very potential scenario of what lays ahead in the future. If the American market system and the global system doesn’t put up and shut up and stop being interested in how much money can get out of the system rather than how to sustain the system, no recovery will take place. And what will actually happen is that the global system in part or totally will in fact capitulate or fail.
On the other hand give the wealthy and upper class realize that it is in their best interest not to act like a bunch of selfish moneygrubbing bastards what to do everything they can to try to maintain some degree of economic equivalency between the classes as a kind of humanistic and social responsibility pursuant to economic solidarity and stability, then of course the potentiality of a recovery very well might take place sometime around 2011. Meaning that after a full year of the American market system and the global system dealing with the tremendous amount of losses that the whole world is realized. And thereby as a result giving the global economic system. The time that it needs to allow those losses to move all the way through the different processors and all the companies so they can finally be put to rest. Then you’re talking about a possible restructuring but to do a restructured prior to that happening is a mistake because the money hasn’t hit the wall yet.
I mean, the header trillion dollars just in the United States market alone isn’t going to finally make it through all of the cost centers and the companies in the United States where it’s being realized as a result of the initial loss and so probably sometime around December 2000 can and it might take until January of 2011 will, once it does, then we get back to this first consideration whether or not the psychology in the general marketplace of United States is still going to be one of selfishness or if it’s going to change to a point where the movers and shakers are going to realize that if they continue the way they are they won’t have economic system. And so at that point they will do whatever they can to try to make it work. That’s the first consideration.
2. The second consideration is one that has to do with political regimes and political agendas. In the global economic system. You don’t have a completely totally free market system. You have some systems that are what they call a proprietary, or semi-representative free market system. Now one of the system like that is China. Because while China actually enjoys a certain degree of free market activity. The Chinese government is primarily a proprietary representative pursuant to the free market system in China because China of course is a communist nation. The same is said of the Russian economy. When you have nations where they are not totally of free market oriented society, and these countries enter into the free market system, these countries enter into the free market system on the basis of proprietary agreements. And what that basically means is that the psychology in these countries such as these communist countries. With all do respect to these countries and I mean that sincerely have a tremendous hesitation on their part in trusting the total free-market system or capitalism. And of course it makes sense because they’re communist by orientation.
So consequently, for example in China. When China enters into an agreement with companies in United States. The agreements are written with a proprietary rider. And what this basically means is that China is willing to take the risk and entering into an agreement with free-market oriented companies in the West such as United States. But China at the same time, because of their hesitancy of trusting the capitalistic ideology doesn’t want to be put into a position of being untenable pursuant to its own political agenda pursuant to how it runs its country. So, what it does is it sets up the agreements with companies in the United States or companies in the West that when they do business in China if the companies inside China begin to lose money is not the Chinese to lose that money. You of the business is losing money in China it is the headquarters the company in the country where the company is headquartered that actually takes the loss.
Now this is not true. Oddly enough, when a communist country is dealing with another communist country in a semi-proprietary or representative free market system. So in other words, when China is doing business with any of the exchanges or countries in the Pacific off market system, which is all of those countries throughout Asia and their market system’s. These are systems that are in many ways communistic in one way or another. So under those circumstances, there is a little bit of an easier feeling on the part of China. But doing business with those companies. And so as a result, the proprietary agreements are not quite as restrictive as they are when China for example is doing business with countries from the West.
And the obvious question is how do I know this? And the answer to that question is that when pioneer linen supply was doing business as a linen supply company in Cleveland Ohio, my father was a corporate lawyer made many business arrangements with companies overseas to get linen for the wealthy restaurants and so forth in Cleveland Ohio. One of the places that he got linen was from China. So all my father made the legal agreements with China for the linen to be shipped to pioneer. It was I who actually was on the phone with the Chinese once or twice a month to work out the details of shipments and things of that nature. And I did this for probably 15 years. So I got to know how businesses overseas relate to the American market system and vice versa.
So this is the other consideration, which in fact, is somewhat of a major consideration, because inherently in a lot of the communistic countries today. You have a certain amount of corruption that is different than in the Western market systems. And that is because of the nature of how the political superstructure in these countries operates. So that’s why for example with Russia, the government in Russia is run by two extremely intelligent gentleman. And while the United States and Russia have never agreed on political agendas and things of that nature doing business with Russia is really not difficult and is really fairly simple when you ignore a lot of the political rhetoric. And doing business with China can be somewhat the same way. It’s just that you can’t go into any of the conversations with any degree of attitude that places you in the conversation. In any other way other than in complete and total equal footing with the other party. Meaning that when you’re on the phone with someone from China doing business with them. You have to be talking to them like the two of you are exactly equals. And nothing more. That’s how it works.
So these are the two considerations. One consideration is will the psychology of the robber barons in the American market system. Chill out to the point where these idiots with all the money in the American market system will suddenly realize that if they continue to act like selfish bastards, they will destroy the American market system? And the other consideration of course is whether the economies in some of these proprietary, and/or semi-representative free market systems such as China are going to be able to sustain their own market viability, pursuant to the nonproprietary or less limited proprietary agreements that they have within their own market regions. So that those agreements will be enough to keep their market as solid as possible, while the Western markets are working out the rather catastrophic losses that have taken place.
And of course the other element in all this is that people in the Western market system don’t understand that a lot of people in the communistic or the semi-representative free market systems are looking at the capitalistic market systems. And with a certain degree of respect laughing at the free-market systems, because when you watch the market activity in the overnights when I say overnight the mean like the Nikkei and the Hang Seng, use the different types of market activity pursuant to what they’re doing than you do in the American and Western market systems. And this is because the semi-representative market systems have been much more conservative and less reactionary to the catastrophic losses that are going on, and they have been much more restrictive with regard to compensation. And have a great deal more control over compensation than does the free-market system.
And so consequently, a lot of people in the communist countries tend to laugh a little at the free-market system. Because we’ve been acting in the free-market system like a bunch of pigs trying to rush up to a trough to see who could eat first. So, these are the kinds of dynamics that the market is really dependent on. And it’s not what we’re being told by the fancy brainiacs with all the money you claim to be real honest financiers or financial analysts, because are basically lying to. I’m not. But then I don’t have any agendas. They do.
And for anyone who was wondering why I haven’t talked about this earlier in my life. I have. It’s just that most people weren’t listening. I’ve actually been talking about the entire economic situation in the United States and around the world for 40 years. But most people kept thinking it was easier to laugh at me and call me stupid. And of course a lot of those people have gone out of business. It’s like when I was working as a contract analyst doing one small set of fragile analysis for local Price Waterhouse installation here in Cleveland Ohio. And when I got done with the analysis. I explained to one of the people at Price Waterhouse that I could see that there was some economic difficulty ahead for the company because they were like top-heavy as far as compensation packages. And that they had a kind of economic disparity going on within their own company. Between their lower management people and their hourly wages people versus their upper-level management and executives. And I tried to explain to them that if they continued operating that way that the disparity would simply get larger. And they asked why and I said, because when you are compensating people at the high-end of your employment meaning the upper-level management and executives so highly. You end up taking more and more money out of your cash flow, which leads to less money to be able to pay for your bid management and lower management people and your hourly employees. And I said, so, you eventually end up compromising them by having to fire some of them up. And so your company ends up in more trouble.
Their reaction of course was a tell me that I was full of crap. And they went ahead and paid me anyhow. And then of course, what I expected and told them what happened did happen. And they went bankrupt. And when they did one of the people that was in on the meeting. When I told him all this a few years before. When they were on the phone with me was very amazed. Because they couldn’t believe I was actually right. And my question back to them was if you didn’t think I was right than why did you hire me?
So consequently, that is what I see going on economically now as to whether any of you are going to read this. And as to whether any of you are going to even understand what I’m talking about. And also as to whether any of you are going to have so much ego inside yourselves that you’re not to be willing to accept that I might actually know what I’m talking about. Those are huge questions, because I have no idea if you will be able to move your ego out of the way to actually understand that I really might know what I’m talking about that I actually did live through these experiences. And I actually have been doing numbercrunching a financial analyst for 42 years. So I’m not stupid.
So yeah, if the powers that be in the economic community are so arrogant and so selfish that they will simply be much Whatever that I might actually know what I’m talking about, that probably no one will take advantage of what I’m writing here on the other hand. If people are willing to realize that I am almost 60 years old and I’m not stupid and never have been stupid. Then they will use some of what I’m writing here to have a better understanding of exactly what’s going on economically and not only the American market system, but the global system as well.
The choice is up to all of you. I am in bed. I basically have a hard time just walking around. And to not having breathing problems, which is normal. And I have a migraine. And that’s normal to, and I’m having trouble seeing out of one of my eyes because I’m legally blind in one eye. And that’s also normal.
But I’m still doing this dictation, because I really believe that is my duty as a human being to offer my assistance whenever possible. Just like I believe it’s my duty to stand up and defend women’s rights in the United States and around the world, because men and male oriented organizations have become so arrogant and so hateful that they are willing to treat women like nothing but cattle and to literally destroy them. Rather than to give them the same degree of freedom that they are taking for themselves.
And as I said, if I when I go to God or the creator that I’m the make darn will sure that when I go to God or the creator. But I go with a clear conscience. And that means as far as I’m concerned, if I have to die am when I die doing everything I can to defend women’s rights and to help women to stand up and demand from all of the societies throughout the world that they believe these women alone that they leave. You women alone, you don’t deserve to be treated this way you don’t deserve to be told what to do you don’t deserve to be treated as cattle and livestock you don’t deserve that at all and you certainly don’t deserve in the United States to have 5.5 million of you either raped or murdered every year. That’s not disgusting. That’s a national disgrace.
So that’s one doing all these things. Just you know.
Economic Fact Sheet (Current as of Jan. 2010)
1. The United States currently has a national debt in excess of $12 trillion.
2. The interest on the national debt is now in excess of $11 trillion.
3. The operating budget for the United States government is now in excess of $43 trillion.
4. The members of the United States Congress stole $200 million from the Medicare fund, which was going to go for cost-of-living increases to Medicare recipients, so that the members of Congress could have their paper medical records converted to computerized medical records. The attitude by the members of Congress was that they didn’t care if they murdered American citizens as long as they get the medical protection they wanted.
5. The Christian conservatives and the Republican Party are taking the stand that they do not want American citizens to have any kind of healthcare the of healthcare is extended to anyone that the Christian conservatives or the Republican Party does not like. And this is based not on constitutional law or the Christian conservatives and the Republican Party being patriots. It’s based upon the Christian conservatives Republican Party demanding that the American government understand that no Christian conservative or Republican Party member will in any way ever support the US Constitution above their Christian religion and above their Christian Bible. And so as a result, their Christian Bible and Christian religion says that healthcare should not go to Hispanic Americans or black Americans or Jews or Muslims or gay Americans or Native Americans or anyone who is an immigrant that the Christian conservatives Republican Party just doesn’t happen to like.
And so as a result, the Christian conservatives Republican Party members are trying to commit mass murder in United States by denying health care to millions of American citizens who are in desperate need of medical attention. But the Christian conservatives Republican Party doesn’t really care about that because as far as they’re concerned if they have to walk through rivers of blood to make sure that their Christian religion and their Christian faith is supported more than the Constitution of these United States and the Christian conservatives will do just that.
6. The current level of unemployment in the United States is now over 10%.
7. The current cost for liquidating the national debt is now in excess of $39,000 per person, which means that every man woman and child in the United States would have to pay at least $39,000 to be able to liquidate the national debt.
8. When you look at the history of United States from the American Civil War until present day you find that the Republican Party and Christian conservatives were in total and complete control of the United States government every single time there was a financial crisis from the American Civil War to present day. And that basically means that all the policy decisions that were being made by the American government during these times when these financial catastrophes were taking place were being made strictly by Christian conservatives and the Republican Party . And of course that’s all public record. And if the Christian conservatives or the Republican party say that these financial catastrophes were not their fault, That would mean that all the public statements that the Christian conservatives and the Republican party, were making during the times when all these financial disasters were taking place, to the news media and the general public were lies. On the other hand if they say that they were not lying then, that means that they are lying now. But either way you look at, the Christian conservatives and the Republican party are being found out for the liars that they have always been, and that they still are today.
9. As my financial analysis of the global economic system , in my see also section below, clearly shows, it was the Republican Party and the Christian conservatives under President Bush who gave the American banking industry $400 billion of taxpayer money and simply told the banking industry to use the money anyway they wanted to. And the banking industry did just that they use the money to pay for expensive gifts and presents and take vacations.
10. To date, the banking industry has only paid back $30 billion out of the over $500 billion that was given to them by the American taxpayers.
11. The issues of profitability indexing, pursuant to profit margins and per unit costs and customer bases as they relate to compensation packages throughout the entire corporate sector have not been resolved. That basically means that most businesses are being held hostage by upper level management and executive employees in their own companies who are demanding more and more for their compensation packages. As a result of this most companies are having to readjust their per unit costs for their goods and services in such a way so that what they are doing is pricing their services and their products. So that mostly the upper class and the wealthy will be able to afford them. And this is being done so these companies and corporations can get as much money into their company as possible.
But they are in fact forgetting one of the major factors which is that while most of the money that any company gets comes from the wealthy are customers most of their day-to-day cash flow actually comes from the middle and lower income customers. This is true regardless of where that company exists. So as a result of this most of the companies in the corporate sector are operating on what is known as a cash poor basis. And this basically means that since they are pricing their goods and services in order to get the most money possible they are foregoing pricing their goods and services so they will be more affordable to the middle and lower income customers, which actually provide these companies with their day-to-day cash flow. And so as a result, these companies don’t have enough money to pay for employees or many of the other day-to-day costs that come up.
This factor has not been dealt with in any country in the world at this time. Furthermore, these companies are refusing to be honest about their financial reporting. They are constantly using and accounting,/statistical variance, which is .5%. And .5% variance is such a large variance pursuant to statistical and financial analysis that you can basically drive a moving van through the space. That is allocated for plus or minus error correction in the statistical analyses and financial analyses that are in fact done with .5% variance. This is why I have never used that level of variance statistically or financially. I’ve always used .05% variance because it is such a small variance that the statistical analysis of the profitability analysis cannot be falsified. It is true that using .05% variance does require an additional 100,000 to 200,000 calculations in order to be able to complete the analysis. But when you consider that the final product is incredibly more honest and reliable. It’s worth it.
12. The banking industry has turned cruel. For example here in Cleveland Ohio Keycorp is taking a lot of pride and threatening senior citizens and kicking them out of their homes so that they can foreclose on the property. This is happening all over Cleveland Ohio and KeyCorp actually is one of the most hated banks in the entire state of Ohio. But KeyCorp is not the only one who’s doing this practice. Because was really happening is that banks all over the United States are basically threatening senior citizens with foreclosure to the point where suicides are now escalating and accelerating at an alarming rate. So badly that the medical community is swamped by the number of suicide calls they are getting. And this is all happening because KeyCorp and other banks like KeyCorp are basically taking the attitude that they don’t care how many men and women and children they have to murder. They just want their money.
When you consider these kinds of factors are going on in the banking industry you realized that the other thing that’s happening is that senior citizens and homeowners are becoming incredibly sick. Do becoming physically ill as a result of the horrible attitude that KeyCorp in other banks like KeyCorp are pushing on the citizens. And there is no help for this at all.
13. Additionally, the medical community is helping with this because we have a hospital here in Cleveland Ohio called MetroHealth that basically is working hard. Just like KeyCorp to threaten senior citizens and have them thrown out of their homes. So that they can foreclose on the property. And basically kill the individuals. I have been personally threatened by KeyBank and MetroHealth and have recorded conversations proving that.
So MetroHealth does all these commercials where they’re talking about how good a hospital they are and yet they have been sued a number of times for Medicare fraud. They have also been sued by their own employees for unfair business practices. And they have lost doctors so badly because they don’t treat their doctors very well either. Nobody likes MetroHealth.
And for the record, it needs to be understood that my grandfather’s brother, Dr. ally Maschke, was the director of medicine at mount Sinai medical center here in Cleveland Ohio until his death. And my cousin, Dr. Victor Vertese, was also the director of medicine at mount Sinai medical center until his death. Additionally, my grandfather, Maurice Maschke, and his business partner, Mark Hanna, who founded the Hana mining company, which became the 3M company, basically built mount Sinai medical center in Cleveland. And in addition to that, my father, Maurice Maschke Junior, was on the Board of Trustees at Case Western Reserve University, University hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland clinic, and mount Sinai medical center until his death. And in addition to that, my father, Maurice Maschke Junior, and I., were partners and co-owners of pioneer linen supply company of Cleveland Ohio for 25 years until 1975 when we sold the company.
14. So given all of the foregoing as actual facts. The only reason that the accelerated growth has taken place is because certain industries in the United States have in fact been making money. Only because their industries are addressing sections of the population who are otherwise disenfranchised by most of the business sector. For example Tyco International is a business that specializes and fire prevention and warning systems and security systems. And of course they’ve done a really good job because people are scared to death and living in their homes and there are so many foreclosures going on that people are having to protect their homes because in most cities the number of police has dropped so badly because most cities are in a huge budget crisis. In Cleveland, Ohio, for example, the city went from 1,500,000 people down to approximately 400,000 people in only a matter of months. And conditions are so bad in Cleveland that Cleveland is now charging nine dollars a month just pick up our garbage.
15. Furthermore, as I predicted on May 21, 2009, the American market system had already lost approximately $500 trillion of market value. And, in my journal entry (see my LiveJournal entry of May 21 2009). Then on May 22, 2009, I accurately predicted that the American market system would lose approximately $800 trillion of market value. (see LiveJournal entries of May 22, 2009, entry #1, entry #2, and entry #3, ). And the market did lose that much money. So, I was right. As I have always said. In 42 years of being a financial analyst, I have never been wrong on any financial projection I have ever done. Just like I was not wrong in 2009, with the above projections, I am, by the like term, not wrong now.
So again, it’s really easy for people to talk about how well the market is doing that the foregoing represents the actual facts of what’s going on in business.
And as I said before, I have been studying the stock market since I was six years old. At age 6 I started studied the stock market at Prescott ball and turban here in Cleveland Ohio. With one of the partner broker’s, Bernie Towell, who was a personal friend of mine. And so every day for four hours every day and age 6 until age 16 I studied the stock market and learned economics and financial analysis . At age 16, while working and being a partner and co-owner of pioneer linen spy company in Cleveland, I did my first financial analysis and profitability analysis . It was done on the linen supply company’s of Cleveland Ohio. The analysis was so good that the results were used to program some computers at the time. And in 42 years and having been a financial analyst I’ve never once been wrong in any financial projection I’ve ever done. Not once. Just like I’m not wrong now.
In my financial analysis of the global economic system in my see also section below, I clearly show that the American market system was going to lose $800 trillion of market value in the third business quarter of 2009. I further substantiated this claim last January in January of 2009. When I explained that the American market system was going to take a huge hit in the third quarter and that it would come out to about $800 trillion of market loss. And that this was in fact in line with the Kondratieff wave . And in fact that’s exactly what did happen. Which means the analysts were wrong. And I was right.
Now, it’s important to remember that anyone can say anything about the market that they want. But being able to back up what they say takes an expert. And someone who understands the science of financial analysis. And that’s something I have been doing for 42 years.
Therefore, if you go ahead and look at all these factors without looking at all of the peripheral details than you are going to be responding to the information in a very symptomatic, or symptomatically oriented manner whereby you will behave to the information in an extremely reactionary way. By the like term, if you look at all of the information regarding economics throughout the entire global economic system in a problematically oriented manner you will be looking at the financial information in a more anticipatory manner. And much more pervasive rather than in a stereotypical or linear manner. And as a result, you will begin to understand that all of these different factors that I have brought forth in this article right now. Actually do justify what I’m saying that the American market system is on the verge of collapse. And that the economic system for Greece is about to go under. And that unemployment in Spain and France and England is running at almost 30%.
These do not make things look like they’re going good in the United States is basically doing nothing but lying about the economic they I went to school with most of the people who run a lot of these companies in the United States and who are working on Wall Street either went to school with them at Case Western Reserve why went to school with them at Fort Lewis college board went to school with them at southern Arizona school in Tucson Arizona. Or, I did business with them throughout my life.
So again, this is a reality check. And all I can say is, if you don’t believe what I’m saying that’s not a problem. Because you haven’t believe me, for 40 years, what I’ve been talking about all of these issues facing the economic system in the United States and the global economic system. So why would you believe me now?
But the fact is that just because you may not believe what I’m saying doesn’t mean that what I’m saying is not true. Simply means you are refusing or are not able to see the veracity in what I’m saying and that’s all it means.
See Also:
The American Civil War
Slavery
The Emancipation Proclamation
Abraham Lincoln
John Wilkes Booth
The Christian Conservatives
World War I
Prohibition
The Great Depression
The Battle of Washington
World War II
The Korean War
The Vietnam War
Richard Nixon
Oliver North
The Iran-Contra Affair
The Gulf War
The Savings-And-Loan Crisis
Bill Clinton
The Balanced Budget Amendment
The Iraq War
The Kondratieff Wave
Profitability Analysis
Financial Analysis
Vance Packard
Laissez-Faire
Better Business Bureau
Department Of Justice
DirecTV
Wal-Mart
KeyCorp
Dell Computers
Lawsuits Against Dell
Capital Punishment
Homophobia
Xenophobia
Racism
Prejudice
Bigotry
Fascism
Eugenics
White Supremacy
Mein Kampf
Adolf Hitler
The Ku Klux Klan
The Army of God
US Domestic Violence Statistics
US Child Abuse Statistics
US Child Mortality Statistics
US Religious Demographic Statistics
US Obesity Statistics
US Caesarean Statistics
US Uninsured Americans Statistics
Insurers Overcharge Medicare
Medicare Ponzi Scheme
US Food Recall Statistics
US Suicide Statistics
Medical Malpractice
Medical Mistakes
Gay-Rights
Transgenderism
Women’s Rights
Children’s Rights
Human Rights
Pro-Choice
NRA
Oliver Wendell Holmes
The US Constitution
The Bill Of Rights
Recording Telephone Conversations
Treason
Sedition
How The Republicans Use The Constitution To Lie (article 1, section 6, subsection b) of The US Constitution
My Biographical Profile
My Philosophy of Life
Reality…
For those Who Said I Never Knew Ronald Reagan, They Lied
My Encounter With Joan Baez
My Time Studying The Anasazi Indians
My 250 Million Variable Characteristic Hieroglyphic Language
My Tribute To Jim Varney
The Pebble And The Penguin
A Diamond On A Sea Of Glass
Regarding Me And My Journal
It’s A Crime
My Back And Me Doing 250 Sit Ups
Hey God! You There? I’m Tired… Ok?
In The Midst Of Darkness The Smallest Spark Lights My Way…
I Wrote Something A Long Time Ago…
The Vanishing Of America
Second Gear
Kmart To Close Five More Ohio Stores
Sounds
An Explanation Of Vernacular Dynamics and Sequencing Regarding Various Forms of Advocacy
An Installment Notation Of The Maschke Family History And Legacy
By The Campfire
Playing The Keys Of My Heart
Adventures In Technocracy
My Financial Analysis Of The Global Economic System
My Global Warming Research
For the record, I pro-life. I do not support violence against, or the killing of any human being under any circumstances! And the only way that I ever deviate from that stand is that I do not believe that the Almighty, and/or God has ever given any human the right to dictate to any woman how she is to arbitrate her life with the Almighty, and/or God . Therefore, I am also pro-choice, in that I believe that all women deserve the right to choose for themselves the fate of their souls, and their own bodies, pursuant to their relationship with the Almighty, and/or God . For an expanded explanation please see my article entitled, “Second Gear “
ion on March 10th to set the framework for the FY 2011 budget. By the end of the meeting, the Board agreed to hold a public hearing on increasing real estate taxes by ten percent (to $.55 per $100).
