14

A Radical Plan To Save America’s Economy In One Year

Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 1 week ago to Economics
157 comments | Share | Flag

Excerpt:
"The policy measures I suggest are a kind of fiscal time machine – A way to turn back the clock on collapse. Some might consider them “radical” but they are only policies that America USED TO value and that we have been pressured to forget. Can the modern American brain with its steady exposure to big government and socialist programs handle such a shift? It’s hard to say.

I think if people are desperate enough they’ll accept any solution that they feel works. And for now the elites that created the crisis are the only group offering a way out (a false way out). If I could snap my fingers (or if I was king for year), this is the list of actions I would undertake to save the American economy before the end of 2025 (or at least set it on the the path to resurrection)."
SOURCE URL: https://alt-market.us/a-radical-plan-to-save-americas-economy-in-one-year/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by GaryL 1 month, 1 week ago
    Just two things will solve a host of major problems! Term limits, get rid of every lifetime politician and abolish the Federal Reserve. We are in debt for well over $35 trillion but to who? Don't give me that crap about China, it is to the big fat cats running the federal reserve and our entire economy.. Here is a good read and we have all heard it all before but never all in one place In two parts so it fits here. Why should you vote for Donald J. Trump? Here are quite a few reasons why.

    Too many coincidences is not a coincidence

    “Things you must know to be informed...
    YES, THE GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN USED TO WORK FOR GEORGE SOROS.

    YES, CALIF GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM IS NANCY PELOSI'S NEPHEW

    YES, ADAM SHIFF'S SISTER IS MARRIED TO ONE OF GEORGE SOROS’ SONS.

    YES, JOHN KERRY'S DAUGHTER IS MARRIED TO A MULLAH'S SON IN IRAN.

    YES, ABC NEWS EXECUTIVE PRODUCER IAN CAMERON IS MARRIED TO SUSAN RICE, OBAMA'S FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER.

    YES, CBS PRESIDENT DAVID RHODES IS THE BROTHER OF BEN RHODES, OBAMA'S DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS.

    YES, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT CLAIRE SHIPMAN IS MARRIED TO JAY CARNEY, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY.

    YES, ABC NEWS AND UNIVISION REPORTER MATTHEW JAFFE IS MARRIED TO KATIE HOGAN, OBAMA'S FORMER DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY.

    YES, ABC PRESIDENT BEN SHERWOOD IS THE BROTHER OF ELIZABETH SHERWOOD, OBAMA'S FORMER SPECIAL ADVISER.

    * YES, CNN VP VIRGINIA MOSELEY IS MARRIED TO TOM NIDES, FORMER HILLARY CLINTON'S DEPUTY SECRETARY.

    THIS IS WHAT YOU CALL A "STACKED DECK". IF YOU HAD A HUNCH THE NEWS MEDIA WAS SOMEWHAT RIGGED AND YOU COULDN'T PUT YOUR FINGER ON IT, THIS MIGHT HELP YOU SOLVE THE PUZZLE.

    Now you know why no one is investigated. They all have their hands in the cookie jar! You might remember James Comey who investigated the Clinton email scandal and the Clinton Foundation, and made the final decision to not recommend prosecution by the DOJ.

    It turns out that the Clinton Foundation was audited by the law firm DLA Piper. One of the executives there was in charge of the Clinton Foundation audit.
    Who was it? Peter Comey, James Comey’s brother. Peter Comey held an executive position with the Washington law firm that did the audit of the Clinton foundation in 2015. Peter Comey was officially DLA Piper “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas,” in 2015 when the Clinton Foundation scandals first broke and Hillary was preparing her Presidential campaign. Not only was DLA Piper, the firm where Comey’s brother worked involved in the audit of the Clinton Foundation, but according to the foundation’s donor records, DLA Piper has given between $50 - 100k to the Foundation.

    It gets even cozier. DLA Piper executive Douglas Emhoff is taking an extended leave of absence from the firm. Who is Douglas Emhoff? He is the husband of KAMALA HARRIS! Just a coincidence? Amazing if it is. You can't make this stuff up!

    And it only gets worse. This "Family Tree" will make your head spin . . THE SWAMP IS DEEP!!

    Dominion (voting machine provider) serves 40% of the US market. It is in 30 states - - The state of Texas rejected the machines.

    - Admiral Peter Neffenger is on Biden's transition team.

    - Neffenger was the President of the board of Smartmatic.

    - Smartmatic (another voting machine supplier) entered into an agreement with Dominion in 2009.

    - Smartmatic counted votes in Venezuela.

    - Smartmatic is connected to Philippine voter fraud.

    - Smartmatic is run by Lord Mark Malloch Brown who works for George Soros (-he and Brown are life-long friends).

    - Brown chairs the Boards of a number of non-profit boards including the Open Society Foundation.

    - Brown chairs the Centre for Global Development.

    - Open society of course is owned by George Soros.

    - Smartmatic partnered with DLA Piper Global.

    - Douglas C. Emhoff works at DLA Piper Global.

    - Douglass C. Emhoff is Kamala Harris's husband.

    - Guess who owns Dominion? - -Blum Capital Partners, L.P.

    - Guess who is on the board for the company? -- Richard Blum.

    - Richard C. Blum is Dianne Feinstein's husband.

    - Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul is also a major investor.

    - An aide to Nancy Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, was hired by Dominion Voting Systems.

    And it goes on.....
    - Dominion Voting Systems is listed on the Clinton Foundation website.

    - Dominion Voting is listed as a $25,000 -$50,000 donor to the Clinton Foundation in 2014 by The Washington Post.

    - Georgia Governor Kemp used Dominion Voting after Texas and Florida rejected them.

    - Dominion has a lobbyist named Jared Thomas.

    - Jared Thomas was Governor Brian Kemp’s chief of staff and press secretary from 2012 to 2015.

    - You must remember the Feinstein-Kavanaugh-Soros connections to understand this next information
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 1 month, 1 week ago
    Definitely a good start! Too bad these words and solutions are likely to be lost in the ether until the big crash. Big government will not go down without a fight.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 1 month, 1 week ago
    There was that president of a South American country who gave a terrific speech here in the past year. In it he explained that now the way America operates financially is the Treasury issues the bonds and the Fed buys them all with newly-printed money to the amount needed to keep the country going. He then went on to say, "You might ask, 'Why do they tax us if this is keeping the country running?'" That was very thought-provoking. So, when I read this author's take on removing the income tax I just think that's impossible in America because income tax is a control mechanism...a behavior adjuster. And, of course, the government loves having all that money to do whatever they want. You hear that we're paying the pensions of the citizens of Ukraine? I may have this all wrong, though. I'm all for eliminating income tax. It's a sham, really.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
      Taxes get stolen directly from people via companies who can't resist and stay
      in business.
      Then the fedgov withholds funds from state governments to keep them in line.
      Florida to Texas should withdraw consent from the thievery and keep the funds
      in private hands within each state. Then let the people decide what is important
      enough to voluntarily support financially, if anything, in competition with private
      businesses offering the same services.
      The fedgov doesn't provide anything worth the destruction of civilization which
      is where the current policies lead.
      Secession is the only peaceful response to tyranny, treason, genocide, and theft.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CaptainKirk 1 month, 1 week ago
        You are right. But the problem starts 1yr before Income tax. When we got the Federal Reserve.

        We should nationalize it. If the gov creates nice bonds at 10% interest (Crushing, but great for the average person, so they don't need to gamble in the stock market). Tax Free Earnings.

        THEN that is the M1 Money supply.
        The M3 is created by letting the small/local banks lever up their deposits/loans. Typically it is 15X bigger than the M1 money supply.

        BTW, assume the Fed Window Charges only 1% per year in interest to these banks. That means the fed collects 15% (against the M1 supply!).

        Yes. That's the first THEFT. It funds the corruption on K Street. END THIS. So that our government COLLECTS 15% and pays out 10%
        And we use the remaining 5% to pay down the debt.

        But this would CRUSH the central banksters, and damage wall street and K street, while saving mainstreet.

        Meanwhile. ZERO income tax on individuals.
        ZERO inheritance taxes.
        But PROPERTY taxes make sense to me... UNTIL MAYBE you retire. AFTER 62, ZERO property tax on your PRIMARY RESIDENCE. (if you own more than one residence... You don't need the tax break on the second residence nearly as badly).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
          You get my vote, CKirk.
          The federal reserve act is the license to steal for the banksters.
          "Passed" con-gress without a quorum by corrupt con-gresscritters following instructions of the banksters.
          Seize all banks assets and pay down the national debt created because of the Federal Reserve Act.
          (Sorry to the shareholders invested in a massive cartel profiting by stealing from the American people.)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mccannon01 1 month, 1 week ago
          I disagree with property tax because it is a declaration the government owns your property, not you. It is the same as the old royal rent. You can test this declaration by not paying the tax and see how long you get to keep the property you think is yours. Property tax is a fascist construct where the government pretends you own it as long as you do what you are told with it and pay the "royal rent".

          Income tax is communist where the government declares it owns your production (in the name of the people, of course) and we all play the game of "How much do I owe?" when in reality it's "How much will the government let me keep?". As long as there is any income tax it will never be ZERO on individuals because they will pay higher prices for goods and services to cover it for another.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CaptainKirk 1 month ago
            So, how do we cover the local infrastructure?
            I certainly don't want a BIG HOA running things.
            I live in an HOA... Not great.

            Of all my taxes, my property taxes are the least offensive and don't go up like my home owners insurance.

            At the end. The government has a GOAL of protecting that property. We just live in such a screwed up society where we are taxed by people who want us dead. It's hard to compare.

            How do you fund the local infrastructure, schooling, fire dept, etc?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by mccannon01 1 month ago
              I haven't been back to this thread for a while and missed a lot.

              "So, how do we cover the local infrastructure?" There are ways to tax and raise revenue without placing a lien on your property or confiscating your production at gunpoint - an abomination on a people calling themselves "free". Tariffs and sales taxes on non essentials is probably the best because EVERYONE gets to see what it is. You want more stuff from government with a tax for all to see? Maybe the people will decide they don't want or need as much government "help" and will endeavor to do more on their own. Keep in mind the greatest government expenses are not in building roads or sewers.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 1 month ago
              Voluntary contributions direct to the people doing the job.
              (If you don't pay for fire dept., your house can burn down
              and your insurance cost will be much much higher.
              Yes, insurance is another insane rip-off forced by banksters in league with insurers.
              Without home mortgages home prices would be 80% lower and insurance much lower.)

              Home school or hire a tutor that you have personally vetted as competent and idiologically sound. Public school is a POS.
              (If you have no children, you don't have to pay for others' offspring being indoctrinated as in public schools).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 1 month ago
                I object strenuously to the government indoctrination centers (public schools). I hated going to public school, but I was forced to attend. I have no children but have to pay for others' children to be indoctrinated
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                  It wasn't bad in the fifties. But that was probably the last time it wasn't bad.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 1 month ago
                    Looking back at what I can learn from YouTube and Chat GTP now (on my own), I think even in the 50's the so called "instruction" was pretty lame.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                      I started thinking about what you said, term, and I think you are right. I lived near San Francisco from the time I was born until 1954; so grade school, from the first grade to 5th grade was spent in liberal California schools, where workbooks were issued by the state, and there was a pressure to conform.

                      We moved to Colorado in 1954, to suburbs near Denver. Colorado was a proven conservative state---thank God---and we had to provide our own accessories, though books were loaned. I finished high school in Golden, Colorado, where the School of Mines was located and many friends had parents who were professors. Golden also is not far from Rocky Flats where at one time plutonium triggers were made, and my physics teacher had resigned his position there and began teaching.

                      So I think you're right, and I was fortunate to have moved to a very conservative location to finish my pre-college schooling!
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 1 month ago
                        good for you !! No wonder there is so much school violence. The kiddies are forced to sit there and listen to crap and its boring. I was bored out of my mind and couldnt wait to get OUT each day, and then finally when they couldnt keep me in high school (where I was far more interested in playing pranks on the "teachers" . I was a bad boy. I did ok after I got out, and started and sold a number of companies and now live happily in retirement. Retirement isnt boring, as I can fill my time with rewarding things that the government has nothing to do with.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                      In my school, it was exceptional.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 1 month ago
                        Competition is the savior of the people. The whole idea of an ever expanding federal monopoly is a terrible one. Let the cities and states do what they think is best.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                          Yes, I believe that competition is a good stimulus for the production of quality 'at good prices'. But for risk-takers, competition itself can be taken to extremes. And as the European-American psyche is primarily one of risk-taking, we see extremism emerge over time.

                          And government has no competition. I see your point. In the past, however, and as our founders desired, the holders of private property were in essence a counter-balance to government monopoly of...everything. The Left has been busily engaged in preventing the role of private property in balancing power.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by term2 1 month ago
                            competition makes me work harder if I want to succeed. It doesnt benefit ME as a producer; it makes my life harder. But, overall it benefits everyone in that it keeps people who are just in it for power from exerting that power over people unmercifully.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                              In insurance, term, there are three necessary self-governing limits on rates and premiums, and the first is rates must be adequate. That is, an insurance company must be able to pay losses, and if by trying to compete, the premium base is desecrated, then the funds needed to pay losses may not be there when they are needed.

                              The other two are equitable and fair; equitable so the company is not charging more than necessary, and fair so that a risk with a brick house is not paying more premium than one with a frame house.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                              I'm not sure I follow you. I agree, competition is the best way to insure a quality product is made at a good price. But competition can also become extreme, and destructive. In fact, the best example I can give you is what happened to the transportation industry during Reagan's cuts in regulation in the early '80's. I was at Stapleton International Airport in Denver, when an airline, can't remember the name right now, I'll think of it in a bit, just closed down, no more flights, people were sleeping on the floors in terminal. Wish I could remember the name.

                              I wasn't and still am not, against deregulation, but it is not something that can be done instantaneously.

                              Just looked it up; I think it was Frontier.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by term2 1 month ago
                                The problem was the regulations and price fixing the government did. It promoted inefficient operation, and when the high prices weren’t mandated anymore. Of course companies were hurt.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                                  Yes, that's a good point. During the Carter administration, and Volker head of the Fed who kept increasing interest rates in the face of what he considered was inflation, though it was a one-time shock to the environment, in actuality: the rise in oil and gas prices due to activity on the part of OPEC.

                                  The causes of the crash in the transportation and other industries is certainly, as copilot would put it: complex, multi-faceted, and nuanced. But then copilot wouldn't be able to find a solution, and we could. That is, rational and reasoning humans could.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CaptainKirk 1 month ago
                again, maybe in the Gulch.
                But if we could fix the BNKSTERS control.
                Stop the income tax.
                And stop the K-Street funding of the RNC/DNC (ie, hijacking our elected representatives)...

                We would be 90% better. Maybe 95% better. I would gladly pay my Property Taxes, which are like 30 times less than my income tax on a good year.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 1 month ago
                  I see your point and certainly agree that the feds must be crushed.
                  But when I buy something, it's mine and I shouldn't have to pay tribute
                  or have my property seized (stolen) by local/state government by force
                  of arms for so-called 'services' that are better provided by free market
                  competition and voluntary contract.
                  I do not own any 'real estate' because I won't be robbed in that way.
                  It's not much different from 500 years ago:
                  https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 1 month ago
                    Property tax is really a form of wealth tax (about 1-1.25% of the value of the property in most places). You had to buy the property with after tax money, and then they assess new taxes on the value of it . Very upsetting.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 1 month ago
        I agree. Secession wont be allowed however. It was forbidden when the south wanted to secede and it wouldnt be allowed now. The feds are too strong. It must be weakened by passive resistance bofore even secession would succeed.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 month ago
      One could argue that the income tax should just be eliminated, and the federal reserve just prints whatever money the government wants to spend. Let the dollar just depreciate as it will.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tutor-turtle 1 month ago
    That fact that anyone thinks Comrade Kabala is fit for "Leader of the Free World" (as opposed to pure TDS voters) tells you everything you need to know about the prospects of America's near future.
    With the amount of indescribably stupid people with driver licenses and hence the ability to vote, tells us in no uncertain terms.... We are so screwed .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 month ago
      I find it incredible that anyone actually believes Kamala is the best pick for any job involving power over other people. She is a disaster.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by tutor-turtle 1 month ago
        Way too many people in this country are not taking seriously enough is what other countries (friend and foe) think of what is happening here.
        Ours friends can no longer trust us (when I say "us" or "we", I mean our present government) to help them, or even to keep our word.
        We are destabilizing the worlds financials systems (hence BRICS). We are a dangerous country to be associated with socially, financially or militarily.
        Our foes are giddy with pleasure: we are weak and woke, we are leaderless and pathological liars, both greedy and stupidly short-sighted.

        Allegedly, half the country supports the most stupid, Marxist, dishonest, soulless, Godless creature to ever hump their way into high office.
        Lord help us if there really is that many brainless, people of voting status in our once great Republic.

        Two results are absolutely certain if the election is stolen for a second time:
        1) The dollar be be dropped as the worlds reserve currency, putting this nation and the western world into a full financial depression, the likes of which no man alive has ever seen.
        BRICS has more members joining every month, they know the ship is unsound, floundering, at great risk of hitting the tipping point.

        2) Our enemies will take full advantage of a weak, feckless and patently incompetent HairAss administration.
        Be it North Korea, Iran, China, or any number of Mideast/African/South American countries we have totally Effed-Over in the past 70 years.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 month ago
          The situation is VERY serious. I voted, but I am only ONE vote, and what will happen in a couple of weeks is not under my control. Kamala and her backers are very dangerous and evil people, who should be considered our enemies and treated as such.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by tutor-turtle 1 month ago
            Besides people receiving multiple absentee ballots in the mail, there is a frighteningly new scam unfolding:
            The Rats have devised yet another strategy to steal votes: Foreign ballots.
            You may or may not have heard, if you (an American citizen) live or are traveling outside the country on election day, you can request a ballot to vote in any state, regardless of your actual domicile.
            The Demon Rats have requested tens of millions of these ballots.
            Many times in excess of actual absentee voters!
            There is little doubt of how these millions of absentee foreign ballots will be used.
            We are fighting the worst kind of treachery against our once proud Republic.

            These Traitors need to be exposed and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.. or there is no law.
            Such be the case.... All Bets Are Off.

            Pray that does not happen.
            Ugly will discover a whole new meaning.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 month ago
              The provisional ballot scam is another one. if y ou dont. have ID, you can vote anyway on a provisional ballot which will count as a real ballot UNLESS somehow its disapproved within 5 days after election day. This is filled with fraudulent intent
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                I was an election judge in 2004. Things have changed.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by tutor-turtle 1 month ago
                  In what way? For good? Or Ill?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                    And by the way, I am totally against mail-in voting or any voting that occurs prior to the date of voting. Only in certain cases should mail-in voting take place, the military, for one.
                    The reason for this is that in order to be totally fair each voter should have access to the same information at the time of the vote. A voter could vote one week ahead, but from that time to the scheduled voting date, some things might have changed, a candidate falling ill or dying or whatever or anything else that could skew the results.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                    There is no more oversight. None whatsoever. When I was a judge, there had to be three judges for the election: a Republican, a Democrat and an Independent. Two of us sat near each other, one checking the ID, the other calling out the name, and crossing it off on her schedule, making sure the voter was in the correct district. We used voting machines, good, honest ones, in that particular election cycle, and we were allowed to help the voter in explaining how to use the machine but could not influence his vote in any way. No campaigning was allowed within a certain number of feet, and poll sitters, both Republican and Democrat, alternately, sat near the judges at the desk. After voting ceased at 7:00 pm, the machines counted the voters, and we had to make sure it matched what we had tallied as we allowed voters in. Luckily, myself being an accountant, and my counterpart, the Democrat, being an engineer, we had no problem with that feat. Then the third judge, who had experience, put the results in a bag and hand carried it to the district where the votes were tallied and added to the rest. There was no place for fraud and/or double voting or whatever.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by tutor-turtle 1 month ago
                      France has 48 million voters. Paper ballots. Results were counted before midnight.

                      India has 969 million voters!
                      Yet this third world nation counted all their hundreds of millions of ballots paper ballots before midnight!

                      So why is it the most advance country in the world can't keep pace with a ginormous mud-hut country?
                      Unless it is being done on purpose.
                      And what is that purpose?
                      To Cheat!

                      These traitors to our Republic need to be treated like the traitors they are: stood up against a stone wall and shot.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                        Of course, to cheat. But any intelligent person who has the guts to say so, or the guts to show how they feel, are labeled conspiracy freaks (a bad thing) or called 'insurrectionists' and sent to prison.

                        Someone could study how Indians vote. It may not be exactly what you think it is.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
      "Leader of the Free World" is no longer the leader of America. Things have changed, the U.S. was denigrated and shamed, and no other country believes the U.S. is the 'sole leader'. EU countries may say so, but I believe it is pretense. American dollars anyone?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 1 month, 1 week ago
    Continued!.

    - You must remember the Feinstein-Kavanaugh-Soros connections to understand this next information.

    - Debra Katz (Christine Ford's lawyer) worked for George-Soros at the Open Society Foundation.

    - Debra Katz (Christine Ford's lawyer) also worked at Project on Government Oversight (POGO).

    - POGO is funded by Soros’s Open Society Foundation.

    - POGO is the co-signer of the letter Diane Feinstein presented against Kavanaugh's nomination.

    - Kamala Harris did not prosecute OneWest Bank for their fraud when she had the authority - Soros owned OneWest Bank.

    - Now you know why a woman who placed 7th in her own State when running for President is now VP!

    VERY SCARY STUFF and obvious why they need President Trump out of the picture!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month ago
    How about-
    1) Eliminate all government deficit spending immediately. Just force budgetary restraints.
    2) Deal with the resulting recession by reducing the most onerous of the regulations that stifle innovation
    3) Eliminate ALL tariffs to allow cheap foreign goods to be purchased inexpensively by americans and therefore have more money to live on and grow our economy. Tariffs just inhibit the domestic economy by siphoning off consumer funds. Chinese stuff costs 1/3 of what american similar stuff would cost. Even 100% tariff wont do much except make consumers give our government money to waste.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I have this funny feeling that we are going to get another round of inflation in 2025 even if Trump is elected. There was a LOT of money printed in 2024 by biden that will probably surface in 2025 in terms of higher prices
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
      Maybe. Bad money chasing after bad money.

      It's pretty obvious that when there is more money floating around (result of printing it or some kind of Fed operation) than there are goods and services, prices rise.

      I always use the mining towns of the late 19th century as a good example. There was more gold ore and dust, and silver, than food itself. So of course, it could be called inflationary. When money is cheap, goods and services increase in value.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 1 month ago
        The really bad part is that the government gets to spend the printed money, and we all have to pay for that later in terms of inflation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
          Or interest on the debt. Either way it's not very good business practices.
          Actually, though, paying interest on the debt, in the amount the U.S. has accumulated, IS inflationary. Look at Germany, after World War I. Hyperinflation, trying to pay reparations to Clemenceau.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 1 month ago
            Interest on the debt actually increases the size of the debt. It means we citizens have loaned MORE money to the government. Eventually hyperinflation is the result.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
              Yes, good point. That is why it is inflationary. And think about this: who actually owns these treasuries? I looked it up once, a few years back, it isn't only U.S. citizens. So when we citizens are paying interest, we are also paying foreign governments, who hold a great deal of our debt. I think they're called 'sovereign investment funds' or some such.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                its a very evil racket, in my opinion. There should be NO way government can deficit spend
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                  Not to this degree at any rate. In some cases---I was a finance officer of a small cookie factory when I retired, with some finance background---a corporation can issue bonds and if invested well can pay them back after having grown the company.
                  Governments, on the other hand, should exercise more care. Treasuries are used on the open market to either decrease or increase the money supply, but there should certainly be a limit to their use, and I believe there is, in the sense of buying and selling. There are several tools the Fed can use to moderate the economy.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                    But the Fed is owned by the banking cartel with a vested interest in maximizing their profits, wealth, and power and with no regard to who they cripple or kill unless it benefits them.
                    They should have zero power outside their own cartel, and if the cartel is anti-competitive to the economy (which it obviously is) then the cartel should be broken up never to be allowed power again.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                      We don't have proof. Yet. You did read my comment that referred to von Gwinner's assessment of central banking?

                      Currently I'm researching early banking, and early central banks, England and elsewhere. When I have more info I'll let you know.

                      In accusing the Fed of being a cartel of banking interests, you are overlooking the content of their quasi-governmental directorates.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                        Have you read The Creature From Jekyll Island?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                          I should explain that in my research I'm hoping to find out just what kind of banking milieu by the private bankers led to the establishment of central banks. Venice, Amsterdam, England, etc.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                            The Creature From Jekyll Island details the planning to form the US Fed.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                              I'm still back in the 15th century!! I'll get there sooner or later.

                              Colonel House, Wilson, Paul Warburg and certain other German bankers, were involved. In fact, I think Warburg was the first head of the Fed.

                              By the way, freedom, I only read primary sources, since there is no scholarship in modern scholarship, and 16th, 17th century English is tough going!! (And I hate to say this, since you so kindly referred it to me, but cute titles turn me off.!)

                              I should add, I have Colonel House's four volume set of his "Intimate Papers". I believe he relates some of how the Fed came about. I'll start there. By the way, did you ever read "Phillip Dru, Administrator", by Edward Mandel House? Speaking of House.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                                No, but I just downloaded it for reading tomorrow.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                                  It's very revealing. In this book, House (whom I have called Wilson's Svengali) writes of policies that would appeal to the progressive Wilson.

                                  Another good book, "Thomas Woodrow Wilson, A Psychological Study" that Freud wrote with the assistance of William C. Bullitt, was published in 1967, after Freud had died, and explored what Bullitt and Freud described as a 'savior of the world' complex, starting with stories from his childhood. Bullitt was a diplomat, and had been sent to Lenin to negotiate on behalf of the Paris Peace Talks. If I remember correctly, it was then that Bullitt lost any admiration for the Russian Revolution.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 1 month ago
            And therefore, instead of raising rates in order to cut down lending, the direct approach would be less harmful to the people and the government budget. Restrict lending by making banks keep greater reserves. That cuts the supply of loans and the lower interest rates do not enrich banksters (even more than usual) at the expense of everyone else. This could have been done for the past 100 years, but no, higher interest rates must be used instead to protect banksters. Thieves and traitors.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
              Increasing or decreasing the reserve rate is possibly the most intense method of moderating the money supply. It should only be used in the worst of times, and I don't remember if it has ever been used or not.

              Increasing or decreasing the discount rate, the rate the Fed charges banks to borrow so as to provide the correct amount of reserves, is less preferable than a change in the overnight rate, which banks charge each other for the same reason, to ensure their reserves at the Fed is adequate, though it is influenced by the discount rate itself.

              Usually, the Fed uses open market operations, at least that was what was being done in the eighties through 2008, when Bernanke actually lowered the discount rate to nearly zero, and lost one of his most potent tools. Open market operations changes interest rates on treasuries, which then filters down to other rates, at the same time increasing or decreasing the money supply. EXCEPT in the fall of 2008, when Bernanke had to come up with something else, which he called Quantitative Easing, and which I still don't understand. You need to realize I've been away from macroeconomics since then, as the Marxist Obamma couldn't actually understand how the Fed really works.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 1 month ago
                I understand that point of view, but you are thinking like one of the defenders of the current banking cartel - not that you actually are one.;^)
                They decided to use interest rates because it benefits the cartel, not because it's less intense.
                Rates are the most intense on the common customer/citizen who has no choice in the matter and is being robbed by the system.
                You have stated that 'someone' needs to manipulate the banking system to stabilize it.
                The system has been less stable under the Fed than it was before the Fed.
                Prior to the Fed only wars or tulip craziness could cause economic calamity and that was very infrequent.
                Since the Fed stole power, it has been one calamity after another.
                The only thing that has saved the cartel is the demand for dollars due to the petro dollar.
                The system isn't there to stabilize the economy; it's there to benefit the banking cartel.
                There is no one who can be trusted to have this power, and that has been proven repeatedly over the past 111 years.
                Who has profited from every single calamity? Who has been protected against all losses?
                It's obviously only working to enrich the cartel, so let's just keep on doing it.
                The very definition of insanity - unless you are the cartel.
                Manipulating an economy is never easy and the proof is what a disaster it has been for everyone except the cartel.
                The foxes have been controlling the hen house for 111 years. That is never good for the hens.
                The people have been treated like cattle to be slaughtered for 111 years by the cartel.
                Rates should have never been manipulated to moderate demand by the cartel that caused the demand.
                Punishing the victims has been done for 111 years. Time to punish the perpetrators in the cartel.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                  In the von Gwinner quote, he mentioned 'Clearing House Certificates' of which I know nothing, except insofar it has to do with clearing accounts.

                  So in researching I found a book published in 1896, written by a libertarian, and I may disagree with some of his conclusions should he have any, but I thought it would be a good introduction. I am quite pleased with the first sentence of the author's preface: "The essential function of a bank is to facilitate transfers of capital". Reckon I'll do a bit of reading tonight.

                  The book is "A History of Banking in the United States", William Graham Sumner, 1896.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                  Did our founders not take 'human nature'---the will to power, and put parchment barriers to counter it? My analogy is that as I've said, I agree with the early twentieth century German banker von Gwinner (not Jewish) who spoke to the American Association of Commerce and Trade on January 4, 1911:

                  "He first related: "...America's economic structure would remain unstable so long as arrangements were not perfected for increasing the elasticity of the currency."
                  "When, Herr von Gwinner said, the United States possessed a Central Bank the phenomenon of Clearing House Certificates with which America was accustomed periodically to edify the world would vanish. *(Here's the important part:) America would require when establishing a central bank so to shape its Constitution that its policy could never be controlled or manipulated for political interest or for the interest of a special financial group. If the bank became the plaything of special interests it would prove more fatal than the disease it was created to destroy."

                  Now, in historical terms, the fact of the superb banking facilities in Germany prior to the turn of the 19th century was one factor in the rise of German industry: chemistry, especially.

                  That is all I will comment on this subject, freedom. There are still too many Leftist Marxists and Communists running around loose, many with their heads cut off (especially now!).

                  The above by the way was reported in the New York Times, January 4, 1911.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
    A central bank, and here I concur with the early twentieth century German banker, von Gwinner, is probably a necessity in terms of moderating the economy. However, and von Gwinner agrees and actually said so in a speech in about 1911, prior to House and Wilson's inauguration of the Federal Reserve Bank, it can be misused by unsavory characters and bankers.

    We need to identify the places where the misuse occurs and see if it can be eliminated. However before we can do that, any semblance of Leftist thought must be eradicated in this nation and the world. It is evil and malignant.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 1 month, 1 week ago
    Another "go along with this plan concept" would be to create the same relationship between Federal and State and apply that to Town/city and State.
    The State should do less, much less and the towns and cities more.
    I'd like it if there were No Cities, they suck and mankind should never live on top of one another.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
      With internet connectivity and (assuming) AI taking over many physical
      jobs the city concentration of people may have fewer advantages.
      After just spending a few days in NYC, and occasionally visiting a nearby
      metro area, I much prefer less urban life. I lived in an urban high rise condo
      years ago while on a consulting engagement and it wasn't satisfying for me.
      That said, I do enjoy a more varied selection of affordable restaurants than
      available where I currently live. NYC isn't affordable.
      I have lived overseas and enjoyed that. I'm seriously considering relocating
      to a different continent with less intrusive tyrants.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JakeOrilley 1 month, 1 week ago
      Agreed OGC - Cities should handle their own issues, not rely on the state. Counties should handle their own issues, not rely on the state and the Fed. And each state should handle their own issues - and get their hands out of the feds pockets. The only thing that should be on the fed is collective defense..... Simplistic, I know, but dang - something has to be done....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
        Defense and interstate commercial activity. There has to be some kind of third party to make judgements that are fair to both or all states.

        You know, the interstate highway system is one we all admire; could it have been done without government oversight? Without federal funds, perhaps, but without some kind of third party oversight?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 1 month ago
          "could it have been done without government oversight? "
          Yes, just as many of the large corps cooperate to achieve control over the fedgov scum, they could have cooperated to build out transportation.
          It would have placed the construction cost and maintenance on those who had the most benefit. Smaller states and regional companies would
          have paid for branch lines. It might have taken longer but the cost and maintenance would have been much less and there would have been
          no excuse for the federal fuel tax, imo. Instead there would have been tolls on those using it most and the lower costs passed on in lower product
          prices. Free markets instead of force.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
            freedom, I was once a large commercial property and casualty underwriter. Things don't always go along properly and sedately when business is left to itself. It isn't about greed, though. It is more about the pleasures of risk-taking, the pleasures of competition, and the sometimes forgetfulness of producing a good product at a good price.

            There is a great photo I came across, and I believe it was in an early history of the oil industry in Pennsylvania, of how suddenly oil wells sprang up all over a certain area. Now if you know anything about oil fields, with the number of wells on that particular region, no one was getting oil.

            Your attention to individual quality producing on the part of ALL producers is gratifying; but in real life that isn't always the situation.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 1 month ago
              Yes, when free market competition is allowed it does take time to sort out the most effective way forward. (I remember that oil field photo, too.;^)
              It's rare that complex things work perfectly the first time, but the free market is the most efficient path. Government force is not.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                One of my favorite American capitalists is Henry Ford. Have you ever read his autobiography "Henry Ford; My Life and Work", about four or five volumes. He didn't like to borrow money from the financiers (remember his quarrels with the Jewish financiers?) because he said they are only interested in making money, not good products. He would once in a while, but only if he could keep control of the funds and their use.

                But not all capitalists are like Ford. I know. I had a career as stated.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                Property and Casualty Insurance is a regulator, of sorts, that replaces harsh and destructive government regulations. But competition can be destructive, I refer to it as pathologic competition, and the early '80's showed this to be so. There are some industries that must have some kind of regulation, for instance, transportation.

                But as I've said previously, any Leftist thinking must be totally eliminated before overhauling anything.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 1 month ago
                  Like to hear your understanding of property and casualty insurance as regulator. Sounds fascinating.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                    Simply put, as a regulator, before I accepted, or underwrote a risk, I might require certain improvements be taken in safety measures. For instance, bars on windows of shops in low-rent neighborhoods; limbs of trees that would be a menace in case of a storm or what not, I might have them removed; making sure sidewalks are cleared of snow so that slip and falls are negligible. Or I might reduce a rate if certain procedures are taken.

                    I loved insurance, I loved the control, and I knew I could protect the business, by protecting the customers and clients, better than the owner of the business himself, as sometimes measures like this are either overlooked, or put on the back burner.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                    It's a very long story, both how insurance works to insure safety in industries and business, and my particular part in it.

                    But I always knew, though not every risk I wrote would be profitable, overall, I could write a profitable book of business. They say an underwriter takes risks just as much as any Las Vegas gambler, but it never felt that way to me.

                    I'll just say this, because it is a pretty important part of insurance and the economy itself; the insurance company, like a balloon chase crew, must arrange to have the money in hand at the same time the losses occur. Pathological competition could prevent that.

                    Not only COULD prevent that, but has done so in the past. And many times.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
            I'm not sure if you and I have the same understanding of oversight. I mean oversight in the sense of each state, with its own funds, building its part of the highway, but some disinterested third party needs to make sure the various ends 'meet' at the various borders.

            Now that's just a mildly outlandish example of things that could go wrong...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 1 month ago
              My answer was that the state govs only have to arrange for right of ways and let the free market build the roads.
              No public funding is required or wanted. Since the point of free market construction is to enhance profits they
              are careful to construct things that do so, including making sure that the rights of way are continuous.
              Otherwise the construction doesn't fulfill the goal.
              If a state government doesn't participate by acquiring the rights of way, they lose out to other states
              and their economies and employment loses as well. They also lose at the polls when the private entities
              expose the fact that the state gov has not acted in the interests of their people.
              Free markets work. Governments waste, corrupt, lie, and enslave.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                You have to study American business. Some two hundred and fifty years of it. It is not the ideal competition takes care of things that you want to believe it is.

                I knew I would be having this conversation with you!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 1 month ago
                  Some 160 years of it, government has been exhibiting control on larger business
                  in order to gain more and more unearned power and wealth.
                  Companies responded in the most efficient peaceful way:
                  by corrupting government and using it to eliminate competition and end the free market.

                  Glad to have a rational conversation with you! ;^)
                  You want some 'body' to limit business?
                  Who is qualified and won't be corrupted by the power?
                  Let's discuss.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                    No discussion on human nature as it relates to economic activity can be complete without a 'review' of the South Sea Bubble. Everybody and their dog invested in this 'company of adventurers', even sometimes not knowing exactly what this 'company' was setting out to do!

                    Isaac Newton himself, as Master of the Mint, lost about 700 pounds. It was the early 1700's that this company set out to discover and do whatever.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 1 month ago
                      From wiki:
                      "British joint-stock company founded in January 1711, created as a
                      public-private partnership to consolidate and reduce the cost of the national debt. "
                      Just another government approved con.
                      Sort of like Wall St. and the banking cartel. Special laws for "special people."
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                        Your wiki info is always suspect, unless I can obtain primary sources. It hardly even addresses the human nature involved which is what we were talking about, as well as the exploration and discovery going on in that period of history.

                        You're not going to try to convince me that all capitalist enterprises are above board, are you? You say you are a cynic. I disagree.

                        But what excites me the most, what has caused the advance of humanity, are the risks people are willing to take.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                        Completely different from the liberal inundated Wall Street and banking cartel.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 1 month ago
                          They are recently left-biased. When the banking cartel gained power in 1913 they had no such bias.
                          They just wanted power and wealth and controlling government was the way to get it.
                          That was especially true when the country was being founded and the Constitution excluded a Bill of Rights.
                          The federalists favored strong central government and a national bank; some wanted a monarchy.
                          Fortunately Jefferson and anti-federalists opposed them or the country would have been bankrupted in the
                          18th century instead of the 20th.
                          Wall St. and the banking cartel have been thieves for centuries before they leaned left.
                          That's where control was easier to obtain recently so that's where they corrupted.
                          They aren't bound to any ideology.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                            I've been debating with myself whether to explain to Gulchers just how Obamma got it all wrong in his Obammacare speech in I guess it was 2009. (2010 was the year for yet different obscenities!)

                            1. You may not believe the position I held at the time, in the Obamma reign;

                            2. It is sickening to me when I remember how and what happened in those years.

                            So, I'm debating...

                            (But when all of Congress stood up and applauded at a certain point in his address, I knew there was something rotten in this country, rotten to the core.)
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                            If you want to discuss risk-taking as a part of human nature that is a reason for advance and progress, we can do that tomorrow.
                            But leave politics and ideology out of it, please.

                            Anyway, as I've said before, I can't make my views completely public yet. You know how Leftists, Marxists, and others who think the collective is the end-all and be-all of mankind take someone else's concepts and act and talk as if they originated it and then proceed to gut it completely. Well, that's what we're up against.

                            I can explain more about this tomorrow, in reference to Obamma and his Medicare speech in 2010. I'll try to remember.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                        The point I'm trying to make, though, freedom, is that rich, poor, or whatever, whether government initiated or adventurer initiated, the people loved the risk, the OUTSIDE CHANCE they would WIN, not necessarily become rich, just win. Isn't that what the gamble is all about? The addiction, that is?

                        What made Columbus sail to the West? It wasn't greed. It was the OFFCHANCE he would find Kublai Khan and his magical realm.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 1 month ago
                          Why did many of the male children of the gentry in England seek their fortunes in the military?
                          Did they have to prove themselves to get respect or they'd never be able to feel self respect?
                          Read any Kipling?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                            Yes, I've read Kipling, and I like Kipling. Don't remember how he handled the cadet branches of landed gentry.

                            However, you might find this interesting, freedom, and I don't know your heritage (though I'm sure I bored you with mine!), but America was settled by yeomen, and sons of gentry, particularly in the South (the Virginia Company); the North was mostly settled by Puritans, who left England, removed to the Netherlands, then emigrated to the Massachusetts colony. I believe they would have been mostly yeomen as well, if yeomen were also defined in that way. I'm not entirely sure. Though I think the Massachusetts and Plymouth Colonies were offshoots of the Virginia Company, chartered by the Crown to settle in certain areas of that region within certain latitudes.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                        Well, don't think it was government produced. I believe it was created and SOLD to the government. In those days, "companies of merchant adventurers" had to have a royal charter of some sort; just as the North American English colonies (before Britain was formed, I think) needed a type of charter granted to them by the King, in America's case, James I or Charles.

                        Those charters I find very interesting in how they were worded and used to develop English influence on the sea coast. In fact, the exploration of the continent starting in the East, Canada, and south of Canada, the French and Spanish in Florida and along the Mississippi, etc.

                        A distant relative, Chief Alexander McGillivray, of the Creeks, (Muskogee) even tried to gain protection from the Spanish in Florida to prevent the Americans following the Revolution (McGillivray fought for the Brits) to intrude on what he considered Creek lands---Kentucky and further west.

                        My other distant relative, however, Chief LeFlore of the Choctaws, fought with the Americans, and aided in the Treaties of Dancing Rabbit Creek, to move Choctaws to Indian Territory later in 1836. And the Leftists' rendition of THAT is basically untruthful. I found a PhD dissertation from the '60's containing letters from Greenwood LeFlore to the U.S. Senate concerning the move. It wasn't at all what it has been portrayed to be.

                        Sorry I bent your ear---
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                    Your questions must wait for an answer, as too many unqualified people read these comments. The 'lookers on', not the legitimate Gulchers.

                    Your rationale for government 'exhibiting control on larger business', that is, for unearned power and wealth, should, properly, be refined and investigated so as to have a sharper and more clear understanding of what causes, and how they work, business and industry to become extremist in their conduct, so that government doesn't need to seek power and control over them, and thus government can be kept in check as well.

                    Now, the answers to those questions, how and why businesses grow and conduct themselves, are not easy to discover. Human nature has a lot to do with it; in fact, it has the most to do with it. What we don't want to do, is crush those 'animal spirits' Keynes referred to in his writings long ago.

                    I'm not a Keynesian economist, I'm a monetarist, a mild monetarist. Fiscal policy is not good policy for regulation of either the economy or business. But the extremes of the business cycles can be flattened out, but as I've said, we must wait for clues.

                    You said: Glad to have a rational conversation with you---is there any other?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JakeOrilley 1 month ago
          Agreed on the interstate commercial activity - just not using it with the sledgehammer way they are currently using it....... a landowner in NE can't do anything to a stream due to the ICC saying it might affect a farmer in GA.........
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
            I agree.

            A good example of when a disinterested third party is needed is how the water in the Colorado River, as it flowed south to its entrance into I believe, the Gulf of California, was fought over by various states and entities. The Hoover Dam. Was that a correct use of federal authority?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by JakeOrilley 1 month ago
              Absolutely! And it was done under time and under budget.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                Did the water ever reach Arizona and California?

                The point of my allusion to the Dam was not whether it was made correctly, but was it a disinterested use of water from the Colorado Rockies?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by JakeOrilley 1 month ago
                  AT THE TIME....it seemed like the thing to do, to provide power to the areas in the southwest. AT THE TIME there was no idea that so many people would move to the area, because it was so dang hot....and then they extended the power further and further, and with the availability of affordable air conditioning which was not available at the time of the build......so many things going on..... but to answer your specific question, AT THE TIME - I think it was a good project based on the information that was available.

                  An interesting discussion, and thank you!!!
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by JakeOrilley 1 month ago
                    And in regard to the water in the area/region we now have Mexico City about to run out of water with Mexico owing (based on a agreement made with Mexico for water from the Colorado) us many years of water...... That agreement was - not the best that could have been made.... and still Mexico City is about to run out of water - and I know that the US will be blamed.......
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 1 month ago
                      Did they build a canal to carry the water from the Colorado River to Mexico City?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by JakeOrilley 1 month ago
                        Of course not. And I apologize for not being more clear - at times I do not explain the reason for the thoughts behind a statement. I was referring to US - Mexico water sharing agreement. The agreement quotes are directly from the congressional reports, and the quote on how Mexico is not living up the the agreement is from the BBC.

                        "Colorado River. The Colorado River flows through seven U.S. states before reaching Mexico;
                        97% of its basin is in the United States. Under the 1944 Water Treaty, the United States is
                        required to provide Mexico with 1.5 million acre-feet (AF) of Colorado River water annually.
                        This figure represents about 10% of the river’s average flow."

                        "Rio Grande. The Rio Grande is governed by two separate agreements. Deliveries to Mexico in
                        the northwestern portion of the shared basin (near El Paso/Ciudad Juárez) occur under a 1906
                        convention, whereas deliveries for the southeastern portion (which is below Fort Quitman, TX"

                        "A bilateral treaty signed in 1944 says the two countries must share water sources along their arid border.

                        Mexican farmers say they need the water themselves, in what has been one of the driest years in decades.

                        But the US says Mexico has recently not been fulfilling the agreement and owed almost a year's worth of water.

                        Last month, hundreds of Mexican farmers seized La Boquilla dam in Chihuahua state to stop water being diverted to the US, leading to violent clashes with Mexico's National Guard. "

                        So again, apologize for not having enough info for my comments originally but with the water agreement, although they did not "build a canal to carry water to Mexico City" there is an agreement that ties in the water that comes from the Colorado, and thus the dam, and the water that is used is MX.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 4 weeks, 1 day ago in reply to this comment.
    Not until now.
    I haven't seen evidence that such organizations are effective, but if they did have a formula for success, they'd probably not announce it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
      Well, that's just it. What, exactly, is their goal or aim, as an organization? I'm signed up for emails, but I still haven't got it figured out.

      One article that was mentioned today concerned 'social change'. So I sent an email requesting just what was meant by 'social change'. I mean, have we got a 'fundamental transformation of the world' going on here?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 weeks, 1 day ago in reply to this comment.
    competition is the savior of the consumer.....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
      Yes, it has that quality, of course. However, especially in the case of an industry that pools large sums of money from the public, as insurance does in the case of the payments of premiums which are invested in toto, so as to provide AT THE TIMES NEEDED, funds to pay losses, then rates and premiums must be adequate, as I said before.

      When insurance companies compete destructively, or in my conception, pathologically, managers will have a tendency to overlook that basic necessity, and heavy losses to the insurer as well as the insured, will occur. Many insurers will go bankrupt.

      This is what happened in late summer of 1982, and was due in part to Reagan's deregulatory policies. Because of the interest rates Volker had imposed in an attempt to fight inflation, which was really only a one-time shock that ran through the economy, insurance companies felt safe in decreasing rates and premiums, feeling sure their investments at those horrendous rates could safely pay all losses that would occur. Then suddenly, Volker decreased the interest rates dramatically. You can guess what happened.

      I left about that time because I knew it was going to happen and one reason is that with deregulation and pathological competition, the underwriter lost control of the risk. So even if interests rates had not been drastically lowered, the heavy competition would have resulted in some losses anyway. It is with rates and premiums that underwriters control risk.

      And if risk is not controlled, more losses occur, and more of the funds are paid out for losses that didn't need to happen.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 4 weeks, 1 day ago
        I dont think I would like to own an insurance company. you cant really predict the weather or how many accidents people will have, or what injuries they will have... I have to hand it to the companies that ARE out there. Its a tough business for sure
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
          Ever hear of an actuary? An accountant-mathematician who uses statistics and such to 'predict' losses based on the Law of Large Numbers.

          Not an exact science, but in the long run, if his numbers are good, and the underwriter knows what he is doing, the company can make a profit.

          You are aware that English explorers and discoverers were underwritten by Lloyd's in coffee houses in London, beginning somewhere around the 16th century?

          They say you can give a Lloyd's underwriter the bones of a risk, and he can give you a rate off the top of his hat.

          Let me add to that, that if an insurance company makes a pretty good profit one year, the next year he can discount his rates and premiums from the actuarial numbers, and so compete from a better position.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 4 weeks, 1 day ago
            Statistics and Probability were a couple of college classes I just could GET. So I have to hand it to the actuaries who get it right. I have no idea how they do it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
              I think there's a bit of tweaking going on there! I've always liked probability, it is mathematical in nature, but econometrics and sometimes statistics sometimes seem like, guesswork!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                AI will make the predictions of the actuaries more accurate. For example, I can look at the bills for restaurants I have frequented over the last year to predict how much I might spend the next time I go to a particular restaurant- BUT if I used AI to look at typical inflation numbers or local restaurant prices I might get better estimates.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ SpiritWoman 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                  I don't agree. Do you use copilot? That's about how much involvement I have with AI and I'm not impressed.

                  How does AI do predictions? Does it use the statistical and econometrical formulas that humans have created? In that case, AI is just as unpredictably uninformed as humans.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 4 weeks ago
                    What I meant is that AI can provide more information to make the actuary predictions better. Eventually, AI will be able to do anything humans do- I mean after all the human brain is something that eventually will be understood and artificially made to produce the same results. Its just a chemical and electrical device after all- just happens to be in humans.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo