Money and Politics

I've seen a trend since bank decentralization in 1980, Neuromancer in 1984, NAFTA and prescription medication television and meagazine advertisement ~1996, and megacorporations and mergers in the late 90's and early 2000's, and the ~entire Bush Presidency [and HMOs] moving money and services away from the middle class and citizenry and towards major corporations and wealthy individuals.

If Ron Paul is elected president, would he eliminate the IRS to put more money in the hands of the wealthy?

-It is possible to change tax rates so anyone making under ~$60,000 pays no tax at all. This alone would be a 15-28% pay raise for everyone on the bottom shelf of society. The majority of businessmen and big businesses pay no taxes whatsoever and do so for years and years because of write offs, incentives, and chicanery written into tax code. Tax accountants have been taught how to file through these loopholes. Eliminating them could make us fiscally sound again.

Would Ron Paul reduce services and state funding of healthcare and education systems?

-It is possible to reduce services while improving quality of living. Our public schools are not worth sending the average student to. Our colleges are freakishly overpriced, and our job markets mismanage our educational requirements. Public healthcare is treated like a business. We should change our education system to serve us and our children and workers, and change our healthcare system to serve the same. We must also make pharmaceutical companies move beyond the chemical additive level and into engineering the human.

What would Ron Paul do about the American military complex and the world's military condition?

-The world spent $1.05 trillion on the military in 2005, and America's finances account for about half of that. Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Truman fought or warned us about the military industrial complex. Nixon and Reagan embraced it, George Bush has revived it. It is time to put this monster to sleep. America must not profit from war, and must avoid it unless it is necessary like D-Day and VJ-Day were necessary. A media and corporate complex to go with and sell it are ways corporations shoehorn us into profitable and expensive wars that degrade us and the world.

It is important for people to become wiser about their money, civil vs play vs D/s society, and sustainability. I firmly believe that Ron Paul would fix our economy and dismantle the organizations that fiscally control us and the world.

Out of Business

Each industry and company should seek to put itself out of business. Not through poor business decisions, but good ones, such as eliminating their product or service from necessity by their market. This will cycle humanity quickly through technologies. For example, a dentist should strive to eliminate cavities and to perform as few dental procedures as possible. A soda company should seek to make their product non-addictive but pleasant and healthy, and eliminate as much extraneous nutrition functionality as possible from their foods/drinks. Casual snacking or drinking is not something that a soda industry should promote. In the same way advertising should be minimized or eliminated but for the service of listing the product as 'for sale' or 'available'.

This will improve mankind's quality of living and reduce the cost of living while tightening and tuning our economy to necessity.

12-24 months

This is the time frame for fiscal crisis that we're working on:

Carlyle Group says that within 12-24 months excess market liquidity [$] will dry up. The longer they wait, the more $ they make, but the longer they wait, the worse the crash is. This is forecasting the Great Depression Mark II.

"Internal Carlyle Group Memo: Market Good For 12-24 Months"

In 12-24 months, we will likely hit "peak oil" [see required reading]. We will also be in the ballpark for an American currency crisis, as forecasted 60-70% likely within 3 years [2005/6 -> 2008/9]. Preparations for this condition have been in accordance for years, and the fruit of it is coming due.

There is a possibility that instead of nothing, we will have everything. This is largely dependent on organization of society and various technology preparations.

In some cases, I think we want ourselves/certain ways not to win, and to crash horrifically, because of the fool choices they make and promote, and the not true things that they believe.

What do you want to have in 2010? 2020? Think.

Debt is an unreal number

Fantastic news tonight from the US Labor Secretary in interview.

"03 02 2007: US Labor Secretary indicates that we're ready to switch to a 'very sustainable' free energy economy 'sooner rather than later'. Labor market looks fantastic."

We lose more jobs to technology than the average recession per year. China has a net loss of manufacturing jobs due to technology, even as they take in manufacturing jobs from foreign markets. This means that as technology replaces man power, more labor can potentially be done with the same resources. Otherwise, technology would be abandoned for manpower. Because there is a loss of labor to be done as it is replaced by technology, it is necessary for the wealth produced by this technology to be distributed fairly. Labor must have leads in or labor will collapse under technology. Labor collapsing means the general market collapses if the majority of humanity has no income potential. By using free energy, all laborers can be turned into techs, farmers, or capitalists, and free efficient machines can perform all meaningful jobs of labor. This will produce a booming economy forever.

Regarding Billy Bunkie the Science Junkie's term on non-negative numbers, and debt being 'in the red', we must resolve our understanding of what debt is. A negative number is not a 'debt', as nothing can be less than a vacuum, but it is a resolution for this place to be filled by something else becoming zero. This can be a partition of a grouping, such as 'part of my resource' or 'part of my labor'.

Walmart Nouvelle

Walmart could become a good net-order store. They have the capital to augment their chain[s] with a good warehouse/home delivery service. Sears did it 115 years ago. Any chain could quickly take advantage of the world's internet population and use webcams store chats and net salespeople to sell goods.

I imagine the store as a webhangout as well as a business. Active chat rooms, a forum, news tickers, maybe a DJIA category board for certain genres, you can have your ads, plenty of store and product review blogs, [oh, that did it], map and directions protocols, store locators, warehouse locators, search engine, product finder, charity lists and clickable charities, and maybe some flash games too. Webcomic rings. Modest hosting. It'll be bright.

Next up will be the product order info. People will come here for the funk above, and also find the time to order products amazon style to be delivered same day or at their convenience. Grocery-style. No one waits 2 days for groceries. They get it in hours. So they will get a blender they see on a webcam in hours, in the comfort of their home. You can order a pizza online, why not a blender?

Walmart is making far less money on its old stores. Perhaps they should begin *closing* unprofitable stores, or turn them into internet cafes and direct warehouses.

Greenspan to China?

I am surprised that Allen Greenspan addressed "China" regarding the recession. Was it a state to state call?

The New Global Economy and Chaos

There is technology available to shift the global economy and human structure away from the traditional economic structure and its greivances. This encompasses a major change in the structure of society, greater than any in modern history. The greatest challenge is not the acquisition of the technology nor the building of the infrastructure, but how to do this with a minimum level of chaos, destruction, and loss of life.

The primary up-coming resource needing leadership in structural change is free energy. Free energy impacts power plants, transportation, militaries, industry, urban environments, residential attachments and certain natural resources. Holdings in these sectors minus natural resources surpasses $7 trillion. These use or produce almost all of our world's produced energy and release the vast majority of the world's pollutant toxicity.

If free energy were released onto the 'market' today, it would explode like an atom bomb onto our way of life. We need to replace the jobs and infrastructure currently in place with free energy systems.

We could allow this to breach the market, and simply allow competition to progress. All major companies that did not upgrade would become 'uncreditable' from their poor business model. Companies would close ~immediately and ~800 million jobs would be destroyed. This would be grand chaos.

If we can provide massive capital to new industries forming and oversee the expenditure of this capital to appropriate contracting agencies, we can provide a suitable cover-slip to 'profitability'. A sufficiently-sized portion of new technology products and industry will need to be introduced in private sectors [machinery, equipment, contract installations] to support itself and be maintained.

Nationalizing or 'globalizing' public production sources could mediate the level of competition and price to make outdated facilities still produce some revenue to contribute to their dismantling and the construction of new facilities.

The state can also affect this change by switching all of its private and public contracts to new technology sources. This change alone would be enough to found a support structure. and improve government and industry efficiency. Pollution would also be reduced substantially.

Existing contracts for inefficient industries may stay on the books, but the new market would make it less profitable to renew them.

Vast natural resources will need to be updated in market value. Oil, uranium, coal, natural gas, these things will decline in value and usefulness. Industries devoted to cultivating them should be dismantled or abandoned in favor of new industries with high potential for economic interaction.

Automakers will need enhanced competition from these auto companies. A state-run or privately funded automobile manufacturer will need to be assembled. Perhaps in a Canadian factory complex. See examples from www.ustransitauthority.blogspot.com and below on this site to determine certain principles of automotive advance that may be useful and clean. Major automakers may be able to update using their own credit and capital without substantial government or social pressure if they are faced with competition from a small Canadian firm using this technology. The Canadians will not be able to produce millions of cars, but their presence on the market will encourage rapid change. Their assured profit will also assure rapid growth and fantastic credit. This may be a good example for many potential industries, so that the market will 'assist itself' in changing.

[con't.]

Ashoka.org

Advertising on the Moon

Advertising is a poor choice. the individual should decide and seek the things they need.

This is complex because of the dynamic macroeconomics. A business should be successful [fit] enough without needing to advertise. Advertisement in a way is a weakness and protectionism. Only large companies can afford to nationally advertise, so small companies are at a distinct disadvantage, causing business hegemony, sloth, and increased franchisement vs entrepreneurship.

This could serve as a centralization of economics, but it also produces greater mass-market risk and may reduce worker recompense and increase cost of living.

Does a house rot entirely before it falls down?

Intensity of advertising also clogs public space and airwaves. It is distinctly not beautiful in its purpose, even if it may have a beautiful person or script as a mask.

What is the alternative to advertisement? A greater product review could assist economic fitness. [We even have a consumer product review?] An economy that relies on being lean and tight instead of enormous and poorly allocated could be a good choice.

We currently cycle the world's resources heavily with the WTO, IMF, -advertisement- and other hegemonic financial systems. For example, until recently, all oil as traded in dollars. As were most bonds. That centralizes resources in America at the cost of personal interest.

Promoting very unfavorable and unbalanced economic conditions is a poor way of infusing cash into a non-functional system propped up by military might or other contracts.

This system is then caught in place by a decapitated electorate and a Congress influenced by titanic fiscal interests, requisite by their own inefficiency.

Originally there were herders and farmers. It's totally not the herders' fault that the animals they chase ate crops the farmers protected. But it sucks that the herders didn't mind the farmers' loss. They should share beef and herbs.

Furthermore, there is another class of human. The merchant. They care not for farming nor for herds. They have other goods and piles that they trade. These folk have fancied themselves the new rulers of the world over the needs of hunters and farmers. This might be fine if they honor God. Farmers keep varmints away, and herders try to supply the best grass. While a merchant should try to cultivate their products and have them improve their customers.

Merchants, rulers, who do not honor God with their works labor in dishonor.

Receipt for Debt

This post will discuss two main topics: currency traded for bonds and oil, and international cash reserves.

1. Sources say that this year for the first time substantially more bonds globally were traded in Euros than dollars. Dollars counted less than 40% of all transactions. A major source of these bonds are oil receipts, as well as gross industrial production and foreign trades.

2. China has overtaken Japan as the largest holder of capital. They have about $1 trillion, 700 billion of which is in dollars. They have decided to diversify their holdings away from the dollar.

China was both crediting America's trade deficit and domestic budget deficit and collecting American dollars. This propped up dollar-value internationally, while American fiscal heads ran up very large debts around rolling deficits. We became involved in longstanding and expensive wars and domestic irresponsibility and offshored our industrial base. We also sold our roads.

If China chooses to offload these dollars even over a few years, the American dollar will be housed. America will no longer have the fiscal ability to support itself, nor likely the credit rating to acquire financial support.

Predicting possible scenarios is not a worthwhile endeavor in this kind of fical market. New technology could potentially erase debt and deficits, and is a finer choice than playing small game.

It may be so that America has been planning this fiscal scenario since the PNAC signng. If the American aristocracy planned to run up large deficits before cornering the oil/energy market and then shut down oil flow worldwide except where it chooses, they could attempt to 'get away with' poor fiscal performance followed by very agressive military and economic warfare. God would not allow this to succeed.

This plan would be 'holed' by water-splitting technology or other major scientific advances which have been discovered, patented, and prototyped extensively.

Blessed are the poor, in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. -Beatitudes

A Leaner Industrial Complex

In the interest of spurring change and competition in the auto industry and world energy market, it may be beneficial to reduce the cost of the industrial complex. Some businesses in a governmental 'shadow', where high overhead and startup cost provide them with global market protection and the ability to crush or buy out all competetors produces an oligopoly of power among the major automakers. This power has been abused as demonstrated in the crushing of mass transit and the electric car, and other anticompetetive business practices and corporate interference with governance and law intended to regulate this industry.

This industry is also pervasive into consumer and public life, and affects us environmentally in the post-combustates of its products on the health of individuals and the planet.

Personal Economics: Some try to see how much money they can earn. We should instead try to see how little money we can earn and still have what we want.

How can we make the cheapest 1000 cars possible?

Marketing and advertising pose some of the largest expenses. Megacompanies spend bull-ions on their stock and on national and international television placement. If the goal is to sell 1000 cars, it will be an easier task to personally locate and sell individuals seeking automobiles, or to provide these autos to rental agencies or other infrstructures in addition to the general market. This can reduce the cost of production substantially and improve the vehicles' value.

Government money could also be appropriated for this purpose from grants. It may also be possible and exciting to gather investors for a small car effort from those interested in supporting or a new direction in energy and automobiles. Investors might be enticed by a novel product in such a large market. The potential for growth is explosive, and the ability to customize is fantastic. However, inviting stock sharing and therefore needing to provide greater return on investment will reduce the value of the vehicles.

Providing this money is a good way to generate capital to produce the cars, but the level needed to be reached should also be lowered, not merely assets raised. Producing parts for vehicles is a major expense and often requires large varied and complex infrastructure. Using a 3D printer to machine the various parts for the vehicle will dramatically reduce the amount of machinery required to shape the parts. This method can also allow more efficient part systems, since they can be built as one piece instead of assembled. This allows wiring to be internal to the device, for example, and necessitates fewer pieces per car.

Special electrolysis can also provide the ability to cheaply run electrical and hydrogen furnaces and other metalshaping and carbon refining methods.

To outsell major autoworks, these cars must be far more attractive and efficient than their modern market counterparts. For example, a 1000-model car will not 'quickly outsell' GM unless its numbers are far more advantageous than major models.

For example, it would be easy using appropriate technology to build a car that gets 50-100mpg and has a '5-star' level crash rating, can carry 4 passengers, and performs admirably. This kind of car would explosively outsell any standard model because the demand for it would be dramatically higher.

Maintenance on the vehicle can be reduced in price by printing and using some standardized parts. One of the major drawbacks of building 1000-model cars is the number of 'unique' parts they could use. It will be difficult to maintain these vehicles and replace the parts if they all use dissimilar parts. This can be avoided by conforming to major automakers.

Major automakers make more money by building cars that require maintenance. They get to sell replacement parts more frequently. As long as the initial model sells and retains some degree of resell value so as not to be totalled and abandoned, more part failure and replacement is more profit for major automakers. This is hideous, but if major automakers' parts can be machined more cheaply using a 3D printer, some of these small businesses may overtake major automakers' maintenance departments. This may inspire automakers to rely less on failure to generate revenue.

1000-model cars can be more specially built so that they will not require substantial maintenance. Automakers used to build cars to be proud of, that would last for 'a long time'. Many vehicles from before 1972 still run, and well, because they were carefully crafted in a time before planned obsolescence.

If these vehicles can be crafted using revenue-increasing and cost-reduction methods, they can probably out-value GM. It may be easier to sell to target markets rather than mid-market. Producing a solid and efficient $10,000 vehicle, and an outstanding $40,000 vehicle will probably be the best-selling choices.

See US Transit Authority for automobile blue-details.

Oil

Unfortunately, I am forecasting an increase in the price of oil compared to other dollar-value goods. Since the world's oil will no longer be traded exclusively in dollars, we will pay more dollars for oil. This means that oil prices for dollar holders should be rising.

What options does this produce?

Interest rates being high implies that the return on borrowed money should be high, yes? But in this low-return economy, how can that be so? It this rewarding fortunes, megafinance, and saving? Is it reigning in entrepreneurship and lending/borrowing in a poor economy?

Perhaps the rates *should* be lower.

[This is a joint operation with www.ustransitauthority.blogspot.com to educate and reduce commutes.]

I looked back on the jobs I have had, and found that one of the factors making a job most enjoyable was a short commute. The quality, workmates, content, and pay scale of the job were also factors, but the commute played a part of many of these, since commuting is technically part of working, unless your commute is zero.

A long commute will actually *reduce* your effective salary. Assuming you produce 40 hours a week on the job for 50 weeks a year, every half hour of your daily commute will add 250 hours to your work. This reduces your hourly wage by 1/8, if you work 2000 hours a year. An hour long commute reduces your salary by 25%.

Furthermore your commute is not free. Assuming that you drive and get good mileage and fuel prices remain stable, you are also paying ~$5 per half hour of your daily commute. This becomes $1250 per year per half hour of your commute. If you are commuting 2 hours to work every day, you have increased your work year from 2000 hours to 3000 hours [taking a 33% pay cut] and you also will pay $5000 in fuel expenses, add maintenance and wear. Is that job worth your time and money? They would have to pay you substantially above-market rates to make it equally worth your while to commute.

You could take a lower paying job closer to home, or move closer to your job, if it is worth the time commuting. Please consider this when choosing employment, transportation, and residence. You will help improve your quality of life and the freetime you have to enjoy it more, and you will help save the planet and help the community.

College Books and Excessive Profit

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/volusia/orl-collegebooks2506nov25,0,954603.story

College textbooks are the ultimate monopoly market. Often the college bookstore is the only source for the book, which is often 100% required to pass. This can elevate the cost to 'anything not suspicious'.

This is not legitimate. It contains criminal business practices, and at the very least needs to be changed. So here we are at the crossroads.

Anything that is aggressively profitable is, well, unfortunately wrong. If you're making 500% profit on something and it is turning into quite an uneven amount of leftover cash, you are cheating someone. Not maybe cheating, not making a killing, you are doing something wrong.

Unless your customers are not suffering from paying the cost. In that case, it doesn't seem to matter, except for being peculiar. But if you're charging students $400 or $500 per semester for books, and you produce these books for pulp, and could sell them for half their price, and the students are suffering, you are profiting from their suffering, which is bogus.

This practice is anti-community, anti-commerce, and detestable. It should stop.

Dominus Vitae

People vs Nations

If you own 66% of the world's resources, along with it comes the responsibility of those who rely on those resources for survival. Aggressive economics can be lethal otherwise, which is in the jurisdiction of the law.

This is the basis of state formation. If massive investment groups want to form commerce nations, then they will be allowed to, but they must operate in line with UN charters or they will be acted upon.

In the same way, building a national fence is unethical if you place a plurality of vital resources on one side only. In the way governments claim imminent domain, human populations may be able to claim dominus vitae on resources or other controlling elements.

Oil -> work
Drugs -> God
Sex -> love

Do not let the medium get in the way of the message.

If owning that much stuff gets in the way of your duty to others, you should not have it.

When economics and ecology clash, there will be death. This is potentially one of the laws of economics, or one of the consequences of environment.

Who do we represent? We are God's people, here to represent God.

Do not let the medium get in the way of the message.

Money is Also From God

Money represents things. It is the earth, a bushel of wheat, a field of oil. Having money is like having an unsubstantiated or undefined deed. It does not give you tyranny over the item. It gives you responsibility and authority over the item.

Money, too, is from God, as is the water and land and your time and life. It is to be used responsibly. Someone who makes a monopoly using money is a criminal just as someone who makes a monopoly using land or other resources.

If the Federal Reserve commits a monetary monpoly, they will deserve antitrust charges in the name of the people.

Black Gold Beans

Observe this movie about 3rd world - 1st world dominance in trade. If these 3rd world countries had a way to generate energy cheaply, they would not need to trade for such a pittance, and could engineer their economy more 'fruitfully'. This could give the 1st world less beneficial resource deals, though. This is economic terrorism.

Making coffee farming profitable is a good way to get more real trading partners and fewer impoverished slave-nations. The ideal is no impoverished slave-nations, and this is possible with free energy. This cannot condone 1st-3rd slavery. It is a crime that the 1st world enforces. It would be better to pay them reasonable wage for their beans than to break their knees into economic weakness.

Bare Cost of Living and Federal Minimum Wage

The 1968 minimum wage was equal to $9.33 [2006]. The cost of living in 1968 was also lesser in 2006 dollars. This would make even the least able person capable of making a suitable living wage! We did beat the Soviets' communism in that sense, and tenable welfare and other tax-provided public services can fill the gaps inbetween. But we lost to the lowest bidder when our state became unable to do this by allowing megaprivatization, corporatization, lagging out the minimum wage, and unbalancing the economy that is now threatening our Constituional framework and producing a poor lifestyle for millions in America and exploiting those around the world.

http://www.letjusticeroll.org/stateminimumwagechart.html
This chart shows the state minimum wages. The federal government recently did not pass a law that would make the minimum wage $7.50.

Monthly: hi low
Car insurance 78 78
Gasoline 200 100
Car care 150 50
Rents 500 300
Foods 400 300
Repayments 300 200
Stuff 200 22
Savings 200 50
Tax/Junk-15 305 165
---------------------------------------
M-Total 2334 1265
Annual 28000 15144

Weekly Pre- Tax Income
538 291

Hourly Wage $14.00 $7.57
[2000hrs]

This is a rough estimation of the basic living needs of the average human being working in America. If they begin debt free, they can work easily and use $2400-3600 less per year, which would turn into $1.20-1.80 less per hour, changing the debtless basic plan to $6.37/hour. Car insurance for many states and drivers is higher than $78 per month. Savings selections may vary. Rent indicates shared inexpensive rented dwelling. Food may cost more than $400 per person per month. The Red Cross affords something like $75 weekly for a person for food. Purchase of 'stuff' assumes no 'major' spending events, like buying a leather jacket or new computer, or only every few months. Assume no health insurance, or job-only payers, or add it on top at ~60 biweekly, turning into +~$.75 hourly. The tax is also somewhat low and does not include state tax.

The state minimum wage in:

Massachusetts is $6.75. In January, 2007 it will become $7.50 FAIRish
Connecticut is $7.40. In 2007 it will become $7.65 FAIR
California has $6.75. In 2007 it will become $7.50 In 2008 it will become $8.00. Okay
New Hampshire: Federal Rate $5.15. POOR.
New York State is $6.75. It will become $7.15 in 2007. NOT-OK
Rhode Island is $7.10, which becomes $7.40 in 2007.
Vermont has $7.25, which is adjusted for inflation annually! KIND OF FAIR
Washingont State had $7.63, which is the highest minimum income state, which is adjusted for inflation annually. Only Washington state truly meets the living minimum figured here.