Thursday, May 15, 2014

Goldwater page 180

 Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 23, 2013 at 7:46am
Delete
Good fractional banking and basic Fed description .
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 23, 2013 at 9:53am
Delete


Yes, Alice. I agree that a world of play would be more or less as you describe. But a world of work is what we've got, and the balance between play and work that I sense we have at times had in the past and that we want to create in the future appears to me to have become less and less possible to conceive -- ever since the inexorable logic of categorical mathematics began to render efforts at authentic and empathic conversation in economic decision-making to become considered 'unprofessional'.
You might well ask how authentic and economic conversation in economic decision-making can be achieved in a world professionally perceived as justifying a description such as "The other gnawing worry is whether public tolerance of economic misery in southern Europe will snap prompting a political rejection of the harsh austerity and unpalatable structural reforms being undertaken to satisfy German demands for keeping the single-currency zone together." Such a perception seems to me to view the world as made up of two groups describing themselves with the more or less the following professionally polarized identity statements:
"We are needful of the work-income opportunities we *know* are necessary in a civilized world" on the one hand
and
"We are unable to feel coherent without unity and the financial discipline structures we *know* are right"
Both of those group identity statements exclude, in their conventional approaches to problem-solving conversation, the combination of authenticity and empathy that would lead to solutions in which balances between work and play can be achieved. For more on this, please see:





Lock PiattFeb 22nd, 21:54

Krugman is a relic from a small low information time - Get government failed controls off the use and manufacturing of value added items - starting with natural resources. This is the only way to create real wealth one must change the item and the structure of the products to appeal to the growing markets of the global economy. Social Justice of equality of results bring only failed business and economies as it takes from the producer and then creates a higher temporary demand of to many dollars chasing to few products - Inflation is followed by a down business cycle until demand and supply can be re-balanced. government spending creates nothing but false demand.America must do the following to cast off the chains of bureaucracy holding down our productive elements.




Your so-called economics have not been updated from Adam Smith.
Talk about "relic" :-)...
Well, if Krugman is not the one for you, surely a recent Nobel such as Stiglitz will do it better ? cheers !




Maybe you can share with me a current application of Keynesian theory economic that has produced a growing expanding economy [exclude any increase in GOVERNMENT AGENCY JOBS].
Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.
Frederic Bastiat
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
Frederic Bastiat




Property just does not exist without laws. If none are written, then it's simply the law of the Jungle. Any other law than mere rule of the stronger relies on some level of Dtatecauthority or a substitute, paid for by all relying on it. That payment is the guarantee of its impartiality, condition of its stability: it is called tax. To equate State to private actors is ideology, not economics. And it foes not produce happy returns, except short trrm and only for the happier few.




No examples speaks volumes on your failed economic theory. As for property maybe John Locke could help you with Natural Law. You might want to visit this site and watch Richard A. Epstein videos on the lower part - he is one of the best minds on earth about property and law. He is also a Roman law expert even attended schools in Europe.




It was F. D. Roosevelt who wanted to have a one-armed financial adviser who could not say "one the one hand ... on the other hand".




You wrote "Maybe you can share with me a current application of Keynesian theory economic that has produced a growing expanding economy ..."
.
It seems to me that one is hard put to find a current application of Keynesian theory. If you remember, he made two proposals, that can be expressed in simple terms as follows:
.
(1) when times are bad, the government should undertake deficit spending to support economic activity;
.
(2) when times are good, the government should reduce its expenditure so as to reduce/eliminate the deficits built up in bad times.
.
Curiously, most governments seem much more enthusiastic about applying (1) than (2).




Have the Western Governments not been doing number one for the last 70+ years - to what result? IMO they have created massive debt and decreased the flexibility of the people [citizens] to produce real wealth - application of Keynesian theory has only huge populations employed by or supported [welfare] by the government.
The theory is then proved failed as all that have followed have not been able to end the debt creation cycle. They have for the most part built a SERVICE economy which can not be sustained as it add no value to real products. Altering the raw material like iron ore to steel creates a real store of wealth, making cloth from silk or cotton creates value.




Bad mouthing Krugman seems to be the only response of people who keep insisting that economic policies that have obviously failed are the only game in town and must be enforced regardless of consequences. Since 2007, Krugman has been among the most prescient economists. Practically everything he has predicted has come to pass, and unlike others, when he sees that something is not exactly as he expected he is the first to admit that he overlooked something. When Cameron proposed his British austerity plan Krugman minced no words and stated unequivocally that the consequences are at the very least a stagnant economy. The US economy has avoided the faith of Britain precisely because Obama did not cave in the Republican demands for more austerity. But again Krugman had no compunction in stating that the stimulus was too small to overcome the deep hole caused by the financial meltdown and that unemployment will remain high for years if the government did not intervene to reduce it. This has nothing to do with equality of results or any social engineering,
it is simply common sense that in order to invigorate an economy people must have money to spend and for that to occur they must have jobs that pay decent wages. Businesses in the US are sitting on mountains of cash but are unwilling to invest because of weak demand and demand is weak because too many people don't have enough money to spend. The only ones benefiting from present policies are the very wealthy who keep accumulating it at the expense of the rest, their only impact on the economy is to increase demand for luxury goods which does not create many jobs.




The current global economic situation [AKA reality] has proven to be Krugman's Waterloo - no nation practicing his Keynesian policies are doing well - not a single one - each has created a social support system that is consuming a unsustainable percentage of the nations GDP.
I will go so far as to describe Keynesian theory as an inverted bell where all normal distributions slide down the side burying all in the bottom.
Government spending does not create wealth for it to give out a dollar or euro it must take 1.25 times that amount from the citizens {Overhead from government employees so the more government spends on fictitious job creation the further the society slides to the bottom of the inverted bell curve.





JinteloFeb 22nd, 21:52

Spain budget deficit was 10.2% last year, (exuding the 10% for the bank bail out), it will be 6.7 Percent his year and will *Increase* to 7.2% next year (2014),http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/business/global/daily-euro-zone-w... and that's excluding contingencies like additional losses from banks hammered by plunging real estate prices and a settlement to resolve the Catalonia issue. The ECB's pledge to Monetarily finance Spain is only effective if Spain actually lowers its deficits and debt, otherwise its just complete Motorization and you can expect real inflation. With Spain's debt load right now an interest rate of 6% is enough to push it into insolvency, If you look at the Markets Spain's bond yields are exactly where they were in spring 2011, September 2011 and March 2012, just before the erupted over 6%, just like before the Markets saw that the ECB's stop gap isn't doing a thing to change the basic debt, deficit and financing situation of Spain. We're back where we started.
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GSPG10YR:IND/chart

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 23, 2013 at 11:09am
Delete



Krugman is not taking any credit for China, I just pointed out that China
has been growing by leaps and bounds because of large government investments in support of private businesses (and quite a bit of bribery,
but that is another story). It is silly to bring up Brazilian history,
that has nothing to do with present policies. The Brazilian economy has taken off under Lula thanks to a combination of market and social policies that has reduced the abysmal poverty that existed prior to his term in office. The caste system in India has been an impediment to growth, but it has nothing to do with whether fiscal policies are Keyneysian or something else. I am not sure what you were trying to prove with your response, but it was besides the point. I am still waiting for the list of countries applying Keynes prescriptions whose economies are stagnating.




Silly is that not one person that supports Klugman has brought forth a single example of Keynesian policies actually working in the long or even short term of a decade. All like Klugman ignore that John Maynard said that the government must REPAY the debt not grow it for 70 years.
Some might find this statement of substantial interest . . THE INVISIBLE HAND . .
Postwar
After the war, Keynes continued to represent the United Kingdom in international negotiations despite his deteriorating health. He succeeded in obtaining preferential terms from the United States for new and outstanding debts to facilitate the rebuilding of the British economy.[42]
Just before his death in 1946, Keynes told Henry Clay, a professor of Social Economics and Advisor to the Bank of England [43] of his hopes that Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' can help Britain out of the economic hole it is in: "I find myself more and more relying for a solution of our problems on the invisible hand which I tried to eject from economic thinking twenty years ago." [44]

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 26, 2013 at 4:55pm
Delete

The U.S. Supreme Court: Architects of the American Police State

by JOHN WHITEHEAD on FEBRUARY 26, 2013     Print This Post Print This Post
“The unspoken power dynamics in a police/civilian encounter will generally favor the police, unless the civilian is a local sports hero, the mayor, or a giant who is impervious to bullets.”—Journalist Justin Peters
From time to time throughout history, individuals have been subjected to charges (and eventual punishment) by accusers whose testimony was treated as infallible and inerrant. Once again, we find ourselves repeating history, only this time, it’s the police whose testimony is too often considered beyond reproach and whose accusations have the power to render one’s life over.
In the police state being erected around us, the police can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts. Making matters worse, however, police dogs—cute, furry, tail-wagging mascots with a badge—have now been elevated to the ranks of inerrant, infallible sanctimonious accusers with the power of the state behind them. This is largely due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Florida v. Harris, in which a unanimous Court declared roadside stops to be Constitution-free zones where police may search our vehicles based upon a hunch and the presence of a frisky canine.
This is what one would call a slow death by a thousand cuts, only it’s the Fourth Amendment being inexorably bled to death. This latest wound, in which a unanimous Supreme Court determined that police officers may use drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops, comes on the heels of recent decisions by the Court that give police the green light to taser defenseless motorists, strip search non-violent suspects arrested for minor incidents, and break down people’s front doors without evidence that they have done anything wrong.
These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state, where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens. Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching innocent motorists on the side of the road, in a police state such as ours, these instances of abuse are not condemned by the government. Rather, they are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.
The justices of the United States Supreme Court through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency have become the architects of the American police state.
In Florida v. Harris, for example, the Court was presented with the case of Clayton Harris who, in 2006, was pulled over by Officer William Wheetley for having an expired license tag. During the stop, Wheetley decided that Harris was acting suspicious and requested to search his vehicle. Harris refused, so Wheetley brought out his drug-sniffing dog, Aldo, to walk around Harris’ car. Aldo allegedly alerted to the door handle of Harris’ car, leading Wheetley to search the vehicle.
Although the search of Harris’ car did not turn up any of the drugs which Aldo was actually trained to detect, such as marijuana, Wheetley found pseudophedrine, a common ingredient in cold medicine, and other materials allegedly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Harris was arrested and released on bail, during which time he was again stopped by Officer Wheetley and again subjected to a warrantless search of his vehicle based upon Aldo’s alert, but this time Wheetley found nothing.
Harris challenged the search, arguing that the police had not provided sufficient evidence that Aldo was a reliable drug-sniffing dog, thus his supposed alert on Harris’ door did not give the officer probable cause to search the vehicle. The Florida Supreme Court agreed, ruling that police should be able to prove that the dog actually has a track record of finding drugs while in the field before it is used as an excuse for a warrantless search.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court did not see it that way. In reversing the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with police by claiming that all that the police need to do to prove probable cause for a search is simply assert that a drug detection dog has received proper training. As such, the Court has now given the police free reign to use dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state.
The Supreme Court’s decision is particularly alarming when one considers that drug-sniffing dogs, even expertly trained dogs with reliable handlers, are rarely accurate. One study demonstrated that dogs were incorrect in drug identification up to 60% of the time. A 2011 study published in Animal Cognition involved a series of tests, some designed to fool the dog and some designed to fool the handler. The dogs in these tests falsely alerted 123 out of a total of 144 times. When a test was designed to fool the handler rather than the dog, the dog was twice as likely to falsely alert.
As the Animal Cognition study shows, dogs are heavily influenced by the behavior and biases of their handlers. If an officer thinks he is likely to find something, whether due to personal bias or because he finds the suspect suspicious, he often cues his dog—consciously or unconsciously—to alert on the area to be searched.
Despite being presented with numerous reports documenting flaws in the use of drug-detection dogs, the U.S. Supreme Court opted to ignore plentiful evidence that drug dog alerts are specious at best. Moreover, the justices also chose to interpret Aldo’s failure to detect any of the drugs he was trained to find during the two sniff searches around Harris’ car as proof of Aldo’s superior sniffing skills rather than glaring proof that drug-sniffing dogs do make mistakes. Incredibly, the Court suggested that the dog alert was due to Aldo having smelled an odor that was transferred to the car door after the defendant used methamphetamine—a supposition that is nearly impossible to prove.
Law enforcement officials have come up with a slew of clever excuses to “explain” the not uncommon phenomenon of dogs that alert but fail to uncover drugs. For example, in 2008, U.S. border patrol agent Christopher Jbara claimed that a dog alerted to a car containing no drugs because the car’s window “had been washed by a window washer on the street… and the water used to clean it could have been contaminated with bong water.” The real reason may be that the odors which dogs are trained to detect are simply chemical compositions found in a number of common products. For example, to a dog, perfume may smell like cocaine, glue may smell like heroin, and mosquito repellant may smell like the drug ecstasy.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s decision is merely the latest in a long line of abuses justified by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution. For example, in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Kentucky v. King that police may smash down doors of homes or apartments without a warrant when in search of illegal drugs which they suspect might be destroyed.  Despite the fact that police busted in on the wrong suspect in the wrong apartment, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, saying that police had acted lawfully and that was all that mattered.
In April 2012, a divided Supreme Court ruled in Florence v. Burlington that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks.
This “license to probe” is being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant. For example, Angel Dobbs and her niece, who were pulled over by a Texas state trooper on July 13, 2012, allegedly for flicking cigarette butts out of the car window, were subjected to roadside cavity searches of their anus and vagina. The officer claimed to be searching for marijuana. No marijuana was found.
With case after case stacking up in which the courts empower the police to run roughshod over citizens’ rights, the Constitution be damned, the outlook is decidedly grim. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court still has to rule on another drug-sniffing, dog-related case, Florida v. Jardines, which challenges warrantless searches of individuals’ homes based on questionable dog alerts. For those hoping that our rights will be restored or at least protected, you could have a long wait.
Indeed, the next decision from the Supreme Court might just take the Fourth Amendment down for the count.
Tagged as: police state, SCOTUS, supreme court
John Whitehead

About John Whitehead

John Whitehead is the founder of the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. Mr. Whitehead’s commentaries have appeared in the Los Angeles Times,New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times and USA Today.

View all posts by John Whitehea
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 27, 2013 at 3:33pm
Delete
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 28, 2013 at 3:01pm
Delete
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Share on facebookShare on twitter
Share on emailMore Sharing Services
Economics, Pethokoukis

What austerity in 1946 tells us about the possible economic impact of the sequester

James Pethokoukis | February 28, 2013, 1:57 pm

022813austerity
In 1946, the US economy shrank by 11%. Back to the Great Depression, right? Yes — but only for government. Of that 11 percentage point drop, government spending accounted for a massive 29 percentage points. But the private-sector economy did just fine. Private-sector GDP, both consumer spending and business investment, added 7 points to GDP. As government spending fell by 66%, private investment rose by 156%.
How about unemployment? Well, as Russ Roberts reminds us:
Paul Samuelson, a prominent Keynesian who later won one of the first Nobel Prizes, worried that if the war ended suddenly and government spending contracted quickly, we would face “the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.”
The jobless rate was 3.9% in 1945, 4.1% in 1946. Indeed, for all the talk of how Keynesian government spending ended the Great Depression, a look inside the GDP numbers reveals government exploding but the private-sector remaining in a funk. Roberts: “Government spending on the military didn’t stimulate private consumption—it crowded it out.”
I don’t want to overstate things. The macro situation in 1946 is not the same as in 2013. But I think this historical example provides a needed caveat to all those predictions of economic gloom if the sequester spending cuts take hold with full force.
Share on facebookShare on twitter
Share on emailMore Sharing Services
1
Tags: Sequester, Spending
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on March 1, 2013 at 4:51pm
Delete
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on March 2, 2013 at 10:44am
Delete

http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/activity-page.html
Activity Page
articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
WE THE PEOPLE MUST DO SOMETHING! It is long past time to remove the plague of Lawyers that have invaded Washington to suck the blood of PATRIOTS [tax money stolen] – Let us restore our pride and...
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on March 2, 2013 at 11:42am
Delete
Nick Dranias
Posted on September 16, 2010 | Author: Nick Dranias
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email
As our national debt rockets past $13 trillion, just imagine if a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget had been ratified 25 years ago. That almost happened. During the 1980s, 33 state legislatures invoked their power to apply for a convention to draft a  balanced budget amendment. The effort fell short by just one state of the two-thirds majority needed to force Congress’ hand to call the convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
Why did the effort fail? Fears about a “runaway” convention won the debate. Some legislators worried that a convention would not be limited to a specific subject and it would spin out of control to rewrite the entire Constitution. Sadly, this fear was baseless.
A new Goldwater Institute report, written by Senior Fellow Robert Natelson, shows the country’s Founders rejected drafts of Article V that contemplated a wide-open convention that could “run away.” Instead, the authors of the Constitution intentionally picked language that calls for conventions of limited scope so state legislatures could target specific topics, such as a restriction on the federal government’s ability to borrow money. There’s also no reason to fear a “runaway” convention because three-fourths of the states – at least 38 of them – still would have to ratify whatever proposed amendment was drafted by the convention.
State Senator Chuck Gray of Arizona and U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas are right to urge state legislatures to reconsider invoking Article V to limit the federal government’s ability to take on more debt. No matter who controls Congress, the federal government has been incapable of putting its fiscal house in order. Article V gives the states the power to end the federal debt binge.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
Federal Debt Clock: Outstanding Public Debt
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on March 5, 2013 at 4:51pm
Delete

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United Statesand of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid orcomfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
14th Amendment
The ratification of the 13th Amendment was a major victory for the North, and it was hoped that with the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, the effects of slavery in the United States would quickly diminish. The original plan to readmit states after acceptance of the 13th was supported by President Andrew Johnson, but the Radical Republicans, as they became known, wanted more than just a return to normalcy. They wanted to keep the power they had attained during the war years. The South did not make it easy for Johnson, however, and the so-called Black Codes started to be passed in Southern states. Congressional inquiries into the Black Codes found them to be a new way of controlling ex-slaves, fraught with violence and cruelty.
The ensuing Reconstruction Acts placed the former CSA states under military rule, and prohibited their congressmen's readmittance to Congress until after several steps had been taken, including the approval of the 14th Amendment. The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868 (757 days).
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on March 6, 2013 at 11:04am
Delete
I have had contact with Gary in the passed - if I recall we debated some issues - He is in it for the money but there is some good info in his site.
His other site . . .
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on March 7, 2013 at 3:10pm
Delete

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)