Few among us want to end incipient human life, and few would champion the right to life for the unborn so they may suffer deprivations and a sorrowful existence by devices that we determine, we choose, for them.
Assuring a life to lead is peaceful, prosperous, meaningfully self-determined is to provide the unborn with the highest assurance of their right to live.
Choosing to build a world that assures "The Right to Life" is only by our confirmation of an undeprived "Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." By assuring a life to be lived and not aborted.
Choice is a function of intelligence, a moral intelligence. Choosing to build a world for life requires its use and determines the righteousness of our existence.
The Republican, neo-conservative politics of deprivation that you can very easily confirm with the most casual awareness of what we have now is not Pro-Life.
Yes! Choose life!
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Worldwide Stagflation
Worldwide stagflation will diminish the signs of a US weak-dollar recovery.
The unexpected rise in business investment has nothing to do with the economic stimulus package or anticipation of another package in 2009 as mainstream, bought-and-paid-for economists are professing.
The stimulus package was largely a profit subsidy for big integrated oil and gas conglomerates. They don't want to admit it, of course, but the stimulus mainstream economists are anticipating is likely to be in the form of a more progressive tax code. The result will be a distribution phase of the political-economic business cycle in which the consumer will lead the US economy, and the global economy, out of recession.
The lack of disposable income, and savings, for middle class Americans is over-surplused capital as the result of a highly regressive tax burden and an over-consolidation of industries and markets. The over-consolidation was allowed by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Sixteen years of allowing an organized means of economics that is inimical to a free society is a cost we are living today with record foreclosures and a consolidation of wealth of Depression-era proportions.
When former president Clinton referred to the perils of the last eight years, we must be sure to recognize that his allowing for consolidation of industries and markets was a monumental misfeasance that neo-conservatives fully exploited into the malfeasance we are living with today--worldwide stagflation and a massive deprivation for the vast majority of Americans.
Obama has both the moral intelligence and technical understanding required to reverse the stagflationary trend with BOTH a more progressive tax code AND a deconsolidation of industry and markets. Big business is ramping up to capitalize on what is anticipated to be an unprecedented period of economic growth and prosperity. Deconsolidation of that capital will determine the sustainability of the trend.
Electing McCain will worsen the stagflationary trend. Obama would quickly reverse the trend and as long as his policies do not allow for continued consolidation of industry and markets, the trend is sustainable.
A vote for McCain will diminish the prospect for growing your business.
A vote for Obama maximizes the prospect for a peaceful prosperity and sustainable growth.
Obama 2008!
The unexpected rise in business investment has nothing to do with the economic stimulus package or anticipation of another package in 2009 as mainstream, bought-and-paid-for economists are professing.
The stimulus package was largely a profit subsidy for big integrated oil and gas conglomerates. They don't want to admit it, of course, but the stimulus mainstream economists are anticipating is likely to be in the form of a more progressive tax code. The result will be a distribution phase of the political-economic business cycle in which the consumer will lead the US economy, and the global economy, out of recession.
The lack of disposable income, and savings, for middle class Americans is over-surplused capital as the result of a highly regressive tax burden and an over-consolidation of industries and markets. The over-consolidation was allowed by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Sixteen years of allowing an organized means of economics that is inimical to a free society is a cost we are living today with record foreclosures and a consolidation of wealth of Depression-era proportions.
When former president Clinton referred to the perils of the last eight years, we must be sure to recognize that his allowing for consolidation of industries and markets was a monumental misfeasance that neo-conservatives fully exploited into the malfeasance we are living with today--worldwide stagflation and a massive deprivation for the vast majority of Americans.
Obama has both the moral intelligence and technical understanding required to reverse the stagflationary trend with BOTH a more progressive tax code AND a deconsolidation of industry and markets. Big business is ramping up to capitalize on what is anticipated to be an unprecedented period of economic growth and prosperity. Deconsolidation of that capital will determine the sustainability of the trend.
Electing McCain will worsen the stagflationary trend. Obama would quickly reverse the trend and as long as his policies do not allow for continued consolidation of industry and markets, the trend is sustainable.
A vote for McCain will diminish the prospect for growing your business.
A vote for Obama maximizes the prospect for a peaceful prosperity and sustainable growth.
Obama 2008!
Saturday, August 23, 2008
I.O.U. Unwealthy America
The $52 trillion "public" debt "we" Americans owe is not because we Americans do not save enough as billionaires are telling us. It is because the "savings" is oversurplused into the hands of the billionaires. The savings has been consolidated into the "private" property of a few wealthy individuals and families. The consolidation of the wealth is the problem. Deconsolidate the wealth and the problem is solved.
The wealthy very clearly owe a huge debt to Unwealthy Americans. It is time to pay it.
Instead of value produced being surplused for reinvestment, it has been consolidated into personal property to deprive. If the investment of the savings (the capital) was adequate, why is there this huge debt? This inadequacy, this mismanagement of our resources, is measured at $52 trillion! Even more absurd is the mismanagers telling the highly productive managed that they are the problem because they are not saving enough. The mismanagers may want to try adequate compensation without it being monetized into a "public debt" to cure this problem. Very simple!
The capital, the savings, does not have to be consolidated and unaccountably mismanaged into a $52 trillion debt that for the unwealthy--the vast majority of Americans--is an aggregate measure of being enslaved to share in a productive value that primarily belongs to you!
That gigantic public debt is a measure of private property--the wealth you produced--that largely belongs to you.
For the vast majority of Americans, you do not owe the debt, the debt is owed to you!
The wealthy very clearly owe a huge debt to Unwealthy Americans. It is time to pay it.
Instead of value produced being surplused for reinvestment, it has been consolidated into personal property to deprive. If the investment of the savings (the capital) was adequate, why is there this huge debt? This inadequacy, this mismanagement of our resources, is measured at $52 trillion! Even more absurd is the mismanagers telling the highly productive managed that they are the problem because they are not saving enough. The mismanagers may want to try adequate compensation without it being monetized into a "public debt" to cure this problem. Very simple!
The capital, the savings, does not have to be consolidated and unaccountably mismanaged into a $52 trillion debt that for the unwealthy--the vast majority of Americans--is an aggregate measure of being enslaved to share in a productive value that primarily belongs to you!
That gigantic public debt is a measure of private property--the wealth you produced--that largely belongs to you.
For the vast majority of Americans, you do not owe the debt, the debt is owed to you!
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Limited Liability
The legal status of the corporate entity is the limited liability. The people that own the assets of the corporation cannot be held personally responsible (accountable) for any wrong doing. It alienates the "person" from the corporate detriment that can, and does, operate to produce value that is "personally" held as private property.
The legitimacy for the limited accountability is solely dependant on the operation of a free and unconsolidated marketplace. That's why consolidation of industry and markets (power) is illegal by statute.
The theory of a limited corporate liability is not void of a moral intelligence. As long as a free and unconsolidated marketplace obtains, the entrepreneur that loses his business due to abusive practices survives the negative sanction both public and private to prove himself worthy of the public's consent. The business person is not criminalized or prohibited from practice, but the corporate is allowed to be reorganized into a productive entity that is both legal and proper. That effectively maximizes the probability for maximum supply by maximizing the incentive to provide it without being abusive. It is a legacy of 18th Century utilitarianism.
While the corporate limit to liability has evolved limitations, a salient example being the liability of Enron executives, the limits are to preserve the limited liability without its proper legitimacy--a free and unconsolidated marketplace. This is where the limited liability suffers a lack of moral intelligence.
The cure is to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority (pluralism). This will not lead to economic collapse and massive unemployment as the advocates of large, consolidated entities argue. On the contrary, it will maximize those values.
Join the coalition to elect Barack Obama and maximize the profitability of your business and the peaceful, secure prosperity of your family, of your nation, of your world!
Very best wishes.
The legitimacy for the limited accountability is solely dependant on the operation of a free and unconsolidated marketplace. That's why consolidation of industry and markets (power) is illegal by statute.
The theory of a limited corporate liability is not void of a moral intelligence. As long as a free and unconsolidated marketplace obtains, the entrepreneur that loses his business due to abusive practices survives the negative sanction both public and private to prove himself worthy of the public's consent. The business person is not criminalized or prohibited from practice, but the corporate is allowed to be reorganized into a productive entity that is both legal and proper. That effectively maximizes the probability for maximum supply by maximizing the incentive to provide it without being abusive. It is a legacy of 18th Century utilitarianism.
While the corporate limit to liability has evolved limitations, a salient example being the liability of Enron executives, the limits are to preserve the limited liability without its proper legitimacy--a free and unconsolidated marketplace. This is where the limited liability suffers a lack of moral intelligence.
The cure is to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority (pluralism). This will not lead to economic collapse and massive unemployment as the advocates of large, consolidated entities argue. On the contrary, it will maximize those values.
Join the coalition to elect Barack Obama and maximize the profitability of your business and the peaceful, secure prosperity of your family, of your nation, of your world!
Very best wishes.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Variations on a Theme
There has been a lot of scaremongering over the possible variations of progressing the tax code, like increasing the capital gains tax. It would be progressive because most of the wealth (at least 70% owned by the top 10% of incomes conservatively stated) is held in the form of value that produces a capital gain without economic growth. It just keeps churning the wealth in stagnation to be consolidated at record, and crisis, levels.
If the trend to general crisis is to be reversed, the solution, a more progressive tax code, is readily apparent and easily applied.
Conservatives want to maintain the regressive tax code because, they argue, capital will flee to a more favorable code which will result in a deficiency of capital and therefore economic growth.
In case these conservatives haven't noticed, a deficiency of capital and economic growth (the liquidity crisis and stagflation) is what we have now. Achieving the legitimate result of the conservative argument clearly requires its antithesis.
Conservatives therefore argue a variation of the progression that favors the wealthiest investors (a measure that defines a class distinction compatible with the Hamiltonian model). Requiring a high reserve requirement for commodities speculators they argue, for example, will immediately lower the price to consumers to a more fundamental level.
Raising the reserve requirement raises a barrier to entry based on your income, which is the problem in part and whole, not the solution. So we have the classic example of elites offering a reorganization of the problem as the solution. Raising the requirement removes the magnifier effect of a marginal momentum of a "class" of retail trageurs that are at the mercy of the market movers (the illegitimate commanders of a so-called free-market economy) that chase the momentum because they cannot affect the bid in a free-market manner.
Eliminating the marginal profit maintains the proportion of inequity--the disparity of income by means of a regressive burden of the margin requirement. The gross income is much less important to the Hamiltonian model than maintaining the proportion of inequity. Where the inequity is reduced, the money to finance it is printed, or monetized into a public debt to be paid with a regressive tax burden, increasing the total money available without reducing the proportional inequity.
Just a very simple progressive code on all incomes of every type cures both the problem of an inequitable burden and the complexity of regressing the code. The means to ends legitimacy of the code is rendered more easily verifiable.
If it is necessary to control the market-price distortion of a consolidated capital on futures markets that are intended to hedge a commodity and stabilize the price for the end user (a non-speculative demand), a "classification" of the capital gain is in order. There are other classifications of capital gains. There is no reason why this kind of classifier cannot be applied to a highly inflationary distortion of the market price by taxing the gain into a disincentive. It is an adjustment for a negative externality (general inflation) that is easily accomplished and effective, just not popular with the conservative element because it is a highly effective way to consolidate wealth and power by indirect means.
A more progressive tax code with a few special classifiers is clearly in order and easily executed.
Very best wishes.
If the trend to general crisis is to be reversed, the solution, a more progressive tax code, is readily apparent and easily applied.
Conservatives want to maintain the regressive tax code because, they argue, capital will flee to a more favorable code which will result in a deficiency of capital and therefore economic growth.
In case these conservatives haven't noticed, a deficiency of capital and economic growth (the liquidity crisis and stagflation) is what we have now. Achieving the legitimate result of the conservative argument clearly requires its antithesis.
Conservatives therefore argue a variation of the progression that favors the wealthiest investors (a measure that defines a class distinction compatible with the Hamiltonian model). Requiring a high reserve requirement for commodities speculators they argue, for example, will immediately lower the price to consumers to a more fundamental level.
Raising the reserve requirement raises a barrier to entry based on your income, which is the problem in part and whole, not the solution. So we have the classic example of elites offering a reorganization of the problem as the solution. Raising the requirement removes the magnifier effect of a marginal momentum of a "class" of retail trageurs that are at the mercy of the market movers (the illegitimate commanders of a so-called free-market economy) that chase the momentum because they cannot affect the bid in a free-market manner.
Eliminating the marginal profit maintains the proportion of inequity--the disparity of income by means of a regressive burden of the margin requirement. The gross income is much less important to the Hamiltonian model than maintaining the proportion of inequity. Where the inequity is reduced, the money to finance it is printed, or monetized into a public debt to be paid with a regressive tax burden, increasing the total money available without reducing the proportional inequity.
Just a very simple progressive code on all incomes of every type cures both the problem of an inequitable burden and the complexity of regressing the code. The means to ends legitimacy of the code is rendered more easily verifiable.
If it is necessary to control the market-price distortion of a consolidated capital on futures markets that are intended to hedge a commodity and stabilize the price for the end user (a non-speculative demand), a "classification" of the capital gain is in order. There are other classifications of capital gains. There is no reason why this kind of classifier cannot be applied to a highly inflationary distortion of the market price by taxing the gain into a disincentive. It is an adjustment for a negative externality (general inflation) that is easily accomplished and effective, just not popular with the conservative element because it is a highly effective way to consolidate wealth and power by indirect means.
A more progressive tax code with a few special classifiers is clearly in order and easily executed.
Very best wishes.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Overproduction, Consumption, and the Weak Dollar
Overproduction is a classical economic description of the over-accumulation of capital. In the case of an over-consolidated capital, it specifically refers to sub-optimal compensation of wages and salaries and overcharge on the economic rent (the cost required to participate in the economy--the cost of living--which includes the over-compensation of top executives to administer the capital).
The leading indicators for impending overproduction are executive over-compensation, high prices (inflation) due to high speculative demand (administered by the executives), and a devaluation of the currency.
The result of inadequate compensation (the lack of consumption) is unsold inventories of goods and services, or overproduction. The effect of that is a weak dollar.
Notice that today's steep drop in oil prices occured with a weakening dollar value again. The weak dollar is an effect, not a cause, of the inflated, sepeculative demand price because the inflation reduces adequate compensation for the productive value of goods and services.
The cause of the overproduction is the high speculative demand that results from an overaccumulation of capital from prices exceeding income, which is what we have now. The technical explanation offered by the overpayed administration and its subordinates is scarcity. The contradiction then appears: scarcity and overproduction at the same time, to be explained with all manner of confusing political and economic interpretation.
Even though, for example, demand for gasoline has been substantially reduced, the speculative demand for crude oil is still strong due to the sub-optimal compensation to consumers (the over-accumulation and over-consolidation of capital and markets). Compensation, not the commodity, is where the scarcity is, and fully explains the contradiction.
Disbelievers will be quick to argue that there is a fundamental scarcity of an essential commodity input--oil. That is incorrect. The free-market will provide ample supply in all its possible forms if it is not allowed to consolidate due to inadequate compensation. The scarcity is the free market, not the commodity. The problem is the way the economy is politically organized, not the available supply.
The way the economy is politically organized (whether it is modeled pluralist, elitist or bureaucratic) determines (effects) the available supply. Conversely, the available supply will effect the political organization. The result may very well be just another version of consolidated power, and in the case of perceived scarcity most certainly will.
The reorganized process of consolidated power with a national-socialist legitimacy will only increase supply by direct state rationing of limited resources, much like what we have now in the form of state capitalism in which the speculative demand receives a subsidy in the form of regressive taxation. This is a bad way to figure out that ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace maximizes both economic efficiencies and direct political accountablility.
It takes pragmatic leadership with a high moral intelligence to accoucher a peaceful and prospersous pluralism. The way will be paved not by affective flip-flopping, but the practical utility of effective pragmatism.
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
The leading indicators for impending overproduction are executive over-compensation, high prices (inflation) due to high speculative demand (administered by the executives), and a devaluation of the currency.
The result of inadequate compensation (the lack of consumption) is unsold inventories of goods and services, or overproduction. The effect of that is a weak dollar.
Notice that today's steep drop in oil prices occured with a weakening dollar value again. The weak dollar is an effect, not a cause, of the inflated, sepeculative demand price because the inflation reduces adequate compensation for the productive value of goods and services.
The cause of the overproduction is the high speculative demand that results from an overaccumulation of capital from prices exceeding income, which is what we have now. The technical explanation offered by the overpayed administration and its subordinates is scarcity. The contradiction then appears: scarcity and overproduction at the same time, to be explained with all manner of confusing political and economic interpretation.
Even though, for example, demand for gasoline has been substantially reduced, the speculative demand for crude oil is still strong due to the sub-optimal compensation to consumers (the over-accumulation and over-consolidation of capital and markets). Compensation, not the commodity, is where the scarcity is, and fully explains the contradiction.
Disbelievers will be quick to argue that there is a fundamental scarcity of an essential commodity input--oil. That is incorrect. The free-market will provide ample supply in all its possible forms if it is not allowed to consolidate due to inadequate compensation. The scarcity is the free market, not the commodity. The problem is the way the economy is politically organized, not the available supply.
The way the economy is politically organized (whether it is modeled pluralist, elitist or bureaucratic) determines (effects) the available supply. Conversely, the available supply will effect the political organization. The result may very well be just another version of consolidated power, and in the case of perceived scarcity most certainly will.
The reorganized process of consolidated power with a national-socialist legitimacy will only increase supply by direct state rationing of limited resources, much like what we have now in the form of state capitalism in which the speculative demand receives a subsidy in the form of regressive taxation. This is a bad way to figure out that ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace maximizes both economic efficiencies and direct political accountablility.
It takes pragmatic leadership with a high moral intelligence to accoucher a peaceful and prospersous pluralism. The way will be paved not by affective flip-flopping, but the practical utility of effective pragmatism.
Obama 2008!
Very best wishes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)