-
Website
http://riseuprochester.org -
Original page
http://riseuprochester.org/2008/06/21/hyperinflation-great-depression-ii/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
since it I beliee it is not yours. Otherwise I will have to start legal action against you
andrew slominski
Trying to evaluate the origins of the article: Not that I have particular doubts about its basic premises, but it would be nice to know the relationships btwn the author and the feds. The author is obviously a prof with a prestigious Univ. Is he simply publishing opinion/analysis under the invitation of the Federal Reserve? Does he work for the Federal Reserve in some capacity? Does he have a reputation or have a relationship with "think tanks" or organizations that fall in a specific place on the fiscal/political spectrum?
-Second question: are all three proposals really concurrent? If so, politically never going to happen. Just a political fact. Infuriating but fact.
I am not even sure that finding solutions to avoid the coming collapse is a reasonable pursuit. I appreciate and will look forward to seeing your suggestions for personal "survival". I am curious as to any outlooks about how the USA might recover (or might not)? we did afterall "recover" from the Great Depression. What does it look like after the fall.
For too long, we have been paying our expenses by issuing more currency, and not through earnings. For too long, we have been using debt to pay for the goods and services we need, and not using our savings. For too long, we have not thought through the consequences of maintaining our economy on debt rather than earnings and savings.
Because of our debt strategy, our economy has suffered major misallocation of resources. Who do you blame?
Checked the professor's essay - 2 occurrences; neither of which suggested ever cutting anything from that enormously bloated sector. The only suggestions recommended were cuts to earned benefits - social security, for example - offered with great enthusiasm.
Gertrude Stein put it nicely – “exact resemblance to exact resemblance: the exact resemblance: as exact as a resemblance.”
The idea that human life is anarchic, brutal, and selfish under that thin venir of being 'rational' is standard feed for millions. That all humans ever really do is merely exert themselves in their own interest has gained far more momentum than can ever be justified in a balanced mind. At base the argument is that humans are only animals, animal behaviour is territorial, territory is gained or lost by violence, ergo we're all a heartbeat away from going postal over where to take a whizz.
Once tested this argument doesn't do very well. Car break down on the old interstate? Forget calling human mechanics – have a canary to fly in, have a looksee, and get the old heap running again. Want to erect a box-girder bridge? Well look, Rover, sleeping by the fire there, has a huge inventory of engineering knowledge behind those large shiny teeth. Is the Hoover Dam looking shaky? Call in a squad of expert beavers. An expedition to Mars? Surely there's an animal who can show us how - because they're just like us. Except they aren't. Physics and Cosmology have yet to occur to them.
Given that we're all neatly pidgeon-holed as irreconcilably selfish animals it is a mystery that we haven't obeyed the dumb logic of predator and prey curves and either eaten everything else in sight and starved, or made our species extinct by fighting each other.
In a word we have understood “contracts” and why they are so beneficial in maintaining not just abject fear but good order. The idea being that considerations under law must be reciprocal, agreed upon, not subject to whim, and not entered into by force. I've never heard of any Oriole pulling out a legal pad and saying - “Look, the decision as to who owns this tree was adjudicated and the precedent set in 1949, so get your ass outa my damn nest.”
The difficulty I have with much of the human-animal doctrine so popular with economists and politicians now is that it is a slick and dirty way to avoid contract law in favour of reneging on long-standing agreements: like Social Security, like benefits to soldiers returning home, like the victims of natural and unnatural disasters, people who pay and respect government in good faith for insurance and reasonably expect that they are actually “covered.”
Contracts are what keeps human society plausible. To me at least, it is odd indeed that so many people want to shut down the main pillar of human civilization – reciprocal trust and reciprocal aid - and not expect a Samson Effect to follow. It's one thing to want to be another Rome, it is another to set in motion another catastrophic Reich.
Right on target, except that it's happening now.
Obama won and everyone wants him to 'do something'. He is about to spend a trillion dollars on some misguided New Deal (Why do generals always fight the last war?) which is beyond ridiculous and will not do anything to reduce unemployment. 250,000 Wall Street jobs lost and Obama proposes road and bridge building - these types of jobs might have better suited an America under construction like in the 1930's - but for today it is ridiculous. There were a lot of such jobs during the rebuilding after Hurrican Katrina, and nobody wanted them, in fact, Mexicans ended up doing them.
The only way out now is hyperinflation. It's here.
I'd also recommend other sites like World Net Daily, Infowars.com, Mises.org, among others.