Common Sense

PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. -Thomas Paine (1737-1809). Common Sense, 1776

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Same old dung, different day - - -

Syria lets U.N. inspect gas attack site, Washington says too late | Reuters
Afghan Clerics ask Taliban to urge bin Laden to leave Afghanistan at suitable time for the nation's safety. Clerics urge US not to attack Afghanistan. Urge US to have patience. Kelly Wallace reports Bush not likely to approve of Cleric's position: wants action. -CNN bottom banner, September 20, 2001, 07:05:07

S.O.P.? (Standard Operating Procedure)?

< C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\COMMON>

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Sticking to The Plan?


   
 
In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explained that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.     

So, with the pending illegal action against Syria, is the Obama Administration following Bush's mid-east plan?      


C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\UNCOMMON

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 07, 2013

Are YOU in the majority?

"...the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that 53% think that the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms" Majority Says the Federal Government Threatens Their Personal Rights | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press


RELATED: UNCOMMON SENSE: The REAL Fear Factor 

< C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLOGS\UNCOMMON |cm:Are YOU in the majority?>



Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 01, 2013

THIS is M.A.D.

.

M.A.D. = Mutually Assured Destruction

WARGAMES 1983




Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 03, 2012

What it's REALLY all about

You think it's about sex; Mother Nature knows it's about babies. --L. Reichard White, Tuesday, July 03, 2012 8:55 AM


Labels: , , ,

Friday, June 01, 2012

Deflation??

"...a debt is a saleable commodity, or chattel; and ...it may be used like money; and produce all the effects of money." --John R. Commons, Legal Foundations of Capitalism, (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers 1995), p.246 Originally published in 1924 by The Macmillan Company

But what happens when more than 95% of the money supply is debt -- that is, I.O.U.s of one kind or another?

Hi Jake!

There's monetary deflation and price deflation. They're related. The law of supply and demand applies. The supply of money constantly grows most of the time. The only time it shrinks is when the supply of I.O.U.s shrinks. I.O.U.s such as fiat paper money, megabyte money, the note on the back of Bill's airline sleeve that promised you $10,000 for your Backgammon BR, T-bills, corporate bonds, etc.

As long as the supply of these I.O.U.s doesn't increase (or, rarely, decrease) quickly, nobody cares or notices much. When gold circulates, because of the small amount that can be mined each year, production usually slightly lags the need for more money caused by always increasing trade. Additionally, technological innovation and market competition cause the prices of things to go down. Under those stable money conditions, prices "deflate" slightly despite the slight inflation in money supply. No problem!

The problems happen when the supply of fiat or credit suddenly shrinks or grows a bunch. If the supply balloons, that's hyperinflation, if it shrinks a bunch, that's MONETARY deflation. Both lead to the economy shrinking or "deflating." For the same reason but by different paths. That doesn't happen to any great extent with gold circulating because the supply of gold remains RELATIVELY constant.

Deflation is scarier because it becomes self-feeding. Sellers are forced to drop prices because people have less money. If you have money, though, that's good because supply and demand means the value of the money goes up. After price drops, you can buy more for less. So, what's wrong with that?

The problem is that debt doesn't get smaller. If you owe $100, it doesn't shrink to reflect the fact money is relatively more valuable -- and while the price you get for what you sell goes down, the amount you have to pay for that I.O.U -- or interest on it -- doesn't shrink.  So, for all intents and purposes, during monetary deflation, debt gets relatively larger for those in debt. So I can't pay you so you can't pay Wally so he can't pay Bill and all those IOUs we wrote become instantly worthless -- or at least severely discounted -- because people don't trust them anymore and won't readily accept them in trade or for debt payments -- or they want big discounts -- or a lot more interest to off-set the greater percieved risk of default.  Even banks across the road from each other don't trust each other's I.O.U.s  I saw this happene in Moscow in 1998.  As a result, fewer loan/I.O.U.s are written and circulated. 

That shrinks the defacto money supply and the monetary deflation becomes self-feeding. So the biggest problem is that after deflationary shrinkage, money isn't available to service or roll-over other debt. Like, for example, Greek government debt. Or Uncle's debt. That in itself is bad enough but then Governments get desperate, and unlike the rest of us, if there isn't a gold standard or circulating gold, they run the presses to take care of their debts, special "projects" like wars, etc.

If they get it just right, the bankster-government axis prints up the same amount that's been destroyed by debt deflation. Fat chance. Remember Keynes' Follies, or, Prediction: The Limits of Economic Control Keynes' follies. But, to the extent they create money, it steals from everyone holding money and money demominated I.O.U.s and enables them to transfer that stolen money to their friends, neighbors, campaign contributors -- and their special projects. In the case of the U.S. government-bankster axis, wars for example.

Even if they're well intentioned, they can't return the money to the people -- the part of the existing economy -- who lost it and so that disrupts the whole rest of the economy. It shifts spending from the rest of the economy to the interests receiving the newly created debt-money from the government and Federal Reserve.  Usually, the banks. 

Duck & cover,
Rick

P.S. And, of course, this reverse Robin Hood effect makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. And so you get increasing wealth disparity.

====

--"The End Game: 2012 And 2013 Will Usher In The End" - The Scariest Presentation Ever? | ZeroHedge
+
--The End Game

C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\TRIBES~1\WK\TE_THEEV.WK |cm: BIG PICTURE: Inflation & deflation *****



Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Slow learner?

AMY GOODMAN: Where do you get the money [to stimulate jobs]?
PAUL KRUGMAN: [Nobel winning economist] Borrow it, and then repay it later in better times, which is not at all --- that may sound funny, but that's exactly what we've done in the past. --"End This Depression Now": Paul Krugman Urges Public Spending, Not Deficit Hysteria, to Save Economy

So, Mr. Krugman, what about the ~$16 trillion or so "national" debt that has NOT been "repaid later" -- and has increased every year since the Eisenhower Administration -- not to mention the approximately $100 trillion in Social Security and Medicare owed to old folks since they paid in advance?

And you think Uncle Sam knows better what people want than they do themselves as determined by their voluntary buying decisions in markets? And so Uncle will spend that money -- removed from those voluntary markets by coercive taxes and borrowing -- on products and services that folks will prefer to buy instead? And Uncle will provide these products and services at reasonable prices from lasting enterprises? Solyndra for example? And the borrowing -- called "extortion futures" by some because it will be paid by extorting taxes from the kids, grand kids and the yet unborn -- isn't wasting our money, let alone the lives of the kids, grand kids and the yet unborn?

Really Mr. Krugman? OK. I have this bridge in Brooklyn for sale - - -

<C:\USR\WP_DOCS\TROLLEY\BLURBS\BLURBS01.WP6>


Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,