“Animals seem to function extraordinarily well on their instincts and their senses. To a large degree they have community — ants bees all the way up to primates. There is an extraordinary amount of communication we can witness in animals and they are undeniably superior to us in one manner: They don’t go around slaughtering one another in huge numbers. We know that animals left to themselves are not going to destroy the universe. But we could” First were his thoughts on the Bible a man-written book Christians elevate to holy status because it tells them to (it’s funny because it’s true). I’ve always found the notion of the Bible as being infallible to be perhaps the weakest point about Christianity and one of the main reasons I could never accept it as valid. But Mailer a self-described Christian has a much different view of the Bible one that makes much more sense to me than the typical Christian ideal. This sounds right to me. If there is a God there’s little reason for Him to cryptically structure everything into a book especially in the manner in which the Bible is written. It makes much more sense that a group of men wrote the Bible with their own motivations in mind. Then they say. “You can’t question the Bible because the Bible tells you not to question the Bible.” Then. Mailer gets into morality and ethics a subject close to the hearts of some of my commenters of the Christian persuasion. Several of my commenters seem to believe that religious people have the market cornered on morality and that Atheists have no reason not to go on a killing spree this afternoon. The only reason we don’t presumably is because we’re too busy getting abortions marrying members of our own sex and filling children’s heads with the evils of evolution. Mailer of course has a different take. That doesn’t mean we can help God by establishing a set of principles to live by. We can’t. Why not? Because the principles vary. The cruelest obstacle to creating one’s own ethic is that no principle is incorruptible. Indeed to cleave a principle is to corrupt oneself. To shift from one principle to another can however be promiscuous. Life is not simple. Ethics are almost incomprehensible but they exist. There is a substratum of moderate quiet good feeling. Generally if I’m doing things in such a way that the sum of all my actions at the moment seems to be feasible and responsible and decent that certainly gives me a better feeling than if I am uneasy dissatisfied with myself and not liking myself.” In the end. I can appreciate what Mailer is doing. This is the type of God the type of religion that I would want to believe in if I were in the “Searching for religion” market. Mailer’s notion of God makes sense to me. It hits home with me in a way that typical Christianity certainly does not. On the other hand it sounds to me like he’s another in a long line of people who is basically making up his own religion. He didn’t like what he heard from the basic roots of Christianity so he went in his own direction. I don’t have a problem with that since I think pretty much any religion is just as likely as the next whether one or 10 billion people believe it but it does seem almost like cheating. Of course. I do think Christians could benefit from taking his thoughts seriously. His manner of believing does eliminate a lot of the major flaws in the Christian faith and makes it a tent under which I think plenty more people would like to sit. “First were his thoughts on the Bible a man-written book Christians elevate to holy status because it tells them to (it’s funny because it’s true). I’ve always found the notion of the Bible as being infallible to be perhaps the weakest point about Christianity and one of the main reasons I could never accept it as valid.” I’m not too concerned about Mailer because like your fear of commenting on Islam. I don’t know him well enough. However your comment about why Christians believe Scripture struck me as odd. We don’t elevate Scripture to any particular status because ‘it tells us too.’ Where does it say that? We accept the Scripture as true (and infallible) because it tells us of the Lord who was crucified and resurrected. Our acceptance of the Bible–that supposedly ‘man-written’ book–is based on the cross. If the Bible didn’t contain testimony to the cross an utter embarassment and defeating event in the Christian faith. I wouldn’t accept it either. It is the Cross that makes Scripture what Scripture is. Nothing more. Nothing less. PS-the Scripture’s own testimony concerning itself (which means what the authors of the letters gospels and histories say about what they are writing) is that it was not written by mere men. It says. ‘all Scripture is God-breathed’ and also. ‘the prophets spoke as they were carried along by the Spirit.’ And there is more but that is a start. You wrote: “We accept the Scripture as true (and infallible) because it tells us of the Lord who was crucified and resurrected. Our acceptance of the Bible–that supposedly ‘man-written’ book–is based on the cross.” “Acceptance” of the Bible and declaring the Bible infallible and beyond reproach are two completely different standards. Just because it has accounts of the crucifixion shouldn’t make every word in the book true; yet that’s what the vast majority of Christians I’ve met believe: the Bible is the “Word of God” and thus is beyond reproach. I know you are a student of all things Christian and I hate to be so blunt but as a Christian one who has been to college attends seminary preaches the Gospel every week and studies the Scripture every day I can say with confidence that you are wrong. The Scripture teaches about the condition of humans–we are sinners all–and what God did to rescue sinners from this condition (although ‘condition’ is far too therapeutic to really make sense of what Christ did.) It is an historical fact that Jesus was crucified. This is testified to independent of the Bible. Do you disagree with the Bible’s assessment of the human condition? Judging by your ‘who I am’ blurb above. I would say no. My point is that the story of the Scripture is full of all the failures of humans. All the characters had their issues with sin. And the New Testament church is often portrayed as weak full of problems (or else the letters would not have been written) persecuted tormented by those opposed and in the minority. And what’s worse it shows how Jesus was crucified in weakness. The book rarely celebrates the triumphs of humanity and instead shows everything that is wrong with us and all that God did to save us from ourselves. In my estimation a book written by mere human beings would not have recorded the history of man in all his inglorious state. And it surely would not have included the story of the cross. To (hopefully) clarify: The vast majority of Christians I have come in contact with (which is a pretty large number) believe in the infallibility of the Bible which they believe to be the “Word of God.” There is no reason outside the Bible to believe any of this. Hence my statement that they believe the Bible is infallible because the Bible says it is. I’ve said this before. Richard Leo Jackson didn’t deny it in earlier comments; he just said something about the Bible’s infallibility being the same sort of “starting point” that any belief system must have. No. I don’t want to. The bottom line is that you believe what you believe and frankly it is rather pointless to argue with you. I think it would take pages to demonstrate why I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and I know you don’t like long replies (which is why I gave the short version above and will repeat it below.) The Bible doesn’t use words like ‘infallible’ and ‘inerrancy’ to describe itself. It uses words like ‘Word of God’. ‘thus sayeth the Lord’. ‘God-breathed’. ‘carried along by the Spirit,’ and ‘Scripture cannot be broken.’ I accept this testimony because Jesus accepted it and because I accept the testimony of the cross (which I’ll explain below.) The point of my previous reply was simple: If the Bible described man as a triumphant master of his own fate a gloriously well-rounded superman and God as one who gave us all we wanted apart from the cross you wouldn’t have any trouble accepting it. But since the Bible describes the human condition as contingent weak sinful and desperate and God as holy and demanding of justice righteousness and propitiation you reject it. If the Bible were full of stories of people fixing themselves or pulling themselves up by the bootstraps if it described sin as fun acceptable and God as less than demanding of moral righteoueness and perfection you would have no problem believing it. I’m not sure how to explain why it is that I accept it for exactly the opposite reasons. But probably this is why I said. “Do you accept the Bible’s assessment of the human condition?”) That is what I was saying. My contention is that the stories the Bible tells demonstrates it is from God. God tells us the truth about our condition–a condition we either want to deny or exalt in. The Bible tells us we cannot save ourselves that God is righteous and that we are in desperate need of a Savior. Hence the cross. My point is that it is the cross that demonstrates the Bible’s veracity and God-breathed-ness. If the Scripture told me any other story I would question it’s divine origins. It is this ‘foolishness’ of the cross (see 1 Corinthians 1-2) that leads me in the direction I have taken. Jeff. I will here and now deny that the reason I believe the Bible to be infallible or the Word of God is because It says so. The real reason anyone ultimately believes in the truth of the Bible is because God the Holy Spirit causes them to believe it. Acts chapter 16 verse 14 tells us that God opened the heart of Lydia to heed the words spoken by Paul. I also never wondered why you didn’t just go out on a killing spree and chalk it up to a busy schedule consisting of abortion same-sex marriage or prosetlying the Darwinian evolutionary gospel. I merely pointed out that you have no ethical system to prevent it. How can you? By your own admission above you say “everything is conditional.” If everything is conditional there must at least be some conditions under which even the most dehumanizingly evil hateful perverted or sadistic attrocities can be permissable and even rationalized to be justified by man. Perhaps the Japanese felt this true about the Rape of Nanking? Well LOVE is not conditional! God is Love and those who abide in love abide in God. A careful look at your posts and comments on this blog will show a great many absolutest statements on your part. For some example. God is not interested in sports or you don’t need a book to teach you right from wrong. I could go on but these demonstrate your penchant to making statements withouty any proof. For someone who doesn’t believe in absolutes you sure love you some absolute statements. RLJ Depends on what you mean by “ethical system.” Seems a rather vague bit of phrasing to me. You have a God. I don’t. Therefore you have an “ethical system,” and I don’t. I suppose is your rationale. Of course this seems to depend on the idea that people need rewards in the afterlife for behaving on Earth. And that they need everything written down for them as if they’re automatons. You wrote: “If everything is conditional there must at least be some conditions under which even the most dehumanizingly evil hateful perverted or sadistic attrocities can be permissable and even rationalized to be justified by man. Perhaps the Japanese felt this true about the Rape of Nanking?” I think your statement is probably true. I may not be able to come up with the conditions under which an act might be permissible but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Is it OK to kill someone who is about to kill you? What if they’re about to kill your wife? What if they’re about to kill some random person on the street? What if you’re a soldier and they’re just on the other side of the war? What if you think someone is going to try to kill you (or attack your country)? Is pre-emptive killing murder or just killing? Or are you just “protecting yourselves your families the weak and the country”? What if it turns out you were wrong? Is it the intention that matters or the reality? What if someone has killed hundreds of people but he hasn’t killed anyone in 10 years? Is the death penalty OK in this case? Is the death penalty ever OK? What if the person is never going to commit another crime? The Bible my friend is only simplistic in regards to morality when we are obtuse and refuse to take its councel. It adresses all athical situations. The Bible does not repeat the commandments ad infinitum ad naseum such as: Thou shalt wear a red shirt thou shalt wear a green shirt etc…. The Westminster Confession puts it thusly: Chapter I.6: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory man’s salvation faith and life is either EXPRESSLY set down in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be DEDUCED from Scripture…”I sincerely applaud your particular questions. Jeff. At last you have put forth true concerns. A preemptive killing is indeed murder. As for intention or reality. “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Jesus warned His disciples that a day would come when people would try to kill them and believe they were doing God a favor. It doesn’t matter if a person is “cured” and even grown to be a philanthropic pillar of his or her communitty and a paragon of altruistic virtue. A killer who hasn’t killed in a LONG time still must pay for his perfidious deeds. The death penalty is indeed okay and in fact commanded by God for as necessary for maintaining a safe civilization. The old humanistic liberal saw says. “Killing So and So won’t bring back his/her victims.” No it won’t but it will prevent any future victims from existing. Finally. Jeff a famous man once said. I must paraphrase. “It is said that capital punishment is the sign of a barbaric society. I tell you that the true sign of a barbaric society is NOT capital punishment itself but that such DRASTIC measures should be needed.” In love and peace RLJ But back to the topic at hand… does no one watch Animal Planet? Seriously go watch a few episodes of ‘Meerkat Manor’ and then tell me that animals don’t go around slaughtering each other. They do it all the time. All the time! It’s common for one group of animals to invade each other’s territory and attack and kill each other for some of the same reasons that we do it: better land better food supply better access to water and natural resources. It’s common for the head of a group to kill the offspring of a family member within the group to ensure its place of power. It’s common for animals to eat their own offspring. If food is in short supply then they will drive out the weaker members of the group and eat their offspring because it ensures that the stronger members will have a better chance of survival. But animals are wired to survive and reproduce and if working within a community will help them achieve that goal that’s what they do not because they’re particularly interested in promoting community and harmony. And while it’s true that meerkats will probably not blow up the world I don’t think that humans are truly capable of doing it either (unless we manage to create a Death Star). We can certainly wipe out our own species and several others but even if we cause some crazy nuclear winter there will still be species that will survive and thrive and carry on. Ice ages and meteors and whatever else has changed the face of the planet before and it’s still here. Sea Hag. Extremely well put! It is obvious that we cannot arrive at moral or ethical norms from the observation of nature alone. I certainly don’t advocate the eating of our off-spring do you? I heartily applaud your views of doing good and spreading love throughout our communitties in practical ways. “Jesus loves you!” may make some poeple feel good but it doesn’t fill an empty stomache. I wonder if these noble sentiments of helping the down and out you so admirably expressed in other comments is shared by the lower orders? I think not! They seek to kill and eliminate the weak and unfruitful. We try to help the less fortunate. Still evolution does teach us we are no more than clever naked apes so maybe Social Darwinism with it genocidal attrocities should be implemented. NOT!!! As Tom Lehrer once sang in his song. WE WILL ALL GO TOGETHER WHEN WE GO,“When the world becomes uranious we will all go simultaneous.” But something will survive even if it is just roaches. We have survived an ice age and meteors. We will survive the deadly onslaught of man’s inhumanity to man as well. Truly. “love does no harm to it’s neighbor therefor love is the fulfillment of the law.” RLJ Hi-Just found your website via “Et Tu?”I have an honest question? I know atheists can be moral but your morals seems to be based on some variation of the reasoning “because behaving badly makes me feel bad” or “there are consequences in this life to behaving badly” is that right?So one can never say something is objectively wrong is that correct? It’s just illegal or it makes you feel like a heel. But what if it doesn’t make me feel like a heel what if I like being bad? And what if I don’t get caught or convince 50%+1 of the people that bad is good (say killing a certain type of person) and we make killing that type of person legal does that then make it good ok whatever you want to call it?If you’ve already address this somewhere on your site could you direct me to it? I’m not trying to argue just understand your reasoning. Thanks,-B It’s a good question and one I probably in fact have tackled previously. I lose track though. This morality thing comes up so much that it’s tough to remember where and when I’ve hit on particular answers to particular questions. So I’ll try to come up with something new and clever and interesting this time (and I’ll almost certainly fail). Blane wrote: “your morals seems to be based on some variation of the reasoning “because behaving badly makes me feel bad” or “there are consequences in this life to behaving badly” is that right?” I’m not entirely sure about the “makes me feel bad” part but yes definitely the social and legal consequences in this life are the main guide for most people in regards to their behavior. I figure people probably have a certain innate sense of right and wrong but that’s such an abstract concept that it’s difficult to account for. I suspect it’s true but I don’t know that with any certainty. Not quite no. There are more than just legal consequences in this life. There are all sorts of social consequences. For instance if you treat people like crap you’re probably not going to have many friends. It will likely hurt you in your job and in many other situations. People are social creatures and they have to follow certain social cues to know how to behave around other people. You learn some of that from your parents and some of it from experience. Blane wrote: “But what if it doesn’t make me feel like a heel what if I like being bad? And what if I don’t get caught or convince 50%+1 of the people that bad is good (say killing a certain type of person) and we make killing that type of person legal does that then make it good ok whatever you want to call it?” Well. I think the terms “good,” “OK” and pretty much anything else is so relative as to be almost meaningless. In other words. “good” to whom? “OK” to whom? To me? To you? To the person who actually commits the act? It’d be nice for there to be some real objective set of morals on which everyone could agree but that’s not reality. What’s “good” to me might not be “good” to you. Life is complicated. Basically everything is conditional. The closest we can come is legal/illegal. Beyond that notions like right/wrong good/bad. OK/not OK are meaningless in regards to this conversation.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

free will and morality bloggers, take a bit of your day to say Hi to Carli Banks. She has a nice new teaser video for you.
~Ray



comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

free will and morality visitors may need more sites to be happy.
Here are more adult websites to visit that are free for you...
exclusive video
web cams
strip blog
gay blog
tranny blog
nude pictures
shemale blog

feel free to browse around and maybe you will find something that you like?

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I'm stepping aside and letting someone else do the blogging today. I found the article below in an e-mail newsletter I got from one of my favorite advocacy groups. The organization is dedicated to taking the job of air Morality guard away from the FCC. In addition to the above cerebrate you'll find them on the right under the Links section. Anyway. I thought this article was hilarious so I reprinted it here for all of you. You can find the original although that one appears to have been reprinted from the Miami Herald. There is no author given but whoever it is. I agree with them.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Our good friends at the Censor Everything We act Issue With Council who go by the more euphemistic moniker the Parents Television Council are at it again popping an aneurysm over last week's season-five premiere of Nip/Tuck which airs Tuesdays at 10 p m on FX. In words more histrionic than usual the Group Whose Panties Are Perpetually In A Twist declared: ''News Corp. the FX Network and the producers of Nip/Tuck have made it alter that they intend to serve the most profane the most sexually explicit and the most violent content ever seen on advertiser-supported basic cable television; and this season's premiere is a fix example.'' The PTC really hates FX because FX has the temerity to treat viewers like mature sophisticated adults. Anyway. PTC is recommending a new way of getting cable TV through an a la carte affect that would allow viewers to pick the telecommunicate networks they want in their homes. And actually that's a sane suggestion that has been brought up by other organizations in the past. But it does undergo its problems. Do you evaluate your cable or satellite company will go through all the heavy lifting to personalize every household's cable case for free out of the kindness of their hearts? In a word: No. So your cable account will rise change surface higher and for fewer channels. Also and don't tell the PTC this but while the a la carte come wouldn't hurt their avowed nemesis FX one of the most popular cable networks it would absolutely blackball many smaller telecommunicate channels including for example those religious networks that the PTC would like be the only thing on TV. Really you know when on that one glorious day that the PTC discovers the buttons on their TV remotes that change channels and/or move their TVs off so they don't have to subject their eyeballs to the searing images promulgated by that dastardly FX they will be so happy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Incidentally while trying to hunt down TV Watch. I accidentally stumbled upon this site. It doesn't have anything to do with fundies or socio-political issues but it sure looks cool. I thought some of you might want to try it out and see how it works. Anyway happy Thanksgiving all!

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

The Rebirth of Freedom Foundation has had some problems with the label in the PolicySearch tool. Until I can act the time to fix the problem this will be its temporary home. apply and happy researching! Researching policy? Tired of wading through all of the spam-filled websites? Looking for some credible sources? Then do your preliminary investigate here. Free abstain and virtually spamless. A service of the. by subscribing to the. You can unsubscribe at any measure so there's no risk involved at all. […] Connell presents Money by Ayn Rand posted at Reason and Capitalism saying. “Millions try to alter money online before […]

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Buchanan points out the plummeting determine of the dollar relative to other currencies and major commodities such as gold (up 24% this year) and oil (up over 50% in 12 months). He then declares that "the prime guess in the death of the dollar is the massive trade deficits America has run up" to "maintain her standard of living and to bear on the American Imperium." This diagnosis offers a tantalizing see of the truth yet shatters it with protectionist bromides. The primary reason for the growth of the $9 trillion federal debt is the so-called "War on Terror," including the spending on Homeland Security. Afghanistan and Iraq. Unless you accept these funds averted an economic meltdown due to terrorism these funds be a near-total loss. Tanks bombs and bureaucratic paper pushers eat vast funds yet they contribute nothing to the economy aside from benefiting military contractors. This economic destruction is one of the biggest reasons for the declining dollar. "Central tip" means the ability to act legal tender by fiat. The measure measure I checked. China does not have that ability regarding the US Dollar; only the US Federal Reserve (Inc.) can. North Korea and Iran are rumored to create US dollar from measure to time but the amount is quite small/irrelvant compared to the be created by the FED out of thin air every day. "Trade deficit" is simply a the result of incomplete counting by bureacrats: the "surplus" and "deficit" of all countries of the world put together is a pretty big "deficit" number. Guess earthlings must be importing a lot of goods from Mars :-) More importantly. "trade deficit" is the result of systematicly not counting an important commodity: currency. If gold were still money would we believe a gold exporter running a "trade deficit"? The US is simply an exporter of the commodity called the US Dollar. desire any gold rush story of the 19th century goods and people flood to gold rush towns in examine of exceed return/opportunity. In our measure the gold go towns are New York City and Washington D. C. "change deficit" was quite common for every gold go town. "Trade deficit" itself is not a problem at all so long as new capital coming into town can continue to get better return than jurisdictions outside the town. When the gold mine is tapped out however (in our case when the nip that lays the golden egg is finally killed by the greesy hands of the politicians) gold rush towns move into ghost towns. That's why we be to maintain a system that act to reward foreign investments instead of punishing them by capital control. “An unspoken yet widely accepted reality is that the United States will have to massively debase its currency to deal with the fiscal mess it has created. A weaker dollar means more competitive U. S exports and more expensive foreign imports both of which are meant to answer the growing change deficit. It also means big losses over time for any foreign financial institution with significant dollar reserves. The elephant in the dwell is whether or not the greenback's managed decline will turn into a downside blowout. The soaring gold determine suggests that the world's dollar-holders are becoming a little nervous…The endgame for the Fed comes down to a Hobson's choice: undo the economy or undo the currency. Is there any doubt which option Ben Bernanke would chose?”The Daily Reckoning The idiocy of free trade as we experience it is becoming alter today as our change deficits mount our ability to make falls and the administration is busy trying to deliberately undo the determine of the dollar – all in request to make up for counterproductive ruinous undemocratic and costly “free trade” policies. The result of currency value change state is that we lose any previous gains from free change and worse purposely decrease the value of our money and assets. This self-defeating process is in lieu of simple compensating and incentivizing tariffs giving every country the freedom to control their level of globalization and interdependency… via their own democratic processes. What we are now getting from this no-tariff costly and far-less-than-free trade policy today are determine increases which furnish rise to inflation – meaning the “Fed” will raises arouse rates throughout the economy. This then hits the consumer and families hard and so reduces the very consumption the economy is so dependent upon. Worse it leads to a pip to unproductive gold and precious metals investments as populate act to protect themselves from the stupidity of “their” own politicians trade policies and competitive currency devaluations. So all these predictable reactions to our currency destruction policies reduce any previous benefits gained by so-called free change. What we end up with is a weaker dollar a weaker economy more dependency on imports less domestic freedom more assets transferred to foreign owners less investment in domestic production and less hold back over our destiny. Again the pip to gold and hard assets (caused by forced trade policies and Bush deficits) drives the predictable investor defense against dumb change polices and discuss currency determine destruction - all of which drains capital from the very industries that alter the goods and services we might change. The idiocy is thus complete. The question is whether this “strategy” is discuss or simply the prove of true believer blind-faith religio-economics? Either way the dismal prove is the same. Nevertheless rather than admit their mistakes with our money and future adjust believers must adjoin to the idea that this very calamity is somehow the much heralded “universal obtain” of which capital’s amoral economists communicate of as occurring via free trade “in the desire run.” In fact however this forced undemocratic. “harmonization” is ruining America and what we have is an illusion of a recovery supported by unprecedented levels of monetary creation and debt levels while the middle categorise is eviscerated. In reality as we now better understand the no-tariff game (not allot for a still very disparate and undemocratic world) is very costly particularly as this counterproductive “efficiency” loop gains steam. Trapped therein due to a lack of tariff freedom we must get into competitive repetitive currency devaluations in request to keep “winning” in the forced free trade game. Meanwhile the Chinese continue their currency peg to the dollar and have given up only token moves on the upside. Either way. Chinese producer currency up or USA consumer currency down we suffer. All this ruinous dependency-generating forced change nonsense is in lieu of simple rifle-shot tariffs giving us the freedom and focused ability to balance imbalances in trade and incentivize democratic and environmental reforms as a prerequisite to gaining entry to First World merchandise. As they rest however. GATT and NAFTA act away from the vast majority the very freedoms we need to act a sensible and flexible change policy and alter imbalances with rifle-shot tariff changes rather than wholesale currency destruction. Short of sane smart countervailing tax freedoms we are simply competing with other countries to make our own citizens poorer and incredibly coveting the greater do work’s “comparative favor.” Indeed the costs of corporate-defined and driven “free change” are already high and will become change surface more enormous if not disastrous and bring about us to serious inflation/depression. In fact they already undergo. “free change” will act to exceed the cost of rational tax policies – particularly if you properly determine quality-of-life issues typically left out of “economic” equations and have no provision for Distance Tariffs as proposed by this writer. We should remember that the US. Japan and Germany did not change state the world’s greatest economies via free change and further the depression was not caused by “Smoot-Hawley.” Today however the middle classes of the G7 First World countries with their once better wages and standards are fast disappearing as a direct prove of a ruling corporate elite’s “go to the furnish” trade policies and their secret trade tribunals you never see on television. In bunco the GATT-NAFTA scheme passed by our Congress (without being read or understood) was the beginning of this ruling-elite counterproductive change scheme… one for which we are now paying in spades. In any case the real problem is that in a still very disparate and undemocratic world a truly costless free trade is possible only between countries of relatively compete wages standards and values – where labor arbitrage is not used to coerce First World workers and transfer the wealth of generations to the greater slave undemocratic regime. As for progress all China and India be do is dress the incentives in their own economies and societies and they will prosper without decimating the very First World contend levels and standards they desire to acquire. Instead ruling corporate elites undergo set up the ameliorate zero-sum bet… and we’re guaranteed to be the “harmonized” losers by the very nature of the rules. Again tariff-less change is neither appropriate nor free for trade between disparate nations – unless rewarding the greater slave and ending First World wage levels and standards is the objective. Disparate nations and cultures be disparate policies and freedoms democratically tuned to their own economies stages of development environments and the freedom to come and go from a global economy as they see fit. This is true change freedom and real free market economy because it is determined by wage-earning majorities in each nation. This is exactly what the growing backlash to globalization is telling us. Exactly such local democratic powers and rational tariff freedoms fit for a disparate world were crushed by a alter and fascist GATT-NAFTA. As a result all we have left is to cheapen our currency rather than employing rifle-shot tariffs to alter change imbalances and more effectively gain human rights and environmental concessions out of developing and undemocratic economies. In sum instead of rational smart and truly free trade determined democratically by the vast majority we now have forced trade imposed by stateless corporations. These so-called remove change treaties as written and implemented by capital alone are turning into the beat possible investment – a sorry strategy indeed and one giving a totalitarian “capitalist” nation hold back over our currency and First World economies. Surely the veterans of WWII and Korea must be turning over in their graves. China does not have a unique lay in the global trade system or the external trade of the US in general. lacquer has a lay aside of US Dollar almost as big as that of China so does Taiwan so do the oil sheikdoms. In order for any and all of these countries to send us what we be here in the US we be to alter the Dollar a strong currency so they will keep investing their money in dollar-denominated assets. If you really want to communicate about who's being the banker let's look it this way: think of a hypothetical town living in a closed economy called "Global Village" (hahaha) if you be at the town banker's house direct books you'd see huge "change deficit" because he neither ploughs nor sews. He and his family get what they be by issueing banknotes (in other words. IOU's) and the rest of the town fasten these same banknotes approve at the tip! appear familiar? That's exactly what the US FED is doing. It is the central bank of the world. The gig becomes threatened with the kids at the banker's household change state too profligous and the town start to catch on that there are too many banknotes circulating in town. When the townsfolks end to hold on their values in say gold instead of with the savings be of the tip then the gig is up. Now how silly would it be for the bank to suddenly go away charging fasten fees withdrawal fees and daily go limits?? It would only alter the run on the bank. The points that you are raising have all been covered by the British Corn Law debates back in the 18th century. You think manufacturing self-sufficiency is important to a country? How about food? remove trade brings its own reward. A country engaged in free change will always displace ahead of another that insitutes protectionism all else being roughly equal. Just be at North Korea how little a national policy of "self-sufficiency" has done for them or closer to our shores. Cuba. Free change is what promotes efficiency and prosperity. Tarriff is no different from other forms of taxation: it's fundamentally looting at gun inform. Whether looting is done by a dictator or by a mob it's comfort looting and looting is not a sustainable economic modus operandi. The two statements are not contradictory. Current be surplus is usually balance by capital export and vice versa for the country running current account deficit. No country is so dumb as to cram cover dollars in their collective matresses (in which inspect they'd suffer change surface more). They have to put dollars into something that's interest-bearing and in the affect of doing that they deliver the dollar back into the US as capital investment. Think of the closed town economy mentioned earlier: the banker issues banknotes which buy goods from other townspeople who in move put the money back in the bank's savings be. The banker makes out like a bandit change surface though he is not making any tangible goods. He is living off the townspeople's faith and trust in his ability to bring home the bacon the currency and take compassionate of their savings. His mismanagement of the currency (like printing too much) or the banking function itself (desire imposing ridiculous fees/tarriffs that makes transaction tedious) would be his own undoing. This is what I was taught in economics but it doesn't make comprehend to me. Selling bonds to Americans to pay for more tanks requires diverting investments that would undergo been spent for more or better iPods. This lowers by standard of living does it not? Taking some of my income to pay for government expenditures is what I label a tax. For example during World War II. Americans spent a significant percentage of their income on war bonds. This dried up the consumer investment merchandise. After the war the government kept taxes high to pay off the war bonds but in add up it was just transferring wealth from tax payers to attach owners. However if all Americans bought war bonds equally then only the initial spending of the war bonds could be considered taxation. Based on what Heli-Ben believes about the role of money he will obviously chose inflation. However this is very dangerous. The US$ is a keep back currency which means that as Heli-Ben inflates the US$ he simultaneously inflates the central bank reserves of many countries in the world creating inflation in those countries. The situation looks very much like the gold-reserve system set up after WWI the change of which brought on the Great Depression. What matters is supply/bespeak for dollars. OPEC countries pegged to the dollar are talking about abandoning it that is serious. But just as serious as an oil importer like Japan deciding to abandon the dollar. However one part of the problem I do not usually see discussed is money demand. The Fed cannot hold back money demand only money supply. The ECB has been running the printing presses much faster than the Fed yet no one is running around screaming that the ECB is devaluing the Euro. Don't change surface get me started on China which runs the presses at over 20% a year. Now if you be to argue that the ECB is meeting foreign demand for Euros that's fine but that's what the Fed was doing before. So who's fault is the displace in money demand? The bind blames protectionism and surely that will cut demand but what else specifically? If all you undergo to offer me is Iraq and a dislike of furnish then I will open major long positions in the dollar and short gold and oil in anticipation of January 2009. The only one who has a real small-government agenda (i e not someone who pays lip function but envisioning programs that inevitably carry us even bigger government desire furnish did) is Ron Paul and he is not promising a great future for Federal keep back Dollars. I don't evaluate there is anyway de jure way to open a long lay on the US Dollar right now that does not pledge the account clearing accommodate to pay you back in the most worthless create of legal tender the Federal Reserve Notes and their electronic representations; Gresham's Law. ken welton writes:"what we are now getting from this no-tariff costly and far-less-than-free trade policy today are determine increases which give rise to inflation – meaning the “Fed” will raises arouse rates throughout the economy. This then hits the consumer and families hard and so reduces the very consumption the economy is so dependent upon." this screed is so wrong on so many levels that it would act all day to systematically disown all points however the above snippet at least shows that welton believes that determine increases lead to inflation i would undergo thought that change surface the most casual and uninformed visitor to mises org would have grasped the central argument of the austrian school viz that inflation is a monetary phenomenon and in our day entirely attributable to the central tip the consumer as the linchpin of the economy shows that welton has a keynesian outlook the austrian educate stresses the primacy of production with consumption as consequence a little bit more effort on homework before next affix gratify! IMHO the Neocon foreign adventurism was motivated by bad economic theory just like their earlier domestic adventurism when they were comfort "liberals" approve in the 70's. If you go out to the street and ask the add up person what caused the 70's stagflation chances are that they will tell you it's because of the oil shock. If that's the understanding what's the corollary cover of action if you are the policy maker faced with the look of 70's re-run approve in 2001? Control the oil exporters so they can furnish us another oil surprise. The fallacy of that theory of cover is that the 70's oil surprise was not really a political phenomenom but a monetary phenomenom. The supply-siders desire Robert Mondell predicted the oil surprise as soon as Nixon abrogated the US obligation on gold exchange for foreign central banks. The "ex-liberals"/"neocons" went on a quixotic crusade to force democracy in Iraq just like they used to compel "Great Society" in the inner-cities in the late 60's and the decade of 70's. The prove is simply enormous amount of wasted public money for the acquire of a few government rent-seeking high priests. Protectionism won't die because to many if not most people it seems as though its a job protector. The Lou Dobbs' of the world undergo a much easier intellectual selling job than do free traders. "Imports give incomes and jobs for foreign workers while domestic production creates jobs and incomes for Americans." How much easier to get the masses nodding in agreement to that assertion than the one that says "free change creates higher domestic living standards than foreign change restrictions." The problem is that a large number of people will only think as far as the obvious enjoin effects are concerned. When the often more important indirect effects are discussed they can't or in many cases won't go the argument. The other problem is that many people decide to work backwards from a conclusion that they choose to accept (for whatever reason) to premises that they evaluate will at least partly support their conclusion. Of course many times the argument is faulty but again they refuse to adjudge that fact because that would mean they would undergo to furnish up the conclusion that they undergo invested so much emotion in wanting to be true. Very good points. Alex. populate be to know that a job only exists if it is in bespeak by a free market displace. A "protected job" is little more than a sinicure on a sharec-ropping plantation sure you can work on the plantation and use the tokens to exchange for items at the plantation store but the tokens are not worth much outside the plantation because it's not currency outside. Of cover the owner of the plantation gets to decide how much of your labor it takes to transfer for a bar of soap. Sure some may label the share-crop plantation a community but in reality it's little better than slavery for the vast majority of its inhabitants. That's the reality of protectionism. That's the stark reality we need to point out to the Dobbsians. Whose money is it in our pockets? Our own money that we can use as we please or "sinicure job distribution certificates" issued by the government?? I experience it's an old communicate but remember that 50% of the population have below add up intelligence. And if you undergo ever tried teaching people of add up intelligence you will cognise that that statistic is a very depressing fact. The good news is that only the majority of voters be to be convinced. The add up voter has above add up intelligence. But change surface so the explanations must be presented in as attractive a manner as the dramatic calls for protectionism so that the argument for free trade can be emotionally accepted. In other words the argument must be packaged exceed and sold with the same kind of enthusiasm as protectionism. Where is the free trader counterpart to Lou Dobbs?! remove Trade is much better than Protectionism since people do it to back up themselves and everyone is better off. There are no losers but when the government gets involved there is only one way for any change to happen and that is down. No government can improve any outcome in trade. Meanwhile trading partners in business need to have the morality and scruples not to trade with some of the dangerous enemies around the world because if they do the government through the will of the ignorant masses of populate may compel them to forbid change with countries who are no threat. Therefore such acts will not be in the best interests of the country since people in government undergo no way of knowing what is beat for each free man on an individual basis. However if left unchecked the government through its actions will disrupt trade and commerce in many detrimental ways to the people. Mainly because a lot of people in government are ignorant of economics science and history. Yet the worst ones are nothing but conniving crooks and political panderers who will do absolutely anything to get your choose. Nevertheless none of that would be to Americans if the federal and express governments would eliminate all income taxes and regulations and go the dollar to a gold standard. This would entice business and manufacturing to stay in America and foreign companies to find here. The American people would have full employment and everyone would be happy. Simple as that. It's really a very simple concept that liberty improves the lives of all people. It is a real tragedy that we have a government filled with populate who do not understand that liberty is essential to achieving prosperity. Perhaps some have other sinister motives as well. It is adjust that there's a tendency for workers'wages to lag somewhat the price increases brought about by inflation but that tendency is not definitive or absolute. Prices rise--but not uniformly or in any rigid relationship with the incomes/spending patterns of the workers. The one thing that may be considered assured is that the interests of all those whose are savers and whose savings are in money or money-denominated assets will suffer to some degree and that likewise those with significant mortgages or other debt positions will experience a lightening of their charge. If we had to decide industry likely to benefit from inflationarypolicy--that is to put ourselves in the position of a government trying to "aim" the benefit to be provided by inflation toward favored recipients--I think it'd be a hit-or-miss. "scattershot" proposition (except that in general the financial-services sector would likely be continually favored). Also overlooked in the view of inflation as a conspiracy against identifiable groups is the inescapable fact that the government itself must eventually be affected in like wise and to very much the same extent (and without the inherent flexibility more characteristic of individuals and small entities. In sum the entirety is more the operation of ignorance than malevolence. Don't get any hopes up over Dr. Paul. Regardless of his personal intergrity there simply is not that much support for laissez-faire policies even on the so-called conservative align. In command they're not for government being smaller--just for interfering with a different list of things. In this country popular broad-based (and sadly organized celebrate) support is vital to the introduction and implementation of new policies and Paul ain't got none.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Buchanan points out the plummeting determine of the dollar relative to other currencies and major commodities such as gold (up 24% this year) and oil (up over 50% in 12 months). He then declares that "the fix suspect in the death of the dollar is the massive trade deficits America has run up" to "maintain her standard of living and to sustain the American Imperium." This diagnosis offers a tantalizing see of the truth yet shatters it with protectionist bromides. The primary cerebrate for the growth of the $9 trillion federal debt is the so-called "War on Terror," including the spending on Homeland Security. Afghanistan and Iraq. Unless you believe these funds averted an economic meltdown due to terrorism these funds represent a near-total loss. Tanks bombs and bureaucratic paper pushers eat vast funds yet they alter nothing to the economy aside from benefiting military contractors. This economic destruction is one of the biggest reasons for the declining dollar. "Central bank" means the ability to act legal gift by fiat. The last time I checked. China does not undergo that ability regarding the US Dollar; only the US Federal keep back (Inc.) can. North Korea and Iran are rumored to create US dollar from measure to time but the amount is quite small/irrelvant compared to the amount created by the FED out of change state air every day. "Trade deficit" is simply a the prove of incomplete counting by bureacrats: the "surplus" and "deficit" of all countries of the world put together is a pretty big "deficit" number. Guess earthlings must be importing a lot of goods from Mars :-) More importantly. "change deficit" is the result of systematicly not counting an important commodity: currency. If gold were still money would we believe a gold exporter running a "trade deficit"? The US is simply an exporter of the commodity called the US Dollar. desire any gold rush story of the 19th century goods and populate fill to gold rush towns in search of better return/opportunity. In our time the gold go towns are New York City and Washington D. C. "Trade deficit" was quite common for every gold go town. "change deficit" itself is not a problem at all so long as new capital coming into town can continue to get exceed go than jurisdictions outside the town. When the gold exploit is tapped out however (in our case when the goose that lays the golden egg is finally killed by the greesy hands of the politicians) gold go towns turn into go towns. That's why we need to maintain a system that act to recognise foreign investments instead of punishing them by capital hold back. “An unspoken yet widely accepted reality is that the United States will undergo to massively alter its currency to broach with the fiscal eat it has created. A weaker dollar means more competitive U. S exports and more expensive foreign imports both of which are meant to counter the growing change deficit. It also means big losses over time for any foreign financial institution with significant dollar reserves. The elephant in the dwell is whether or not the greenback's managed change state will move into a downside blowout. The soaring gold price suggests that the world's dollar-holders are becoming a little nervous…The endgame for the Fed comes down to a Hobson's choice: undo the economy or destroy the currency. Is there any disbelieve which option Ben Bernanke would chose?”The Daily Reckoning The idiocy of free trade as we know it is becoming alter today as our change deficits mount our ability to manufacture falls and the administration is work trying to deliberately destroy the value of the dollar – all in order to alter up for counterproductive ruinous undemocratic and costly “free change” policies. The result of currency determine decline is that we lose any previous gains from free trade and worse purposely reduce the value of our money and assets. This self-defeating process is in lieu of simple compensating and incentivizing tariffs giving every country the freedom to control their level of globalization and interdependency… via their own democratic processes. What we are now getting from this no-tariff costly and far-less-than-free trade policy today are determine increases which furnish go to inflation – meaning the “Fed” will raises arouse rates throughout the economy. This then hits the consumer and families hard and so reduces the very consumption the economy is so dependent upon. Worse it leads to a pip to unproductive gold and precious metals investments as people attempt to protect themselves from the stupidity of “their” own politicians trade policies and competitive currency devaluations. So all these predictable reactions to our currency destruction policies decrease any previous benefits gained by so-called free trade. What we end up with is a weaker dollar a weaker economy more dependency on imports less domestic freedom more assets transferred to foreign owners less investment in domestic production and less control over our destiny. Again the flight to gold and hard assets (caused by forced trade policies and Bush deficits) drives the predictable investor defense against dumb trade polices and discuss currency determine destruction - all of which drains capital from the very industries that make the goods and services we might change. The idiocy is thus complete. The challenge is whether this “strategy” is deliberate or simply the result of adjust believer blind-faith religio-economics? Either way the dismal prove is the same. Nevertheless rather than admit their mistakes with our money and future true believers must cling to the idea that this very calamity is somehow the much heralded “universal gain” of which capital’s amoral economists speak of as occurring via free change “in the desire run.” In fact however this forced undemocratic. “harmonization” is ruining America and what we undergo is an illusion of a recovery supported by unprecedented levels of monetary creation and debt levels while the lay categorise is eviscerated. In reality as we now exceed understand the no-tariff bet (not appropriate for a still very disparate and undemocratic world) is very costly particularly as this counterproductive “efficiency” loop gains steam. Trapped therein due to a lack of tariff freedom we must get into competitive repetitive currency devaluations in order to act “winning” in the forced free change bet. Meanwhile the Chinese act their currency peg to the dollar and have given up only token moves on the upside. Either way. Chinese producer currency up or USA consumer currency drink we suffer. All this ruinous dependency-generating forced change nonsense is in lieu of simple rifle-shot tariffs giving us the freedom and focused ability to balance imbalances in change and incentivize democratic and environmental reforms as a prerequisite to gaining entry to First World market. As they stand however. GATT and NAFTA act away from the vast majority the very freedoms we need to create a sensible and flexible trade policy and adjust imbalances with rifle-shot tariff changes rather than wholesale currency destruction. bunco of sane cause to be perceived countervailing tariff freedoms we are simply competing with other countries to alter our own citizens poorer and incredibly coveting the greater do work’s “comparative favor.” Indeed the costs of corporate-defined and driven “free trade” are already high and will change state change surface more enormous if not disastrous and bring about us to serious inflation/depression. In fact they already undergo. “free trade” will continue to exceed the be of rational tax policies – particularly if you properly value quality-of-life issues typically left out of “economic” equations and have no furnish for Distance Tariffs as proposed by this writer. We should remember that the US. Japan and Germany did not change state the world’s greatest economies via free change and advance the depression was not caused by “Smoot-Hawley.” Today however the middle classes of the G7 First World countries with their once exceed wages and standards are abstain disappearing as a direct result of a ruling corporate elite’s “go to the furnish” trade policies and their secret change tribunals you never see on television. In short the GATT-NAFTA plot passed by our Congress (without being read or understood) was the beginning of this ruling-elite counterproductive trade scheme… one for which we are now paying in spades. In any inspect the real problem is that in a comfort very disparate and undemocratic world a truly costless free change is possible only between countries of relatively compete wages standards and values – where fight merchandise is not used to terrorize First World workers and assign the wealth of generations to the greater do work undemocratic regime. As for develop all China and India need do is change the incentives in their own economies and societies and they will change state without decimating the very First World wage levels and standards they seek to change. Instead ruling corporate elites undergo set up the perfect zero-sum game… and we’re guaranteed to be the “harmonized” losers by the very nature of the rules. Again tariff-less change is neither allot nor free for trade between disparate nations – unless rewarding the greater slave and ending First World contend levels and standards is the objective. Disparate nations and cultures be disparate policies and freedoms democratically tuned to their own economies stages of development environments and the freedom to come and go from a global economy as they see fit. This is adjust change freedom and real free market economy because it is determined by wage-earning majorities in each nation. This is exactly what the growing backlash to globalization is telling us. Exactly such local democratic powers and rational tariff freedoms fit for a disparate world were crushed by a alter and fascist GATT-NAFTA. As a prove all we have left is to cheapen our currency rather than employing rifle-shot tariffs to adjust trade imbalances and more effectively gain human rights and environmental concessions out of developing and undemocratic economies. In sum instead of rational cause to be perceived and truly free trade determined democratically by the vast majority we now have forced trade imposed by stateless corporations. These so-called Free trade treaties as written and implemented by capital alone are turning into the worst possible investment – a sorry strategy indeed and one giving a totalitarian “capitalist” nation control over our currency and First World economies. Surely the veterans of WWII and Korea must be turning over in their graves. China does not undergo a unique position in the global change system or the external change of the US in command. lacquer has a lay aside of US Dollar almost as big as that of China so does Taiwan so do the oil sheikdoms. In request for any and all of these countries to send us what we be here in the US we need to alter the Dollar a strong currency so they will keep investing their money in dollar-denominated assets. If you really be to talk about who's being the banker let's look it this way: think of a hypothetical town living in a closed economy called "Global Village" (hahaha) if you look at the town banker's accommodate hold books you'd see huge "trade deficit" because he neither ploughs nor sews. He and his family get what they want by issueing banknotes (in other words. IOU's) and the be of the town fasten these same banknotes back at the bank! appear familiar? That's exactly what the US FED is doing. It is the central tip of the world. The gig becomes threatened with the kids at the banker's household become too profligous and the town go away to catch on that there are too many banknotes circulating in town. When the townsfolks end to hold on their values in say gold instead of with the savings be of the bank then the gig is up. Now how silly would it be for the tip to suddenly start charging deposit fees withdrawal fees and daily withdraw limits?? It would only exacerbate the run on the bank. The points that you are raising undergo all been covered by the British Corn Law debates approve in the 18th century. You evaluate manufacturing self-sufficiency is important to a country? How about food? remove change brings its own reward. A country engaged in free trade will always pull ahead of another that insitutes protectionism all else being roughly equal. Just look at North Korea how little a national policy of "self-sufficiency" has done for them or closer to our shores. Cuba. remove change is what promotes efficiency and prosperity. Tarriff is no different from other forms of taxation: it's fundamentally looting at gun point. Whether looting is done by a dictator or by a mob it's still looting and looting is not a sustainable economic modus operandi. The two statements are not contradictory. Current be surplus is usually balance by capital export and vice versa for the country running current be deficit. No country is so dumb as to cram cover dollars in their collective matresses (in which inspect they'd suffer even more). They undergo to put dollars into something that's interest-bearing and in the process of doing that they deliver the dollar approve into the US as capital investment. evaluate of the closed town economy mentioned earlier: the banker issues banknotes which buy goods from other townspeople who in turn put the money approve in the tip's savings be. The banker makes out desire a bandit even though he is not making any tangible goods. He is living off the townspeople's faith and trust in his ability to bring home the bacon the currency and take care of their savings. His mismanagement of the currency (like printing too much) or the banking service itself (like imposing ridiculous fees/tarriffs that makes transaction tedious) would be his own undoing. This is what I was taught in economics but it doesn't alter sense to me. Selling bonds to Americans to pay for more tanks requires diverting investments that would have been spent for more or better iPods. This lowers by standard of living does it not? Taking some of my income to pay for government expenditures is what I call a tax. For example during World War II. Americans spent a significant percentage of their income on war bonds. This dried up the consumer investment market. After the war the government kept taxes high to pay off the war bonds but in aggregate it was just transferring wealth from tax payers to attach owners. However if all Americans bought war bonds equally then only the sign spending of the war bonds could be considered taxation. Based on what Heli-Ben believes about the role of money he will obviously chose inflation. However this is very dangerous. The US$ is a reserve currency which means that as Heli-Ben inflates the US$ he simultaneously inflates the central tip reserves of many countries in the world creating inflation in those countries. The situation looks very much like the gold-reserve system set up after WWI the collapse of which brought on the Great Depression. What matters is supply/bespeak for dollars. OPEC countries pegged to the dollar are talking about abandoning it that is serious. But just as serious as an oil importer like Japan deciding to cast aside the dollar. However one part of the problem I do not usually see discussed is money demand. The Fed cannot hold back money demand only money supply. The ECB has been running the printing presses much faster than the Fed yet no one is running around screaming that the ECB is devaluing the Euro. Don't even get me started on China which runs the presses at over 20% a year. Now if you be to lay out that the ECB is meeting foreign demand for Euros that's fine but that's what the Fed was doing before. So who's fault is the displace in money bespeak? The article blames protectionism and surely that will cut demand but what else specifically? If all you have to furnish me is Iraq and a dislike of Bush then I will open study desire positions in the dollar and bunco gold and oil in anticipation of January 2009. The only one who has a real small-government agenda (i e not someone who pays lip function but envisioning programs that inevitably bring us even bigger government like Bush did) is Ron Paul and he is not promising a great future for Federal keep back Dollars. I don't think there is anyway de jure way to change state a desire lay on the US Dollar alter now that does not pledge the be clearing house to pay you back in the most worthless create of legal tender the Federal Reserve Notes and their electronic representations; Gresham's Law. ken welton writes:"what we are now getting from this no-tariff costly and far-less-than-free change policy today are determine increases which give go to inflation – meaning the “Fed” will raises arouse rates throughout the economy. This then hits the consumer and families hard and so reduces the very consumption the economy is so dependent upon." this screed is so wrong on so many levels that it would act all day to systematically refute all points however the above snippet at least shows that welton believes that determine increases bring about to inflation i would have thought that change surface the most casual and uninformed visitor to mises org would undergo grasped the central argument of the austrian school viz that inflation is a monetary phenomenon and in our day entirely attributable to the central bank the consumer as the linchpin of the economy shows that welton has a keynesian outlook the austrian school stresses the primacy of production with consumption as consequence a little bit more effort on homework before next affix please! IMHO the Neocon foreign adventurism was motivated by bad economic theory just desire their earlier domestic adventurism when they were still "liberals" back in the 70's. If you go out to the street and ask the average person what caused the 70's stagflation chances are that they will tell you it's because of the oil shock. If that's the understanding what's the corollary cover of action if you are the policy maker faced with the prospect of 70's re-run approve in 2001? Control the oil exporters so they can furnish us another oil surprise. The fallacy of that theory of course is that the 70's oil surprise was not really a political phenomenom but a monetary phenomenom. The supply-siders like Robert Mondell predicted the oil surprise as soon as Nixon abrogated the US obligation on gold transfer for foreign central banks. The "ex-liberals"/"neocons" went on a quixotic advertise to force democracy in Iraq just desire they used to compel "Great Society" in the inner-cities in the late 60's and the decade of 70's. The prove is simply enormous amount of wasted public money for the benefit of a few government rent-seeking high priests. Protectionism won't die because to many if not most populate it seems as though its a job protector. The Lou Dobbs' of the world have a much easier intellectual selling job than do free traders. "Imports give incomes and jobs for foreign workers while domestic production creates jobs and incomes for Americans." How much easier to get the masses nodding in agreement to that assertion than the one that says "free trade creates higher domestic living standards than foreign trade restrictions." The problem is that a large be of populate will only evaluate as far as the obvious direct effects are concerned. When the often more important indirect effects are discussed they can't or in many cases won't follow the argument. The other problem is that many people choose to work backwards from a conclusion that they decide to believe (for whatever cerebrate) to premises that they evaluate will at least partly support their conclusion. Of cover many times the argument is faulty but again they react to adjudge that fact because that would convey they would undergo to give up the conclusion that they have invested so much emotion in wanting to be adjust. Very good points. Alex. populate need to know that a job only exists if it is in demand by a free market place. A "protected job" is little more than a sinicure on a sharec-ropping plantation sure you can work on the plantation and use the tokens to exchange for items at the plantation hold on but the tokens are not worth much outside the plantation because it's not currency outside. Of cover the owner of the plantation gets to decide how much of your fight it takes to exchange for a bar of soap. Sure some may call the share-crop plantation a community but in reality it's little better than slavery for the vast majority of its inhabitants. That's the reality of protectionism. That's the stark reality we need to inform out to the Dobbsians. Whose money is it in our pockets? Our own money that we can use as we gratify or "sinicure job distribution certificates" issued by the government?? I experience it's an old communicate but remember that 50% of the population have below add up intelligence. And if you have ever tried teaching people of add up intelligence you will cognise that that statistic is a very depressing fact. The good news is that only the majority of voters need to be convinced. The add up voter has above average intelligence. But change surface so the explanations must be presented in as attractive a manner as the dramatic calls for protectionism so that the argument for free change can be emotionally accepted. In other words the argument must be packaged exceed and sold with the same kind of enthusiasm as protectionism. Where is the free trader counterpart to Lou Dobbs?! Free Trade is much better than Protectionism since populate do it to help themselves and everyone is better off. There are no losers but when the government gets involved there is only one way for any dress to happen and that is down. No government can improve any outcome in change. Meanwhile trading partners in business be to undergo the morality and scruples not to change with some of the dangerous enemies around the world because if they do the government through the will of the ignorant masses of populate may compel them to forbid trade with countries who are no threat. Therefore such acts will not be in the beat interests of the country since people in government undergo no way of knowing what is best for each free man on an individual basis. However if left unchecked the government through its actions will break trade and commerce in many detrimental ways to the populate. Mainly because a lot of populate in government are ignorant of economics science and history. Yet the beat ones are nothing but conniving crooks and political panderers who will do absolutely anything to get your choose. Nevertheless none of that would matter to Americans if the federal and state governments would destroy all income taxes and regulations and return the dollar to a gold standard. This would provoke business and manufacturing to be in America and foreign companies to locate here. The American populate would have full employment and everyone would be happy. Simple as that. It's really a very simple concept that liberty improves the lives of all populate. It is a real tragedy that we have a government filled with populate who do not understand that liberty is essential to achieving prosperity. Perhaps some have other sinister motives as come up. It is true that there's a tendency for workers'wages to lag somewhat the determine increases brought about by inflation but that tendency is not definitive or absolute. Prices rise--but not uniformly or in any rigid relationship with the incomes/spending patterns of the workers. The one thing that may be considered assured is that the interests of all those whose are savers and whose savings are in money or money-denominated assets will experience to some degree and that likewise those with significant mortgages or other debt positions will undergo a lightening of their burden. If we had to decide industry likely to acquire from inflationarypolicy--that is to put ourselves in the lay of a government trying to "aim" the acquire to be provided by inflation toward favored recipients--I evaluate it'd be a hit-or-miss. "scattershot" proposition (except that in command the financial-services sector would likely be continually favored). Also overlooked in the view of inflation as a conspiracy against identifiable groups is the inescapable fact that the government itself must eventually be affected in like wise and to very much the same extent (and without the inherent flexibility more characteristic of individuals and small entities. In sum the entirety is more the operation of ignorance than malevolence. Don't get any hopes up over Dr. Paul. Regardless of his personal intergrity there simply is not that much support for laissez-faire policies even on the so-called conservative align. In general they're not for government being smaller--just for interfering with a different list of things. In this country popular broad-based (and sadly organized party) give is vital to the introduction and implementation of new policies and Paul ain't got none.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!