posted on July 14, 2002 05:16:41 AM new
I did - feel free to say it's silly.
Somebody smarter than me answerr this -
What can we use for money that will travel freely and can be exchanged pretty widely that we don't have to buy with government regulated dollars at the start point? A way to opt out of the dollar system on a large scale and use our dollars to pay taxs.
[ edited by gravid on Jul 14, 2002 05:59 AM ]
posted on July 14, 2002 06:23:11 AM new
{sigh} As I said, economics classes should be mandatory.
By the way Gravid, in answer to your question on what you could use for money that will travel freely, the answer is - your labor. In fact, that's what indirectly backs the value of the U.S. currency now - the productivity of the nation.
posted on July 14, 2002 06:48:33 AM new
You own your own labor, Gravid. The person or foreign country who buys the fruits of that labor places a value on how much the labor is worth - what they are willing to give you in exchange.
posted on July 14, 2002 07:00:51 AM new
Increased productivity is one of the arguments in favor of free trade.
A simple example:
Your country needs to buy something from a foreign country that is not available to buy in the U.S. (widget A). You are able to produce two items (widget B and widget C) that the other country needs. The foreign country is willing to do a straight swap - widget A for either widget B or widget C.
Now assume that the costs of producing widget B or widget C are identical, except that it takes 5 hours of labor to produce widget B and 10 hours of labor to produce widget C.
It makes sense for the U.S. to focus on producing widget B because they can produce twice as many widget B's in the same time frame than they can if they produce widget C. The U.S. is more productive if it produces widget B - and can obtain more goods and services for the same amount of labor.
Now put currency back into the above mix - increasing productivity means the dollar buys more - which means it is worth more.
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Jul 14, 2002 07:04 AM ]
posted on July 14, 2002 09:36:35 AM new
Most of the economic texts I have seen seem to obscure the basic ideas of ownership and control in favor of jargon filled discussions about the mechanisms of an economy so badly that it is a wonder the student has any way to relate the information to everyday life.
I am trying to understand if the US issues a pledge based on my future work how I have any control over the valuation of that commitment or how the value of the dollars issued relate to the wage I will ask for that labor in the future. Seems rather detached. Indeed what are they pledging? My hours? Can we name a unit? My dollars!! And if I have no control over the pledge of my labors am I more than a slave?
As far as I can see the whole thing hangs on the thread of trust in the government not issuing more dollars than there is wealth to be shared.
posted on July 14, 2002 10:16:38 AM new
Gravid, as I said, you need to take a course. It's too complicated to explain on a chatboard.
For example, increasing the money supply and lowering interest rates encourages businesses to expand and creates new jobs. It also leads to inflation. Economists are constantly trying to balance the positives and negatives as they adjust the money supply.
posted on July 14, 2002 11:14:52 AM new
Thanks for not just saying it is too complicated for you to understand. I am not sure from what I have seen if I would ever believe it even if I did understand it. I have the same problem with theology and they appear disturbingly similar.
I had one of those econ texts that you referred to and the professor followed that dam book, word for word. As a result, I dropped the class after being told by this incompetent teacher that I spent too much time cheerleading and basketweaving.
Where the male chauvenist a-hole came up with that remark, I'll never know.
Anyway, the trick is to find someone with a Phd in Economics who is a good teacher - able to teach a class and answer questions without a book. I'll bet that you will not find one who knows more than you do right now.
posted on July 14, 2002 12:24:42 PM new
It does seem like a profession that would pay the very very least to teach it rather than predict behavior for a government, large business, or even just use the knowledge to invest.
posted on July 14, 2002 02:26:11 PM new
twinsoft You see, this is the kind of anti-semite Nazi racist crap that the Round Table attracts.
Gee I suppose The next time we donate blood
i'm supposed to say if a Jewsih person needs it no ? Get a life ! If there was a person of any persuasion in trouble i'd help.
A person is not goose stepping to the post office just because they think there is too much biased foreign influence in washington d c.
you guys dig up the holocause every time you either want something or have something to cover up.
there is a major difference between anti semitism and not likeing the way things are run around here. if anything I am not the one
shooting little kids cradeled in their unarmed fathers hands. Nor am I running tanks over peoples homes. Just take out the lightning bolts and put in a chai for good luck.
And I did not go out of my way to call you names or criticize your opinion either.
posted on August 2, 2002 08:57:10 PM new
Toward the first of this thread I commented along with others that I had been amazed for some time at the support for some of Bush's plans for confronting terrorism reported in the polls and on TV, since I hear a good deal of concern from conservatives here as well as more liberal friends and acquaintances. This article from today's NYT confirms that disparity.
Backing Bush All the Way, Up to but Not Into Iraq
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Aug. 2 — A lifelong Republican, Tom Meaker worked on Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign in 1964, served as a Marine officer in Vietnam and now owns a small printing company. His vote helped George W. Bush carry Arizona in 2000.
But ask Mr. Meaker about the Bush administration's not-so-veiled hints of plans to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, and party loyalty evaporates in the afternoon heat.
"How many countries are there in the world?" Mr. Meaker said without waiting for an answer. "How many dictators are there? How many terrible places are there? That's the problem. We pick and choose our evils. There are so many places to go, so why are we going to commit ourselves to this one?"
This may be solid Bush country, an upscale Phoenix suburb where the favorite flavor of Republican is conservative and independents lean to the right. But these days, the president's popularity comes with an asterisk that could portend huge political risks for an administration convinced that another military action against Iraq is necessary and worthwhile.
Two dozen interviews over two days here found some people favoring a strike against Mr. Hussein to prevent him from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States and its allies.
But many more argued against an American offensive. Democrats and political independents interviewed were nearly unanimous in their opposition to an invasion, and most Republicans felt the same way. People interviewed also faulted the administration for failing to develop a rationale for mounting an attack against a country the president has said is part of "an axis of evil."
Like Mr. Meaker, Cindy Morrow, manager of a shoe store here, said she was not convinced that attacking Iraq would do much to calm the Middle East or eradicate terrorism. She also expressed fear that a war with Iraq could widen anti-American sentiment and incite further attacks against the United States.
"To me, it's really scary," said Ms. Morrow, a Republican. "War really opens up a can of worms for us. You don't know where it will go next, whether it could lead to a third world war or what. My son is 13, my daughter is 8. It worries me to think about what's ahead for them. I don't know how you solve these things, but there have to be other ways than war, fighting and all this craziness."
Others said they believed that the administration was forging ahead with efforts to depose Mr. Hussein because the first Bush administration failed to do so in 1991.
"I've got to believe that George Bush, like everybody else, is the sum of a lot of parts," Mr. Meaker said of the current president. "He is his father's son, and like any son, he wants to make his dad proud. Sept. 11 gave him the excuse to focus on something."
Joe Ficklin, a Republican who was visiting from Houston, said that while he would consider supporting an attack, the administration had yet to make a compelling case for any military action.
Mr. Ficklin, a sales manager, said he worried that Mr. Bush might proceed with an invasion without "credible evidence" that Mr. Hussein was intending to use his arsenal of weapons against the United States and its allies. He also expressed concern that the administration would act unilaterally, without coalition partners from Europe and Asia.
"For the administration just to say they have weapons capable of mass destruction, that is not enough," Mr. Ficklin said. "We need to be convinced either that Iraqis directly supported the Al Qaeda network or that they intend to use their weapons of mass destruction against us. Maybe we have the intelligence reports that officials will not or cannot divulge, but they are going to have to tell the public that there is a direct threat against us, within our own borders, and not against this embassy or that embassy."
Tim Lindner, a retired program manager for I.B.M. living in Scottsdale, was also troubled by the lack of a strong case against Mr. Hussein. Like many people interviewed, he questioned whether the administration was focused on Mr. Hussein at the expense of other threats. While some of those interviewed wondered why the administration had not taken a harder line with Saudi Arabia, where many of the September hijackers came from, Mr. Lindner, a Republican, used another ruler to make his case.
"How different is he than the guy in Libya?" said Mr. Lindner of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, whose country was implicated in the bombing of a jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, 14 years ago. "He's a known agitator in the world community. We've tolerated him and still do. What I don't understand is, at what point do you cross the line?"
Mr. Lindner was sitting in a coffee shop with a former colleague from I.B.M., Jim Garadis, a Republican from San Jose, Calif., who said he was not convinced that the United States should invade Iraq either.
"What we need is James Bond to go in there and get more information," Mr. Garadis said. "Once we have more information, then we can decide what to do. How can you act with misinformation or no information?"
Monica Pereira, a high school teacher, said she doubted that moderate forces would rise to power if Mr. Hussein were to fall.
"It's better to deal with the devil you know than one you don't know," Ms. Pereira said. "We don't know anything about the others."
While several people said they would back administration plans if more information convinced them the cause was just, only one expressed unconditional support for military action.
"We should have done this a long time ago," said Jan Phares, manager of a jewelry and fine arts shop and a Republican. "I don't want another 9/11, and he's very capable of doing that. I don't think he'd stop for a second if he thought he could. If we had finished the job in Iraq in the beginning, I don't think there would have been a 9/11."
Sipping iced tea in a cafe this morning, Tracy Zeiss, a restaurant owner, came to the same conclusion as her friend Patricia Giordano, an elementary school teacher, but from a different perspective. Ms. Zeiss is a Democrat; Ms. Giordano, a Republican.
"Absolutely not, it's a bad idea," Ms. Zeiss said of military action. "We had a chance in 1991. We didn't finish it, but let's move on. We have other things to do."
Ms. Giordano, who recently moved to Scottsdale from Rutherford, N.J., agreed.
"We have a million other things to think about," Ms. Giordano said. "Why stir this up again? Besides, no matter what we do, nothing is going to change. I don't know what the solution is, but we can't just bomb places and think that's going to take care of everything."
posted on August 3, 2002 02:01:50 PM newJudge Rules U.S. Must Release Detainees' Names
Another small step toward preserving democracy.
"The Court fully understands and appreciates that the first priority of the executive branch in a time of crisis is to ensure the physical security of its citizens," Kessler wrote. "By the same token, the first priority of the judicial branch must be to ensure that our government always operates within the statutory and constitutional constraints which distinguish a democracy from a dictatorship."
Attorney General John Ashcroft has been the most vocal defender of the government's refusal to identify everyone who had been arrested. He has repeatedly said he was prevented from disclosing the names because it would violate the privacy of those arrested.
posted on August 3, 2002 04:37:38 PM new
Yes, it is, Helen. As well as seeing the cool, calm logic of the people juxtaposed to the emotional rantings of the representatives of the administration.
I read another article today which quoted Rumsfield's disappointment in the lull in the battle against terrorism, speaking of need to identify more targets. One wonders if the administration isn't more frightened about the people's dangerous scrutiny of corporate crime and influence and the movement of the executive branch toward totalitarian control of government than any direct or immediate terrorist attacks.
That more people are engaging in independent thought about the issues and more are no longer afraid to speak out is certainly reassuring.
posted on August 3, 2002 05:05:49 PM new
Congress may now pause to see where some of these policies are taking us since their staff and they are now targets of the FBI's probes into leaks.
posted on August 3, 2002 05:18:01 PM newWhat a zoo. LOL!!!
"Shelby said leaders of the inquiry realize they made a mistake in asking the FBI to investigate the leaks.
Here we are investigating the FBI for huge failures and now we're asking them to investigate us," he said".
posted on August 3, 2002 06:48:15 PM new
saabsister,
I suspect that more than a few members on both sides of the aisle are aware of the opportunities for abuse, judging from the statements that have been reported and filmed.
Helen,
If it weren't for leaks the people would know very little about the most important issues in government. Though it's obvious that some information must remain secret, we know from past experiences that much information remains hidden for nefarious political purposes and it's seldom that difficult to distinguish between the two. Perhaps today's most admirable and patriotic citizens are the "deep throats" who keep our officials somewhat responsible and law abiding.
posted on August 3, 2002 07:43:26 PM new
The real question is what Bush has to hide?
Why have Bush and his co-conspirators taken these illegal steps against enemy combatants (soldiers) and resisted Due Process of Law? Why does he skirt the issues surrounding the unlawful detainment and secrecy of these detainees? What does he have to hide? That excuse about how covert intelligence would be revealed doesn't wash when you figure where they got these guys: directly from a battlefield. I mean, did some secret double agent provide information on their capture that America used super-secret technology to pull it off? Nope. These "detainees" were soldiers who surrendered and have been denied the Geneva Convention and other International laws that would help them.
So what does Bush have to hide?
What if it came out just how deep into the Taliban he, Cheney, the GOP and Big Oil have been over there? What if it came out about how Bush threatened to attack Afghanistan two months prior to the 9-11 attack? Wouldn't even the most ardent Bush supporter have to conclude that Bush's incompetence actually was the cause of the 9-11 attack? Wouldn't Bush's House of Cards - all of those legal theories behind the Patriot Act and that other Unconstitutional nonsense - wouldn't they all fall by the wayside? After all, the American people would wake up and ask, "What the *F__K!* is going on here!?!"
I suspect they'd be warming up the Tar while the Feathers were being gathered.
posted on August 3, 2002 09:16:40 PM new
Yes, I think that the strategy is to escape blame, generalizing the incidents surrounding 9/11 to the point that no one will bear any responsibility for the failure to intercept the terrorists. And the so-called leak only gives a little more specific information about one of the numerous clues and warnings that were ignored prior to the attacks. But it also calls up other unpleasant details, such as Ashcroft's decision to reduce the focus on terror and instead devote valuable resources to his own agenda, such as attempting to overturn the Oregon vote of the people for the Death with Dignity Act, a clear assault by the Federal government on the rights of the people and the states. Not to mention that it also served as a signal to any terrorists that our security forces wouldn't be paying much attention.
Economists are constantly trying to balance the positives and negatives as they adjust the money supply.
