You'll find Americans mimicking foreign languages and manners when they have no idea of either, and speak jibberish and exaggerate movements, etc. Here is an Italian who does the same thing... mimicking what he hears in USA music and what he sees in dancing ... what Italians feel when they see USA mannerisms... Listen to the lyrics... a lesson in cross cultural learnings...
Was this the inspiration?
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
USA Conceived in Freedom
The people elect the legislators and thus control what becomes law. If the law if applied to an individual, there is a trial. If the people, represented by the jury, don't like the law, the jury can and does find the defendant not guilty, even if he is clearly guilty of the crime. In this way the people are a final check on the government.
A judge could not find a jury that would convict a marijuana smoker. Just so. But the judge and newspaper do not seem to understand how USA works, or is designed anyway. We can and should withdraw our consent to be governed.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Man Made In His Image
If man is made in the image of God, then does God have two arms, two legs and a torso and head? With a long flowing white beard? Does He look like a baby in a manger?
What if what we perceive is merely the medium of perception, and what aspect that resembles God is our spirit? And as we all, at least poetically, subscribed to a spiritual dimension when we say "free spirits" or when nobel economists say "animal spirits." What confounds us about life is our free will, to the point many people deny such a thing. Calvin and his crew preached predestination, which neatly sidesteps responsibility.
Free will would be rather constrained by a physical being. But my spirit has no limits.
And if God is Love, and the Creator, and not a being with a head and legs, etc... some eternal ultimate power (the description bogs down because the more one describes, necessarily the more one veers off), we might ask where this God is.
Wouldn't the "where" necessarily be "freedom?" If a king resides in a kingdom, does free will reside in freedom? So is there an aspect to the universe called "freedom" which is in all places and all times and the "where" at which God resides?
So is our spirit with its free will, living in freedom, that which images the God who created us in His image? And this body a mere medium of perception? Augustine (or was it Aquinas?) taught our bodies fell farther than our intellects, and I would guess our spirits fell not at all, since they are eternal, one way or another.
The Bible in the old testament is God's conversation with the Jews on how to live. The New Testament is the conversation continued with everyone with Jesus doing the teaching. A few lessons: one is God wants us to be free, "free from" and "free to." In the old testament the Jews will be free if they fallow Gods rules. Free from interference, free to do good while doing well. That went off the rails when the Jews demanded of God to be put under a king. (1 Sam 8).
So Christian theology is God became Man to be that King and save the Jews. That went poorly, but God is Love and he extended salvation to all mankind.
Ever since Jesus, mankind still struggles with the primal force of freedom, free will, free to and free from. Jesus proclaimed the truth will make you free and Himself the Truth. Whole lotta emphasis on free.
Over the centuries there has been a pas-de-deux in which the powers that be try to check the religious powers, at various points in history religion has the upper hand, and then the kings, some combination thereof, with the divine right of the king vying with the divine right of the pope. A very bad argument, because in time, given peoples propensity to be oppressed, we arrived at the divine right of the state.
Max Weber in his work Politics as a Vocation claimed the state is defined as the entity with a monopoly on violence within a given territory. (Talk about divine right!) Now who cares what some cracker from Erfurt thinks? But the problem is such ideas, that flatter that powers that be, get integrated as core curriculum, and the organizing principle. No one who pursues politics, or high government position is unaware of this definition. It is not in any rulebook, but he who makes the rules follows the principle. Thus, Fargo ND is given millions in "anti-terror" (anti-protestor) fighting gear.
Fraud and violence are the bane of freedom. Our economic system can be represented by the dollar bill. it epitomizes both fraud and violence. The fraud is in USA there are 12 private bank organizations, owned by the private banks in their districts (their websites end in .org) and print the currency. These 12 organizations have their headquarters in New York (not Washington) and work with the secretary of the treasury on getting the currency printed right. (Under the US constitution, money is metal and minted by the US Mint. Currency, which was once warehouse certificates for the gold in the bank, is printed by treasury. We are far from there.) The New York headquarters of this private org has a website too, but is ends in .gov.
The fraud is this dollar bill, this currency, is backed by assets. Not so, it is back by counter-party risk, which is not quite the same thing. We are to understand we can withdraw our money at any time, which is patently not true. The violence is if we attempt to pay bills without this currency, or come up with some alternative, we will be imprisoned or worse. We are obliged to accept it for all debts, public AND private. Read it. It is on the upper left of every note.
We were made to be free. We got very close to getting it right in the late 1700s when in both USA and Hong Kong, as well as Switzerland, and San Marino, Andorra, Monte Carlo and various other places began to form free societies. USA has gone off the rails.
God freely chose to become man and show us how to live in freedom. If we are to develop our talents, in no way limited by physical constraints, or at least free to push to the limits of what is possible within this extremely interesting creation, then first our free wills must be in a free economy, with the only constraints being natural law. That's what I think about on Christmas.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Failure and Response
People all over the world are unhappy with their governments, except apparently, in North Korea. In Egypt, women are marching to protest the excesses of the USA-supplied military. In anticipation of coming protests in USA, instead of reform, the United States Government is offering local government weapons and Egypt-grade tools of oppression.
When that Egyptian soldier jumped both feet on the stripped women protester, it was an classic act of "we hate those we harm." Having disrespected the woman, they needed to kill her (although apparently she lives.)
Arming against the people is necessarily harmful, so the process has begun. Us vs them. The hate, and the need to harm those we hate. Protesters have no idea who they are up against.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Confusion Over Interest (Usury) and Profit
So, A. I can make money selling grain, and turn a profit. Buy grain cheap in Iowa and sell it for a profit in New York. This is legitimate.
B. I can lend money to someone to do the above, if I share in the profit or loss, with no guarantees.
C. But I cannot lend money to someone to do the above where I am guaranteed my money back and a percentage above what I lent, for some set time. This is usury, and is forbidden by all major religions (probably all religions) in all instances in all forms, for any time period.
Then why is the practice so widespread? Within all religions there are those who get around the prohibition with semantics.
But let's go back to profit vs. usury. Clearly A is an example of a profit being made, and A is how most business transactions occur (although the money behind the transaction may have a usurious aspect, such as payment by credit card.)
B is very often how deals are constructed, and there is no problem there. The profit is the same as in A, the distribution is decided ahead of time.
So how is C different from A and B? First let's get to definitions. A profit is a gain on a trade. Usury is a gain on the lending of a medium of exchange (money). Since the money lent out is the same as the money that comes back, nothing was traded. There is a word for making money on money, or any other commodity on commodity, where the deal is between someone who will have what was lent out returned (no trade) plus more of the same, the word is usury. Profit applies to trade. If there is no trade, the word for making money on money (or same on same) is called usury. Usury makes clear the deal is not making money on trade, but making money on money.
Shouldn't risk be rewarded? Bankers introduced this idea. Businesspeople never take risks, at least not in the sense commonly held, and certainly not in the sense used in any economics textbooks, not even the Austrian Economics textbooks. Bankers run a very risky business, usury based on fractional reserves, an extremely risky proposition, for their customers. When a bank folds, it is not the banker who loses, it is the bankers' customers. The "con" in con artist is sort for confidence, their game is to get you to have confidence in yourself. The banker pays for textbooks that read "entrepreneurs take risks."
Specifically, bankers can create "money" and lend it out and make money and gain wealth and power, but they cannot create "money" and spend it themselves, or at least it is foolish for them to do so. The "money" bankers create is funny money, which gets out there, earns interest, is returned and destroyed by zeroing out the asset/liability balance sheet. The bankers can then safely spend the interest they "earned." If a banker were to create money and spend it on say an apartment building, he would have to make the interest payments (or no, to himself) but the foolish thing is he would have an asset that very well may have its value go below the loan value, for a loss? Why risk loss when there is so much to be made risk-free lending money at usury? Plus, every banker knows the boom and bust cycle, so they know that at any given time, the economy will bust and they want to have cash, not houses. That is where we are today.
When a business person calculates subjective value, it is based on his knowledge and expectations. He trades based on that knowledge. The trade itself represents no risk.
For whatever the entrepreneur has traded, he already has customers, whether is is a regular flow of buyers for his thermocouplers, or his medical practice. Events such a unexpected snowstorms or being killed by a truck are always a risk in life, but they are universal risks, not specific to trade (although, no doubt, the impact is felt.)
A modern banker makes money on money. He provides no value in the distribution process, but he offers what appears to be a shortcut to prosperity. "If I can only get the finance..." No, son, if you can only get the customers... bankers get us to ask the wrong question.
If I sell something for more than it cost me to make or buy, my customer has benefitted, and I will never see what I sold again. I've earned a profit providing a useful good or service to another who voluntarily bought. That is business, making money on a trade.
A banker creates "money" and expects to have it returned, plus more of the same, from some other supply (one aspect of money is fungibility.) By these means the bankers aggregate power and influence policy makers to pattern the law in a manner that protects the bankers first and foremost.
One of the patterns of law the banker has used his power to effect is, if he makes a bad loan, the taxpayers will have to make up the loss.
So here is the key difference:
In trade, we expect to earn a profit selling what we expect to never see again. Whether our participation is money or time, we in some measure participate in any profit or loss. If money "gets the ball rolling" the money is from savings of a participant, not debt. If someone loaned money into the deal, it was to participate in the profit or loss.
In usury, we expect to gain an increase lending what we expect to see again soon enough. Our participation is strictly money, and we will not participate in any profit or loss. "Money" is what gets the ball rolling, and necessarily it comes come debt, never savings. When the banks lend money into a deal, it is expressly stated they will not participate in the profit or loss.
The key in capitalism is capital-formation, either through savings which is benign, or debt which is malignant. What makes capitalism evil is when bankers introduce usury, and then the evil is exponential when the bankers create "money" through fractional reserve processes, made legal.
Now, he world can function quite well without usury, just as many people learn to love quite well without credit. You just pay for things when you can. It is a different world, but a quite pleasant one.
Monday, December 19, 2011
It Wasn't USA!
If your dog bites me, after you say "sick 'em",
If you are a conservative, you'll say it is my fault, I needed biting.
If you are a liberal, you'll say I've got to want to change if I want to stop being bit.
If you are a moderate, you'll tell me, well, dogs bite.
As the one who has been bit, I think you should not have a dog. You'll all say that I am a radical.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
How USA Works In Egypt
Egypt, which once fed the Roman empire, is one of USA's chief buyers of USA grain. USA taxpayers subsidize exports to Egypt to the point that Egyptian farmers cannot compete, therefore they go broke. Now they can grow wonderful cotton, and make garments and export that back to USA, but that is not permitted by the USA Government. So there is a downward spiral of the Egyptian economy, and now it is said "Egypt cannot feed itself." One in Six Americans are on food stamps, so clearly Americans can no longer feed themselves.
The Egyptians know this, and want to be free of it. But the Egyptian military dogs know their master's voice. If you say "sic 'em" and your poodle bites someone, isn't it your fault? The United States taxpayers, in order that the thugs who get elected to office in USA can have some little excesses, fund the thugs in Egypt who strip and stomp women protesters. You paid for this, and demanded it when you voted for Bush, Obama, McCain, it does not matter who, this women was destined to be stomped by USA-backed Egyptian security when you voted for any of the above. One cannot extricate one's culpability from their vote. Have you demanded impeachment of your murderer-in-chief?
The tear gas used on peaceful demonstrators is supplied by USA taxpayer's money to the uniformed thugs in the street. The gas is called CS gas. Our govt spokesman says the gas is safe, and there is no evidence of misuse of the gas.
Mark Toner: "Well, it’s – again, as I said, these are — this tear gas is approved for export to many countries around the world. It’s used by police forces in many countries around the world including our own..."
Now that is interesting. You mean USA police use CS gas on civilians? Why yes, it is true. It was used on USA civilians at Waco. Oh, and in Vietnam too.
If you look at this story, and see the photo of the woman stripped and beaten by USA supplied soldiers, and you do not like it, then certainly do not look at the video at the end. A USA-backed poodle jumps up in the air and stomps the woman on her chest with both his feet. We pay for this. But you knew this when you voted for McCain or Obama. As long as you can have your welfare check, OWS, or your wars, Tea Party, then all you have to do is hope "the right people get elected." It is a false, self-serving dilemma.
But if you do like seeing women beaten, here is a Seattle Police Officer socking a woman on the jaw. She jaywalked. Of course, he was found justified in doing so. By the police and mayor.
There is no longer any class, any decency, at any level of government in USA. And our poodles learn from the master.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)