Pelosi is Brilliant

Thank you ,mate.

Was Mr. Reagan a democrat before he jumped ship to run for president?

Cheers,

Jim

 

Hey, that's the way I had it figured as well. Her and her buddies Harry, Barney, Teddy, etc. all seem to suffer from a similar illness.

 

President Reagan gave speeches that actually had meaningful content and sounded good to boot. I do miss him right now!

 

He was a Democrat at one time, but became a Republican in 1962, long before even becoming governor of California. He was once a fan of FDR and The New Deal.

 

Wrong!
These are the symptoms of recession, not the cause.

The cause of recessions has to do with an economy built on a fiat currency and debt and its failure to make minor and relatively easy economic adjustments and corrections to realistically operating free enterprise market (as opposed to 'capitalistic' or its counterpart .... socialistic market).

*#* If we had 'free enterprise' the normal processes of industry, consumer demand and consumption, production, labor etc would be self adjusting. Growth is steadier and responsive to the availability of labor, labor's response to employment opportunities, the availability of natural resources, and the decisions to turn those resources into goods which are useful-needed- or desired, and accoumpanying services which are supportive of the needs for banking, labor, marketing, consumer protection and regulation, in order for the economy to thrive. Free enterprise has the narrowest of regulations as the consumer, the laborer, the business man are all interdependant upon how well each segment of the economy is doing: There is the possibility and opportunity for ownership of property and for risk exposure, for gradual accumulation of wealth: But the normal interaction of free enterprise with the elements which make it up, has a natural tendancy to balance the excesses where ever they might appear in a self correcting way without government interference. Some may get wealthy, but wealth and power are more loosely connected and less interdependant: Wealth does not get disproportionantly exaggerated relative to the economy which both serves it and profits by it.

*#* But as it is, we don't have 'free enterprise'. What we do have/ or did have, was a 'capitalistic' economy. In this system, people are still free to do what they want with their money: They may own property or business; they can invest in other's endeavors, they can purchase products for consumption. But, the emphasis is on growth, expansion, controlling the market, profits, ownership, investments. Innovation has its upside when the inventor finds someone interested in compensating or marketing his ideas, and its downside, when inventions are discovered and bought out to silence them because of the threat it presents to an already existant market.

Those who are smaller and in competition request government help against those who are larger (make that 'more capitalized') and capable of manipulating the markets to put them out of business: Controls enter the picture: Laws pass intended to protect small businesses and level the field of competition (i.e. percentage of government contracts are supposed to go to small businesses... which are defined by law). But, just like the small man can petition for laws.... so can the big man..... but big business has the added clout of paid lobbyist, manipulation of campaign contributions, and its ability to foster assistance and influence either for or in opposition to those pursuing public office. So regulations, subsidies, price controls, taxes and tax credits, etc. can work for or against business, but it all comes down to government interventions which interfere with the normal and corrective processes of free enterprise. The 'unaffected' or unknowing public is seldom informed regarding the decision making processes regarding these laws...... and when informed, it is seldom with unbiased facts which depend upon a foundation of knowledge in which the public has been an active participant and is in possession: so opinion is expressed with biased presentation of facts---- the public is dumbed down by the lack of information, their dependance on opinions 'from experts' and the jargon of 'shop' terms which isolate and cloak information from all but those inside 'the shop' or those astute enough to inquire and get informed.

So, now in a nut shell, I've presented the argument that government interferance with business through regulations and controls prevents both individuals and business from making independant decisions based on the elements of economy served.... but instead as a response to the economics balances and interferance thrown by the government.

And, just like we envision government as our friend..... when it is protecting us from criminal elements, but as an enemy when it is choosing for us the rights of self-determination and expression whether by taxes, or penalizing us for not wearing seat belts, or failure to cut our lawn, or reading our email because of a politicallly sensitive word/trigger, etc. ................. so it is that businesses, which promote employment and are dependant on economy, view government as a friend when the balance favors their share of the market and profits and as a fiend when government regulates them into directions which are against their goals or find ways of manipulating around govenment control.

Still, under capitalism, people have a right to ownership of property, however such ownership may be regulated and controlled by government and taxed in its use, and people have the freedom for decisions regarding education, employment, the use of their money, and the investment thereof, and business get lawyers or buy influence, or manipulate around government controls, or use controls to eliminate the competition, or leave the country: But, bottom line, business protects its money and profits and its contributors whether investors or benevolent politicians. Business has little interest in either protecting the consumer when there is no competition, or the laborer when the labor market is heavily unemployed. Rich do get richer and the average person......... does the best he can..... while both tend to look to government as a combination of friend and foe, regarding their own particular interest. The economic imbalances gets larger in its excesses of gambling for profits and manipulating power and regulations until the processes of correction become extrordinary and painfully hard for all elements of the economy.

*#* Under socialism, the ability to gain from one's own industry (labor), and wisdom (a combination of knowledge, understanding, and good choices), and that of industry and business, is limited by government interferance and attempts to exercise its idea of balance and protections........ while maintaining a 'conflict of interest' regarding its own power and the revenues it gains. Furthermore, as government increases its outreach to persons 'perceived to be in need', it does so with criteria intended to be fair... but which some people always manage to find ways to work it to their advantage, while others find that no-matter how much their need (whether temporary or long-term) they just don't qualify or the cost of qualification for help requires them to give up what self determination and resources which they had left. Under socialism, one may own property or business, but the state controls and regulates it all for its own self interest and whatever it needs: The incentive for gain by hard work and good decisions and investment is lost to the average individual as they and their productivity (sometimes even education, social status, where and what they can do or 'labor at') is taxed, controlled or directed by the state in its own self interest. Socialism, like other governmental and economic types is a dynamic and changing process of increasing governmental controls in an attempt to promote a collective satisfaction or balance among the elements of economy, so generalizations can only be made regarding its structure like that of 'capitalism', which in one country certain characteristics are dominant and in another a variance is observed.
But the main characteristic of socialism is that property may be privately owned.... but the rights to use, growth, and/or disposal are more controlled by regulations. Business may have its limited independance, but it, too, finds itself more limited by restrictions of growth or profit based upon how the government perceives needs in the economy and extracts from individuals and businesses the revenues it needs to disperse to those who neither benefit from free exercise of choice as individuals or as business people. The rich become the powerful behind those who are the figureheads of power, and everyone else is relegated to a somewhat accepting a mediocre existance which seldom has opportunity or hope for increase of wealth or status or charitable expression.

 

No! I can't say that I see that at all: Redistribution of wealth is already taking place and has been taking place in the third world countries during the last half century. (Where have you been not to see this?) The biggest way in which it has taken place is in the form of 'foreign aid and loans' to developing nations: A country with wealth offers its backing for 'certain' needed developments in a 3rd world country: They focus on needs which are essential to the health of that nation and its people. It may be building roads, providing medical care, clean water, etc. But to get these funds certain parties enter into play; the bankers who say who and for what they will loan money; the govenment which determines for what and on what schedule the money will be supplied and the criteria for qualifying and the restrictions; and the business interest which are also backing the encouragement for the loans and are promised contracts and investment opportunities within those developing nations. As their economy gets skewed as the result of out side influences, internally civil unrest may take place. The poor, who one time lived off the land and sold to the tribal and town markets, now find they can't compete with the industrialized markets for production of similar goods and produce at market prices. Folks leave countrysides for the promise or hope of better paying jobs were work and industry is centralized... and some find it in either industry or spinoff service industries which supports industry. The economies of the 3rd world grows too slowly to pay off some of the 'aid' which are tied to obligations. So the backers of this 'aid' come expecting their pound of flesh.... but the 3rd world country has debts and little revenue to satisfy the obligations. So the resources of the country are evaluated and the dollar signs roll over in the minds of the business/capitalist, whcih in turn make offers which cannot be refused to the faultering government to purchase or recieve rights to resources (choice farm acerage, timberland, oil, mineral, precious metals/ore, etc.) as repayment of defauts or loans. The most precious wealth of the nation...... its people..... are 'capitalized' as human resources and low cost labor and find employment in industry which is foreign owned and controlled: By doing so, they fare better than their counterpart and countrymen who are still independant and self-determing and living off what land was left to them but now forced to compete in an economy which offers but charges more for goods than it is willing to pay in return for their what they can provide in return.

There has been a redistribution of wealth in such instance.... even when socialism extends to start providing certain necessities without charge. The wealth is disproportionate in going to those who are rich behind the power and it leaves the people less capable of competing for their share than ever before.

 

Don't you understand that it is the exchange of earned wealth for produced goods and services that has built this nation? Don't you understand that by keeping that system as the core of our financial policy that it will be sustained?