North American Union to Replace USA by piratenews

I don't know that any westerner irrespective of his political outlook would survive if dumped in the Amazon.

Life has consequences, decisions made good or bad have impact on others and on yourself. The interesting thing to my mind is that this pseudo social Darwinism only works because the underlying society is stable. We have created institutions laws and conventions that produce a specific social environment, one in which some people are successfull and some are not. The ones that succeed do so because they have worked out strategies that work best in that environment. Those same strategies are probably not so usefull in other settings. For example Bill Gates is a giant in high tech business but he probably wouldnt do so well in a knife fight. Of course Bill's money probably protects him from ever needing to find that out.

Now here's my thought one I know you won't agree with. Society is a dirty deal between individuals. In essence it says that if you follow the groups laws and customs those laws will also protect you. It says that you will benefit more from being with the group then being against it. It is a stroke of human genius because it allowed groups to form and cooperate that were bigger than just close kin. That was important because physically we aren't really great and needed the safety of numbers.

Now inequality has always existed. There has always been those that do better than others. There has always been the industrous and the lazy. There has been the smart and the greedy but societies have always hung together as long as the system didn't leave a significant part of the population to starve. Like teh American founders said people will endure an awfull lot before they overthrow a system that has been long established. Everyone is conservative when you get down to it.

Now if real life social Darwinism resulted in poor people starving to death that society would fail. That's what happened in revolutionary France, in Russia and in Germany. One poor person might starve in a gutter, but 1000 will riot.

Now for the part you will disagree with. As you know the primative capitalism of the industrial revolution wasn't even slightly fair, there was a huge gap between rich and poor and folks did riot and there was bloodshed. Now interestingly this didn't bring about any major changes, I would argue because the rioting was largely unsuccessfull. By the early 1900's things had started to change and by the 1930's we had communists and fascists everywhere. Now it was at this time that the western societies came up with the concept of welfare, not in the 1850's when things were if anything worse but in the 1930's. Why? Because the people that ran those societies looked at Russia and Germany and understood that a poor starving underclass were foot soldiers for extremists. Welfare is anti-revolution insurance. It is a way to keep the poor dependent on a system that doesnt work for them in order to ensure their loyalty to it. It's like Rome buying off the barbarians so as to keep doing business as usual.

So folks can pursue social darwinism by all means but remember that a significant change in the "social environment" may follow that brings unexpected results.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 28, 2006 4:06 PM

1) What you said doesn't counter what I said. Income went up spending flattened out. Therefore the goverment collected more then it spent, that equals surplus.

2) I had folks trying to sell me on various lame ass technology "investments" as early as 1996 so I don't know why you limit things to 98-2000.

3) You don't deal with 3 because that's a no brainer.

No government creates a good economy, this one didn't Clinton didn't, all they can do is try to set up favorable conditions. If things work out, if events work in your favour then you get a good economy with no need for "voodoo" of any kind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 28, 2006 4:10 PM

Fletch:
Where the F*ck did you think I was an advocate of social Darwinism? That's about as far from what I think as is physically or mentally possible. I think I clearly stated that humans operate best where we circumnavigate survival of the fittest (i.e. Darwinism) as possible.

The strong should help and protect the weak, as a matter of history that is what has allowed our species to survive. Working against our only strength ensures our downfall.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 28, 2006 4:12 PM

I dont

The piece I thought you'd disagree with is welfare as anti revolution insurance.

I reread and I appologise. I will edit for clarity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 28, 2006 4:16 PM

ahh.

Perhaps, but then home ownership for all is also a way of keeping us all working, if you've got bills to pay, and a mortgage to satisfy who has time to devote to politics.

Who cares what happens in Iraq, I've got bills to pay...

Welfare is better than none, whatever the compulsion behind the instigation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 28, 2006 4:25 PM

Ah, finally understand why Mrs T sold off all those council houses eh? That house is equity and when you bought it you became personally involved with protecting that equity. Now issues that would impact your morgage rate are more important to you than they were if you were just renting. You just became a proto-capitalist

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 28, 2006 4:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Ah, finally understand why Mrs T sold off all those council houses eh?

No I know why she did...

Just like I know why she didn't stop the Falklands war before it started

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 28, 2006 5:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch2,

Shall I come up with a nice little name for you, too?

You say

1) Income went up spending flattened out. Do you mean to say spending didn't keep up with inflation? Here are real figures for US government spending and inflation, (inflation courtesy of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
http://www.bls.gov/home.htm
1992 1,381.60
1993 1,409.50 (spending) 2.02% (inflation) 2.99%
1994 1,461.90 (spending) 3.72% (inflation) 2.56%
1995 1,515.90 (spending) 3.69% (inflation) 2.83%
1996 1,560.60 (spending) 2.95% (inflation) 2.95%
1997 1,601.30 (spending) 2.61% (inflation) 2.29%
1998 1,652.70 (spending) 3.21% (inflation) 1.56%
1999 1,702.00 (spending) 2.98% (inflation) 2.21%
2000 1,789.20 (spending) 5.12% (inflation) 3.36%

So I compounded spending and inflation each. Gosh, I hope you know what compounding means. Compounded, spending went up 25.0% while inflation went up 18.2% And yet, despite government spending outstripping inflation by 33%, the economy roared on. Hmmmm .... how do you account for that??

As for income ... yes, it did go up, but not due to the internet bubble AS YOU CLAIM, but because of the tax increases ON INVESTMENT EARNINGS passed in 1993. That BIG tax increase the WashPost was so lathered about.

2) Just because there were worthless invetsments in 1996, 1995, 1994 1993 ... doesn't mean it was part of the bubble, lame-brain. Wothless computer/communications/internet related stocks whave been available at any time since their offer. The BUBBLE was IPO speculation fever. The broadest timeline for the bubble comes from Wikipedia 1997 - 2001. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_bubble#Lead_up_to_the_bubble. That still leaves 1993 - 1997 for you to explain. How DID the US government increase its income without the internet bubble?

3) No, YOU don't deal with 3. You state lies, not backed up by any information. Prove yourself, or be known as a liar. As a bonus, if you don't answer my post with INFORMATION, you'll get a pet nick-name from me.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 28, 2006 5:25 PM

My word, someone is upset.

well let me see.

You say that the government made money on capital gains, which is what I said. So where is the disagreement? Tech stocks and IPO's rose during that timeframe. There was increased trading the government got a cut of. Hence more revenue. That you decide to set that bubble to 1998-2000 is your arbitary decision.

Government spending was limited, as can be seen from your own figures. How do you think you get a surplus? You raise more through taxes than you spend. Which is what happened here.

Three is self evident.

I don't lie, I may get figures wrong because I remember them wrong but the thrust of the argument is correct and honest from my knowledge.

A lie is information intended to deceive and since that was not my intention the worse you can say about me is that I am mistaken.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 28, 2006 8:43 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You know, if you didn't claim to come from England, I'd say you were Geezer. And Geezer hasn't been around much, largely because people have come to dismiss him and everything he says. You've got the same set of lies, the same repertoire of disinformation techniques, the same pretense of cleverness, and the same snaky personality. Geezer disappears, Fletch2 shows up. And the other way around. Hmmmmm ....

No, not upset.

Now, let's get back to what you really said, and not what you are trying to claim you said, and let's argue the points you really made:

1) Government spending stagnated -- a byproduct of having Republicans in the Congress and a Democrat in the Whitehouse, in real terms Gov spending didn't rise.

1) I have already proved Federal spending outpaced inflation. In real figures, government spending did rise. Therefore, your claim 1) is false.

2) The government got a cut of the increased market activity associated with the internet bubble.
Taxation of capital gains and then the income those gains generated were both taxed and went into government funds.

2) Yes, that it is true that government got a cut of the capital gains made during the dot com bubble. HOWEVER, market value increased steadily during the entire Clinton administration and not just during the internet bubble. And as all modern US administrations have taxed capital gains, to say that capital gains taxes generate federal money is, well, lame, don't you think? Furthermore, you fail to prove capital gains generate income. You also claim some artificially large but unstated time period for the dot-com bubble in order to boost your non-existent case. But you will never find, or be able to document, any evidence to show the bubble extended to 1996. Therefore, your attempt to extend the bubble into the early Clinton administration is false.

So, claim 2) where you attempt to imply the internet bubble was responsible for generating the government surplus is false. Further, your claim that surplus 'trickles down' is unproven.

3) There was really no international competition for the US.
German (sic) was still in the doldrums paying for reunification and that kept most of Europe down,
the Asian market collapse effected (sic) the pacific rim and China wasn't as big a player.
It's easy to win the game if you are the only team playing.

3) See below. The second number is the year to year change in percent of the various stock markets. (Not all years are available for each market.)

Between 1991 and 1997 the Hang Seng outperformed the DJIA by 100%. And the 1997 Asian meltdown does not thus explain the relatively poor performance of the DJIA from 1991 to 1997. Between 1991 and 2001 the Hang Seng 245%, DAX (Germany) 206% and CAC (France) 192% all significantly outperformed the DJIA 181%.

So your claim that the DJIA did 'so well' because Europe was staggering under the East German load is a disproven.

Finally, your claim that the stock market was the only game in town is disproven. Other markets significantly outperformed the DJIA.

DJIA (US)
2001 -7.104
2000 -6.168
1999 25.221
1998 16.099
1997 22.641
1996 26.014
1995 33.452
1994 2.14
1993 13.722
1992 4.174
1991 20.32

CDAX (Germany)
1998 12.32
1997 40.83
1996 22.14
1995 4.75
1994 -5.83
1993 44.56
1992 -6.39

DAX 30 (Germany)
2001 -19.795
2000 -7.538
1999 39.096
1998 18.419
1997 46.235
1996 28.165
1995 6.992
1994 -7.063
1993 46.702
1992 -2.085
1991 12.859

FTSE100 (UK)
2001 -16.153
2000 -10.212
1999 17.808
1998 14.548
1997 24.693
1996 11.634
1995 20.349
1994 -10.324
1993 20.091
1992 14.175
1991 16.31

CAC (France)
2001 -21.967
2000 -0.535
1999 51.124
1998 31.47
1997 29.503
1996 23.702
1995 -0.489
1994 -17.062
1993 22.091
1992 5.216
1991 17.011

Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
2001 2.42
2000 -16.334
1999 38.592
1998 -1.398
1997 -51.982
1996 24.397
1995 2.467

KOSPI (Korea)
2001 37.285
2000 -51.277
1999 130.02
1998 54.84
1997 -38.26
1996 -32.077
1995 -11.893
1994 18.006
1993 29.131
1992 8.539
1991 -10.416

Hang Seng (Hong Kong)
2000 -11.004
1999 68.801
1998 -6.288
1997 -20.285
1996 33.535
1995 22.981
1994 -31.101
1993 115.667
1992 28.276
1991 42.106

Straits Times (Singapore)
2001 -15.737
2000 -22.292
1999 78.037
1998 -8.96
1997 -30.991
1996 -2.193
1995 1.201
1994 -7.672
1993 59.125
1992 3.209
1991 27.901

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 29, 2006 6:52 AM

HAYWARD79

"I read The Road to Serfdom. Did you? If not, it's here: http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm

Some of the more interesting quotes are:"

Actually, it's pretty clear that you have not read it, since you've taken one-sentence quotes completely out of context and commented on them. When someone does this, they are bull-shitting. Not only did you take the quotes out of context, but you have spectacularly missed the point of Hayek's arguments with respect to economics.

Don't pretend to read stuff that you haven't actually read. Pulling quotes off of the Internet is not a sufficient substitute. You should be old enough to know better (assuming you're older than 16, which is unclear at this stage).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 29, 2006 6:58 AM

HAYWARD79

"Between 1991 and 1997 the Hang Seng outperformed the DJIA by 100%. And the 1997 Asian meltdown does not thus explain the relatively poor performance of the DJIA from 1991 to 1997. Between 1991 and 2001 the Hang Seng 245%, DAX (Germany) 206% and CAC (France) 192% all significantly outperformed the DJIA 181%.

So your claim that the DJIA did 'so well' because Europe was staggering under the East German load is a disproven.

Finally, your claim that the stock market was the only game in town is disproven. Other markets significantly outperformed the DJIA."

Rue, you cannot be this uneducated. It's seriously impossible. Growth RATES only matter when they are compared to the OVERALL SIZE of what they are measured against, i.e. a larger economy or market is not expected to grow as fast as a smaller economy or market because it has less room to grow. This is very basic Econ 101, and disappointingly, you haven't learned it. Whenever you attempt to analyze economic statistics you reveal your ignorance. Please do yourself a favor and take a course or something, because you're starting to make a fool of yourself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Wayward,

Yes I did read it. It was clearly directed toward Russia/ USSR. The one difference between it and the current US kleptocracy is: the Russian economy was formally put under overt government control. (The US has an oligarchy where the rich and powerful control the government - and thus the laws and economy - through other means.)

But you claim to be against everything in the screed. Bush's kleptocracy is guilty of many things. Why aren't you against THOSE things they do?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Wayward,

You cannot be so seriously uneducated. In this day and age of liquid international capital, growth RATES are the only thing that matters to full-time investors. In reality, the sheer VOLUME of liquid international capital puts small markets, currencies and economies at risk. (That was the driving force for the Indonesian crash which triggered the 1997 East Asian crisis.) Please take a course, or read a business page or something, because you display your ignorance in everything you post.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 7:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hayward79:
Actually, it's pretty clear that you have not read it, since you've taken one-sentence quotes completely out of context and commented on them. When someone does this, they are bull-shitting. Not only did you take the quotes out of context, but you have spectacularly missed the point of Hayek's arguments with respect to economics.

Don't pretend to read stuff that you haven't actually read. Pulling quotes off of the Internet is not a sufficient substitute. You should be old enough to know better (assuming you're older than 16, which is unclear at this stage).

Your the only one proving you haven't read it.

So stop saying you've read things when you haven't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 5:27 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Act of Civil War Video:

CNN Lou Dobbs reports Bush's North American Union has overthrown USA

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 7, 2006 5:31 PM