Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Hi ‘Hes,’ (another name for ‘heroism’)
I bet you were one very dogged student in school. Thank you, for hanging in there with us; we both enjoy the company.

HP: But why does the dude do it again? That's like cheating! Does the dude tell the first 11 that he's going to do that and lessen the value of their hundred??? I mean, that's blatent crookery!!!!Greed as MT defines it.

NS: The dude does it again because:
1. He’s the only one who is allowed to print notes with “$100” printed on them (i.e. he is the government).
2. He gets away with it, for the most part. People look in their wallets, and see the same $100 bill still there, thus (falsely) believing that they’ve lost nothing. Of course, when they go to the store their $100 just doesn’t get the same respect it formerly did. That loss of purchasing power is called “inflation.”

3. Inflation is a hidden tax intentionally caused by whoever controls the issuance of currency. Like the Bush administration, you can cut ostensible taxes, and look the hero; yet, all the while, increasing the hidden tax.

Yes, “that’s blatant crookery!!!” Crookery performed by Gov alone, since corporations don’t print currency, but rather must expensively hedge currency inflation risks. They too are (even larger) victims of Gov crookery.

HP: That dude wanted the good feeling again. ?

NS: The dude wanted wealth created out of thin air. Who wouldn’t?

HP: I don't fit into a corporate world. I'm freakin toast!

NS: Corporations, like us all, have their sins, but in regards to ‘inflation’ we are talking strictly about a nation’s government, no one else.

”Capital as such is not evil; it is its wrong use that is evil.” (Mohandas Gandhi)
Sleep tight,
NS (Nature’s Sleeping-pill)

NS: My response being that all politically active individuals and orgs do no less.

No less? Let's be a bit more clear on that, old buddy. When our giant corporations are given the Constitutional right to draw from their profit margins as much money as they deem necessary to get 'their man' in office, in anyone's eye is NOT an even playing field.

Yes, a corporation like Exxon-Mobil, who took in $45.22 BILLION in 2008, does not send their CEO, Rex Tillerson, as a voting representative for Exxon into the local voting booth to select what this non-entity needs to continue making fortunes. However, it is that same individual who has the 'power' to spend virtually a non-ending supply of money to literally buy the minds of a voting public to pull the voting lever (old fashioned, I know... it's all Diebold electronics) for their candidate.

If Exxon's candidate was not N(o) S(cratch), a willing and capable person for the seat, imagine this mountain of influence clouding your chances to become the next Congressman/President because Big Dinero is the only thing the public can see in the media and all it's outlets. Poor old No Scratch, with only a pocketful of loose change, but an unlimited amount of know-how and desire to help the people finds his voice a lost whisper in the cacophony of the Corporation furnishing anything and everything to 'get their man' in office... by a landslide.

Now the newly elected Corporate Stooge, let's call him CS (not to be confused with Chicken Sh*t), has a duty and an obligation to represent Exxon-Mobil, the frontman of his election funds. How excited old CS is... now holding a powerful position in our (?) government is gently reminded by E-M, "I need some laws passed, CS... just a few small laws that favor 'me'" Of course, in the glow of his win, CS replies, "Sure! You've helped me and I will help you."

And so the slide continues... Congressman after Congressman, duly elected to uphold the government and our rights and laws, straining to find their own voice to do what needs to be done, but overshadowed by the $1M+ debt that he owes Exxon, etc. thru laws passed in favor of the very Corporations he took the money from.

But, instead of having any bit of guilt for having taken these monies for Corp, etc... the generosity of the highest court in the land, the Wise and Fair (Republican chosen) Justices of the people's Supreme Court of the United States of America, passes a law that also favors the same Corporate Powers that buy off the Congress, et al... Corporate Power now has bought off the highest Court in the Land... and may well have been doing so for many years, now... one by one, as their selection came up during a Republican reign.

Outlandish! you say? You know as well as anyone that everybody has their price, period. And who amongst us has enough money to buy what they want --- you guessed it: Corporate Power.

Okay, Hes'... you feel any better?

"I'll be back.."- the Terminator

Hi M(otives)T(ilted),
You do dearly love to compose catastrophic conceptions, my frantic friend.

MT: When our giant corporations are given the Constitutional right to draw from their profit margins as much money as they deem necessary to get 'their man' in office, in anyone's eye is NOT an even playing field.

NS: No one “gave” them a constitutional right besides the US Constitution’s original first amendment. ‘All’ individuals, whether joined in a collective cause (financial, social, religious, scientific, hobbies, etc.), or standing alone, have the freedom to petition with money, or activist numbers. If it were a women’s organization seeking the right to vote, would you also be against it due to the collective wealth (far exceeding an Exxon), and sheer numbers of 100’s of millions of females? Our nation’s history is always shaped by all such group efforts.

My concern, and that of the Supreme Ct. in this matter is not ‘who’ is seeking to influence politics (justice should be blind to the ‘who’), but rather if everyone should have ‘equal rights under the law.’ You don’t want big business to share your rights. Another may not want the elderly orgs, religious orgs, or the racial orgs, with their numeric and economic power, to influence politics. I too may favor one group (animal rights) over another (such as the KKK), but so what? What I favor far more is legal equality, and I defend the Klan’s right to join with Exxon and AARP to collectively petition for the Klan’s agenda, no matter how much I may abhor what they strive to achieve.

Bear in mind that money is only one form of political power. It can only succeed in swaying, via ads, the electorate against their own interests if those voters are unconcerned with informing themselves on the issues relevant to them. You appear to suggest that the majority fits this characterization, and perhaps you are right. Voltaire was against democracy for that very reason. So, given your, and Voltaire’s, beliefs, are you also against democracy, or just against ‘equal rights’? If the latter, what sort of democracy is it where legal justice removes her blindfold in order to see ‘who’ to favor?

"Unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us." (Woodrow Wilson)

I just love Woodrow Wilson to pieces.
I dig his surrealism
http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/237 ... ississippi

G'day to you and yours, N(ifty)S(hine)! Hope hearth and health are well for you. It's a sunny pleasant morning here in Phar Lepht, with 48 degrees keeping us comfortable.

NS: You do dearly love to compose catastrophic conceptions, my frantic friend.

Catastrophic conceptions? Do you not agree that the huge amounts of money needed to run a campaign leaves the winning candidate with indebtedness to the charitable donators who prop up their candidate of choice? Surely you're not naive enough to think these huge contributions are simply tax write offs or even simple gifts, do you?

A report in U.S. News & World Report [11 Nov 08] shows:

$1.1 million: Average "cost of winning" a seat in the House for 2008 [as of October 15, 2008]
$5.6 million: Average "cost of winning" a seat in the Senate for 2008 [as of October 15, 2008]

This current campaigning will more than likely show increases. But the point being, N(ervously) S(keptical), these candidates do not get these monies without a payback, no more than you, youself, expect a return on your own investments. How often are these paybacks an exchange of laws or repeals on behalf of the donors?

NS: No one “gave” them a constitutional right besides the US Constitution’s original first amendment.

Let's review this Amendment which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is your defense argument: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"? People assemble and call themselves a Corporation? A Union? A Walmart or Exxon-Mobil as a peaceful assembly of people?

Or maybe it's "abridging the freedom of speech" where speech is defined as the right of Corporations. etc., to influence voting to favor their profits at the expense of those who cannot afford that 'luxury'? Clearly a debatable interpretation, and clearly an interpretation by a select majority of (in)Justices who are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which speaks not for Corporations, etc..

But you concluded with "have the freedom to petition" which you interpret including money and activist numbers. The passage "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" follows "the right of people to peacefully assemble." It is written as an extension or an addendum to "assembly" in order to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Redress: (current definition)
1. To set right; remedy or rectify.
2. To make amends to.
3. To make amends for.

Your argument, providing you are using this part of the Amendment, is the "assembly" of people employed by and for Corporate, etc. interests have the freedom to 'remedy' their grievance, which would be to make fair Corporate, etc. financial support to their preferred candidate perfectly legal. Baloney!

I sincerely believe our Founding Fathers meaning and intent of this First Amendment in no way even hints at creating a loophole big enough for Corporate giants to jump into and use the Bill of Rights of and for the people of the United States of America for their personal gain.

N(othing)S(acrosanct): So, given your, and Voltaire’s, beliefs, are you also against democracy, or just against ‘equal rights’?

I support a Democracy of the people, for the people, and of the people... not an Oligarchy for the 1% of the wealthiest, for the 1% of the wealthiest and of the 1% of the wealthiest. Do you, my friend, believe that equal rights should favor those with the biggest profits and the deepest pockets? After all, these huge, wealthy entities spread their wealth around: they buy votes, buy politicians, buy courts and make jobs for the pitiful majority. If it wasn't for them, what type of country would we have???

RE: MT: this money that you claim is not for personal needs/wants is capital for goods and services for others, is still when the day is done and the business doors are locked, a means to attain profit from the investment(s) to pay for their own needs and wants

NS: At that point it ceases to be ‘capital.’ Just as the terms: married and bachelor, apply to the one same man at different times, we cannot use them interchangeably at the same time.

Capital is capital to begin with. But like a coin there are two sides (purposes) : #1) Fixed capital, i.e. buildings, machines, and roads used in the course of production and exchange) and #2) Circulating capital [currency], i.e. food, fuel, money, etc., spent in the course of production and exchange). And like that coin, they are inseparable. This idea that one or the other is comparable to a married man and a bachelor is curious.

Wednesday task time has caught up to me, amigo. Enjoy whatever it is that pleasures you today. You deserve it!

Don't mind me Cecil, I been drinking too much tap water. Makes me impulsive and then I log in with one of my annoying multiple user names.

Maybe related to the topic, one of the things I am hoping to see from Obama's quiet revolution is for him to clean house at the EPA, NIH, FTC, and _____.

Political capital, did you mention that?

George W. Bush's Noble Cause - 'Political Capital'
Aug 29, 2005 ... In the mind of George W. Bush, accumulating political power -- political capital -- is a Noble Cause. Whether America's veterans and ...


"As a matter of fact, in interviews in 1999 with respected journalist and long-time Bush family friend, Mickey Herskowitz, then Governor George Bush stated, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as commander in chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'
www.commondreams.org/views05/0829-22.htm - Cached - Similar

I almost puked I got so nauseous when I read an op-ed piece about Bush's second inaugural address described as "Wilsonian"

Nice posts, Cec and Truck.

We the people are too drunk on our self-proclaimed "best system in the world" (which it is, in many ways), and it's blowhard circus of piped-in right-wing, corporocratic punditry to realize when we're getting screwed by the federal government. (No, not screwed compared to some other places, and not screwed in every single conceivable facet, but screwed nevertheless). And Obama's election frankly means we're going a little less to the right, not over to the "left," for godssakes. But listen to these friggin' "TEA-baggers." Obama proposed to adjust tax brackets a little upward above the $350k/year mark, or something like that. (Did that happen yet?) Well, boo fucking hoo. I weep for those poor working stiffs. How many of these geniuses at their TEA-bagging hullabaloos actually make that kind of coin?

And you're damn right. Politicians are bought. It's only a question of degree in each case.

And speaking of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." Indeed. Tell that to all those fundamentalist zealots running around trying to politicize religion and religion-ize politics. Then again, if you're a Republican zealot, to hell with the Constitution (when "necessary"). Enough!

Okay, rant over.

For now.

Good day to you as well, M(irror)T(error). My mini-saga continues well for me, though it would make a poor soap opera for any but the most comatose. I trust your epic is far more engaging?

MT: Do you not agree that the huge amounts of money needed to run a campaign leaves the winning candidate with indebtedness to the charitable donators who prop up their candidate of choice?

NS: Everything seems ridiculously expensive to me these days. So, you’ll get no argument from me about costs.

MT: Surely you're not naive enough to think these huge contributions are simply tax write offs or even simple gifts, do you?

Ns: I’ll concede to my general naiveté’, but I’ve always assumed that political power, gained by connections, numeric support, or wealth (individual or group), gave one access and influence with those in power, no? When has it ever been otherwise? Your alarm would appear to indicate a recent past naivete’ of your own.

I wonder if you would explain how one would go about isolating our political (present & future) leaders from all access and influence that might lend an inordinate pressure to their otherwise independent opinions?

MT: these candidates do not get these monies without a payback

NS: Of course not. Whoever suggested that such a thing could be possible? Surely, not I! What if I were to swing my union’s, church’s, or any other major org’s, endorsement? Think that wouldn’t gain me a little payback too?

Now tell me, how do you keep that from happening? If you take away my (or my group’s) right to give campaign contributions, will you also forbid me from running my own ads, mailings, billboards, etc.?

MT: People assemble and call themselves a Corporation? A Union? A Walmart or Exxon-Mobil as a peaceful assembly of people?

NS: Yes. What? Did you think an “assembly” was only something held in the school auditorium, or the occasional ad hoc lynching? Even some state legislatures’ lower house is called an “Assembly.”

MT: The passage "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" follows "the right of people to peacefully assemble." It is written as an extension or an addendum to "assembly" in order to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

NS: No, the right to assemble is granted to individuals, as is the right to petition, just as is freedom of speech, and worship. These rights each stand alone, no “addendums”. But, if an individual should join a group (i.e. assemble) this in no way revokes any other of their first amendment rights. That is, they can worship as an assembly, speak freely as an assembly, or even petition as a group effort. Groups/assemblies of individuals can form for any legal purpose, including making a profit.

MT: Your argument, [describes NS ‘s argument] Baloney!

Ns: Brilliant refutation.

MT: Do you, my friend, believe that equal rights should favor those with the biggest profits and the deepest pockets?

NS: Nor, should it ‘disfavor’ anyone for any reason.
This country was founded as a democracy for the propertied class alone, by the propertied class. Did you think wealth, or influence, were more evenly distributed in 1776? Yet, nowhere did the founders see fit to exclude, or limit, groups from exerting their influence. If they had tried, we’d know they were naïve fools, who’ve lost touch with reality.

Why don’t you show them how they should have done it, MT? I can’t wait to hear your improvements.
Adieu dude, me

Good day to you as well, M(irror)T(error). My mini-saga continues well for me, though it would make a poor soap opera for any but the most comatose. I trust your epic is far more engaging?

MT: Do you not agree that the huge amounts of money needed to run a campaign leaves the winning candidate with indebtedness to the charitable donators who prop up their candidate of choice?

NS: Everything seems ridiculously expensive to me these days. So, you’ll get no argument from me about costs.

MT: Surely you're not naive enough to think these huge contributions are simply tax write offs or even simple gifts, do you?

Ns: I’ll concede to my general naiveté’, but I’ve always assumed that political power, gained by connections, numeric support, or wealth (individual or group), gave one access and influence with those in power, no? When has it ever been otherwise? Your alarm would appear to indicate a recent past naivete’ of your own.

I wonder if you would explain how one would go about isolating our political (present & future) leaders from all access and influence that might lend an inordinate pressure to their otherwise independent opinions?

MT: these candidates do not get these monies without a payback

NS: Of course not. Whoever suggested that such a thing could be possible? Surely, not I! What if I were to swing my union’s, church’s, or any other major org’s, endorsement? Think that wouldn’t gain me a little payback too?

Now tell me, how do you keep that from happening? If you take away my (or my group’s) right to give campaign contributions, will you also forbid me from running my own ads, mailings, billboards, etc.?

MT: People assemble and call themselves a Corporation? A Union? A Walmart or Exxon-Mobil as a peaceful assembly of people?

NS: Yes. What? Did you think an “assembly” was only something held in the school auditorium, or the occasional ad hoc lynching? Even some state legislatures’ lower house is called an “Assembly.”

MT: The passage "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" follows "the right of people to peacefully assemble." It is written as an extension or an addendum to "assembly" in order to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

NS: No, the right to assemble is granted to individuals, as is the right to petition, just as is freedom of speech, and worship. These rights each stand alone, no “addendums”. But, if an individual should join a group (i.e. assemble) this in no way revokes any other of their first amendment rights. That is, they can worship as an assembly, speak freely as an assembly, or even petition as a group effort. Groups/assemblies of individuals can form for any legal purpose, including making a profit.

MT: Your argument, [describes NS ‘s argument] Baloney!

Ns: Brilliant refutation.

MT: Do you, my friend, believe that equal rights should favor those with the biggest profits and the deepest pockets?

NS: Nor, should it ‘disfavor’ anyone for any reason.
This country was founded as a democracy for the propertied class alone, by the propertied class. Did you think wealth, or influence, were more evenly distributed in 1776? Yet, nowhere did the founders see fit to exclude, or limit, groups from exerting their influence. If they had tried, we’d know they were naïve fools who’ve lost touch with reality.

Why don’t you show them how they should have done it, MT? I can’t wait to hear your improvements.
Adieu dude, me

Life against death: the psychoanalytical meaning of history - Google Books Result
Norman Oliver Brown - 1985 - Psychology - 366 pages
... x1v The Protestant Era 202 xv Filthy Lucre 234 Rationality and Irrationality; Sacred and Secular; Utility and Uselessness; Owe and Ought; Time Is Money; ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0819561444...

I thought the chapters or Dr. Swift were more interesting than the Chapters on Freud. Nothing worse than a Jew with a protestant work ethic.

Just to be fair and balanced here is a critique of N O Brown from a Creationism website.

http://www.creationism.org/index.htm

Marcuse senses the reductionism which underlies Brown's monism and robs it of all value. Brown in turn frequently distances himself from Marxism and 5 determinedly apolitical in his condemnation of all human action as nothing but satanic and "excrement." Of course his rejection of all social and political action also extends to Western free enterprise capitalism. Many leftist and anarchist pronouncements may be gleaned from his writings (for instance, the final chapter, "Filthy Lucre," of Life Against Death). There 5 a difference here between Christianity, Marxism and Brown: Christianity agrees that Western free enterprise capitalism is not perfect due to man's sinfulness after the fall, but it does not condemn free enterprise as such. On the contrary, it recognizes that man's biblical creation mandate (Genesis 1:28) is To each individual man and woman and very much includes economic creativity one stewardship under God. Marxism denies God, blames free enterprise ("private property") for all man's economic and social ills, and asserts that these can be cured only by the abolition of private enterprise and decision-making in a communist totalitarian state. The failure of this view ought to be clear To everyone from the dismal record of communist societies through history, especially since 1917 Brown denies both God and human action, reducing both to nothing.

http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v13n1p07.htm

G'day, NS. I enjoyed your reply, as usual. I'm hoping your final line wasn't a voice of annoyance as I felt it might have been..? I certainly wouldn't want that.

That be said, I do appreciate the offer you mention anyway, i.e. "Why don’t you show them how they should have done it, MT?"

Given the fact that there were 39 signatures on the U.S. Constitution, I find your question to show all people involved in creating this "the shortest and oldest written constitution still in use by any nation in the world today," to be quite a compliment and indeed, a challenge nobody has ever given me. It would be a service to a country that I love to be able to add but yet one more 'tweak' to it's brevity that may bring but yet one more element of beneficial change to us all. As a reminder, change has been brought to our Constitution with that in mind as reflected in our Bill of Rights and rightly so. Times and ideas bring with it improvements that (hopefully) will bring with it improvements is the people's lives.

A major concern of mine, is of course, what I have been rattling on about throughout many of our discussions - how wealth, in particular, Corporate wealth has the ability to threaten the freedoms guaranteed by our Founding Fathers some 234 years ago. It is not a new concern, I'm sure, but on going subject open to debate within much of our political history. In our current economic climate I see and hear of the angst many have towards the seemingly callousness of many Corporate leaders along with the leadership that has their firm grip on our banking system. In this same economic climate those who find themselves jobless or insecure of their employment, those who have been threaten with loss of homes and even medical insurance. Many of our citizens who feel unjustifiably wronged because of these same systems mentioned, are not the faults of these people who are paying the price. And to make matters even worse is when we hear of these outrageous amounts 'rewarded' for bonuses truly unworthy, being spread around this relatively small circle of people who are clearly out of reach of most Americans.

These complaints are not against wealth or the accumulation of wealth, which is generally viewed as the rewards of hard work and diligence. The clear abuse of wealth which we have been witnessing is a flagrant reminder of who it is that controls the country's purse strings and many, many are uncomfortable with it, understandably so.

So when a country such as ours finds itself financially strapped due primarily from the activities of a certain group of peoples who choose to enhance their profitability despite the needs of a vast majority, there is the consequence of action being taken towards those same entities. As always, to hit the pocketbook is the most powerful message to give anyone on the receiving end to shape up of ship out. Our previous President was unable to ever say no to the American Elite, to stand up against them and support the people of the country. Tax breaks given to this same elite during two wars is unforgivable. So what to do? The same elite has little regard for the government unless it gives them more, despite already having more. There is no doubt an imbalance with the 70% of Americans having to pay for the wealth of those who claim to have worked hard and done the right thing and consequently deserve their wealth. This is ignoring the fact that there are millions of Americans who not only have worked hard, but continue working hard and do the right thing, while their wages of remained stagnant. These same people know they are getting the short end of the proverbial stick, but hang on with a great deal of tenacity to whatever type of job they are given in order to continue doing the right thing, i.e. pay their mortgages, pay their debts, feed their families... all it takes to do for a family. All this goes on under the noses of the 10% who own some 70+% of U.S. assets.

Today, as I sit here at this keyboard, I know there are problems in our country. You know there are problems. We all know there are problems. The basic problem we're having is reaching a mutual agreement to any one of the causes of our problems that will not upset the 'applecart' of someone.

I'm not in favor of any government redistributing America's wealth amongst all its people like it was chicken feed, despite many chickens doing without at the expense of so few. As so many things have changed, (and yes, will continue doing so), so must our (collective) understanding of money is versus what it initially is for. Dramatic? Yes, it is.

The Nation has had debt since it's inception. During our 234 years we have gone from $75.4M in 1791 to $12.5+T in 234 years. During this same amount of time, 234 years, we have grown in population of 2.5M in 1776 to 300M+ in 2010. During the amount of time, America has made ??? Trillions of dollars, at least.

Let us ask ourselves how our government can have been in debt for it's entire existence, and during this 234 years there have been absolute fortunes that dwarfed many throughout the world? How can so few make so much but yet the very country that provides them with the opportunity be in continual debt... debt that the people of the country are told is our debt?

If we do not question money and how all these zeroes accumulated at the end of 1 thru 9, and then we are told due to the market demands that our $1 dollar will cost us $1.25 or some such interest? Remember our country prints these monies for pennies but yet with a 1 or a 100 printed on the paper automatically makes them valued at that amount until we borrow that 1 or 100 dollar bill to feed our children or pay our mortgage... then that 100 dollars is now costing us $125 or more. It's the interest and the demand that makes the value rise. But yet when the value rises the wealthy become wealthier because their money becomes more valuable.

I don't pretend to know all the idiosyncrasies of this abstract thing we call money that we hu'mans have devised during our history. But I do know that money is man made. It is not anything more than paper valued by numbers. And it is this number thing that has gotten out of hand... 12.5 TRILLION DOLLARS! Interest on this debt has "cost us" so far in Fiscal Year 2010: $181,141,669,146.21 or 181.2BILLION DOLLARS! What kind of figures are those, really? What does it all mean? What if global leaders decided unanimously to wipe out ALL DEBT, personal, national and international on January 1, 2011, period. Nobody in the world, no government in the world... owes anyone or any entity any financial debt. Banks and creditors and even the IWMF (International World Monetary Fund) excuses debt for poor countries. I bring that up because these numbers that are owed worldwide are virtually impossible to pay down, much less to pay off. It ain't gonna happen in our lifetime or our great, great grandchildren's lives. We have (globally) created a numerical monster that is eating up our lives and we have created it. Just as we have created it we certainly should be able to kill it.

Just imagine for a minute if we lived in a world where there was no debt... no debt for even 24 hours... what that would do for the people. I'm not saying debt would never rear it's nasty head again. No. But debt that is understandable and manageable... debt that fairly treats other people and nations worldwide. This debt based upon numbers so meaningless and out of reach of anyone, including politicians, has got to change or the world as we know it will devour itself thru debt if the monster is still allowed to feed away at our needs to pay back to who..? Who is the final recipient of all this debt worldwide? All the money borrowed and spent has already done it's job - built, employed, fed and entertained all of us to some degree or another. Paying the debt is only a device of a number system devoted to an economic system that has become outdated and unfair for the vast majority of people.

I hope you guys are saving your terrific essays!

Good M(orning)T(2U2), MT
I’ve enjoyed your posts as well.

MT: I'm hoping your final line wasn't a voice of annoyance as I felt it might have been..?

NS: Not at all. I meant it as a challenge. Your issue with campaign contributions (or is it any undue political influence whatsoever(?)), and my more libertarian opposition to any infringement on political access, seemed to keep things at a too theoretical level. So, I hoped to show you the practical impossibility of your aims. At the Vampire Club meetings, there is a lot of: “there ought to be a law against sunshine.” And, of course, there could be a law enacted if our membership sunk their teeth into the effort, and sucked up to the legislature. But, how do we go about enforcing this ‘sunshine law’? Ah, there’s the rub.

MT: quite a compliment and indeed, a challenge nobody has ever given me.

NS: Yet alas, a challenge you apparently chose to ignore.
I wasn’t necessarily asking you to rewrite the US Constitution, but simply to prohibit all excessive political influence (which, if I’ve read you correctly, means any influence exceeding that of any anonymous, typical, citizen’s). As with my Vampire Club, I’m chiefly looking for your enforcement plan(?).

M(idas)T(ouched): wealth, in particular, Corporate wealth has the ability to threaten the freedoms guaranteed by our Founding Fathers some 234 years ago.

NS: Well, there you and I must stand butt abutted to butt, rather than eye 2 eye. Since I take ‘wealth’ as the cure, rather than the problem, for ‘debt.’

Many banks (and other businesses of all sorts) over-extended recklessly, as did even a larger percentage of American households. That is not the fault of ‘wealth,’ but a flagrant disregard for it. Spending is expending (giving away) wealth. Spend more than you have, and you achieve negative (minus) wealth. If ‘wealth’ were the problem, then falling into debt would have to be the solution. Since ‘debt’ is the actual problem, then ‘wealth’ is the solution. Please pass that fact on to your good buddy Obama, who, unlike Clinton, seems to have taken a Republican POV, much like your own.

MT: I'm not in favor of any government redistributing America's wealth amongst all its people like it was chicken feed,

NS: That’s a relief, I would have guessed otherwise. Is that because you enjoy grousing about the 10% haves v the poor downtrodden 99.9% (I know how you love to exaggerate the stats ;

I just finished an article longing for the return of the Robber Barons. Not because they were as proficient in creating debt, as our illustrious leaders, but for the very opposite reason. Yes, they lived in grand style; much like today’s Larry Ellison, of Oracle fame. But, Mr. Ellison created 49,000 (mostly well paying) jobs. To me, if that means Ellison gets some expensive toys in return…lets do it.

MT: Paying the debt is only a device of a number system devoted to an economic system that has become outdated and unfair for the vast majority of people.

NS: So, you are after an entirely new (utopian?) economic system? You don’t appear to grasp the nature of the present one, so I never took you for an economic theorist. Have you made any effort to flesh out your economic conception’s details? I’d dearly love to see them(?).

I confess to the abject inability to create new economic systems, nor to fully grasp the nature of our present one’s complexity. I’ve taken but a single course in the topic in grad school. I do understand, though, what ‘capital’ is (as compared to ‘wealth’), and ‘debt’ is (as compared to “a device of a number system”). I know these creatures intimately due to my being an active investor in financial markets for decades. Even as I write this I’m watching the quotes stream by (with whisperings of Governmental intrusion).

I’d be writing this post all day if I were to attempt to respond to your numerous economic misstatements. But, your general theme is correct: the little guy IS being unfairly robbed. Not by corporate interests, they are our salvation; but by the national governments who demand a share in your salary/profits, but never share in your lack of employment/losses. The Gov loves for you to blame others (terrorists, corporations, China), from whom they are always saving us with ‘our’ money. ‘Little guy,’ himself, is also to blame for his own (political & economic) carelessness. The natural law: “A fool and his money are soon parted,” will always apply.

Getting long, getting gone. Later, my good friend.

Howdy, Non Sum

NS: But, your general theme is correct: the little guy IS being unfairly robbed. Not by corporate interests, they are our salvation; but by the national governments who demand a share in your salary/profits, but never share in your lack of employment/losses. The Gov loves for you to blame others (terrorists, corporations, China), from whom they are always saving us with ‘our’ money

How you trounce the government for all our ills, especially against the little guys. But it is the same government voted in by Big Business with their boys at the very helm who you are really putting all blame on. The same money that buys the vote and the same money that pays the lobbyists to do their bidding... this is who controls and governs the very Government that you see as those "who demand a share in your salary/profits, but never share in your lack of employment/losses." The same big Business that is trying so hard to prevent Health Care Reform by using their wealth to distort the needs of the those in need thru the Republican Party.

NS: So, you are after an entirely new (utopian?) economic system? You don’t appear to grasp the nature of the present one, so I never took you for an economic theorist. Have you made any effort to flesh out your economic conception’s details? I’d dearly love to see them(?).

I do see the eventual collapse of the present economic system. Times are changing and they are changing beyond the the control of those who maintain a financial system that is failing the needs of a future generations. I don't see that change happening within my own lifetime, but there will be a financial change from the present course it is on. So wipe the sweat from your brow, amigo, your investments will be safe in the long run, at least through your own lifetime.

NS: I confess to the abject inability to create new economic systems, nor to fully grasp the nature of our present one’s complexity.

With your personal confession expressed here, you still comment I "don’t appear to grasp the nature of the present one." Not a solid statement that is rooted in assurance, eh? You admit to not fully grasping the nature of our current financial system and say I also do not grasp the system seems to put us both in the same position regarding our own lack of comprehension.

NS: I know these creatures intimately due to my being an active investor in financial markets for decades. Even as I write this I’m watching the quotes stream by (with whisperings of Governmental intrusion).

Good luck and smart picks for you, N(ickle) S(aved)... and may your treasures multiply.