President Obama has encouraged all of us to 'get involved', and to express our ideas, opinions and priorities directly to him and his staff; he intends to employ new internet technologies to make this feasible. However, in the most recent interactive effort at "citizensbriefingbook.change.gov" site, it was very clear to information professionals that the implementation was seriously flawed; we posted our suggestions and do hope that he can employ some skilled technologists now (computer software designers, statisticians, and human-factors/polling experts).
Such a properly re-designed website would be a great informal mechanism for government to be more aware of and responsive to 'we the people'. Regular statistical summaries of results (and responses by officials) should be quickly posted for us to see.
Beyond that, I want to propose that a more formal mechanism be instituted, somewhat along the lines of 'popular referendums' at the State level. It would be administered by a cooperative legislative-executive 'Popular Referendum Agency' setup in a manner to assure reasonable independence from political pressure and resistance to fraud. Voters would be US citizens who choose to qualify and be registered. Presentation of issues and voting could then be implemented at a secure internet site.
Of course, for some initial development period, the results would be limited in force (advisory); but after the mechanism design and implementation are tested and confirmed, there should be some levels of 'legally-binding', depending on the type of issue addressed. The process would be something like this:
1) with some input from the informal mechanism (website, pollsters, senior executive officials and legislators), a 'votable-referendum-issue' statement would be formulated. This statement would be composed of something like:
(a) definition: a brief description of the problem issue
(b) motivation: why this issue is considered important
(c) facts: a balanced, moderately-detailed analysis of the known facts of the issue
(d) acts: a list of proposed solutions, with brief expert pro & con commentary
(e) 'The Proposed Ballot' composed of:
(1) Importance Measure ('vote' of 0..10, where 0 is least important).
(2) for each item in (d) solution-list ('vote' of 'confidence in' = 0..10).
(3) Objections: free-form text whereby voter can briefly express objections/suggestions, especially if he feels the entire formulation of the issue is misleading.
(x) Legal-Binding-Level-Category: {Advisory-Only; Mandate Executive-Branch Action; Mandate Legislative-Branch Consideration; Legally-Binding-subject-to-Presidential-veto; ... }
I'd like to illustrate with some referendum-worthy examples (obviously biased to my personal priorities):
[[1]] The Iraq war. Solutions: [1] Immediate termination by unilateral withdrawal of US forces. [2] Unconditional gradual withdrawal during max 1 year [3] Conditional withdrawal measured by level of enemy attacks vs.proven ability of current government. [4] Long-term occupation with consent of current government. ...
[[2]] The Afghan war. Solutions: [1] Immediate termination by unilateral withdrawal of US forces. [2] escalate by increasing military to a max of 3x current level ...
[[3]] Banking Financial Crisis. Solutions: [1] provide 'bail-out' funding to selected large banks identifed as 'too big to fail', to a max of $X trillion [2] temporarily nationalize all banks identified as insolvent [3] create an alternate banking system dominated by a non-private (US Treasury) National Central Bank, which will assume the assets and duties of the current Federal Reserve and all identified insolvent private banks.
[[4]] Federal Funding Crisis. Solutions: [1] continue using traditional methods. [2] Employ only 'money-creation' by a National Central Bank, which will eliminate the need for federal taxes of any kind, nor interest-bearing Treasury Debt.
[[[[[ and all the other issues listed in my blogs... ]]]]]]
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
War is Just Plain Wrong
No plan for recovery from our economic crisis will succeed while we are still under the moral and financial debt of these wars we ourselves started... Are all we who have chosen our own personal comfort over the profound suffering of distant foreigners-- truly guiltless ? 'innocent victims' of terrorism? not responsible?
We can and should take responsibility for...
A Decent Foreign Policy, that is consistent with our domestic democratic and peaceful traditions, that is a balance of the ideal and the pragmatic, that includes an appropriate degree of humility for our global superpower status, and that communicates respect for and cooperation with those who share our most fundamental values despite differences -- and,
unequivocably rejecting pre-emptive/retaliatory warfare.
>Quickly end the wars that we have started ; they are morally wrong, of no benefit, and too expensive in terms of dollars, loss of good will in the world and incalculable human suffering.
>No plan for recovery from our economic crisis will succeed while we are still under the moral and financial debt of these wars. A peaceful prosperity is the way to National Security.
>Learn from History. Example, Afghanistan: Russia's invasion in the 1980s was met by USA covert aid to the Afghan opposition, resulting in the devastating collapse of the Russian Soviet Union; we can humbly consider that the reverse scenario could occur now, to our great detriment and to Russia's great amusement.
>Withdraw US Military presence from all foreign locations; end military supply sales/grants to all foreign buyers/beneficiaries.
>Re-design US Military for primary domestic-defense needs; eliminate the vast excesses and duplications; merge ‘Department of Homeland Security’ with ‘Department of Defense’.
>Re-establish real Constitutional Congressional restraints on Presidential military adventures.
>Treat so-called ‘terrorists’ as criminal cartels; deal with them within the existing and enhanced international criminal justice system, the U.N., and peace-keeping organizations and treaties.
>Reduce our enemies by ending biased support of certain controversial nations (such as Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia/Kuwait, Israel): adopt equitable neutrality.
>Reduce our temptation to war by eliminating excessive foreign resource dependence.
Americans in general are most naive in their belief about their country's 'good intentions'; as antidote, we recommend 2 books with similar titles, both by patriots who still care:
"Rogue Nation" by Clyde V. Prestowitz
"Rogue Nation" by Peter Scowen
For a reality-check on the true cost of war to ourselves (as the perpetrators):
(CMN Radio Interview: Doug Rokke: Uranium Weapons, Troop Illness and Death)
For examples of how a 'national crisis' may be fabricated to justify war:
(Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Vietnam)
(US World Trade Center destruction, aka "9/11 Terror Attack")
(Iraq War alleged rationale)
There is a strong connection between Foreign Policy and Domestic Economy; we're not immune from the cause-and-effect. Beginning with the 'military-industrial complex' warned against by President Eisenhower, the progressive expansion of overt war, and especially 'CIA black-budget' covert aggressive policies, has systematically corrupted our democracy. Devotion to war can never be compatible with a free and open society; as more injustice is tolerated, belief in goodness cannot survive, cynicism prevails, atrocities are committed under cover of secrecy, and the heart of the nation dies. In the end, the Land of the Free becomes by stealth, imperceptibly, the Home of the Slave.
Every citizen is complicit here; those who know it is wrong, yet opt for personal comfort, who fail to speak out, who deny and surrender their power, are all the more culpable.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note to all you patriot Christians-- Galatians 6:7-10
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary. So then, while we have opportunity,
let us do good to all men.... AMEN.
We can and should take responsibility for...
A Decent Foreign Policy, that is consistent with our domestic democratic and peaceful traditions, that is a balance of the ideal and the pragmatic, that includes an appropriate degree of humility for our global superpower status, and that communicates respect for and cooperation with those who share our most fundamental values despite differences -- and,
unequivocably rejecting pre-emptive/retaliatory warfare.
>Quickly end the wars that we have started ; they are morally wrong, of no benefit, and too expensive in terms of dollars, loss of good will in the world and incalculable human suffering.
>No plan for recovery from our economic crisis will succeed while we are still under the moral and financial debt of these wars. A peaceful prosperity is the way to National Security.
>Learn from History. Example, Afghanistan: Russia's invasion in the 1980s was met by USA covert aid to the Afghan opposition, resulting in the devastating collapse of the Russian Soviet Union; we can humbly consider that the reverse scenario could occur now, to our great detriment and to Russia's great amusement.
>Withdraw US Military presence from all foreign locations; end military supply sales/grants to all foreign buyers/beneficiaries.
>Re-design US Military for primary domestic-defense needs; eliminate the vast excesses and duplications; merge ‘Department of Homeland Security’ with ‘Department of Defense’.
>Re-establish real Constitutional Congressional restraints on Presidential military adventures.
>Treat so-called ‘terrorists’ as criminal cartels; deal with them within the existing and enhanced international criminal justice system, the U.N., and peace-keeping organizations and treaties.
>Reduce our enemies by ending biased support of certain controversial nations (such as Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia/Kuwait, Israel): adopt equitable neutrality.
>Reduce our temptation to war by eliminating excessive foreign resource dependence.
Americans in general are most naive in their belief about their country's 'good intentions'; as antidote, we recommend 2 books with similar titles, both by patriots who still care:
"Rogue Nation" by Clyde V. Prestowitz
"Rogue Nation" by Peter Scowen
For a reality-check on the true cost of war to ourselves (as the perpetrators):
(CMN Radio Interview: Doug Rokke: Uranium Weapons, Troop Illness and Death)
For examples of how a 'national crisis' may be fabricated to justify war:
(Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Vietnam)
(US World Trade Center destruction, aka "9/11 Terror Attack")
(Iraq War alleged rationale)
There is a strong connection between Foreign Policy and Domestic Economy; we're not immune from the cause-and-effect. Beginning with the 'military-industrial complex' warned against by President Eisenhower, the progressive expansion of overt war, and especially 'CIA black-budget' covert aggressive policies, has systematically corrupted our democracy. Devotion to war can never be compatible with a free and open society; as more injustice is tolerated, belief in goodness cannot survive, cynicism prevails, atrocities are committed under cover of secrecy, and the heart of the nation dies. In the end, the Land of the Free becomes by stealth, imperceptibly, the Home of the Slave.
Every citizen is complicit here; those who know it is wrong, yet opt for personal comfort, who fail to speak out, who deny and surrender their power, are all the more culpable.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note to all you patriot Christians-- Galatians 6:7-10
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary. So then, while we have opportunity,
let us do good to all men.... AMEN.
Crisis Overload: Global Warming as Hot Air
How do you feel these days? What seems the predominate social mood-- of the people around you, the people of your nation, the people of the world? Let me guess: "Uneasy" (at best)... or for many, "Overwhelmed".... or even "On the Brink of Collapse". And what emotions seem to predominate? likely, Fear and Anger.
Many of us are feeling overwhelmed by the seemingly endless succession of crises of unprecedented global magnitude. There is the current financial meltdown which affects most of us; the threat of war and terrorism whether it be from muslim radicals or NorthKorean paranoids; the threat of pandemic diseases of either natural or man-made agents; and beyond that, the threat of an ecological meltdown in the form of 'Global Warming/ Climate Intensification'. Any of these, and especially a combination all at once, could easily devastate us beyond comprehension.
Today I assert that it is quite rational to feel overwhelmed! Given the high probability of disasters of multiple types, and the fragility of our modern globally-dependent society, it is less rational to deny the urgency. It is an appropriate time to face the facts about ourselves as individuals and collectively. Rather than be diverted by focusing separately on one problem or another, it is most intelligent to identify (if possible) a 'root cause', and addressing that, a 'common solution' to the various crises.
I further assert that there is a simple 'root cause': 'us'... that is, we 'homo sapiens' (better named 'homo sophomores') are the common element in all these problems. That should be obvious to all; I'm just postulating a conscious 'heroic response' to this truth.
I assert that it is both necessary and fortunate, given that several of the above-named 'secondary symptoms' of the root problem have become so intractable (un-solvable) in themselves. We are in fact overwhelmed. It is in this sense 'our last chance' to make a concerted attempt to surmount the two aspects of us-as-the-problem: (1) our quantity (2) our quality. This 'root approach' I assert, is no more intractable than the sum of the major secondary symptoms, so its difficulty (or seeming impossibility to solve) is not relevant. We must; so let's assume we can.
(1) QUANTITY: There are very much too many of us on the planet. As an initial goal, let's suppose this: 4 million of us would be an acceptable load for this planet; so we need a fair plan to achieve a 1000:1 reduction as quickly as it be humane. Following that, we need a system to maintain the population prosperously within bounds. My first draft: 20 cities globally-distributed in safe, convenient locations. Each would start with 200,000 people, grow during a century to 1,000,000; then a 5:1 reduction would be done, making a sustainable 100-year (3-generation) cycle. On that scale, a model city can be designed with utmost skill and carefulness, to be dynamic yet stable, an enjoyable home for all.
In stark simplicity, we ought to admit that in economic/ ecological terms, we humans are animals, and we need to manage ourselves analogously to 'domestic husbandry'. This does not preclude a humane, fair and intelligent process to achieve the goal. It is not hard to imagine some reasonable-not-perfect set of criteria for selecting 'the few' (initially 0.1%, then 20% each century) who would be the new 'seed' stock for humanity (including physical/mental/emotional/social/genetic-diversity measures of excellence). Of course, given the (2) problem, it is indeed a difficult task. As a motivation, we may assert that this reduction is likely to occur via natural planetary or cosmic processes if we fail to do it ourselves; and those unsentimental processes would probably not be perceived as gentle nor just.
(2) QUALITY: ie, 'the dark side of human nature'.
I would divide this immediately into two sub-topics:
(2A): The current 'power-wealth elite' who effectively control the resources of the planet and the rest of the human population to a large extent; whose primary intent is in practice to maintain their advantage, and who consider the rest of us to be merely slaves: stupid, unworthy, and expendable.
(2B): The rest of us. I assert that we are the key: The only way to achieve a happy, sustainable humanity. That is, to take radical responsibility for ourselves, to radically reject blame (in the form of resentment of the elite, and aggression against our fellow commoners), and to decisively become peaceful and happy with a much simpler life. A good summary expression for this is: We can and must radically raise our compassionate consciousness, and disavow our egos. In that reality, the (2A) become powerless and irrelevant, not a threat; they can then choose to happily join us in our cooperative venture. Impossible? for example, ask the Amish.
Again as a motivation, we can assert that unless 'the rest of us' choose this way, then we will fulfill the expectation of the 'power elite', and they will prevail. Very probably, they are already working their own plan of (1), with themselves of course the new 'seed' for a reduced human presence on this long-suffering planet.
Some may consider this a utopian foolishness, or else unduly harsh. Perhaps, but the improbable is not impossible; time will tell -- in some moment before 2012, any and all of us may awake one morning in a very good mood, ready willing and able.
Many of us are feeling overwhelmed by the seemingly endless succession of crises of unprecedented global magnitude. There is the current financial meltdown which affects most of us; the threat of war and terrorism whether it be from muslim radicals or NorthKorean paranoids; the threat of pandemic diseases of either natural or man-made agents; and beyond that, the threat of an ecological meltdown in the form of 'Global Warming/ Climate Intensification'. Any of these, and especially a combination all at once, could easily devastate us beyond comprehension.
Today I assert that it is quite rational to feel overwhelmed! Given the high probability of disasters of multiple types, and the fragility of our modern globally-dependent society, it is less rational to deny the urgency. It is an appropriate time to face the facts about ourselves as individuals and collectively. Rather than be diverted by focusing separately on one problem or another, it is most intelligent to identify (if possible) a 'root cause', and addressing that, a 'common solution' to the various crises.
I further assert that there is a simple 'root cause': 'us'... that is, we 'homo sapiens' (better named 'homo sophomores') are the common element in all these problems. That should be obvious to all; I'm just postulating a conscious 'heroic response' to this truth.
I assert that it is both necessary and fortunate, given that several of the above-named 'secondary symptoms' of the root problem have become so intractable (un-solvable) in themselves. We are in fact overwhelmed. It is in this sense 'our last chance' to make a concerted attempt to surmount the two aspects of us-as-the-problem: (1) our quantity (2) our quality. This 'root approach' I assert, is no more intractable than the sum of the major secondary symptoms, so its difficulty (or seeming impossibility to solve) is not relevant. We must; so let's assume we can.
(1) QUANTITY: There are very much too many of us on the planet. As an initial goal, let's suppose this: 4 million of us would be an acceptable load for this planet; so we need a fair plan to achieve a 1000:1 reduction as quickly as it be humane. Following that, we need a system to maintain the population prosperously within bounds. My first draft: 20 cities globally-distributed in safe, convenient locations. Each would start with 200,000 people, grow during a century to 1,000,000; then a 5:1 reduction would be done, making a sustainable 100-year (3-generation) cycle. On that scale, a model city can be designed with utmost skill and carefulness, to be dynamic yet stable, an enjoyable home for all.
In stark simplicity, we ought to admit that in economic/ ecological terms, we humans are animals, and we need to manage ourselves analogously to 'domestic husbandry'. This does not preclude a humane, fair and intelligent process to achieve the goal. It is not hard to imagine some reasonable-not-perfect set of criteria for selecting 'the few' (initially 0.1%, then 20% each century) who would be the new 'seed' stock for humanity (including physical/mental/emotional/social/genetic-diversity measures of excellence). Of course, given the (2) problem, it is indeed a difficult task. As a motivation, we may assert that this reduction is likely to occur via natural planetary or cosmic processes if we fail to do it ourselves; and those unsentimental processes would probably not be perceived as gentle nor just.
(2) QUALITY: ie, 'the dark side of human nature'.
I would divide this immediately into two sub-topics:
(2A): The current 'power-wealth elite' who effectively control the resources of the planet and the rest of the human population to a large extent; whose primary intent is in practice to maintain their advantage, and who consider the rest of us to be merely slaves: stupid, unworthy, and expendable.
(2B): The rest of us. I assert that we are the key: The only way to achieve a happy, sustainable humanity. That is, to take radical responsibility for ourselves, to radically reject blame (in the form of resentment of the elite, and aggression against our fellow commoners), and to decisively become peaceful and happy with a much simpler life. A good summary expression for this is: We can and must radically raise our compassionate consciousness, and disavow our egos. In that reality, the (2A) become powerless and irrelevant, not a threat; they can then choose to happily join us in our cooperative venture. Impossible? for example, ask the Amish.
Again as a motivation, we can assert that unless 'the rest of us' choose this way, then we will fulfill the expectation of the 'power elite', and they will prevail. Very probably, they are already working their own plan of (1), with themselves of course the new 'seed' for a reduced human presence on this long-suffering planet.
Some may consider this a utopian foolishness, or else unduly harsh. Perhaps, but the improbable is not impossible; time will tell -- in some moment before 2012, any and all of us may awake one morning in a very good mood, ready willing and able.
Humanitaria : One Planet, One People
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Humanitaria : One Planet ("Love it or leave it ?")
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[ULB-AEC::Humanitaria]
United-Living-Beings :: Abundant-Earth-Cooperative :: Humanitaria
[SVU-CTA::Humanitaria]
Seres-Vivos-Unidos :: Coopertiva-Tierra-Abundante :: Humanitaria
Humanitaria'n Initial Projects:
1) Declaration of Motive and Intention
2) Statement of Consensus
3) Constitution in Principle
4) Constitution in Practice
5) OMish: the Official Language of Humanitaria
6) Anthem: “ !OM! - my - GOD ! “ ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1) Declaration of Motive and Intention
We the People of Planet Earth have become conscious of our failure to live a sustainable life of peace and harmony amongst ourselves, our fellow living beings, and the planetary environment on which we all depend.
We believe that our societies and our planet are rapidly approaching a point of fatal degradation; that previous and current efforts to prevent this are woefully inadequate; and thus it is our individual and collective responsibility to immediately pause from our non-essential activities, and to seriously, compassionately, and effectively face this reality.
We pledge our commitment to a peaceful, respectful, and diligent process of cooperative effort to achieve a lasting solution.
We will resist any internal or external forces, ego, pride or prejudice that would distract or deter us from this goal.
We will welcome the assistance of our fellow humans and all other good beings who may come to help us.
We recognize that there are powerful opponents, but we resolve to not confront them as enemies, not be drawn into their ways, but rather to focus on our common positive goal and trust in the protection of our allies.
We recognize that the belief in our vulnerability to lack, the perceived threat that we will be deprived of what we need -- amplified by our consequent fear -- is the root of our historical aggressiveness and destructiveness.
We therefore commit to simplify our lives, to reduce perceived needs, to be ready and willing to share and sacrifice fairly.
We resolve to trust that we, our fellows, our planet, and our universe shall provide for all, just what we need for happiness.
We affirm the power of good in ourselves, in and beyond this world, to overcome whatever obstacles we encounter.
We look forward in full consciousness to a creative, abundant and peaceful life on this restored and lovely planet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) Statement of Consensus (on Objectives, Basic Principles of Method and Process)
[rough draft]
Principles of Method:
0) Simplicity (in the spiritual as well as practical senses)
1) the Power of Pure Intention
2) Cooperative Groups, not Rigid Hierarchies
3) regular/habitual individual/group practices to avoid distraction from goal
(ie, to become and remain Awake/Conscious, 'at ease'/not fearful...)
4) skills for patient and respectful consensus-building (& conflict-resolution)
5) commitment to balance of unity and diversity
6) "think global, act local"
[... etc etc TBD ...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3) Constitution in Principle
Humanitaria : One Planet ("Love it or leave it ?")
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[ULB-AEC::Humanitaria]
United-Living-Beings :: Abundant-Earth-Cooperative :: Humanitaria
[SVU-CTA::Humanitaria]
Seres-Vivos-Unidos :: Coopertiva-Tierra-Abundante :: Humanitaria
Humanitaria'n Initial Projects:
1) Declaration of Motive and Intention
2) Statement of Consensus
3) Constitution in Principle
4) Constitution in Practice
5) OMish: the Official Language of Humanitaria
6) Anthem: “ !OM! - my - GOD ! “ ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1) Declaration of Motive and Intention
We the People of Planet Earth have become conscious of our failure to live a sustainable life of peace and harmony amongst ourselves, our fellow living beings, and the planetary environment on which we all depend.
We believe that our societies and our planet are rapidly approaching a point of fatal degradation; that previous and current efforts to prevent this are woefully inadequate; and thus it is our individual and collective responsibility to immediately pause from our non-essential activities, and to seriously, compassionately, and effectively face this reality.
We pledge our commitment to a peaceful, respectful, and diligent process of cooperative effort to achieve a lasting solution.
We will resist any internal or external forces, ego, pride or prejudice that would distract or deter us from this goal.
We will welcome the assistance of our fellow humans and all other good beings who may come to help us.
We recognize that there are powerful opponents, but we resolve to not confront them as enemies, not be drawn into their ways, but rather to focus on our common positive goal and trust in the protection of our allies.
We recognize that the belief in our vulnerability to lack, the perceived threat that we will be deprived of what we need -- amplified by our consequent fear -- is the root of our historical aggressiveness and destructiveness.
We therefore commit to simplify our lives, to reduce perceived needs, to be ready and willing to share and sacrifice fairly.
We resolve to trust that we, our fellows, our planet, and our universe shall provide for all, just what we need for happiness.
We affirm the power of good in ourselves, in and beyond this world, to overcome whatever obstacles we encounter.
We look forward in full consciousness to a creative, abundant and peaceful life on this restored and lovely planet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) Statement of Consensus (on Objectives, Basic Principles of Method and Process)
[rough draft]
Principles of Method:
0) Simplicity (in the spiritual as well as practical senses)
1) the Power of Pure Intention
2) Cooperative Groups, not Rigid Hierarchies
3) regular/habitual individual/group practices to avoid distraction from goal
(ie, to become and remain Awake/Conscious, 'at ease'/not fearful...)
4) skills for patient and respectful consensus-building (& conflict-resolution)
5) commitment to balance of unity and diversity
6) "think global, act local"
[... etc etc TBD ...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3) Constitution in Principle
OMish : A Proposed Planetary Language
United-Living-Beings :: Abundant-Earth-Cooperative :: Humanitaria
[ULB-AEC::Humanitaria]
Seres-Vivos-Unidos :: Coopertiva-Tierra-Abundante :: Humanitaria
[SVU-CTA::Humanitaria]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OMish : The Common Human Language : Official Language of Humanitaria
Design Goals:
1) Utility
2) Simplicity
3) Beauty
Features:
1) 3-Concentric-Sphered organization-partitioning (vocabulary & grammar-syntax):
[1] Core / Basic
[2] Typical / Common
[3] Elaborate / Specialty(s)
[4] (? Extreme-Specialties as 'moons' ?)
2) Congruent multi-modal representations
[0] vocabulary/semantics=1 set of concepts & relations; various modes of expression:
[1] vocal-audible (speech)
[2] manual-visible (hand-signing)
[3] iconic-visible (ideographic-symbolic-script / writing-reading)
[4] tactile (braille-analogous) [coordinate with [3]?]
[5] digital (for efficient computer-storage/processing)
3) Optimized for easy (and automated) comprehension and expression (+computer/AI usage)
[1] phonemes/gestures/icons sets chosen for ease of recognition & production
[2] vocab/syntax biased so that most-frequently-used = most-succinctly-represented
[3] simple gramar representable/parsable by uncomplicated computer software
[4] 1:1 concept:vocabulary mapping (no homonymns/synonyms in the Core&Typical)
[5] minimized semantic ambiguity (prohibited in the Core ?&Typical?)
[6] non-essential emotional/feeling expressive modals (prohibited in the Core)
[7a] ?Core subset conformed to math/logic system(s) (eg: 1st-order predicate logic)?
[7b] ?Core subset fit for basis of a universal 'computational (programming) language'?
4) Lovely, meaningful components and fibonnaci/fractal/hologramatic relations/structure
[1] pleasing to the ear and eye
[2] resonant to deep harmonic/rhythmic pleasure centers of psyche
[3] facilitating-inspiring poetic/artistic/musical expression
[4] congruent with primal/ancient spiritual/religious archetypes/symbolisms
[5] semantics/metaphor biased to 'positive good', best-of-tradition moral/ethical attitudes
[6] initial basic,elemental set of wisdom-aphorisms within the Typical sphere
Strategy to Promote OMish:
1) Design it with a compelling utility and ease that motivates universal consensual adoption
2) Set the Core content to provide the minimal essential cross-cultural business functionality
3) Advocate separate native-natural-language retention to satisfy ongoing tribal/cultural preferences
4) Harness contemporary 'world-cultural' trends/mechanisms/organizations to propagate it rapidly
5) Secure enthusiast funding of uncopyrighted translations of old (and authorship of new) works.
6) Provide an internet-based 'wiki-OMish' to coordinate publishing of and standardized-evolution of it.
7) Pray for Peace
! OM !
[ULB-AEC::Humanitaria]
Seres-Vivos-Unidos :: Coopertiva-Tierra-Abundante :: Humanitaria
[SVU-CTA::Humanitaria]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OMish : The Common Human Language : Official Language of Humanitaria
Design Goals:
1) Utility
2) Simplicity
3) Beauty
Features:
1) 3-Concentric-Sphered organization-partitioning (vocabulary & grammar-syntax):
[1] Core / Basic
[2] Typical / Common
[3] Elaborate / Specialty(s)
[4] (? Extreme-Specialties as 'moons' ?)
2) Congruent multi-modal representations
[0] vocabulary/semantics=1 set of concepts & relations; various modes of expression:
[1] vocal-audible (speech)
[2] manual-visible (hand-signing)
[3] iconic-visible (ideographic-symbolic-script / writing-reading)
[4] tactile (braille-analogous) [coordinate with [3]?]
[5] digital (for efficient computer-storage/processing)
3) Optimized for easy (and automated) comprehension and expression (+computer/AI usage)
[1] phonemes/gestures/icons sets chosen for ease of recognition & production
[2] vocab/syntax biased so that most-frequently-used = most-succinctly-represented
[3] simple gramar representable/parsable by uncomplicated computer software
[4] 1:1 concept:vocabulary mapping (no homonymns/synonyms in the Core&Typical)
[5] minimized semantic ambiguity (prohibited in the Core ?&Typical?)
[6] non-essential emotional/feeling expressive modals (prohibited in the Core)
[7a] ?Core subset conformed to math/logic system(s) (eg: 1st-order predicate logic)?
[7b] ?Core subset fit for basis of a universal 'computational (programming) language'?
4) Lovely, meaningful components and fibonnaci/fractal/hologramatic relations/structure
[1] pleasing to the ear and eye
[2] resonant to deep harmonic/rhythmic pleasure centers of psyche
[3] facilitating-inspiring poetic/artistic/musical expression
[4] congruent with primal/ancient spiritual/religious archetypes/symbolisms
[5] semantics/metaphor biased to 'positive good', best-of-tradition moral/ethical attitudes
[6] initial basic,elemental set of wisdom-aphorisms within the Typical sphere
Strategy to Promote OMish:
1) Design it with a compelling utility and ease that motivates universal consensual adoption
2) Set the Core content to provide the minimal essential cross-cultural business functionality
3) Advocate separate native-natural-language retention to satisfy ongoing tribal/cultural preferences
4) Harness contemporary 'world-cultural' trends/mechanisms/organizations to propagate it rapidly
5) Secure enthusiast funding of uncopyrighted translations of old (and authorship of new) works.
6) Provide an internet-based 'wiki-OMish' to coordinate publishing of and standardized-evolution of it.
7) Pray for Peace
! OM !
'Too Big to Fail' and other myths... NOT
How do you feel these days? What seems the predominate social mood-- of the people around you, the people of your nation, the people of the world? Let me guess: "Uneasy" (at best)... or for many, "Overwhelmed".... or even "On the Brink of Collapse". And what emotions seem to predominate? likely, Fear and Anger.
Many of us are feeling overwhelmed by the seemingly endless succession of crises of unprecedented global magnitude. There is the current financial meltdown which affects most of us; the threat of war and terrorism whether it be from muslim radicals or NorthKorean paranoids; the threat of pandemic diseases of either natural or man-made agents; and beyond that, the threat of an ecological meltdown in the form of 'Global Warming/ Climate Intensification'. Any of these, and especially a combination all at once, could easily devastate us beyond comprehension.
Today I assert that it is quite rational to feel overwhelmed! Given the high probability of disasters of multiple types, and the fragility of our modern globally-dependent society, it is less rational to deny the urgency. It is an appropriate time to face the facts about ourselves as individuals and collectively. Rather than be diverted by focusing separately on one problem or another, it is most intelligent to identify (if possible) a 'root cause', and addressing that, a 'common solution' to the various crises.
I further assert that there is a simple 'root cause': 'us'... that is, we 'homo sapiens' (better named 'homo sophomores') are the common element in all these problems. That should be obvious to all; I'm just postulating a conscious 'heroic response' to this truth.
I assert that it is both necessary and fortunate, given that several of the above-named 'secondary symptoms' of the root problem have become so intractable (un-solvable) in themselves. We are in fact overwhelmed. It is in this sense 'our last chance' to make a concerted attempt to surmount the two aspects of us-as-the-problem: (1) our quantity (2) our quality. This 'root approach' I assert, is no more intractable than the sum of the major secondary symptoms, so its difficulty (or seeming impossibility to solve) is not relevant. We must; so let's assume we can.
(1) QUANTITY: There are very much too many of us on the planet. As an initial goal, let's suppose this: 4 million of us would be an acceptable load for this planet; so we need a fair plan to achieve a 1000:1 reduction as quickly as it be humane. Following that, we need a system to maintain the population prosperously within bounds. My first draft: 20 cities globally-distributed in safe, convenient locations. Each would start with 200,000 people, grow during a century to 1,000,000; then a 5:1 reduction would be done, making a sustainable 100-year (3-generation) cycle. On that scale, a model city can be designed with utmost skill and carefulness, to be dynamic yet stable, an enjoyable home for all.
In stark simplicity, we ought to admit that in economic/ ecological terms, we humans are animals, and we need to manage ourselves analogously to 'domestic husbandry'. This does not preclude a humane, fair and intelligent process to achieve the goal. It is not hard to imagine some reasonable-not-perfect set of criteria for selecting 'the few' (initially 0.1%, then 20% each century) who would be the new 'seed' stock for humanity (including physical/mental/emotional/social/genetic-diversity measures of excellence). Of course, given the (2) problem, it is indeed a difficult task. As a motivation, we may assert that this reduction is likely to occur via natural planetary or cosmic processes if we fail to do it ourselves; and those unsentimental processes would probably not be perceived as gentle nor just.
(2) QUALITY: ie, 'the dark side of human nature'.
I would divide this immediately into two sub-topics:
(2A): The current 'power-wealth elite' who effectively control the resources of the planet and the rest of the human population to a large extent; whose primary intent is in practice to maintain their advantage, and who consider the rest of us to be merely slaves: stupid, unworthy, and expendable.
(2B): The rest of us. I assert that we are the key: The only way to achieve a happy, sustainable humanity. That is, to take radical responsibility for ourselves, to radically reject blame (in the form of resentment of the elite, and aggression against our fellow commoners), and to decisively become peaceful and happy with a much simpler life. A good summary expression for this is: We can and must radically raise our compassionate consciousness, and disavow our egos. In that reality, the (2A) become powerless and irrelevant, not a threat; they can then choose to happily join us in our cooperative venture. Impossible? for example, ask the Amish.
Again as a motivation, we can assert that unless 'the rest of us' choose this way, then we will fulfill the expectation of the 'power elite', and they will prevail. Very probably, they are already working their own plan of (1), with themselves of course the new 'seed' for a reduced human presence on this long-suffering planet.
Some may consider this a utopian foolishness, or else unduly harsh. Perhaps, but the improbable is not impossible; time will tell -- in some moment before 2012, any and all of us may awake one morning in a very good mood, ready willing and able.
Many of us are feeling overwhelmed by the seemingly endless succession of crises of unprecedented global magnitude. There is the current financial meltdown which affects most of us; the threat of war and terrorism whether it be from muslim radicals or NorthKorean paranoids; the threat of pandemic diseases of either natural or man-made agents; and beyond that, the threat of an ecological meltdown in the form of 'Global Warming/ Climate Intensification'. Any of these, and especially a combination all at once, could easily devastate us beyond comprehension.
Today I assert that it is quite rational to feel overwhelmed! Given the high probability of disasters of multiple types, and the fragility of our modern globally-dependent society, it is less rational to deny the urgency. It is an appropriate time to face the facts about ourselves as individuals and collectively. Rather than be diverted by focusing separately on one problem or another, it is most intelligent to identify (if possible) a 'root cause', and addressing that, a 'common solution' to the various crises.
I further assert that there is a simple 'root cause': 'us'... that is, we 'homo sapiens' (better named 'homo sophomores') are the common element in all these problems. That should be obvious to all; I'm just postulating a conscious 'heroic response' to this truth.
I assert that it is both necessary and fortunate, given that several of the above-named 'secondary symptoms' of the root problem have become so intractable (un-solvable) in themselves. We are in fact overwhelmed. It is in this sense 'our last chance' to make a concerted attempt to surmount the two aspects of us-as-the-problem: (1) our quantity (2) our quality. This 'root approach' I assert, is no more intractable than the sum of the major secondary symptoms, so its difficulty (or seeming impossibility to solve) is not relevant. We must; so let's assume we can.
(1) QUANTITY: There are very much too many of us on the planet. As an initial goal, let's suppose this: 4 million of us would be an acceptable load for this planet; so we need a fair plan to achieve a 1000:1 reduction as quickly as it be humane. Following that, we need a system to maintain the population prosperously within bounds. My first draft: 20 cities globally-distributed in safe, convenient locations. Each would start with 200,000 people, grow during a century to 1,000,000; then a 5:1 reduction would be done, making a sustainable 100-year (3-generation) cycle. On that scale, a model city can be designed with utmost skill and carefulness, to be dynamic yet stable, an enjoyable home for all.
In stark simplicity, we ought to admit that in economic/ ecological terms, we humans are animals, and we need to manage ourselves analogously to 'domestic husbandry'. This does not preclude a humane, fair and intelligent process to achieve the goal. It is not hard to imagine some reasonable-not-perfect set of criteria for selecting 'the few' (initially 0.1%, then 20% each century) who would be the new 'seed' stock for humanity (including physical/mental/emotional/social/genetic-diversity measures of excellence). Of course, given the (2) problem, it is indeed a difficult task. As a motivation, we may assert that this reduction is likely to occur via natural planetary or cosmic processes if we fail to do it ourselves; and those unsentimental processes would probably not be perceived as gentle nor just.
(2) QUALITY: ie, 'the dark side of human nature'.
I would divide this immediately into two sub-topics:
(2A): The current 'power-wealth elite' who effectively control the resources of the planet and the rest of the human population to a large extent; whose primary intent is in practice to maintain their advantage, and who consider the rest of us to be merely slaves: stupid, unworthy, and expendable.
(2B): The rest of us. I assert that we are the key: The only way to achieve a happy, sustainable humanity. That is, to take radical responsibility for ourselves, to radically reject blame (in the form of resentment of the elite, and aggression against our fellow commoners), and to decisively become peaceful and happy with a much simpler life. A good summary expression for this is: We can and must radically raise our compassionate consciousness, and disavow our egos. In that reality, the (2A) become powerless and irrelevant, not a threat; they can then choose to happily join us in our cooperative venture. Impossible? for example, ask the Amish.
Again as a motivation, we can assert that unless 'the rest of us' choose this way, then we will fulfill the expectation of the 'power elite', and they will prevail. Very probably, they are already working their own plan of (1), with themselves of course the new 'seed' for a reduced human presence on this long-suffering planet.
Some may consider this a utopian foolishness, or else unduly harsh. Perhaps, but the improbable is not impossible; time will tell -- in some moment before 2012, any and all of us may awake one morning in a very good mood, ready willing and able.
Is it an Emergency (yet)? Economic Disaster Relief
There is exactly one simple way to 'get ahead of the curve' of this deflationary crash, for a quick recovery:
Give both Consumers and Businesses plenty of extra money to spend... by suspending all USA federal taxation immediately. No joke. That includes corporate income tax, individual income tax, estate and gift tax, and 'Social Security' tax. See my previous posts. It will work (yes, assuming The Wars are also ended).
But in case that is not done... National Emergency Acts.
Three other more ambitious actions may be called for if the current financial crisis deepens. Both aim to establish some humanity, calm predictability, and fiscal stimulus in the economy; they complement in the same spirit as the already-approved extension of unemployment aid.
1) a 'National Emergency Collective Bankruptcy' Act.
Rather than forcing millions of individuals and small businesses through the normal bankruptcy court proceedings which would overwhelm the system and drag on for years, define a set of uniform criteria that can be applied administratively and categorically (such as: for cases involving less than $100000 debt and at most one family home, set a fair interest rate, mandate that creditors accept interest-only payments for a given time period; and convert adjustable-rate loans to a specified low-interest fixed-term; etc). There is a good chance that this would be sufficient to enable the majority of persons and businesses now at-risk for catastrophic bankruptcy, to continue as productive economic citizens, to the benefit of creditors also.
[For an expert plan specific to mortgages, see: MortgageProfessor(Jack Guttentag/Igor Roitburg)
TIME:UniversalMortgageResetFix
]
2) a 'National Emergency Retirement' Act.
The large population group who are close to retirement age are particularly vulnerable at this point when unemployment is rampant and the value of their personal savings has been decimated by the investment market crash. With intense competition from younger workers for scarce jobs, the older ones are very unlikely to ever be able to find new employment to compensate, and many may be left destitute. As a solution, eliminate the current Social Security scheme of 'early retirement', and instead reduce the 'full retirement' age by 10 years (from 67 to 57) -- at least until the general investment market index values have recovered to their year 2000 peak adjusted for inflation (which could take another 10 years, based on prior national experiences). Persons still financially secure would opt to defer retirement until older. The Social Security Trust Funding is sufficient to cover this emergency, although it would hasten the generally accepted need to reform the system. An optional implementation would be to allow the 'early retirer' to choose some limited number of years to 'move forward' his reception of Social Security funds, allowing time for the remnant of his personal savings investments hopefully to recover and grow, at which point he could suspend the Social Security payments. An even simpler option: Allow a zero-interest loan advance up to $500 per month; after reaching the retirement age, the received payments would be deducted that same amount for the same number of months, thus repaying the loan.
3) a 'National Emergency Central Bank' Act.
We propose that a large part of what is now 'private banking' and also the semi-private 'Federal Reserve System' belong more safely in a true democratic National Central Bank, integrated with the US federal Treasury. Rather than donating trillions of dollars to large private banks of dubious competence/honesty...
The rationale is given in some of my other posts (see "'Too Big to Fail' ? NOT" and "What Is Money?").
To summarize:
(1) 'Money' is to be defined as a Service, exclusively provided by the Government.
(2) Most government funding is properly done by the simple act of 'Money-Creation'.
Some of this can be provided by the interest on loans made to the private sector by the Central National Bank; the rest, by direct federal spending of created money.
(3) Most forms of Taxation are therefore inefficient, unnecessary, and oppressive.
(4) Interest-paying U.S. Treasury Debt of all forms can and should be replaced with non-interest-bearing National Central Bank 'Certificates of Deposit'. Such deposits by any global users of U.S. Dollars will reduce/delay the need for Money-Creation.It will also encourage very large holders (like China) to allow their currency to float and to diversify into other currencies than US Dollar, which is a good thing for a safe/robust global economy (isn't China 'too big too fail'?).
(5) The private banking sector should be only small 'retail' banking services, and the FDIC limits be reduced accordingly (such as $10000 rather than 100000). The federal monopoly on 'no-risk' Certificates of Deposit ensures the feasibility of government funding, and demands that depositors to private banks knowingly bear the risk (presumably in return for receiving higher interest payments from those banks).
[see also:
E.Brown:SustainableBanking
Lewis&Einhorn:WhatWentWrong?
Cramer:BigBankFix
Give both Consumers and Businesses plenty of extra money to spend... by suspending all USA federal taxation immediately. No joke. That includes corporate income tax, individual income tax, estate and gift tax, and 'Social Security' tax. See my previous posts. It will work (yes, assuming The Wars are also ended).
But in case that is not done... National Emergency Acts.
Three other more ambitious actions may be called for if the current financial crisis deepens. Both aim to establish some humanity, calm predictability, and fiscal stimulus in the economy; they complement in the same spirit as the already-approved extension of unemployment aid.
1) a 'National Emergency Collective Bankruptcy' Act.
Rather than forcing millions of individuals and small businesses through the normal bankruptcy court proceedings which would overwhelm the system and drag on for years, define a set of uniform criteria that can be applied administratively and categorically (such as: for cases involving less than $100000 debt and at most one family home, set a fair interest rate, mandate that creditors accept interest-only payments for a given time period; and convert adjustable-rate loans to a specified low-interest fixed-term; etc). There is a good chance that this would be sufficient to enable the majority of persons and businesses now at-risk for catastrophic bankruptcy, to continue as productive economic citizens, to the benefit of creditors also.
[For an expert plan specific to mortgages, see: MortgageProfessor(Jack Guttentag/Igor Roitburg)
TIME:UniversalMortgageResetFix
]
2) a 'National Emergency Retirement' Act.
The large population group who are close to retirement age are particularly vulnerable at this point when unemployment is rampant and the value of their personal savings has been decimated by the investment market crash. With intense competition from younger workers for scarce jobs, the older ones are very unlikely to ever be able to find new employment to compensate, and many may be left destitute. As a solution, eliminate the current Social Security scheme of 'early retirement', and instead reduce the 'full retirement' age by 10 years (from 67 to 57) -- at least until the general investment market index values have recovered to their year 2000 peak adjusted for inflation (which could take another 10 years, based on prior national experiences). Persons still financially secure would opt to defer retirement until older. The Social Security Trust Funding is sufficient to cover this emergency, although it would hasten the generally accepted need to reform the system. An optional implementation would be to allow the 'early retirer' to choose some limited number of years to 'move forward' his reception of Social Security funds, allowing time for the remnant of his personal savings investments hopefully to recover and grow, at which point he could suspend the Social Security payments. An even simpler option: Allow a zero-interest loan advance up to $500 per month; after reaching the retirement age, the received payments would be deducted that same amount for the same number of months, thus repaying the loan.
3) a 'National Emergency Central Bank' Act.
We propose that a large part of what is now 'private banking' and also the semi-private 'Federal Reserve System' belong more safely in a true democratic National Central Bank, integrated with the US federal Treasury. Rather than donating trillions of dollars to large private banks of dubious competence/honesty...
The rationale is given in some of my other posts (see "'Too Big to Fail' ? NOT" and "What Is Money?").
To summarize:
(1) 'Money' is to be defined as a Service, exclusively provided by the Government.
(2) Most government funding is properly done by the simple act of 'Money-Creation'.
Some of this can be provided by the interest on loans made to the private sector by the Central National Bank; the rest, by direct federal spending of created money.
(3) Most forms of Taxation are therefore inefficient, unnecessary, and oppressive.
(4) Interest-paying U.S. Treasury Debt of all forms can and should be replaced with non-interest-bearing National Central Bank 'Certificates of Deposit'. Such deposits by any global users of U.S. Dollars will reduce/delay the need for Money-Creation.It will also encourage very large holders (like China) to allow their currency to float and to diversify into other currencies than US Dollar, which is a good thing for a safe/robust global economy (isn't China 'too big too fail'?).
(5) The private banking sector should be only small 'retail' banking services, and the FDIC limits be reduced accordingly (such as $10000 rather than 100000). The federal monopoly on 'no-risk' Certificates of Deposit ensures the feasibility of government funding, and demands that depositors to private banks knowingly bear the risk (presumably in return for receiving higher interest payments from those banks).
[see also:
E.Brown:SustainableBanking
Lewis&Einhorn:WhatWentWrong?
Cramer:BigBankFix
Not-So-Hard Economic Fixes -- Goodbye to Debt, Taxation, and various other Alleged Problems
A key idea of 'The NewNewDeal21' :
Eliminating the US National Debt and all current Federal Taxes is not only feasible, it is both a powerful short-term solution to the current economic crisis, and a long-term solution for economic prosperity and political freedom. We define this method as "maxation": replacing traditional modes of taxation with a monetary-policy-based funding. For details, see the previous blog: "What is Money?"
[For an expert article with similar ideas, see:
(Ellen Brown,"The Web of Debt"/National Bank System)
]
[For an incisive overview of the state of US Politics and Economy, hear:
(Gerald Celente Interview)
]
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"QUICK FIXES"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Simple, Fast, Effective Stabilization of the Securities and Commodities Markets :
1. the SEC should ban all ‘short sales’ in the Stock Market.
a. This practice clearly played a significant role in amplifying the recent financial disasters. The SEC implicity recogized this by placing an emergency ban on short sales of stocks of selected financial institutions; but this is unfair protection because all companies should be treated equally in the market -- the ban should be universal, without exception.
b. The large professional traders attempt to magnify market volatility to maximize profits at the expense of small investors and corporate shareholders. ‘Short selling’ is their way; they can ‘pump up’ the stock price, place a ‘short’, then profit by ‘popping the bubble’.
c. The ‘short selling’ favors and rewards negative speculation rather than investment.
d. The ‘short selling’ enables powerful criminal elements to profit by damaging businesses.
e. The 'short selling' enables powerful investment bankers to put pressure on national political leaders by initiating punitive orchestrated drops in the markets and thus inciting fear in the majority of ordinary investors and businesses.
e. Do not be swayed by arcane or historical justifications for the practice of ‘short’ equity sales; use common sense: It is absurd for anything to have multiple ‘sole owners’. While ‘naked’ short-selling is a clear problem (you should not be allowed to sell what you do not have), the so-called ‘covered’ short, consisting of informally ‘borrowed’ shares, is equally wrong. The borrower of property should not have the right to sell it (resulting in 2 ‘sole’ owners). This is plain fraud against each of the two who think they are the sole owner of the equity.
f. Currently, there is a dangerous ‘multiplier effect’ because a single real stock share can be 'borrowed’ and ‘re-sold’ any number of times… thereby creating a fraudulent de facto dilution of the share value, forcing a lower price than real economics would dictate. This provides a cost-free leverage to the large 'short' seller, enabling him to force the share prices progressively lower.
---------------------------
2. the CFTC should enforce the existing law/rules meant to prevent manipulations by holders of large concentrated positions.
a. Enforce strict contract-holdings limits for all participants (especially large ‘short’ positions), whether commercial or speculator, in the commodity/futures exchange markets.
b. Require substantial proof that major ‘short’ commercials actually own or have direct access to the underlying commodity, and are able to deliver it promptly.
c. The laws that established the CFTC treated ‘short’ and ‘long’ regulation symmetrically, recognizing that manipulation on either side is equally harmful; but historically the major ‘short’ players have been more politically powerful and gained favorable treatment.
d. Refer to the recent case of the Silver futures market: a single large bank was allowed to carry a huge ‘short’ position (25% of world annual production), contrary to laws and rules in place; even though the bank would not be able to deliver that magnitude of silver. The result was a major manipulation of the price downward (which is now under criminal investigation by the CFTC) with massive losses to silver merchants, miners, and investors.
e. Congress must insist that these recent violations be fully investigated, and that the complicit government officials and exchange administrators be dismissed and at least fined.
------------------
It is impossible to know the full extent of the negative effect on the economy of these abusive ‘short-selling’ activities; but it is very possible that they are a major factor, and that this constitutes a crime in progress. The positive market reaction itself will tell the truth after the practice is banned.
The large players in this game, who are secretly profiting most from the economic crash (and driving it into a vicious downward cycle), may well be the same ones who are publicly claiming to be victims and even demanding ‘bail-out’ funds from the government. Their lobbying power over the government was obvious when they persuaded the SEC to place a ban on short-selling of their own stock shares, while allowing short-selling to continue unabated in the general market. Why were they so desperate to protect themselves? Because they know the predatory power of short-selling, and have enjoyed much profit by employing it against others.
In the case of the stock market, by an executive Presidential order the SEC could prohibit any further 'short' selling; then mandate that all broker clearing houses force liquidation of all ‘short’ positions that would provide a gain or 'break-even'. Do this over the course of about a month, in order of position size. For example, the first day all positions of less than $100000 size; and then double the size each successive day. Mutual funds that predominantly ‘short’ the market would be treated specially; they would themselves liquidate progressively their shareholders’ positions who are in the given size-category for each day.
Similarly, the CFTC must set and enforce reasonable contracts-position size limits. For example, no entity (or group related by common ownership/management) should be allowed to hold more than 5% of the total open interest in any commodity (after excluding spreads). Any participant currently exceeding those limits should be forced to liquidate the excess immediately.
In the end, the top 5% - 10% largest position holders would be reported to the Justice Department, for investigation of potential criminal violations.
We predict that a dramatic restoration of stock market valuations will ensue; and a similar benefit will result from proper formulation and enforcement of the commodity trading rules.
------------------
Beyond the Short-term fix:
The general pattern during republican administrations is to relinquish progressively more of the Federal government's Constitutionally-mandated control of the US Money Supply. In another essay we discuss the case for a National Central Bank to reclaim this power, with consequent benefits (elimination of national debt and taxation). Here we can go further and consider financial instruments such as corporate equities and commodity futures as a type of money in this Constitutional sense. It should be noted that the vast majority of trading volume on the Market Exchanges represents very-short-term speculative trading; and the majority of that is concentrated in the effective control of a few wealthy individuals and businesses. To counteract the vulnerability of our political process to manipulation by this power block, we should seriously consider nationalization of the stock market and commodity/futures Exchanges. The new federal institutions would modernize the exchange mechanism (similar to the fully-computerized NASDAQ) and eliminate the easily-manipulated drama of the 'open outcry' methods. The National Central Bank would assume the 'market-maker' liquidity function now controlled by large private investment banks and brokerages. This has similar benefits and rationale to the nationalization of banking (see the post 'What is Money?', and can be coordinated with it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Decisive Fix for Failing Industries (Automobile Manufacturing, etc)...
The following plan attempts to meet the criteria that President-elect Obama has asserted: Any aid package to the US Automobile Industry must be within a framework for positive long-term change within that industry. It speaks to the objection by many Americans and their Representatives, that an unconditional loan now would be a lost cause, simply squandering taxpayer funds on an industry that has had decades to adapt to new economic and environmental realities, but has willfully failed to do so.
The key strategy is that this aid package should be integrated into a long-term National Agenda.
Three relevant components of that Agenda are:
1> Comprehesive National Energy Independence
2> Modernization of the National Transportation Infrastructure
3> Cooperation in the International Environmental Protection (anti-‘global-warming’) treaties
Assertions relevant to the following suggested plan:
> the US automobile industry in the past 3 decades has ignored the many warning signs regarding the need for radical solutions to vastly improve fuel efficiency and minimize environment degradation; instead, it has cultivated only the consumer markets for large cars and assumed ever-low fuel prices.
> this neglect has significantly contributed to the US dependence on foreign petroleum and involvement in expensive, destructive foreign interventions.
> this neglect has significantly delayed any constructive solutions to the future ‘global-warming’ crisis
> it is unlikely that even a reformed private enterprise would be able to respond to these adequately without strong public-policy incentives from the government.
> however, lack of some funding aid would result in massive economic turmoil that is not in the national interest . Bankruptcy of the major domestic US automakers could result in the permanent loss of the auto market to foreign companies; and especially the loss of technical ability to design & manufacture vehicles.
------------------------------------------
The Plan: Instead of extending a loan to the US Automobile Industry, the federal government should provide the ‘emergency bridge funds’ being requested by the automakers in the form of a PURCHASE AGREEMENT:
The automobile companies must agree to ‘split off’ their current Research & Development Departments (including patent-rights and trade-secrets), which would be merged into a single ’US Vehicle Research & Development Corporation’ owned by the federal government (the aid-funds pay for stock-shares).
This would insure that:
1> we (taxpayers) receive some good value for our dollars.
2> the criteria for future vehicles conform to the National Agenda.
3> the ownership of crucial technologies remain domestic.
The advanced vehicle designs created by this new corporation would be licensed to the various remaining domestic automobile production companies; they would have the option to modify the basic vehicle cosmetically and market it, as long as its fundamental design is not compromised.
The private automobile companies would be free to use the funds received in any manner necessary to avoid bankruptcy and regain viability. However, if they subsequently failed despite the aid, there would be no further government guarantees; new ownership (whether domestic or foreign) would be allowed to re-organize the industry though the bankruptcy process. In any case, the key ‘Research and Development’ component would be already protected from loss to foreign control. And this does not preclude future aid to laid-off workers in the form of extended unemployment benefits, and perhaps bridge-loans to second-tier suppliers to insure that the remaining foreign-owned but domestic-located industry continue able to produce its vehicles in the USA.
With focus and persistence, we can see in 10 years a vehicle fleet of clean hybrid methane/electric vehicles fueled by domestic natural gas; and in 20 years, hydrogen/electric vehicles that minimize global-warming.
This same basic approach is smart for any other endangered industrial sector:
(1) identify the core technologies knowledge/expertise part of the corporation(s)
(2) buy it from the corporation, creating a National Research & Development enterprise
(3) allow the rest of the corporation to attempt to survive with help from the sale funds; allow it to go bankrupt if it cannot.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"TOO BIG to FAIL? and other MTHS"
There is a bit of good news in the 2008 financial debacle-- some doctrines of choice 'conventional wisdom' may finally be seen as truely idiotic. Let's start with the 'Too Big to Fail' mantra.
Consider all those big banks that took multibillions of Mr. Paulson's bailout money and now 'decline' to reveal what they did with it... no surprise: they are holding on to it, waiting for the crisis to hit bottom, whereupon they can buy all sorts of assets for pennies on the dollar, and vastly enrich themselves... as they did during the last Great Depression (the 1930 one). I guess that is what I would do, if Mr. Paulson gave me some of that free money. Maybe we should declare Bernie Madoff 'Too Big to Fail' also? How different is his Ponzi scheme from the whole Housing-Mortgage-Asset bubble? Are those 'poor' banks who convinced the SEC to ban short-selling of their stock, now gleefully short-selling the stock of others (General Motors etc)?
So, if the lesson is that BIG Fools/Criminals (whether individuals or institutions) can cause serious damage to our nation, then a more direct solution would be to prevent such a SIZE ever being achieved. Make that the primary policy. First, if any entity exceeds some reasonable bound of growth velocity, then investigate it. If it is due to criminal actions, prosecute; else if getting 'too big', mandate a partitioning into several smaller independent entities. In short, 'Divide and Conquer' the problem. Let any of those who fail, follow the bankruptcy laws.
However, in the case of Banks and Bank-like entities, the more important lesson regards the fundamental purpose of government as a balance against private enterprise. The false 'libertarians' have promulgated the half-truth that Government cannot be trusted, and the false solution that Private Enterprises can and must be trusted. Perhaps we can agree that the current crisis exposes the error of that.
The full truth is that humans are all fallible, and to some degree untrustworthy, whether they compose governments or corporations. This was a simple axiom of the authors of the US Constitution. Moreover, much of the current crisis is the result not of foolishness, but of simple criminal fraud, enabled by the radical failures of government to regulate and to enforce existing laws. Law-enforcement is Government.
As a start, we can re-assess what portions of economic structure and activity are appropriately allocated to government. The number one change we propose will deal decisively with Money, with Banking. We propose that a large part of what is now 'private banking' and also the semi-private 'Federal Reserve System' belong more safely in a true democratic National Central Bank, integrated with the US federal Treasury. Details of the far-reaching effects are presented in previous posts.
To summarize:
(1) 'Money' is to be defined as a Service, exclusively provided by the Government.
(2) Most government funding is properly done by the simple act of 'Money-Creation'.
Some of this can be provided by the interest on loans made to the private sector by the National Central Bank; the rest, by direct federal spending of created money.
(3) Most forms of Taxation are therefore inefficient, unnecessary, and inappropriate.
(4) Interest-paying U.S. Treasury Debt of all forms can and should be replaced with non-interest-bearing National Central Bank 'Certificates of Deposit'. Such deposits by any global users of U.S. Dollars will reduce/delay the need for Money-Creation.
It will also encourage very large holders (like China) to allow their currency to float and to diversify into other currencies than US Dollar, which is a good thing for a safe/robust global economy (isn't China 'too big too fail'?).
(5) The private banking sector should be only small 'retail' banking services, and the FDIC limits be reduced accordingly (such as $10000 rather than 100000). The federal monopoly on 'no-risk' Certificates of Deposit ensures the feasibility of government funding, and demands that depositors to private banks knowingly bear the risk (presumably in return for receiving higher interest payments from those banks).
<<<<<<<<<<<< ----------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
More radical changes should be envisioned. For example, currently it is accepted that the vast majority of Water and Air in the vicinity of our country is properly 'public domain', not privately-owned. We submit that a fine way to avoid future 'real-estate' excesses (boom and bust) is to include 'Land'. The resulting Trinity of Natural Resources would be held-in-trust by the federal government for the entire benefit of the People (ok, and the animals/plants/ecology). It could be selectively leased, based on broad public welfare and sustainability criteria, which would provide yet another modest source of funding for government activities. Credits could be granted for the improvement of value, and penalties for the debasement of value due to the activities of the lessees.
<<<<<<<<<<<< ----------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Is Vermont 'Too Big to Fail'? Note that most of the State Governments of this United States are requesting bail-outs from the federal government in this crisis. We submit that the whole notion of 50 States is woefully obsolete and hugely inefficient. Anyone who tries to operate a business in multiple states knows this! Modern transportation and communications negate the need for such partitioning. An example is New Zealand, which has removed those redundant levels of government to good effect. Most of the U.S. land mass would simply be governed at a federal level. Perhaps the top 20% of large Metropolitan Areas would have some form of local government, but only for appropriately-local issues; basic laws, whether criminal, civil, or commercial, would be uniform in these fully-united-states of america.
<<<<<<<<<<<< ----------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Finally, Is The U.S. Federal Government 'TOO Big to Fail'?
Is it possible that some natural or man-made disaster might, for example, seriously decimate Washington DC? Presumably there is a martial-law option in place to respond to that sort of thing... but Why not be proactive? Can we better ensure continuity of reasonably normal civil federal governance in the aftermath of such a disaster?
We propose that it's a fine candidate for Mr. Obama's 'Fiscal Stimulus by Useful Public Infrastructure Projects'. Apply well-developed technologies of System-Robustness through distributed redundancies... for example, build a couple of new 'DC's... maybe a 'Jefferson DC' in Arkansas? a 'Lincoln DC' in Utah?
Wherein we can create back-ups of critical institutions such as Congress/SupremeCourt/Presidential offices/residences, and the Executive Departments.
The Military is presumably already distributed in various bases, but best to check up on that assumption too...
Eliminating the US National Debt and all current Federal Taxes is not only feasible, it is both a powerful short-term solution to the current economic crisis, and a long-term solution for economic prosperity and political freedom. We define this method as "maxation": replacing traditional modes of taxation with a monetary-policy-based funding. For details, see the previous blog: "What is Money?"
[For an expert article with similar ideas, see:
(Ellen Brown,"The Web of Debt"/National Bank System)
]
[For an incisive overview of the state of US Politics and Economy, hear:
(Gerald Celente Interview)
]
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"QUICK FIXES"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Simple, Fast, Effective Stabilization of the Securities and Commodities Markets :
1. the SEC should ban all ‘short sales’ in the Stock Market.
a. This practice clearly played a significant role in amplifying the recent financial disasters. The SEC implicity recogized this by placing an emergency ban on short sales of stocks of selected financial institutions; but this is unfair protection because all companies should be treated equally in the market -- the ban should be universal, without exception.
b. The large professional traders attempt to magnify market volatility to maximize profits at the expense of small investors and corporate shareholders. ‘Short selling’ is their way; they can ‘pump up’ the stock price, place a ‘short’, then profit by ‘popping the bubble’.
c. The ‘short selling’ favors and rewards negative speculation rather than investment.
d. The ‘short selling’ enables powerful criminal elements to profit by damaging businesses.
e. The 'short selling' enables powerful investment bankers to put pressure on national political leaders by initiating punitive orchestrated drops in the markets and thus inciting fear in the majority of ordinary investors and businesses.
e. Do not be swayed by arcane or historical justifications for the practice of ‘short’ equity sales; use common sense: It is absurd for anything to have multiple ‘sole owners’. While ‘naked’ short-selling is a clear problem (you should not be allowed to sell what you do not have), the so-called ‘covered’ short, consisting of informally ‘borrowed’ shares, is equally wrong. The borrower of property should not have the right to sell it (resulting in 2 ‘sole’ owners). This is plain fraud against each of the two who think they are the sole owner of the equity.
f. Currently, there is a dangerous ‘multiplier effect’ because a single real stock share can be 'borrowed’ and ‘re-sold’ any number of times… thereby creating a fraudulent de facto dilution of the share value, forcing a lower price than real economics would dictate. This provides a cost-free leverage to the large 'short' seller, enabling him to force the share prices progressively lower.
---------------------------
2. the CFTC should enforce the existing law/rules meant to prevent manipulations by holders of large concentrated positions.
a. Enforce strict contract-holdings limits for all participants (especially large ‘short’ positions), whether commercial or speculator, in the commodity/futures exchange markets.
b. Require substantial proof that major ‘short’ commercials actually own or have direct access to the underlying commodity, and are able to deliver it promptly.
c. The laws that established the CFTC treated ‘short’ and ‘long’ regulation symmetrically, recognizing that manipulation on either side is equally harmful; but historically the major ‘short’ players have been more politically powerful and gained favorable treatment.
d. Refer to the recent case of the Silver futures market: a single large bank was allowed to carry a huge ‘short’ position (25% of world annual production), contrary to laws and rules in place; even though the bank would not be able to deliver that magnitude of silver. The result was a major manipulation of the price downward (which is now under criminal investigation by the CFTC) with massive losses to silver merchants, miners, and investors.
e. Congress must insist that these recent violations be fully investigated, and that the complicit government officials and exchange administrators be dismissed and at least fined.
------------------
It is impossible to know the full extent of the negative effect on the economy of these abusive ‘short-selling’ activities; but it is very possible that they are a major factor, and that this constitutes a crime in progress. The positive market reaction itself will tell the truth after the practice is banned.
The large players in this game, who are secretly profiting most from the economic crash (and driving it into a vicious downward cycle), may well be the same ones who are publicly claiming to be victims and even demanding ‘bail-out’ funds from the government. Their lobbying power over the government was obvious when they persuaded the SEC to place a ban on short-selling of their own stock shares, while allowing short-selling to continue unabated in the general market. Why were they so desperate to protect themselves? Because they know the predatory power of short-selling, and have enjoyed much profit by employing it against others.
In the case of the stock market, by an executive Presidential order the SEC could prohibit any further 'short' selling; then mandate that all broker clearing houses force liquidation of all ‘short’ positions that would provide a gain or 'break-even'. Do this over the course of about a month, in order of position size. For example, the first day all positions of less than $100000 size; and then double the size each successive day. Mutual funds that predominantly ‘short’ the market would be treated specially; they would themselves liquidate progressively their shareholders’ positions who are in the given size-category for each day.
Similarly, the CFTC must set and enforce reasonable contracts-position size limits. For example, no entity (or group related by common ownership/management) should be allowed to hold more than 5% of the total open interest in any commodity (after excluding spreads). Any participant currently exceeding those limits should be forced to liquidate the excess immediately.
In the end, the top 5% - 10% largest position holders would be reported to the Justice Department, for investigation of potential criminal violations.
We predict that a dramatic restoration of stock market valuations will ensue; and a similar benefit will result from proper formulation and enforcement of the commodity trading rules.
------------------
Beyond the Short-term fix:
The general pattern during republican administrations is to relinquish progressively more of the Federal government's Constitutionally-mandated control of the US Money Supply. In another essay we discuss the case for a National Central Bank to reclaim this power, with consequent benefits (elimination of national debt and taxation). Here we can go further and consider financial instruments such as corporate equities and commodity futures as a type of money in this Constitutional sense. It should be noted that the vast majority of trading volume on the Market Exchanges represents very-short-term speculative trading; and the majority of that is concentrated in the effective control of a few wealthy individuals and businesses. To counteract the vulnerability of our political process to manipulation by this power block, we should seriously consider nationalization of the stock market and commodity/futures Exchanges. The new federal institutions would modernize the exchange mechanism (similar to the fully-computerized NASDAQ) and eliminate the easily-manipulated drama of the 'open outcry' methods. The National Central Bank would assume the 'market-maker' liquidity function now controlled by large private investment banks and brokerages. This has similar benefits and rationale to the nationalization of banking (see the post 'What is Money?', and can be coordinated with it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Decisive Fix for Failing Industries (Automobile Manufacturing, etc)...
The following plan attempts to meet the criteria that President-elect Obama has asserted: Any aid package to the US Automobile Industry must be within a framework for positive long-term change within that industry. It speaks to the objection by many Americans and their Representatives, that an unconditional loan now would be a lost cause, simply squandering taxpayer funds on an industry that has had decades to adapt to new economic and environmental realities, but has willfully failed to do so.
The key strategy is that this aid package should be integrated into a long-term National Agenda.
Three relevant components of that Agenda are:
1> Comprehesive National Energy Independence
2> Modernization of the National Transportation Infrastructure
3> Cooperation in the International Environmental Protection (anti-‘global-warming’) treaties
Assertions relevant to the following suggested plan:
> the US automobile industry in the past 3 decades has ignored the many warning signs regarding the need for radical solutions to vastly improve fuel efficiency and minimize environment degradation; instead, it has cultivated only the consumer markets for large cars and assumed ever-low fuel prices.
> this neglect has significantly contributed to the US dependence on foreign petroleum and involvement in expensive, destructive foreign interventions.
> this neglect has significantly delayed any constructive solutions to the future ‘global-warming’ crisis
> it is unlikely that even a reformed private enterprise would be able to respond to these adequately without strong public-policy incentives from the government.
> however, lack of some funding aid would result in massive economic turmoil that is not in the national interest . Bankruptcy of the major domestic US automakers could result in the permanent loss of the auto market to foreign companies; and especially the loss of technical ability to design & manufacture vehicles.
------------------------------------------
The Plan: Instead of extending a loan to the US Automobile Industry, the federal government should provide the ‘emergency bridge funds’ being requested by the automakers in the form of a PURCHASE AGREEMENT:
The automobile companies must agree to ‘split off’ their current Research & Development Departments (including patent-rights and trade-secrets), which would be merged into a single ’US Vehicle Research & Development Corporation’ owned by the federal government (the aid-funds pay for stock-shares).
This would insure that:
1> we (taxpayers) receive some good value for our dollars.
2> the criteria for future vehicles conform to the National Agenda.
3> the ownership of crucial technologies remain domestic.
The advanced vehicle designs created by this new corporation would be licensed to the various remaining domestic automobile production companies; they would have the option to modify the basic vehicle cosmetically and market it, as long as its fundamental design is not compromised.
The private automobile companies would be free to use the funds received in any manner necessary to avoid bankruptcy and regain viability. However, if they subsequently failed despite the aid, there would be no further government guarantees; new ownership (whether domestic or foreign) would be allowed to re-organize the industry though the bankruptcy process. In any case, the key ‘Research and Development’ component would be already protected from loss to foreign control. And this does not preclude future aid to laid-off workers in the form of extended unemployment benefits, and perhaps bridge-loans to second-tier suppliers to insure that the remaining foreign-owned but domestic-located industry continue able to produce its vehicles in the USA.
With focus and persistence, we can see in 10 years a vehicle fleet of clean hybrid methane/electric vehicles fueled by domestic natural gas; and in 20 years, hydrogen/electric vehicles that minimize global-warming.
This same basic approach is smart for any other endangered industrial sector:
(1) identify the core technologies knowledge/expertise part of the corporation(s)
(2) buy it from the corporation, creating a National Research & Development enterprise
(3) allow the rest of the corporation to attempt to survive with help from the sale funds; allow it to go bankrupt if it cannot.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"TOO BIG to FAIL? and other MTHS"
There is a bit of good news in the 2008 financial debacle-- some doctrines of choice 'conventional wisdom' may finally be seen as truely idiotic. Let's start with the 'Too Big to Fail' mantra.
Consider all those big banks that took multibillions of Mr. Paulson's bailout money and now 'decline' to reveal what they did with it... no surprise: they are holding on to it, waiting for the crisis to hit bottom, whereupon they can buy all sorts of assets for pennies on the dollar, and vastly enrich themselves... as they did during the last Great Depression (the 1930 one). I guess that is what I would do, if Mr. Paulson gave me some of that free money. Maybe we should declare Bernie Madoff 'Too Big to Fail' also? How different is his Ponzi scheme from the whole Housing-Mortgage-Asset bubble? Are those 'poor' banks who convinced the SEC to ban short-selling of their stock, now gleefully short-selling the stock of others (General Motors etc)?
So, if the lesson is that BIG Fools/Criminals (whether individuals or institutions) can cause serious damage to our nation, then a more direct solution would be to prevent such a SIZE ever being achieved. Make that the primary policy. First, if any entity exceeds some reasonable bound of growth velocity, then investigate it. If it is due to criminal actions, prosecute; else if getting 'too big', mandate a partitioning into several smaller independent entities. In short, 'Divide and Conquer' the problem. Let any of those who fail, follow the bankruptcy laws.
However, in the case of Banks and Bank-like entities, the more important lesson regards the fundamental purpose of government as a balance against private enterprise. The false 'libertarians' have promulgated the half-truth that Government cannot be trusted, and the false solution that Private Enterprises can and must be trusted. Perhaps we can agree that the current crisis exposes the error of that.
The full truth is that humans are all fallible, and to some degree untrustworthy, whether they compose governments or corporations. This was a simple axiom of the authors of the US Constitution. Moreover, much of the current crisis is the result not of foolishness, but of simple criminal fraud, enabled by the radical failures of government to regulate and to enforce existing laws. Law-enforcement is Government.
As a start, we can re-assess what portions of economic structure and activity are appropriately allocated to government. The number one change we propose will deal decisively with Money, with Banking. We propose that a large part of what is now 'private banking' and also the semi-private 'Federal Reserve System' belong more safely in a true democratic National Central Bank, integrated with the US federal Treasury. Details of the far-reaching effects are presented in previous posts.
To summarize:
(1) 'Money' is to be defined as a Service, exclusively provided by the Government.
(2) Most government funding is properly done by the simple act of 'Money-Creation'.
Some of this can be provided by the interest on loans made to the private sector by the National Central Bank; the rest, by direct federal spending of created money.
(3) Most forms of Taxation are therefore inefficient, unnecessary, and inappropriate.
(4) Interest-paying U.S. Treasury Debt of all forms can and should be replaced with non-interest-bearing National Central Bank 'Certificates of Deposit'. Such deposits by any global users of U.S. Dollars will reduce/delay the need for Money-Creation.
It will also encourage very large holders (like China) to allow their currency to float and to diversify into other currencies than US Dollar, which is a good thing for a safe/robust global economy (isn't China 'too big too fail'?).
(5) The private banking sector should be only small 'retail' banking services, and the FDIC limits be reduced accordingly (such as $10000 rather than 100000). The federal monopoly on 'no-risk' Certificates of Deposit ensures the feasibility of government funding, and demands that depositors to private banks knowingly bear the risk (presumably in return for receiving higher interest payments from those banks).
<<<<<<<<<<<< ----------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
More radical changes should be envisioned. For example, currently it is accepted that the vast majority of Water and Air in the vicinity of our country is properly 'public domain', not privately-owned. We submit that a fine way to avoid future 'real-estate' excesses (boom and bust) is to include 'Land'. The resulting Trinity of Natural Resources would be held-in-trust by the federal government for the entire benefit of the People (ok, and the animals/plants/ecology). It could be selectively leased, based on broad public welfare and sustainability criteria, which would provide yet another modest source of funding for government activities. Credits could be granted for the improvement of value, and penalties for the debasement of value due to the activities of the lessees.
<<<<<<<<<<<< ----------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Is Vermont 'Too Big to Fail'? Note that most of the State Governments of this United States are requesting bail-outs from the federal government in this crisis. We submit that the whole notion of 50 States is woefully obsolete and hugely inefficient. Anyone who tries to operate a business in multiple states knows this! Modern transportation and communications negate the need for such partitioning. An example is New Zealand, which has removed those redundant levels of government to good effect. Most of the U.S. land mass would simply be governed at a federal level. Perhaps the top 20% of large Metropolitan Areas would have some form of local government, but only for appropriately-local issues; basic laws, whether criminal, civil, or commercial, would be uniform in these fully-united-states of america.
<<<<<<<<<<<< ----------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Finally, Is The U.S. Federal Government 'TOO Big to Fail'?
Is it possible that some natural or man-made disaster might, for example, seriously decimate Washington DC? Presumably there is a martial-law option in place to respond to that sort of thing... but Why not be proactive? Can we better ensure continuity of reasonably normal civil federal governance in the aftermath of such a disaster?
We propose that it's a fine candidate for Mr. Obama's 'Fiscal Stimulus by Useful Public Infrastructure Projects'. Apply well-developed technologies of System-Robustness through distributed redundancies... for example, build a couple of new 'DC's... maybe a 'Jefferson DC' in Arkansas? a 'Lincoln DC' in Utah?
Wherein we can create back-ups of critical institutions such as Congress/SupremeCourt/Presidential offices/residences, and the Executive Departments.
The Military is presumably already distributed in various bases, but best to check up on that assumption too...
What is Money? a true democratic Central Bank.
A new understanding of Money – how it would radically improve Government Funding, and enhance our prosperity and freedom. We define our method as "maxation": replacing traditional modes of taxation with a monetary-policy-based funding.
Our solution is to replace the current Federal Reserve with a true democratic National Central Bank, and replace US Treasury debt with a new method of government funding which is similar but with a crucial difference; we further assert that this new method would also efficiently and fairly eliminate most kinds of taxation. We then propose a new 'e-Dollar' form of currency to enhance security, efficiency, and reasonable control of inflation.
The following proposal has a strategy rooted in The US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) authorizing the power "To coin money, regulate the value thereof". We assert that much of this power has been 'privatized' to the disadvantage of "We the People"; and, by recovering that right and power, many aspects of the current financial crisis can be fixed, and future shocks avoided. Our plan combines features advocated variously by conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats, but with key new ideas. We'll begin with a brief historical review.
For our first hundred years, money was assumed to be backed by silver (or later, gold); but from the beginning, there was intense debate and conflict about who would have the control, the balance of power, regarding the 'money supply'. Some wanted it to be mainly public, via the US federal Treasury and a democratic National Bank; others wanted the British model favoring powerful private bankers. In 1913 an apparent 'compromise' was reached, creating the current Federal Reserve System of banking. Its publicly-stated goal was to prevent the periodic financial crises that plagued the 1800's; however, it failed to avert the 'Great Depression' of 1929 and significant crises since then, nor prevent inflationary loss of 90% of the dollar's real value. A study of this history reveals remarkable influence by wealthy private banking cartel families on the design and outcome of monetary legislation.
Although the government has some control by appointing its Board of Governors, and it's ostensibly 'not for private profit', the 'Fed' is a corporation whose stock is owned exclusively by privately-owned banks which elect 6/9 of the Directors, and which profit from it in two ways: directly via stock dividends, and more importantly the right to create money (and lend it at interest) via the 'fractional reserve' mechanism. For this reason it is designated 'quasi-governmental' or 'semi-private'; such a 'compromise' is perhaps 'the worst of both' rather than the best.
The importance of this private money-creation power accelerated with the end of the 'hard-money gold standard'. The central fact is that 'offering credit' (loaning) via 'fractional reserves' is de facto creation of money; and it is the historically huge 'boom-then-bust' cycle of credit, amplified by dubious private banking practices, that is at the heart of our current 'deflationary' crisis.
The decoupling of the US Dollar from gold that was begun by Franklin Roosevelt, progressed to the post-WWII adoption of the US Dollar as the de facto World Reserve Currency. This enabled the final step by Nixon when he completely removed the gold/silver redemption aspect of the US Dollar. This status was then bolstered by the informal but powerful international agreement to price ‘black gold’ – petroleum – primarily in US Dollars. It progressively strengthened as individuals, corporations, and governments worldwide became motivated consumers of the Dollar (both as suppliers of goods to US consumers, and as savers of US Treasury notes and bonds). In general, this status has been of enormous mutual benefit globally; and it matches (or exceeds) the importance of the US Military in defining the USA as the global superpower.
In conservative politics, it is common to decry the enormous USA “National Debt” and “Negative Balance of Trade” ‘deficits’ – without acknowledging the very positive aspects of both. We assert here that the worry is only ‘half right’. Our solution is to replace that debt with a new method of government funding which is similar but with a crucial difference; we further assert that this new method would also replace most kinds of taxation.
In practice over the past several decades, the proportion of federal government spending that is sourced from taxation has dramatically decreased, with increasing use both of direct Treasury Debt sales, and indirect ‘money-creation’ (commonly called ‘printing money’ but in practice much more which 'the Fed' calls 'quantitative easing') -- all forms of monetary inflation, ie, increase in the supply of money available to the national (and global) economy. This has escalated with the financing of the middle-east wars, and again with the present economic crisis. The 'Debt/Credit' twin now dwarfs its simple 'Real Money' brother.
We can now assert that most of the traditional forms of USA federal taxation are obsolete. Such taxation presupposes a ‘hard-money’ constraint that has not existed for many decades. Such taxation provably by its nature creates a drag on economic development, by competing with private productive enterprise for dollars. It exacerbates recessions and economic crises; it oppresses and intimidates us all.
Common sense and modern fiscal science indicate that some degree of inflation of the money supply is necessary for continued economic growth, and this controlled-inflation-in-moderation is a tenet of central banks globally, including our own Federal Reserve. We assert that uniquely for the USA, it is both efficient and generally fair to replace the current taxation structure with a controlled-monetary-inflation mechanism.
However, this depends upon a return of the right to create money exclusively to the federal government, a reasonable monopoly based on the US Constitution which assigned the right to mint coin and issue currency. Today, most money is created by the private banks (and the semi-private Federal Reserve) via fractional-reserve lending, with the attendant benefits (interest profits) flowing to their private shareholders. This is an outrageous form of 'corporate welfare', mandating massive transfers of wealth to the already-wealthy.
We must emphasize the fact that there is only a very elastic relation between such monetary inflation, and ‘price inflation’ (contrary to the conservative ‘hard-money’ advocates who assume a rigid fixed relation). Simply put, a carefully measured increase in money supply does not necessarily cause a general increase in price of goods and services. This fact is demonstrated by the past decade which has seen the US government vastly increase money supply, while experiencing only moderate price inflation in general.
--------------------------------------
The key FIRST PRINCIPLE then is:
Replace traditional forms of taxation with an increased but controlled rate of money creation.
This is an evolutionary change as noted, since in fact this has been occurring now over several decades. The main idea is simply that ‘money’ is a valuable service provided by the federal government, rather than an independent ‘hard’ goods that the government must compete for against private individuals and corporations. This service, called ‘money’, is a reliable medium of exchange for all buying and selling; it has only limited, short-term usefulness as a ‘store-of-value’. That admission is crucial and very realistic, because it directs long-term ‘savers’ to the reality that only a diversified investment in productive enterprises can hold and increase value indefinitely (the next section, on Treasury Debt, provides a mechanism for intermediate-term savers).
There are major simplification efficiencies and benefits gained by eliminating taxation in this manner:
1> ‘Taxation’ can be replaced by a much smaller effort: Congress will set a budget which does not exceed some reasonable % of our economic size (GDP); then the Treasury, via a new National Central Bank, just credits that amount to the US federal government account for spending.
2> The cost of government is distributed across all users of US Dollars (including foreigners) and only to the extent that some price-inflation occurs (otherwise is nearly cost-free).
3> The vast resources of public and private workers now devoted to taxation (making and enforcing laws, collecting; advising, evading, paying) will be dramatically freed for productive work.
4> Freed of the burden of taxation, our consumer-driven economy will immediately accelerate.
5> Freed of the burden of taxation, our businesses will have ample funds to invest productively.
6> Taxation is a form of oppression and involuntary 'partial enslavement'; its elimination enhances the quality of life for all of us-- freedom from intimidation is invaluable.
Note that in the transition, the current army of tax advisors will be put to work assisting state and local goverments with the needed adjustments to their own taxation systems after federal taxes are terminated.
The federal IRS could be retained during a 5-year trial period, taxing e.g. only multi-millionare incomes (as was the intention when the federal income tax was originally created in 1913).
A few forms of federal taxation, such as ‘use-based’ ones like that on vehicle fuels, still may make sense, if judiciously applied.
Of course, the enabling legislation must provide a decent mechanism of restraint to avoid hyper-inflation temptations (such as an independent ‘Quality Assurance Agency’, to calculate GDP and % for Federal Budget; super-majorities required to raise the limits; and even an explicit Constitutional Amendment defining Fiscal Responsibility).
-------------------------------------
A related SECOND PRINCIPLE is:
Replace the current system of Treasury Debt issuance with only non-interest-bearing forms.
Like taxation, the interest-bearing Treasury debt is obsolete (there is a successful historical precedent by the English Channel-Island jurisdictions). We assert that the primary motivation for most purchasers of Treasury Debt is the absolute security of the principle value of their investment; interest added is not essential (in the current crisis, short-term Treasuries are being auctioned at effectively zero interest rate, with buyer demand exceeding offered supply).
A simplified implementation would be to augment the National Central Bank founded for money-creation. This true democratic Bank would subsume the functions of the current semi-private Federal Reserve System. It would provide term-accounts with ‘Certificates of Deposit’ to replace the current T-Notes and Bonds.
Again this is best viewed as a valuable government service. The value of this service (providing a secure, un-repudiatable, efficient store of US-dollar-denominated money) will substitute for the value of interest-earned on the old bonds.
The national benefit is clear: no longer having the huge expense of interest-payments on the national debt. The debt principle itself will be re-paid over time, simply by the money-creation mechanism of the Central Bank.
All money deposited into the accounts will be used for government funding, reducing the net amount of money-creation needed; then later requests for withdrawal will be met by the deferred money-creation. Further control of cashflow may be helpful by requiring some advance-notification terms for withdrawal requests, issueing different lengths of term and charging lower fees on longer-term deposits, and higher fees for early withdrawals.
Existing US Treasury Debt can be forcibly retired on some reasonable schedule. Each existing holder of a debt instrument will be given the option to accept a direct face-value replacement (ie, a new Central Bank Certificate of Deposit, with same term but not interest-bearing); or be paid in dollars (the nominal face value, not including future interest) via the federal money-creation mechanism, into the private banking system.
This should render the current private-bank FDIC obsolete: those wishing guarantee of principle would necessarily use the National Central Bank; those wishing interest-income would take the risk of using private banking (a compromise would be to reduce the FDIC guarantee, such as from $100000 down to $10000, to still protect low-income citizens). Another option would be to give each US Citizen the right to purchase an inflation-protected CD (similar to the existing 'TIPS' but without additional interest payment beyond inflation), up to a generous $1,000,000 or so.
-----------------------------
A related THIRD PRINCIPLE is:
The National Central Bank will be the 'Principal' Lender of Money,
(not just of 'Last Resort' as is described for the current 'Fed' ).
The principal focus of lending must be for enterprises and projects that enhance the national productive capacity and improve infrastructure in ecologically responsible ways. Amount and interest on loans can be managed to smooth the business cycle, to minimize 'boom-then-bust' extremes.
The scope of private banking would be reduced to 'retail' services, and perhaps some larger 'high-risk' forms of lending if properly regulated to prevent systemic failure. A 1%-2% 'use-tax' on private-bank loans would fund regulation agencies and insurance. We should also consider a similar nationalization of the major 'financial market' mechanisms-- the stock exchanges and commondity exchanges, including a universal replacement of the ancient and easily-corrupted 'open-outcry'-dominated-by-market-makers system, with NASDAQ-like electronic bidding systems.
Significant federal government funding thus can be provided by the interest on loans made to the private sector by the National Central Bank; and the rest of the federal budget paid for by direct federal spending of created money as noted above. 'Counter-business-cycle' fiscal policy could include adjustments to the interest rates. Another option that should be investigated is a form of 'use tax': a very small (0.1% - 1.0% ?) fee on each bank transaction; this would be the most efficient, unobtrusive tax.
>>>>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------<<<<<<
Final (optional) FOURTH PRINCIPLE is:
Eliminate 'Cash'; replace it with 'e-Dollar'.
An efficient modern 'computerized' analog of an inflation-limiting 'gold standard' of currency.
The establishment of a true democratic National Central Bank would also provide a good opportunity for the modernization of the form of our money. Instead of coinage and currency (metal and paper dollars), make all money 'electronic'. The Central Bank would have monopoly on creation of money; over the course of some transition period, require that all old forms of dollar be exchanged for the new 'e-Dollar'.
An e-Dollar is created as a new 'serial number' in the Central Bank database (a 64-bit binary number should be adequate: ~ $20'Quintillion'='Million Trillion'=(10**18)). This ensures that every US dollar will be identifiable, permanent and traceable.
Each account in all banks (the public National Central Bank, and all private retail banks) would use a new accounting system, whereby the serial number of every dollar in the account is maintained. Representation could be efficient as a list of 'Dollar Sequence's [ (CNT,SNUM) where SNUM is the first Serial Number in the sequence and CNT is the count, the total number of dollars in that sequence ]. The Central Bank would create new money in the form of very large DollarSequences; as the money is spent into the economy, the sequences get broken down and distributed [ until finally, a typical individual bank account would have a long list of (CNT=1,SNUM=x)].
Retail commerce will be conducted entirely with cards, like the current Credit- and Debit-Cards linked to bank accounts, and possibly a partially-anonymous 'E-Dollar Card' similar to them but independent of bank account, and rechargeable at any bank. This 'E-Dollar Card' would provide more privacy than other cards, but still be traceable ultimately, because of the new universal accounting in all banks of each dollar by its serial number.
Fractions of Dollar will be noted in a single
'VirtualFractionalDollar Datum' ('VFD') in each account. Payers of Fractions will forfeit one real e-dollar back to the Central Bank each time they deplete/replenish their VFD (0.00->1.00); Payees will get one new e-dollar from the Central Bank each time their VFD reaches 1.00. [So there will be a 'float' of maximum X virtual dollars, where X is the total number of bank accounts.]
The National Central Bank e-Dollar Relational Database would maintain a record (relation) with primary key = the eDollar serial#, and include auditing data such as the current bank & account owning this eDollar, and the previous account, and a timestamp indicating the last transaction (transfer from previous to current account). All member banks would maintain full transaction records to enable historical tracing of each e-Dollar.
The new e-dollar scheme would have several benefits:
1) each dollar costs nothing to create (unlike minting/printing coin/currency).
2) each dollar is permanent (not destructable like coins/currency).
3) each dollar is unique, self-identifying, and thus fully traceable.
4) the rate of money-creation will be easily auditable at the Central Bank; just as the historical 'gold standard' limited monetary inflation, so would a Constitutional / super-majority control limiting the growth rate of e-Dollars created in the Treasury Database (but without the inflexibility, cost, and ecological damage of gold-mining).
5) counterfeiting dollars will be very difficult, in the sense that duplicate serial numbers will be easily detected [the Federal Government Treasury Department will have the authority to do a daily scan of all accounts and transaction records in all US Banks; no non-US Bank will be permitted to hold e-Dollars (a foreign 'virtual' USDollar account will just be a reference to total dollars held in a domestic bank account)].
6) it eliminates the justification for egregious 'money-laundering' regulations. After a court hearing and conviction for a real crime, e-Dollars acquired from illegal transactions could be traced and refunded to any innocent parties -- whether by liquidation of the criminal's assets, or by compensatory money-creation from the US Treasury (Financial activities now criminalized by 'money-laundering' laws are not real crimes in themselves, but simply mechanisms to more easily catch persons who might be committing real crimes; these mechanisms tend to entrap innocents also).
Our solution is to replace the current Federal Reserve with a true democratic National Central Bank, and replace US Treasury debt with a new method of government funding which is similar but with a crucial difference; we further assert that this new method would also efficiently and fairly eliminate most kinds of taxation. We then propose a new 'e-Dollar' form of currency to enhance security, efficiency, and reasonable control of inflation.
The following proposal has a strategy rooted in The US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) authorizing the power "To coin money, regulate the value thereof". We assert that much of this power has been 'privatized' to the disadvantage of "We the People"; and, by recovering that right and power, many aspects of the current financial crisis can be fixed, and future shocks avoided. Our plan combines features advocated variously by conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats, but with key new ideas. We'll begin with a brief historical review.
For our first hundred years, money was assumed to be backed by silver (or later, gold); but from the beginning, there was intense debate and conflict about who would have the control, the balance of power, regarding the 'money supply'. Some wanted it to be mainly public, via the US federal Treasury and a democratic National Bank; others wanted the British model favoring powerful private bankers. In 1913 an apparent 'compromise' was reached, creating the current Federal Reserve System of banking. Its publicly-stated goal was to prevent the periodic financial crises that plagued the 1800's; however, it failed to avert the 'Great Depression' of 1929 and significant crises since then, nor prevent inflationary loss of 90% of the dollar's real value. A study of this history reveals remarkable influence by wealthy private banking cartel families on the design and outcome of monetary legislation.
Although the government has some control by appointing its Board of Governors, and it's ostensibly 'not for private profit', the 'Fed' is a corporation whose stock is owned exclusively by privately-owned banks which elect 6/9 of the Directors, and which profit from it in two ways: directly via stock dividends, and more importantly the right to create money (and lend it at interest) via the 'fractional reserve' mechanism. For this reason it is designated 'quasi-governmental' or 'semi-private'; such a 'compromise' is perhaps 'the worst of both' rather than the best.
The importance of this private money-creation power accelerated with the end of the 'hard-money gold standard'. The central fact is that 'offering credit' (loaning) via 'fractional reserves' is de facto creation of money; and it is the historically huge 'boom-then-bust' cycle of credit, amplified by dubious private banking practices, that is at the heart of our current 'deflationary' crisis.
The decoupling of the US Dollar from gold that was begun by Franklin Roosevelt, progressed to the post-WWII adoption of the US Dollar as the de facto World Reserve Currency. This enabled the final step by Nixon when he completely removed the gold/silver redemption aspect of the US Dollar. This status was then bolstered by the informal but powerful international agreement to price ‘black gold’ – petroleum – primarily in US Dollars. It progressively strengthened as individuals, corporations, and governments worldwide became motivated consumers of the Dollar (both as suppliers of goods to US consumers, and as savers of US Treasury notes and bonds). In general, this status has been of enormous mutual benefit globally; and it matches (or exceeds) the importance of the US Military in defining the USA as the global superpower.
In conservative politics, it is common to decry the enormous USA “National Debt” and “Negative Balance of Trade” ‘deficits’ – without acknowledging the very positive aspects of both. We assert here that the worry is only ‘half right’. Our solution is to replace that debt with a new method of government funding which is similar but with a crucial difference; we further assert that this new method would also replace most kinds of taxation.
In practice over the past several decades, the proportion of federal government spending that is sourced from taxation has dramatically decreased, with increasing use both of direct Treasury Debt sales, and indirect ‘money-creation’ (commonly called ‘printing money’ but in practice much more which 'the Fed' calls 'quantitative easing') -- all forms of monetary inflation, ie, increase in the supply of money available to the national (and global) economy. This has escalated with the financing of the middle-east wars, and again with the present economic crisis. The 'Debt/Credit' twin now dwarfs its simple 'Real Money' brother.
We can now assert that most of the traditional forms of USA federal taxation are obsolete. Such taxation presupposes a ‘hard-money’ constraint that has not existed for many decades. Such taxation provably by its nature creates a drag on economic development, by competing with private productive enterprise for dollars. It exacerbates recessions and economic crises; it oppresses and intimidates us all.
Common sense and modern fiscal science indicate that some degree of inflation of the money supply is necessary for continued economic growth, and this controlled-inflation-in-moderation is a tenet of central banks globally, including our own Federal Reserve. We assert that uniquely for the USA, it is both efficient and generally fair to replace the current taxation structure with a controlled-monetary-inflation mechanism.
However, this depends upon a return of the right to create money exclusively to the federal government, a reasonable monopoly based on the US Constitution which assigned the right to mint coin and issue currency. Today, most money is created by the private banks (and the semi-private Federal Reserve) via fractional-reserve lending, with the attendant benefits (interest profits) flowing to their private shareholders. This is an outrageous form of 'corporate welfare', mandating massive transfers of wealth to the already-wealthy.
We must emphasize the fact that there is only a very elastic relation between such monetary inflation, and ‘price inflation’ (contrary to the conservative ‘hard-money’ advocates who assume a rigid fixed relation). Simply put, a carefully measured increase in money supply does not necessarily cause a general increase in price of goods and services. This fact is demonstrated by the past decade which has seen the US government vastly increase money supply, while experiencing only moderate price inflation in general.
--------------------------------------
The key FIRST PRINCIPLE then is:
Replace traditional forms of taxation with an increased but controlled rate of money creation.
This is an evolutionary change as noted, since in fact this has been occurring now over several decades. The main idea is simply that ‘money’ is a valuable service provided by the federal government, rather than an independent ‘hard’ goods that the government must compete for against private individuals and corporations. This service, called ‘money’, is a reliable medium of exchange for all buying and selling; it has only limited, short-term usefulness as a ‘store-of-value’. That admission is crucial and very realistic, because it directs long-term ‘savers’ to the reality that only a diversified investment in productive enterprises can hold and increase value indefinitely (the next section, on Treasury Debt, provides a mechanism for intermediate-term savers).
There are major simplification efficiencies and benefits gained by eliminating taxation in this manner:
1> ‘Taxation’ can be replaced by a much smaller effort: Congress will set a budget which does not exceed some reasonable % of our economic size (GDP); then the Treasury, via a new National Central Bank, just credits that amount to the US federal government account for spending.
2> The cost of government is distributed across all users of US Dollars (including foreigners) and only to the extent that some price-inflation occurs (otherwise is nearly cost-free).
3> The vast resources of public and private workers now devoted to taxation (making and enforcing laws, collecting; advising, evading, paying) will be dramatically freed for productive work.
4> Freed of the burden of taxation, our consumer-driven economy will immediately accelerate.
5> Freed of the burden of taxation, our businesses will have ample funds to invest productively.
6> Taxation is a form of oppression and involuntary 'partial enslavement'; its elimination enhances the quality of life for all of us-- freedom from intimidation is invaluable.
Note that in the transition, the current army of tax advisors will be put to work assisting state and local goverments with the needed adjustments to their own taxation systems after federal taxes are terminated.
The federal IRS could be retained during a 5-year trial period, taxing e.g. only multi-millionare incomes (as was the intention when the federal income tax was originally created in 1913).
A few forms of federal taxation, such as ‘use-based’ ones like that on vehicle fuels, still may make sense, if judiciously applied.
Of course, the enabling legislation must provide a decent mechanism of restraint to avoid hyper-inflation temptations (such as an independent ‘Quality Assurance Agency’, to calculate GDP and % for Federal Budget; super-majorities required to raise the limits; and even an explicit Constitutional Amendment defining Fiscal Responsibility).
-------------------------------------
A related SECOND PRINCIPLE is:
Replace the current system of Treasury Debt issuance with only non-interest-bearing forms.
Like taxation, the interest-bearing Treasury debt is obsolete (there is a successful historical precedent by the English Channel-Island jurisdictions). We assert that the primary motivation for most purchasers of Treasury Debt is the absolute security of the principle value of their investment; interest added is not essential (in the current crisis, short-term Treasuries are being auctioned at effectively zero interest rate, with buyer demand exceeding offered supply).
A simplified implementation would be to augment the National Central Bank founded for money-creation. This true democratic Bank would subsume the functions of the current semi-private Federal Reserve System. It would provide term-accounts with ‘Certificates of Deposit’ to replace the current T-Notes and Bonds.
Again this is best viewed as a valuable government service. The value of this service (providing a secure, un-repudiatable, efficient store of US-dollar-denominated money) will substitute for the value of interest-earned on the old bonds.
The national benefit is clear: no longer having the huge expense of interest-payments on the national debt. The debt principle itself will be re-paid over time, simply by the money-creation mechanism of the Central Bank.
All money deposited into the accounts will be used for government funding, reducing the net amount of money-creation needed; then later requests for withdrawal will be met by the deferred money-creation. Further control of cashflow may be helpful by requiring some advance-notification terms for withdrawal requests, issueing different lengths of term and charging lower fees on longer-term deposits, and higher fees for early withdrawals.
Existing US Treasury Debt can be forcibly retired on some reasonable schedule. Each existing holder of a debt instrument will be given the option to accept a direct face-value replacement (ie, a new Central Bank Certificate of Deposit, with same term but not interest-bearing); or be paid in dollars (the nominal face value, not including future interest) via the federal money-creation mechanism, into the private banking system.
This should render the current private-bank FDIC obsolete: those wishing guarantee of principle would necessarily use the National Central Bank; those wishing interest-income would take the risk of using private banking (a compromise would be to reduce the FDIC guarantee, such as from $100000 down to $10000, to still protect low-income citizens). Another option would be to give each US Citizen the right to purchase an inflation-protected CD (similar to the existing 'TIPS' but without additional interest payment beyond inflation), up to a generous $1,000,000 or so.
-----------------------------
A related THIRD PRINCIPLE is:
The National Central Bank will be the 'Principal' Lender of Money,
(not just of 'Last Resort' as is described for the current 'Fed' ).
The principal focus of lending must be for enterprises and projects that enhance the national productive capacity and improve infrastructure in ecologically responsible ways. Amount and interest on loans can be managed to smooth the business cycle, to minimize 'boom-then-bust' extremes.
The scope of private banking would be reduced to 'retail' services, and perhaps some larger 'high-risk' forms of lending if properly regulated to prevent systemic failure. A 1%-2% 'use-tax' on private-bank loans would fund regulation agencies and insurance. We should also consider a similar nationalization of the major 'financial market' mechanisms-- the stock exchanges and commondity exchanges, including a universal replacement of the ancient and easily-corrupted 'open-outcry'-dominated-by-market-makers system, with NASDAQ-like electronic bidding systems.
Significant federal government funding thus can be provided by the interest on loans made to the private sector by the National Central Bank; and the rest of the federal budget paid for by direct federal spending of created money as noted above. 'Counter-business-cycle' fiscal policy could include adjustments to the interest rates. Another option that should be investigated is a form of 'use tax': a very small (0.1% - 1.0% ?) fee on each bank transaction; this would be the most efficient, unobtrusive tax.
>>>>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------<<<<<<
Final (optional) FOURTH PRINCIPLE is:
Eliminate 'Cash'; replace it with 'e-Dollar'.
An efficient modern 'computerized' analog of an inflation-limiting 'gold standard' of currency.
The establishment of a true democratic National Central Bank would also provide a good opportunity for the modernization of the form of our money. Instead of coinage and currency (metal and paper dollars), make all money 'electronic'. The Central Bank would have monopoly on creation of money; over the course of some transition period, require that all old forms of dollar be exchanged for the new 'e-Dollar'.
An e-Dollar is created as a new 'serial number' in the Central Bank database (a 64-bit binary number should be adequate: ~ $20'Quintillion'='Million Trillion'=(10**18)). This ensures that every US dollar will be identifiable, permanent and traceable.
Each account in all banks (the public National Central Bank, and all private retail banks) would use a new accounting system, whereby the serial number of every dollar in the account is maintained. Representation could be efficient as a list of 'Dollar Sequence's [ (CNT,SNUM) where SNUM is the first Serial Number in the sequence and CNT is the count, the total number of dollars in that sequence ]. The Central Bank would create new money in the form of very large DollarSequences; as the money is spent into the economy, the sequences get broken down and distributed [ until finally, a typical individual bank account would have a long list of (CNT=1,SNUM=x)].
Retail commerce will be conducted entirely with cards, like the current Credit- and Debit-Cards linked to bank accounts, and possibly a partially-anonymous 'E-Dollar Card' similar to them but independent of bank account, and rechargeable at any bank. This 'E-Dollar Card' would provide more privacy than other cards, but still be traceable ultimately, because of the new universal accounting in all banks of each dollar by its serial number.
Fractions of Dollar will be noted in a single
'VirtualFractionalDollar Datum' ('VFD') in each account. Payers of Fractions will forfeit one real e-dollar back to the Central Bank each time they deplete/replenish their VFD (0.00->1.00); Payees will get one new e-dollar from the Central Bank each time their VFD reaches 1.00. [So there will be a 'float' of maximum X virtual dollars, where X is the total number of bank accounts.]
The National Central Bank e-Dollar Relational Database would maintain a record (relation) with primary key = the eDollar serial#, and include auditing data such as the current bank & account owning this eDollar, and the previous account, and a timestamp indicating the last transaction (transfer from previous to current account). All member banks would maintain full transaction records to enable historical tracing of each e-Dollar.
The new e-dollar scheme would have several benefits:
1) each dollar costs nothing to create (unlike minting/printing coin/currency).
2) each dollar is permanent (not destructable like coins/currency).
3) each dollar is unique, self-identifying, and thus fully traceable.
4) the rate of money-creation will be easily auditable at the Central Bank; just as the historical 'gold standard' limited monetary inflation, so would a Constitutional / super-majority control limiting the growth rate of e-Dollars created in the Treasury Database (but without the inflexibility, cost, and ecological damage of gold-mining).
5) counterfeiting dollars will be very difficult, in the sense that duplicate serial numbers will be easily detected [the Federal Government Treasury Department will have the authority to do a daily scan of all accounts and transaction records in all US Banks; no non-US Bank will be permitted to hold e-Dollars (a foreign 'virtual' USDollar account will just be a reference to total dollars held in a domestic bank account)].
6) it eliminates the justification for egregious 'money-laundering' regulations. After a court hearing and conviction for a real crime, e-Dollars acquired from illegal transactions could be traced and refunded to any innocent parties -- whether by liquidation of the criminal's assets, or by compensatory money-creation from the US Treasury (Financial activities now criminalized by 'money-laundering' laws are not real crimes in themselves, but simply mechanisms to more easily catch persons who might be committing real crimes; these mechanisms tend to entrap innocents also).
Intro: the NewNewDeal_21stCentury
'A radical evolution in Government Fiscal Policy '
The recent Presidential election may be viewed as a clear mandate from many segments of our society: The traditional economic policies of the 20th century have failed us, and radical change is needed.
The consensus is that right now we as a nation are facing the worst crisis since 1929. That crisis was amplified into the Great Depression by the ‘hard money’ conservative policy of the Hoover government. Apart from the effects of the victory of WWII, there were two principle factors in the ‘New Deal’ policy of the Roosevelt government that enabled a recovery:
1> the relief from ‘hard money’ constraints (partial de-coupling of the dollar from gold equivalence) which provided the government with significant funding to intervene in the crisis.
2> the spending of those funds into infrastructure projects, which provided meaningful employment for the citizens of the USA, creating public works of lasting value (even the USA involvement in WWII itself may be viewed in this context, as a whole-nation enterprise with longterm value).
These two factors can again be employed to bring our nation out of its crisis; but the specific mechanisms of the 20th century ‘New Deal’ are no longer sufficient; a radical evolution of these principles in practice is necessary. The prerequisites for this evolution are the same now as in the day of Franklin Roosevelt:
> A national consensus that the old way has failed us, and that something new is required.
> A strong leader committed to these principles and able to rally the reserve strength of a unified populace.
> The intelligence to synthesize a few simple but powerful ideas and methods into a workable plan.
> The will to focus and persevere in its implementation, with flexibility but without capitulation.
With the election of Mr. Obama as President, we have met the first two requirements. The opportunity is now. He has demonstrated a commitment to the principle that as a nation, our greatest resource is a diverse population of intelligent, creative, and industrious people, working in unison within the great democratic tradition of liberty and justice for all. Throughout this enterprise, it must be unmistakably clear that the leader’s respect for and care for this diverse people, and this great democratic tradition, are genuine and unshakable. Success depends on this.
This is why we call the ‘New New Deal’ evolutionary – because it rests upon that tradition. The specific ideas and methods that we will propose rely on the power of that tradition, while introducing innovation enabled by our national progress in economy, science and information technology:
> A relentless focus on worthy Primary National Goals reached by intelligent, creative consensus.
> A new understanding of Money, coupled to the unique global power of the US Dollar.
> A quantum leap in Government Quality: efficiency, productivity, and transparent accountability.
Some of the key ideas presented in the following brief appear ‘radical’ in the context of our Republican politics and economy of recent years. However, in the context of the mandate implicit in the election of Mr. Obama, and the severe crisis unfolding in our economy, we would urge an open-minded and careful consideration of these ‘radically simple’ solutions. The danger is that any remedial attempt that is more safely familiar will be far less than adequate. Moreover, these new ideas are a synthesis that is also consistent with proven successful 'supply-side' and libertarian aspects of the Republican Reagan era.
The proposed solutions are meant to face squarely the true seriousness of our current crisis, and to aggressively and boldly ‘get ahead of the curve’ of the impending vicious deflationary cycle and its deepening national despair.
They are more than just short-term patches; they intend to lay the foundation for national peace and prosperity well into the 21st Century, and to avoid offloading difficult choices and crushing debts onto our future generations of children.
Finally, it should be clear that the cause of the current crisis is due to the limitations of human nature; that government is human, and that failures in our government contributed as much as those in private enterprise. More government is not necessarily Better Government. For a balanced exposition, see:
L.H.White.CATO:'Imprudent Government Policy'
and:
J.B.Delong.CATO:'Imprudent Private Risk Behavior'
and especially:
W.K.Black.CATO:'Criminal Fraud and Lax Law-Enforcement'
The recent Presidential election may be viewed as a clear mandate from many segments of our society: The traditional economic policies of the 20th century have failed us, and radical change is needed.
The consensus is that right now we as a nation are facing the worst crisis since 1929. That crisis was amplified into the Great Depression by the ‘hard money’ conservative policy of the Hoover government. Apart from the effects of the victory of WWII, there were two principle factors in the ‘New Deal’ policy of the Roosevelt government that enabled a recovery:
1> the relief from ‘hard money’ constraints (partial de-coupling of the dollar from gold equivalence) which provided the government with significant funding to intervene in the crisis.
2> the spending of those funds into infrastructure projects, which provided meaningful employment for the citizens of the USA, creating public works of lasting value (even the USA involvement in WWII itself may be viewed in this context, as a whole-nation enterprise with longterm value).
These two factors can again be employed to bring our nation out of its crisis; but the specific mechanisms of the 20th century ‘New Deal’ are no longer sufficient; a radical evolution of these principles in practice is necessary. The prerequisites for this evolution are the same now as in the day of Franklin Roosevelt:
> A national consensus that the old way has failed us, and that something new is required.
> A strong leader committed to these principles and able to rally the reserve strength of a unified populace.
> The intelligence to synthesize a few simple but powerful ideas and methods into a workable plan.
> The will to focus and persevere in its implementation, with flexibility but without capitulation.
With the election of Mr. Obama as President, we have met the first two requirements. The opportunity is now. He has demonstrated a commitment to the principle that as a nation, our greatest resource is a diverse population of intelligent, creative, and industrious people, working in unison within the great democratic tradition of liberty and justice for all. Throughout this enterprise, it must be unmistakably clear that the leader’s respect for and care for this diverse people, and this great democratic tradition, are genuine and unshakable. Success depends on this.
This is why we call the ‘New New Deal’ evolutionary – because it rests upon that tradition. The specific ideas and methods that we will propose rely on the power of that tradition, while introducing innovation enabled by our national progress in economy, science and information technology:
> A relentless focus on worthy Primary National Goals reached by intelligent, creative consensus.
> A new understanding of Money, coupled to the unique global power of the US Dollar.
> A quantum leap in Government Quality: efficiency, productivity, and transparent accountability.
Some of the key ideas presented in the following brief appear ‘radical’ in the context of our Republican politics and economy of recent years. However, in the context of the mandate implicit in the election of Mr. Obama, and the severe crisis unfolding in our economy, we would urge an open-minded and careful consideration of these ‘radically simple’ solutions. The danger is that any remedial attempt that is more safely familiar will be far less than adequate. Moreover, these new ideas are a synthesis that is also consistent with proven successful 'supply-side' and libertarian aspects of the Republican Reagan era.
The proposed solutions are meant to face squarely the true seriousness of our current crisis, and to aggressively and boldly ‘get ahead of the curve’ of the impending vicious deflationary cycle and its deepening national despair.
They are more than just short-term patches; they intend to lay the foundation for national peace and prosperity well into the 21st Century, and to avoid offloading difficult choices and crushing debts onto our future generations of children.
Finally, it should be clear that the cause of the current crisis is due to the limitations of human nature; that government is human, and that failures in our government contributed as much as those in private enterprise. More government is not necessarily Better Government. For a balanced exposition, see:
L.H.White.CATO:'Imprudent Government Policy'
and:
J.B.Delong.CATO:'Imprudent Private Risk Behavior'
and especially:
W.K.Black.CATO:'Criminal Fraud and Lax Law-Enforcement'
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The New Jerusalem: Peace Not Impossible
If the U.S.A. be a true democracy, if a national referendum were held today-- wouldn't the majority of the people vote to remove ourselves completely from the ancient Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Or do we really believe we can make peace happen by continuing our massively expensive support, military supply and political favor for the Israeli state in Palestine? Does it really enhance our national security to continue antagonizing the entire Muslim world? Or would a disengagement from the one war in Palestine also remove the 'need' for the other two wars (in Iraq and Afghanstan)? Do all Muslims hate us 'for no reason'? Or can we remove the obvious reason, and find out just how minor is the remnant terrorist threat? Alternatively, How much time do we (Israel, USA) have before Muslim militants have nuclear weapons?
A famous general once said: "What we have here is a failure of imagination". In that spirit, in the face of the despair of escalating warfare, I present a realistic hope. Peace is possible, and Terrorism is defeated by this peace, not by further warfare. Imagine this:
We could make a rough estimate of the cost-since-1940 of the Palestinian conflicts. Let's just say in today's dollars, $ One Trillion $. We could also realistically assume that in the future, without a genuine, comprehensive, lasting solution, the conflict will cost at least that much again (double that if it 'goes nuclear').
What could be done differently, for that kind of money?
In simplest common-sense terms, the best chance for peace between mortal enemies is to separate them, put a good distance between them if at all possible. Well, it is certainly possible now.
>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan for 'The Treaty of Palestine and New Israel, 2009':
Create a new Jerusalem in Palestine, and a new Israel _far_ away from Palestine; cede the Palestinian territory of the current Israel entirely to the Palestinians.
The Jerusalem in Palestine shall be 're-newed' as a neutral World Heritage site. Its ancient metropolis would be divided into quarters: Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Secular. In the Secular quarter would be located all the pragmatic city government institutions including the police (composed originally of United Nations supplied forces). The other quarters would be populated by a select core of representatives of the three religions, who would renovate/establish their mosques, synagogs/temple, churches and related educational and cultural institutions.
All the rest of the territory of the present Israel shall be given unconditionally to be the homeland of the Palestinian peoples, the State of Palestine.
The present Jewish population of Israel shall be relocated to a suitable new land. The present State of Israel is about 50 miles by 200 miles. My suggested location for the New Israel is: a similar-sized portion of land located along the southern border of the US State of Arizona, extending from that border to 50 miles south in Mexico. It is largely arid desert 'wasteland', sparsely populated, but would provide access to sea as part of its southern border would be the Gulf of Baja California (aka: Sea of Cortez). For several reasons stated below, this location is ideal.
Mexico is the key for this plan at this suggested location. The Mexican People would gain significant prestige in the world by being the principal sponsor of a final and enduring solution to an age-old intractable conflict. Mexico must also receive significant economic benefits in exchange for ceding this relatively small portion of land. Alternative desert sites for consideration if Mexico defers: Western Australia; Egyptian Sinai; North Coastal West Africa; South Africa; West-Coastal Argentina.
Sources of funds to compensate Mexico (including relocation payments to the small existing populace):
(1) as payment for the infrastructure improvements created in Palestine by the people of Israel since its modern founding circa 1940: an international consortium composed of all interested nations (hopefully including wealthy Muslim such as Saudi Arabia) will pay Mexico on behalf of the Palestinian people.
(2) benevolent donations: from 'friends of Israel' -- such as the active Jewish organizations in the USA, and the Christian ones there who profess support for Israel.
Sources of funds for initial relocation/construction of New Israel:
(1) and (2) same as above
(3) long-term loans from public and private lenders
(4) as compensation for Israel to forfeit its nuclear-weapons capability and signon to the Non-proliferation Treaty: the USA would receive the nuclear weapons and material, and in return provide funding/expertise/oversight for a nuclear-powered electricity-generation infrastructure.
Feasability: A prime assumption is that, based upon the historical success of modern Israel in creating a flourishing State in resource-poor Palestine, we can expect that the Jewish Peoples will demonstrate similar resourcefulness and industriousness in the re-creation of this New Israel. Even more so, since they will be guaranteed a peaceful existence, and so not need to waste the large portion of wealth and effort as they did in Palestine on defense and warfare.
-----------------------------------------------------
Ancilliary benefits to the USA and Mexico:
The New Israel, once it is established as a thriving State, would provide a significant beneficial trading partner especially in high-technology goods and services, and an additional employer/skills-trainer of Mexican national guest workers.
Historically and currently there is an escalating tension at the USA-Mexico border. The USA contemplates a major expenditure in 'border protection'. This would be significantly moderated where the New Israel would provide a natural, neutral buffer zone between Mexico and the USA. Of course, the Treaty would provide for guaranteed free transit of trade goods across that buffer (especially in the I19 corridor connecting Tucson).
The construction of this New Israel would provide a unique opportunity as a testing ground for modernization of all facets of national infrastructure and sustainable living. For example, electric power generation; nuclear has already been mentioned, but the location is also ideal for large-scale-Solar, and possibly wave/wind. Others: Construction techniques for environmentally-friendly high-density housing, transportation, communications; fresh-water from desalinization of sea-water.
The peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israel conflict would enable the USA to disengage rapidly from military ventures in traditional Muslim regions; this in turn would significantly reduce the motivations of Muslim militants against the USA, would isolate Muslim terrorists from the vast majority of the Muslim peoples, and would resolve the expensive, endless, hopeless 'war-on-terror' as a major threat to national and international security.
>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
The fate of this should not rest in the hands of a few politicians with intransigent attitudes; it should be submitted as a referendum to at least the peoples of Palestine, Israel, the USA, and those who would provide the new territory.
Especially the US referendum can inform and motivate all parties that this is an unambiguous 'last chance', that we will no longer waste our resources and jeopardize our security with the status quo in Palestine.
We know this plan will require alot from all parties involved.
Our answer: Is it possible? Yes. Is it worth the effort? Yes.
Would it benefit our entire planet, and all our peoples, by demonstrating that peace and the ensuing prosperity are achievable? Yes! There is Hope.
A famous general once said: "What we have here is a failure of imagination". In that spirit, in the face of the despair of escalating warfare, I present a realistic hope. Peace is possible, and Terrorism is defeated by this peace, not by further warfare. Imagine this:
We could make a rough estimate of the cost-since-1940 of the Palestinian conflicts. Let's just say in today's dollars, $ One Trillion $. We could also realistically assume that in the future, without a genuine, comprehensive, lasting solution, the conflict will cost at least that much again (double that if it 'goes nuclear').
What could be done differently, for that kind of money?
In simplest common-sense terms, the best chance for peace between mortal enemies is to separate them, put a good distance between them if at all possible. Well, it is certainly possible now.
>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan for 'The Treaty of Palestine and New Israel, 2009':
Create a new Jerusalem in Palestine, and a new Israel _far_ away from Palestine; cede the Palestinian territory of the current Israel entirely to the Palestinians.
The Jerusalem in Palestine shall be 're-newed' as a neutral World Heritage site. Its ancient metropolis would be divided into quarters: Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Secular. In the Secular quarter would be located all the pragmatic city government institutions including the police (composed originally of United Nations supplied forces). The other quarters would be populated by a select core of representatives of the three religions, who would renovate/establish their mosques, synagogs/temple, churches and related educational and cultural institutions.
All the rest of the territory of the present Israel shall be given unconditionally to be the homeland of the Palestinian peoples, the State of Palestine.
The present Jewish population of Israel shall be relocated to a suitable new land. The present State of Israel is about 50 miles by 200 miles. My suggested location for the New Israel is: a similar-sized portion of land located along the southern border of the US State of Arizona, extending from that border to 50 miles south in Mexico. It is largely arid desert 'wasteland', sparsely populated, but would provide access to sea as part of its southern border would be the Gulf of Baja California (aka: Sea of Cortez). For several reasons stated below, this location is ideal.
Mexico is the key for this plan at this suggested location. The Mexican People would gain significant prestige in the world by being the principal sponsor of a final and enduring solution to an age-old intractable conflict. Mexico must also receive significant economic benefits in exchange for ceding this relatively small portion of land. Alternative desert sites for consideration if Mexico defers: Western Australia; Egyptian Sinai; North Coastal West Africa; South Africa; West-Coastal Argentina.
Sources of funds to compensate Mexico (including relocation payments to the small existing populace):
(1) as payment for the infrastructure improvements created in Palestine by the people of Israel since its modern founding circa 1940: an international consortium composed of all interested nations (hopefully including wealthy Muslim such as Saudi Arabia) will pay Mexico on behalf of the Palestinian people.
(2) benevolent donations: from 'friends of Israel' -- such as the active Jewish organizations in the USA, and the Christian ones there who profess support for Israel.
Sources of funds for initial relocation/construction of New Israel:
(1) and (2) same as above
(3) long-term loans from public and private lenders
(4) as compensation for Israel to forfeit its nuclear-weapons capability and signon to the Non-proliferation Treaty: the USA would receive the nuclear weapons and material, and in return provide funding/expertise/oversight for a nuclear-powered electricity-generation infrastructure.
Feasability: A prime assumption is that, based upon the historical success of modern Israel in creating a flourishing State in resource-poor Palestine, we can expect that the Jewish Peoples will demonstrate similar resourcefulness and industriousness in the re-creation of this New Israel. Even more so, since they will be guaranteed a peaceful existence, and so not need to waste the large portion of wealth and effort as they did in Palestine on defense and warfare.
-----------------------------------------------------
Ancilliary benefits to the USA and Mexico:
The New Israel, once it is established as a thriving State, would provide a significant beneficial trading partner especially in high-technology goods and services, and an additional employer/skills-trainer of Mexican national guest workers.
Historically and currently there is an escalating tension at the USA-Mexico border. The USA contemplates a major expenditure in 'border protection'. This would be significantly moderated where the New Israel would provide a natural, neutral buffer zone between Mexico and the USA. Of course, the Treaty would provide for guaranteed free transit of trade goods across that buffer (especially in the I19 corridor connecting Tucson).
The construction of this New Israel would provide a unique opportunity as a testing ground for modernization of all facets of national infrastructure and sustainable living. For example, electric power generation; nuclear has already been mentioned, but the location is also ideal for large-scale-Solar, and possibly wave/wind. Others: Construction techniques for environmentally-friendly high-density housing, transportation, communications; fresh-water from desalinization of sea-water.
The peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israel conflict would enable the USA to disengage rapidly from military ventures in traditional Muslim regions; this in turn would significantly reduce the motivations of Muslim militants against the USA, would isolate Muslim terrorists from the vast majority of the Muslim peoples, and would resolve the expensive, endless, hopeless 'war-on-terror' as a major threat to national and international security.
>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
The fate of this should not rest in the hands of a few politicians with intransigent attitudes; it should be submitted as a referendum to at least the peoples of Palestine, Israel, the USA, and those who would provide the new territory.
Especially the US referendum can inform and motivate all parties that this is an unambiguous 'last chance', that we will no longer waste our resources and jeopardize our security with the status quo in Palestine.
We know this plan will require alot from all parties involved.
Our answer: Is it possible? Yes. Is it worth the effort? Yes.
Would it benefit our entire planet, and all our peoples, by demonstrating that peace and the ensuing prosperity are achievable? Yes! There is Hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
