Direct action

This is a response to a photo I found on Facebook overs year ago. It has been slightly edited.

Someone who associated with what occupy became once said, "if voting changed anything they would make it illegal"

Which is exactly what is happening across the country as ballot access is being restricted under the false premise of voter fraud. The same thing was done under every fascist and communist country in history. In other words, voting is being made illegal for many. It obviously matters.

This nonsense about "direct action" on changing government by protesting Wall Street in a camp when the corruption is on K street will never work. Unions didn't win until they pressured government under President T Roosevelt, passed anti-trust laws, and formed the progressive party which got seats in congress (Theodore Roosevelt ran as a Progressive in 1912). They then elected President Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 who passed regulations on Wall Street to protect Americans with a supportive congress which brought all of America out of the great depression, the rich, middle class, and even the poor. The progress continued until 1978 when union members stopped voting and the Republican Party had 14 years of undisputed dominance in government. Regulations were stripped, and America didn't complain when they saw their purchasing power plummeting year after year, and kept abstaining, and nothing has changed yet. The median American households real value falls every single year. Occupy chose this direct action bullshit which has never succeeded, using the same strategies those WTO protests in 1999 used which have failed every time they are tried without fail. Direct action has never succeeded, and it isn't illegal, though protesting is in some places, voting has a stellar record, and it is being made difficult in the south right now.

Suppoerters of direct action will often point to Ghandi and Mandela on how it worked, but Mandela won from prison while he was running for office, and Ghandi was in every way looking for massive political changes, to have India be political independent. Martin Luther King jr persuaded politicians to pass laws ending discrimination as a major tactic as his final goal, equality under the law, and he had two presidents who supported him on it. What occupiers called direct action is protesting against changes without actually running candidates to vote on the bills that will make a serious difference in the laws of our country. The only movements I can think that have done this without any political action (which many occupiers opposed) are the anti-globalization and animal rights movements, and they haven't succeeded by any stretch of the imagination.

Global change requires action. Action requires politics. Direct action is in reality inaction because there is no change after it is complete.

Contract From America, a critique

I was accused today of being someone who could join the tea party and that I didn't know what it stood for, so I decided to learn what it is for, and here is what I found on the Contract from America:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.
3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution.
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities.
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation.
9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011.

The first part is already done by the Supreme Court, 5 of 9 have been appointed by Republicans.

I am going to ask the conflict theorists question for the second point: Who benefits from no restrictions on oil emissions? Oil companies.

I agree with balancing the Federal budget, but I have looked at it and except for massive cuts from the Department of Defense, it can't be done. This is something Republicans have never been behind for the past 30 years.

Simplifying the tax system. First of all, my economics textbook (written by Bush advisor Gregory Mankiw) claims that flat taxes (what they are calling for) is by its nature a regressive tax. I would prefer a progressive tax structure based on the cost of living with rates from 0% to 50% where 99% of Americans will pay less than 15% and it will be modified by states' cost of living, and capital gains will b one taxed as regular income. That will balance the budget. The Tea Party doesn't support that, it says so in the Contract from America.

5. Every department (except for the Department of Defense) is already audited. This is a moot point. Why haven't the Tea Party members of Congress (a majority in the house) proposed a bill to do this? Curious...

6. Limit the growth of federal spending, does this take into account potential disasters? If we limited ourselves from growing our services in the face of disaster, how would the government cope?

7. According to the World Health Organization, The United States pays an average of $8361 per capita on health care in 2010. Norway and Switzerland were about the same. Canada paid $5222 in 2010. Our health statistics, birth mortality, life expectancy, and others according to the CIA don't show an increase over other nations. The statistics show that our current private health care system doesn't benefit the average American. Our current system only benefits the insurance industry. They don't specify what they would replace Obamacare with.

8. If we generated our fuels domestically, they will be the same companies that drill abroad. Nothing will really change there. It will still be the same companies, and our domestic oil production is at an all time high right now. Houston Chronicle

9. Reduce earmarks. If the tea party is so against earmarks, why haven't they done anything about it? This is not the real goal of the tea party. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/earmarks.php

10. Reducing taxes. I agree and disagree here. In order to do some things efficiently, we need to do them as a country, and that means we need the government to raise money. Most of these Bush tax increases go to the rich. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811 This is not going to benefit most tea party people.

Where does the Tea Party get its money? http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2011/02/02/tea-party-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity has the answer.

I disagree with all ten at some extent. I wish to offer counter-proposals (that I wish Occupy would have embraced) on the same topics that are actually at issue. I have also addressed a few corruption issues that the Tea Party fails to addre

1. Move off of fossil fuels and embrace Hydrogen fuel cells as a mode for fueling transportation. They are competitive, and fulfill Adam Smith's requirement that there be competition in a market for supply and demand to work. This will drive down the cost of transportation. They also are 100% domestic.
2. Demand a balanced federal budget. Cut subsidies to lobbyists and make a strong simple and progressive tax code.
3. Simplify the tax system. Make a tax system ranging from 0% to 75% of income (most Americans won't see their tax rates go up, down probably) and put in two deductions, one for all education expenses, and one for all health care expenses. As the budget is balanced, put the lowest rates into the 0% category to encourage growth from the bottom of the income ladder. Short-selling stocks will not make your taxes go down!
4. Expand Medicare to cover all Americans. This will bring down our cost of health care by providing primary care for people who need it so that instead of going to the emergency room they can get early treatment which is less expensive. After doing this, Medicaid and Tricare will be fully abolished.
5. Audit the Department of Defense.
6. Reduce earmarks by making all elections publicly run, publicly financed, and outlawing lobbying through money in Congress. The Tea Party has not embraced this. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/earmarks.php
7. Abolish the federal handouts to the Real Estate industry by abolishing the mortgage tax deduction to raise revenue, or decrease taxes.
8. Stop sending money to nations that abuse human rights like Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and historically the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. Only send developmental aid that builds the nations capacity to grow and gets average people to be economically sustainable.
9. Elect the President through Instant Runoff Voting. Elect Congress by the Single Transferable Vote using the Gregory Method. Abolish the Senate which was only created to preserve the interests of the politically established. Increase Congress to 750 members in the one remaining house.
10. To save money, legalize marijuana. Legalize LSD. Legalize ecstasy. Increase taxes on cigarettes. http://www.mjlegal.org/cost.html This will save money and generate revenue.

Those will actually balance the budget. Most people will see their taxes decrease, the only people who will see more taxes are the ones who are paying 15% on million of dollars of income. The Tea Party doesn't support this, but it is the only honest way to balance the budget without cutting military spending.

The "End The Fed" People

For the past few years there has been a lot of talk about ending the Federal Reserve and going to a system where the government doesn't print the American dollars. People make a lot of outrageous claims, and most of this is spearheaded by Ron Paul's constant tirade against the government's involvement in anything but abortion and marriage. He has a lot of support from Occupiers, many of which don't know his true votes. on http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/ you can see where he has voted. I recommend looking at his votes HR 359, HR 2, HR 4437, HR 2745, and most importantly H J Res 64, and H J Res 58, to see how they match up on his rhetoric. He has a mixed record. I included this because he is the patron saint of the private currency movement.

The following arguments people in favor of ending the Federal Reserve say include the following:
1. It is a fiat currency and they want it to be backed up by gold, claiming this would be better.
2. After the Great Depression and now they are claiming it creates depressions.
3. They think that a private bank, which probably would end up being Bank of America or Goldman Sachs, would do a better job. That is who did it the last time we had a private currency! Government contractors, mostly banks.
4. The Federal Reserve is the sole cause of inflation (The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard)

Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, the Tea Party, and the Austrian school of economics are the people who are most famous in criticizing the Federal Reserve. Currently, it would take 9.5 billion grams of gold to back up the American GDP, Fort Knox holds a mere 147 million grams, meaning to back up every American dollar we would need 90 times the current amount of bullion the American government has. Currently Fort Knox holds 2% of the world's known gold, that would mean we would need 180% of the proven gold reserves, which is impossible. Remember, Milton Friedman (who hated the Federal Reserve) proposed that the Federal Reserve should increase the amount of money in the economy by a certain predetermined amount every year regardless of how the economy is doing. This is known as his k-percent rule. If he wanted to prevent inflation, according to a monetarist approach this is the exact opposite of what their other beliefs would predict (To be transparent, I am Keynesian). Perhaps the most important part to the whole argument is that if the government didn't print money, someone else would have to. The answer would be who it was before, private banks, Bank of America, Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup would be the most likely contenders and there would be no Congressional oversight.

The argument that the Federal Reserve is the sole cause of inflation leaves out the influence of the energy industry. Everything in the economy requires energy to run and this is oil for transportation. With the vast majority of the world's oil controlled by a handful of corporations, they have formed a cartel, known as OPEC, since they have formed a cartel they can negotiate what the price is going to be among themselves and squash any competition. If the price of shipping increases, everything else increases because everything needs to be shipped to get to where it will be sold, whether it is across town or across an ocean. If the price of oil is highjacked (which of course has never happened, sarcasm) than naturally the cost of shipping will rise and the cost of everything that is shipped (which is everything) will follow. At this point, putting more money in the economy to increase the amount of money regular people have won't stop the price inflation from the cartel. The Federal Reserve hasn't caused this, and there is very little they can do to stop it short of the Federal Government investing into renewable energy to give competition to this powerful cartel. President Carter tried to do that, but then we elected Ronald Reagan and the movement for energy independence went to the background of our political sphere. (Cold but true.) In fact, over the past 100 years (since the Federal Reserve was founded, 1912) the times with the highest inflation were in the 1970s and the 2000s. What immediately preceded both of them was a massive increase in the oil price. No action from the Fed here!

So, that leaves the only other part is what they leave out. Many people look at it and say they cause inflation by randomly increasing the money supply without bounds, in fact, no. There is no basis to that in real life. The Federal Reserve also destroys old bills to counterbalance the printing of new bills, which means the impact on inflation is negligible with this system in place. This is usually not reported when the media talks about the federal reserve and when I talk to critics they usually don't know about this and think I am lying, which I am not.

So, I have defeated all four arguments that are usually used against the Federal Reserve. Now, I wish to bring the points I have on why the Federal Reserve is a necessity for economic stability.
1. With only one printer of money there can be control in a steady monetary economy. With private contractors no such mechanism can exist.
2. The rate of severe recessions is currently 1 per 50 years, between the closing of the second national bank and opening of the Federal Reserve it was 1 per 7 years, there were two recessions in 1896 alone!
3. If you use gold as a basis for currency than that becomes a basis and if the value of gold rapidly decreases the value of your money will follow.
4. There is simply not enough gold in the world to back up the dollar's value. There is currently a proven reserve of about 8 billion ounces of gold available in the world (calculated by the amount held by the Federal Reserve 161 million which is 2% of the known reserves), and if we used a two metal system as was proposed by Bryan in the 1890s we could have, assuming that we had all the world's gold (literally) in Fort Knox it would equal $12.7 trillion at current exchange rates which would fall short of our GDP by over $3 trillion meaning we would need at least a bimetallic system if we were going to back the American dollar up with a precious metal. $3 trillion is the equivalent of 110 billion ounces of silver. It just isn't possible to use a gold standard, or bimetallic standard. It is not going to work. The gold just doesn't exist.

If we were going to take a lot of money out of the economy, well, that would mean deflation. That would mean increasing everybody's taxes and taking the money out of the economy instead of spending it on government programs and putting it back in the economy. This probably would not be done equitably given our recent political history. Prices would have to drop immediately or our standard of living would rapidly decrease. Personally, I would move all my money to other currencies to protect my wealth, and other people will do the same. Divestment from America, divestment from Greece isn't looking there. (See my previous post) There you go, the American dollar just got the amount of money it needs to switch to the gold standard! Unfortunately the American economy  just shaunk by $3 trillion dollars and our GDP per capita by over $10,000. By decreasing the supply of money, the opposite of a rapid increase of money should happen, and since increasing the supply curve will decrease the value of the dollar and prices will increase, by decreasing the supply curve prices will increase the value of the dollar and prices should decrease. I say should because I am not completely convinced it will. If some major corporation (oh, I don't know, let's say OPEC) that has a major influence on the economy decided to not decrease their prices, the prices will not decrease. Given the leverage the oil companies have on the economy I highly doubt that they would decrease their prices so rapidly across the country if they had no interest, and I can't see any reason why they would. This would mean prices for other goods will not come down because of the cost of shipping as much as they would need to if this was actually done, but I highly doubt this is likely. It would require every business to decrease their prices in order for this to happen, and because of market forces I predict individuals wanting to get ahead will prevent such a decrease in prices. So this means less money in people's pockets, and similar prices. I believe we call this situation a depression. It would take a long time for the prices to balance out and I don't see that happening in a timely manner. After that point private corporations (namely big banks) will have complete control over the money supply and probably not just one company but several, and the thing that supply-side economists tend to support, a privatization of the money system, will prove how an oversupply of money can hurt an economy by destroying the value of the dollar. That is not an option for the United States or the rest of the world. Currently, the times our country has seen rapid inflation is correlated not to actions by the Federal Reserve, but by actions by the oil industry, and only the oil industry. I don't think the risks are worth the proposed benefits that they claim, and the history of when we privatized our currency leads me to believe that there won't be benefits, but we will see issues in the overproduction of money to increase the value of the private banks that will print our money. Without caring about the long-term implications to their decisions.

This is why I support the Federal Reserve.

This is also one reason why I am voting OBAMA 2012.

On Ron Paul

On Ron Paul

His policies, his speeches, and his true friends.

In light of Ron Paul recent success in Iowa, let's look at his policies.

I am using the sources Wikipedia uses, to save space here they are the same interviews wikipedia uses from all sorts of news organizations.

Ron Paul’s beliefs

Foreign policy

• non-intervention in both peaceful and military matters
• Lift the embargo against Cuba
• Withdraw from all international organizations
• WTO is a “barrier to free trade”
• States he supports Free Trade, but opposes all free trade agreements
• Patrol our borders
• Policy with Mexico is in line with Republican Party of building a fence and deportation
• No birthright citizenshi
• Opposes hunting terrorists who do us harm.

Economic Policy

• End the Federal Reserve (bad idea, see below)

Social Policy

• Opposes Gay Marriage, Supports DOMA, says he opposes efforts to define marriage.
• No separation of Church and State
• No flag desecration
• No gun laws
• Opposes torture
• Opposes the Draft
• Opposes Affirmative Action, meaning Colleges are allowed to scan applicants for their background.
• Opposes adoption.
• Supports Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
• While stating he supports State’s rights, he has proposed to define life as starting at conception in the US House several times.
• Supports Stem-Cell Research
• Opposes Universal Health Care
• Supports tax credits to cover medical costs
• Supports Marijuana use
• Supports legalizing drugs.
• Opposes Department of Veteran’s Affairs
• Opposes FDA
• Opposes the 1965 Voting Rights Act (2005)
• Opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act
• Opposes direct election of Senators
• Supports direct election of the President

Environmental Policy

• Opposes Federal emissions standards
• Rejects Global Warming

Overview of inconsistencies

He is inconsistent with his policy on direct voting, by opposing the electoral college and supporting the original method to elect Senators.

Why the Occupy Movement Cannot Support Ron Paul

The first reason is, of course, economical. The Federal Reserve is a Federal agency that is appointed by Congress and approved by the President, despite what Ron Paul says. By removing the power of the government to manage its currency it will go back to where it was during the last period of no central bank from 1869 to 1913, the largest banks in the country will print their own currency with no regulation from the Democratic government. This is what happened then, and that is what will happen now if Ron Paul becomes able to do that. He has been paid by banks, there is no other reason he would support it short of insanity. Having worked for the Federal Reserve he is the perfect member of Congress to make this case for them.

While being a libertarian he supports the government prohibiting federal recognition of gay marriage. Many people make this out to be a libertarian argument, but a Libertarian would not support the Defense of Marriage Act or Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, calling them “government intervention”, but Ron Paul does no such thing and has consistently voted to uphold those two policies. He supports a state religion, and to have religion and state intermingle, something a true Libertarian would not dream of supporting. His Abortion policy is directly opposed to Federalism. He opposes giving military employees pensions and lifetime health care after going to war. He opposes free trade, meaning he is a Mercantilist, someone who believes very strongly in the Government sanctioning trade. He has consistently voted against the Federal Government renewing the 1960s human rights legislation that gave African Americans the right to vote and other rights, along with having racist newsletters go out in his name in the 1990s. He supports the Federal Government building a fence with Mexico.

Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is just another Republican, his policies are all Republican, and his attitude is a Republican attitude. He usually  votes along with his Republican colleagues on important issues unless if it has to do with the Federal Reserve System.

Ron Paul supporters do not know Ron Paul. Ron Paul supporters do not know what Ron Paul stands for. Ron Paul supporters treat Ron Paul as a Jesus figure, and he is the leader of their religion, just like Ronald Reagan has been made into a religious figure by the Republican Party. Follow, and be blind.

If you are part of the Occupy Movement, you cannot support Ron Paul, because he will privatize our monetary policy. The big banks whose practices we oppose will control the United States dollar and you can believe there will be a really rocky ride with many bank runs as soon as this would be done, because that is exactly what will happen. Keep the Federal Reserve, it is our only protection against the banks. He supports expanding government into our lives and leaving our economy to the power of mercantilists. Because that is the economic philosophy Ron Paul follows, Mercantilism.

Do not vote Paul. He is not our friend.