Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

On Wed, 14 May 2008 04:28:19 -0700, Stray Dog wrote:

> On May 14, 12:35 am, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:11:56 -0700, Stray Dog wrote:

<<<< deletia>>>>>

>> I have no idea what is justifiable wealth.
> 
> When one person (there are many hundreds of them) has more money than
> the GDP of most small countries.

We may, in fact, be witnessing a hint of what "too much" would be by
looking at the price of oil.  The market is being manipulated.  There is
no other way that the prices can do what they are doing.  Peak oil has
been reached, but that does not explain the short duration of the price
increases.  The worlds wealthiest are in the oil futures markets up to
their elbows.  And they are not going to turn lose until they get busted
by American conservation and sucking a big gulp out of the strategic
reserve.  The nice thing about being the biggest consumer is that you can
kick the speculators' butts and the suppliers too if you set your mind to
it.  The suppliers won't really get hurt by this quick action but the
speculators and the money manipulators sure will.

>  But I will tell you that most
>> wealth is ac***ulated through the use of government enforced monopoly
>> rights and the bulk of it is owner****p rights to natural resources.
> 
> Two books I have make reference to the three biggest busineses: oil,
> exchange-rate trading, and moneylaundering (said to be $300-500 bil/
> year). Greider's book is one, the other is a recent book I'm reading
> now on moneylaundering (which includes a large part of the
> international drug trade, too, which is another serious problem)..

The latter is just sensationalism.

> And, I cannot agree with you that "most" of those three are due to
> govt enforced monopoly rules. Rather, at least two of the three are
> under the control of private interests and few people will ever get to
> know the details.

The oil is not really capital and neither is the money.  Both are
controlled by government(s) directly or indirectly and neither have a cost
of manufacture. Money is created with a keyboard and oil just IS.

>  The
>> sheiks that own the personalized planes are collecting rent on the
>> naturally occurring oil.
> 
> All the "owners" of all the capital in the world are collecting "rent"
> on all of that printed money

And this is what we get when we allow neoclassical economists and
financial weenies to control the vocabulary.  It is 1984 newspeak.
 
MONEY IS NOT CAPITAL AND NEITHER IS OIL OR LAND.  And the owners of land,
oil, and Money are not the owners of CAPITAL.  But they are most
certainly collecting _RENT_.

>, printed stock (ink on paper, electronic
> bits in RAM memory), and don't forget that "hot money" (a real term),
> borrowed shares, CDOs, etc. The whips who know this stuff a lot better
> than I do say that the value of the worlds financial markets is 10 to
> 100 times the world's entire GDP and you'd better think about that for
> a minute before you dismiss it.

That is not something I will debate or even take exception to.  But think
about how all this paper confers wealth and power.  It is all based on
government enforcement of monopoly money value.  And if the creation of
money was actually in the hands of a representative government
(representative of the common people AND the wealthy) then paper money
would do fine. The deregulation of the financial industries ability to
engage in "investment banking" (money creation) and the creation of money
by the fiscally irresponsible Republicans (no taxes to soak up the
money) is a real problem.

>  Extremely large conglomerates are able to
>> control large market segments and collect monopoly rents by virtue of
>> size.  But it is all a coercion.
> 
> I think you are basically right about this, but the people who are
> "free" (less coerced) are the ones who can afford (i.e. are rich) to
> play economic hardball.

So we are slowly coming to grips with a vague definition of "Too Much
Individual Wealth".

>  One of the saving graces of a highly
>> progressive income tax is that it taxes away a lot of rent.  But it
>> doesn't really work very well in a global economy.
> 
> Especially if all manner of tax dodges, CPA trickery, lawyers,
> offshore banks, etc., are all running at full force.

But you are treading on dangerous ground here.  There are "loopholes" in
the tax code that should be there to spur economic development in
particular areas.  Real Estate has never been one of the "loopholes" that
should be in the tax code.

>> >> > My off-the-top-of-my-head notion would be to soak the rich, but I
>> >> > think they are already squirreling away as much as possible to
>> >> > offshore tax havens, tax dodges, etc.
>>
>> >> The naturally occurring land or oil or coal or gold or water, rain
and
>> >> sun will not be hauled of by the rich.
>>
>> > Oh, I think you are wrong about this. Oil is the world's biggest
>> > business and in the hands of governments and  certain cor****ations.
>>
>> The point I was trying to make is that the oil can't be put in a
>> briefcase and moved to Bimini.
> 
> So what?

So it can be taxed right here at the wellhead no matter who claims to own
it.  That is also true of all land owner****p and mostly true for the
owner****p of fixed improvements. Value taxation (asset taxation) can
make owner****p passe and it is certainly blind to the nationality of the
owners. It will not matter whether the resource is owned by Americans or
Chinese.
 
>> Only some papers showing owner****p.
> 
> In ancient times, kings/emperors just said "I'm going to get that" and
> have 100,000 soldiers march over and kill everybody, steal booty,
> capture slaves, etc. Today, the same thing is happening (hostile
> takeovers, sovereign wealth funds, repatriation, nationalization, etc).

Drama trauma.

>  And
>> the government must enforce such contracts or the dude in Bimini gets
>> no pie.
> 
> I've got a couple more books for you to read about all the underground
> economy that is totally under the radar of the govt.

Here again.  Tell me how you will get out of paying the taxes on yer home
this year.  HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM???????????

>  The government could simply refuse to enforce the contracts and
>> take the proceeds of the sale of the oil.  More to the point our
>> government currently enforces the owner****p contracts yet cannot tax
>> the income from those contracts because the income is realized in
>> Bimini and the government of Bimini gets the tax proceeds.
> 
> And, that is a drop in the bucket compared to the whole pie.

You are missing the point:  In a global economy the resources must be
taxed directly and indirectly.  But it matters that the government
providing the governance be able to collect the taxes that fund such
governance. It is _NOT_ a "drop in the bucket".  It is the whole
bucket-full.

>   Whereas the American
>> government is enforcing the owner****p rights then the American
>> government should get the tax proceeds.
> 
> Did the US get anything for rescuing Kuwait? 

Yes, actually.  Japan and a lot of others sent money in very large
amounts.  It was in their interest to preserve the independent oil
suppliers in Kuwait.

> Are we going to "make
> anything" on the Iraq war?

No.  That was a total Republican Pig Prancing maneuver from the start.
Imperialism is a loser and has been throughout history.  Unilateralism and
rightardedness is a loser.

>  An asset tax is much better then an income
>> tax in a global economy.  An asset tax is like the taxes you pay on
>> your house in that it is paid on the value of the asset as opposed to a
>> tax on income from the asset.
> 
> Well, I'd have to think about that. Where I have reservations is that I
> hear all kinds of guys with their favorite idea of what is a good tax
> and what is a good method of taxing. And, of course, the Republican
> mindset is cut the taxes and lets not talk about the deficit.

There are few if any economists worth spit that would tell you that
natural resource taxes are not the BEST way to tax. And that include MANY
of the otherwise brain damaged neoclassicals.

> The owner must pay the tax regardless of whether
>> or how much income is realized from the asset.
> 
> Yeah, but the guy is going to say why should I pay taxes on "dead"
> assets and I'll agree.

And when he sells them they come back to life!  It they are "dead" then
why would he want to hold onto them?

ATTEND:

The asset value is the present value of the discounted projected after tax
revenue stream (or utility stream). If the asset is truly dead then it
will not attract a tax because it has no discounted present value.  Your
home has a projected utility that would be appreciated by the home market.
It is not a "dead asset" even though it will not be producing an revenue
in the future.  What would it rent for?

We always speak of present MARKET value.

>> So it would not matter WHO
>> owned the asset or what country the owner lived in.
>>
>> > Water is being "confiscated" in all third world countries that are
>> > privatizing public wells and selling them to cor****ate entities who
>> > put a pump and valve at the top (maybe add a filter to take out some
>> > dirt) and start selling it to people who used to get it for free.
>>
>> Here again the water is an asset and it is worth what it is worth
> 
> Back in the hunter-gatherer days that wasn't even an issue.

ECONOMIC RENT IS CAUSED BY POPULATION.  That is the way it is.  Rent can
only be had in a society where scarcity is created.

>  and the
>> government will tax the value of the asset.
> 
> All depends on the government.

No.  It depends on the value that the market (the society) places on the
asset.  But it is true that without government there is no owner****p and
no market and no privatized rent.

> 
>> The government
>> can distribute the proceeds to the people equally.
> 
> Nice but capitalists will smell money and hate to see it fly around
> instead of "live" in their wallets.

The "capitalists" (those that invest in actual capital) will be just fine.

>> What will happen is
>> that the cor****ation will go tits up and that will be the end of the
>> ruse.
> 
> The only time cor****ations dissolve is if they can't escape with net
> profits or use bankruptcy for a breather.

If the cor****ation lives on rent as opposed to true interest and profit
then the cor****ation will go tits up regardless of all the fiddling
around.

>> > Coal? Where can anyone dig the stuff up just by driving up and
>> > getting a shovel out of the trunk?  Sunlight? All the oil companies
>> > own all of the solar cell companies (except some in China, which
>> > either are or soon will be owned either by Chinese cor****ations or if
>> > the stock can be bought by someone else...), and they will/can charge
>> > license/ royalty fees if not make you pay for the solar panels which
>> > will have to be replaced after aging years down the road by more.
>>
>> I gotta draw the line here.  The coal and the sunlight are natural
>> resources.
> 
> And, you don't get the coal unless you buy the land or pay the fee.

What happens to the fee?  That is the part that matters.

> Sunlight? If the endpoint of global warming is pretty bad (the most
> pessimistic possible outcomes), then you ain't gonna have enough money
> to keep it from happening and it might take much more  drastic measures
> than money can buy.

All environmental problems are the result of overpopulation and
horrendous greed and power lust.  And it will take
democratic-republican governments to control these problems.

>> The solar cells and panels aren't.
> 
> Neither are the mines, miners, and digging machines.

True.  Nonetheless the coal itself is a natural resource like oil.  What
happens to the fees paid for the coal itself?  That is what matters.

>  The asset tax rate on the
>> natural resources is much higher than the asset tax rate on the other
>> stuff.
>>
>> > The energy cor****ations, back couple decades ago, hired some lawyers
>> > to figure out if they -- because they could preach that they already
>> > had dominion over energy-- could charge a fee for the use of
>> > sunlight. Yes, outrageous, isn't it. Yes, they'd love to do it if
>> > they could. Companies would love to patent anything they can. There
>> > are even efforts to extend expiration dates on patents today. Bunch
>> > of crooks!
>>
>> Yes...  It is quite ridiculous.
> 
> But, that is the gameplan of most greedy-selfish robber-barons.

They cannot escape from paying the extraction fees or the land taxes using
such silly **** as what you have described.  That sort of crap only works
with transaction taxes.  

>> >  A direct rent (a ground rent) or a
>> >> tax on owner****p cannot be avoided.  Lets see you haul the farm off
>> >> to Bimini.
>>
>> > With lawyers, CPAs, payoffs, bribes, tricky-cheaty crap, finding
>> > loopholes in the laws, they can do anything they want. The tax cheat
>> > book had lots of examples. An oil pipeline was built to follow a path
>> > out of one state, then go a mile and then go back into the state it
>> > came out of just to make that pipelined oil certifiable as
>> > "interstate" delivery and to dodge a tax.
>>
>> Now you are being silly.
> 
> No, that, among many other examples, was actually described in that book
> by Johnston, and he had a lot of references to sources.

But we are moving away from the actual discussion about what to do about
all that crap. I am well aware of all the stuff and get very bored reading
about it over and over again.  Resource rents/taxes, asset taxes and
extraction fees do away with every bit if that stupidity.

>> The asset tax system is a lot simpler to administer.  All that stuff
>> you want to complicate the world with is because transactions are being
>> taxed instead of asset owner****p.
> 
> Well, I think you need to study more how the crooks are being very
> imaginative at grabbing anything they can get their sticky fingers on
> and keeping it hidden from the authorities.
> 
> Mind you, I'm not trying to tell you "I'm right, you're wrong" but that:
> i) the whole situation is pretty damned complicated, ii) like crime in
> general, most of all this stuff might be beyond the control of anyone
> (particularly the victims). I'm sorry.

I take a different approach.  I look at what the economists and the people
that know about such things have to say and I apply them with what
little knowledge and intellect I have (and I have read a lot of crap about
how this group and that group get away with all sorts of stuff).  And then
I debate right here and elsewhere to see what other people think about
what they have read and seen.  I may come to a convulsion :)

-- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend