Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

Well, let me say a couple of things: i) I appreciate that you _care_
enough to make more people aware of some of these topics and problems,
and ii) that you have thought about them in more detail than most
people. I think we have overlap in many of our thoughts but
disagreement in others and --what the hell--you ask most people in the
world and you'll get their own favorite theory on how the world works
if they care enough to think about it. The oldest and biggest problem
(going back to the beginnings of history) is the rich getting richer
and the poor, poorer. Getting politicians (presidents, senators,
whatever) focused on that problem in a) some way that most people can
agree to, and b) avoids the "best- laid- plans- of- mice- and- men-
oft- go- awry" problem seems to me to be more im****tant than our
endless discussion, here.

Or, maybe I'm asking too much, expecting too much of human society
(and the powers-that-be, who usually look out for themselves and no
one else, anyway)?

=3D=3D no change to below, included for reference and context, but I did
read it all =3D=3D

On May 14, 4:47 pm, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
a=
nd
> >> >> 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
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB