Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:24:50 -0700, Stray Dog wrote:

> On May 15, 12:33 pm, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:18:17 -0700, BobR wrote:
>> > On May 15, 8:22 am, Stray Dog <straydog2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> deleted...
> 
>> > Ok, you posed a question earlier now let me pose a question to you
and
>> > the rest of the participants.
>>
>> > Lets deal with just the United States and discuss a hypothetical
>> > situation and what the results would be.  Take all of the wealth in
>> > all forms from all the people of this country and divided it equally
>> > among all of the population so that each person starts on an equal
>> > position.  What would be the result of such a distribution 10 years,
>> > 20 years, 40 years later and why?
>>
>> Without government all the wealth would be in the hands of a few people
>> all over again.
> 
> May I "correct" you by saying that "Without a low-corruption
> government...." since it seems like our govt (USA, maybe many others),
> there has been what looks to me an ever pro-industry, pro-rich trend
> in our govt. The wealth divide has been getting worse the last 1-2
> decades and all the data show that.
> 
>> The "all at once" redistribution of the wealth in the
>> way you describe has never happened before.
> 
> Well, in Russia around 1917, private ovwner****p went poof, and they
> changed currency so if you came to the bank with a lot, they capped
> how much new currency they gave you.
> 
> Also, if you read some history of the Incas, you will find that they
> did have a successufl socialist organization of society and it lasted
> some 250 years till the conquistadors came.
> 
>  But it has happened slowly
>> through the combined use of a highly progressive income tax and
government
>> infrastructure investments.
> 
> There was a big wealth divide before the great depression and during
> FDR's time, the taxes on the rich were increased.  Same deal in
> England before the 1800s. The rich had the castles and mansions. Once
> the taxes went on, then the rich could not afford to keep their
> castles and mansions. I saw the Hearst castle in California back in
> late 1960s. It was huge. Hearst had to give it up when taxes went up,
> now its a tourist spot.
> 
>  But that observation begs the real question.
>> And that is how to maintain a government that would use such methods to
>> prevent the harm caused by extreme disparity in power and wealth.
> 
> Very very good question. My first, off the top of my head answer, is
> you gotta keep the corruption down.

Sure....

> The
>> removal of government is not the answer.  The control of government by
the
>> common people as well as the rich _IS_.
> 
> Other answer: convince the rich that money, more money, and even more
> money is not a good goal.

That is not an achievable objective.  You may as well tell that bull that
you don't like what he is doing to that cow.

>  I would highly recommend a better
>> understanding of the pur****ted goals of the United States Government at
>> its inception.
> 
> There are a few books out there that indicate the goals of the USA
> were not much different than anyone else: power, expansion,
> development, etc.

I rather like just reading the actual history and making my own
analysis of why people did what they did.  Their actions typically give us
a clue as to what they were trying to accomplish.  And to be sure, all of
those things (power, etc) were considered in the birth of the USA.  I will
even admit that the "founding fathers" were primarily plutocrats at heart
and that they wanted some sort of nobility to form here in the United
States just as it was in Europe.  Most of the people that created the
United States Constitution saw themselves and their descendants as BEING
that nobility and deserving of that role due to their knowledge and
intellect.

But there is another side to this coin and that was the need to "sell"
that contract to the people.  The "founders" had to play "lets make a
a deal" and there were certain things that they had to "give up" in order
to get the Constitution ratified. And the point I am making here is that
the US Constitution was a "deal" between those that wrote the rules and
those who accepted the rules.  Madison himself stated that the "intent" of
the founders was secondary to understanding of those that ratified; that
the Constitution derives its power from the consent of the governed.  That
was true then and it is true now.

To understand Constitutionality or to understand what America _IS_ one
must actually read and appreciate the actual history of the ratification. 
I hope I make a very small contribution to that understanding at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_The_First

and

http://www.greatervoice.org/extend/Madison.php

<<< deletia >>>

Regardless of what evil lurked in the soul of James Madison, his actions
are indicative of what he was "selling" to the American people.  And it
seems impossible to misinterpret Federalist 55 through Federalist 58 on
the subject of "representation" for the people in their government. 
There is no silver bullet that can be fired at the heart of despotism, no
wooden stake to be plunged into the heart of such malice, that will
arrest and confine such evil over time.  Vigilance is the price of
freedom and liberty and we must constantly guard against the forces of
aristocracy and plutocracy or they will, in fact, have their way.  We have
failed in our responsibility to prevent the deterioration of our freedoms
and our liberty.  That failure happened very early on with the failure
of the very first constitutional amendment and manifested itself in 1921
when the House of Representatives failed to reap****tion the House in
respect of a very steep rise in population and the ****ft of population
from rural to urban. This, according to many, was a Constitutional breach.
But we failed even more certainly when we allowed the Congress to limit
the representation to only 425 members in 1929.

-- 
"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