Fw: The Teflon Topic = Whole Economics

James Daugherty (daugh@home.msen.com)
Sun, 19 Oct 1997 06:39:21 -0400

The only thing Teflon about this topic is that my mind won't
stick to it!

At first I thought it might be me. Nope, it is just purposely written so
as not be understood.

Please, author, just state the meat of it for me without the snide

Bates (below) brings in the LaRouchian/Catholic Church theory of useless
speculation. I saw no hint of that in the Teflon topic. Contrary to
the ignorance or deceptions of LaRouche, speculation and, yes,
derivatives play a useful role in the economy. More speculation
is necessary because of the prevelance of fiat money. The
fate of the numerous brands of fiat money is controlled by political
manipulation (covert) about which the holders of assets can only
speculate in an attempt to protect themselves. Take away the
monetary powers of the State and speculation would decrease
though it is still necessary to deal with any and all sources of
uncertainty in a free economy: weather, advancing technology,
disease, disasters, future changes in supply/demand, etc. More
important than hedging against surprises, speculation creates
the liquidity of markets that makes it possible to raise capital in
a free society. Who would put up a significant portion of their
life savings for an investment unless they could be fairly
confident of cashing it in on a moment's notice when their
situation changed? Without speculators, the investor would
have to wait until someone else had the opposite needs, ie.
is ready to buy what 1st investor needed to sell.

The Teflon Topic seems to be about the incredible growth
of the non-working class under current policies, a non-working
class that far exceeds the "can't work" class.

It is my view that this situation is not an accident, but one of
the primary purposes of the Elite planners. It is now a matter
of faith among the environmentalists created and subsidized
by the elite that the impact of humanity on the earth must be
reduced. Would you expect them to work toward full employ-
ment? No! They purposely keep the barriers to productive
enterprise high with their excessive regulations and taxes.
Any Elite that wanted full employment would not allow an
employment tax (!) in our case, withholding in the range of
what (?) 23-40% ! The Elite would rather that large numbers
of people languish in jail or on steet corners selling crack,
or sit around waiting for a government pittance on the slightest
excuse than have them be functioning at a more normal
producing and consuming level. It is easy to see that by
bringing another 20-40% of the people into productive
activity in a free market would drastically increase the effect
of humanity upon the earth! The only other solution would
be genocide! That too, is on the agenda!

Actually, of course, "environmentalism" is just a smoke-
screen for the real motives of the elite. The most obvious
hypothesis is that their primary attention is on maintaining
their dominance of society. The relative freedom of the
19th Century convinced them that they start to lose control
of the game when they allow thorough-going freedom and
the resulting unrestrained economic-technological growth.
New Dynasties arise to challenge the old under freedom.

Wouldn't that just be too bad!

PS. The writing of ruling class boot lickers Bertrand Russell
and H. G. Wells, both pre-environmentalist give a closer
glimpse of ruling class motives than the current flock of
Court Intellectuals. See Russell's _Prospects for Industrial
Civilization_ for the most insights into pre-environmentalist
rationale for opposing progress.

Woops! I guess Wells was the bootlicker...Russell was
actually a "Lord" though not very rich by most accounts.
Damn industrialists had displaced his precious landed

Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,
Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources.
To Discuss Ideas:
mailto:lloyd@a-albionic.com http://msen.com/~lloyd/
For Ordering Info & Free Catalog:
mailto:james@a-albionic.com http://a-albionic.com/formaddress.html
For Discussion List:
text in body: subscribe prj <your@email.address>

**FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <http://a-albionic.com/search.html> **
Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html>
Explore Our Book Catalogs: <http://a-albionic.com/catalogs.html>

-----Original Message-----
From: batesfam@pacbell.net <batesfam@pacbell.net>
To: prj@mail.msen.com <prj@mail.msen.com>
Date: Saturday, October 18, 1997 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: The Teflon Topic = Whole Economics

|WesBurt@aol.com wrote:
|> Dear Defenders of The Status-Quo:
|> Let me remind you again of why this subject is justly called the Teflon
|> Topic. Two or three of us might agree that available empirical data from the
|> UN and the World Bank shows the United States losing ground relative to the
|> actual performance of other nations and our own true potential. But, we will
|> waste our time and effort, if we cannot formulate a model that makes both the
|> data, and the principles that created the data, comprehensible to the public
|> and acceptable to the American establishment. Without the establishment on
|> the Lord's side, nothing gets better!
|> The serious search for a "General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money"
|> ended when the founders of the American Economic Association, Richard T Ely,
|> Henry Carter Adams, and others, from 1885 on, were given stiff doses of
|> unemployment to teach them the politically correct way to teach Economics.
|> That is, by focusing their student's attention on the business cycle and
|> other short term empirical effects; while ignoring the historical profile of
|> such trend indicators as the Consumer Price Index (CPI), ignoring the role
|> of fixed and variable costs in determining the price of manufactured products
|> in a free market, and thereby ignoring the financial structure of the
|> corporation which must be replicated in the financial structure of the
|> commonwealth according to such authorities as Adam Smith 1776, Thomas Paine
|> 1797, John Stuart Mill 1848, and Henry Carter Adams 1887.
|BF>Can you explain a little further how these authorities wished for the
|financial strucutre of the corporation to be implemented politically. Is
|that not corporatism (i.e. Fascism)? John Stuart Mill, Tom Paine, and
|Adam Smith wanted this?
|> This Teflon Topic is much like the calculus, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan
|> explained the unique characteristic of that topic on page 89 of FAMILY AND
|> NATION, 1986. If the whole of economics is not taught in the schools, very
|> few people will be able to re-invent it when they need it to do their job. I
|> certainly could not have re-invented it, I simply had my nose rubbed in
|> "whole economics," in the oral tradition, by a fortuitous sequence of
|> educational and on-the-job experiences. And I cannot sit back and keep quiet
|> while functionally illiterate "Alpha Apes" propose public policies that will
|> eventually put the United States at one with the late great Soviet Union.
|> That 72 year old result of human design, not human action, collected 92% of
|> the 1986 budget of the USSR from indirect taxes (sales, VA, excise, etc.) on
|> its corporations and only 8% of the 1986 budget from direct taxes on personal
|> incomes. This tax data tidbit is from page 63 of a document entitled,
|> SEVENTY YEARS OF SOVIET GOVERNMENT, 1987, Novosti Press Agency Publishing
|> House, translated from the Russian by Boris Lunkov, with an introduction by
|> Mikhail Gorbachev.
|> Without a technically valid conceptual model of society to inform his
|> judgment, Gorbachev was in the same boat with the American students which
|> Allan Bloom described in his 1987 book, THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND.
|> Like Henry Carter Adams one hundred years before him, Professor Bloom
|> addressed all of the symptoms of our social pathology without digging quite
|> deep enough to identify the root-cause of the English Disease. And Saul
|> Bellow did not dig any deeper in the foreword. We can forgive H. C. Adams
|> for not disclosing the optimum financial structure of a corporation or a
|> commonwealth, the technology was not available to him in 1887. Should the
|> public conclude then, that our intellectually gifted people are making so
|> much money from writing and talking about our social pathology that they
|> won't disclose the technically valid model to the public until Hell freezes
|> over and the Devil has them by the neck?
|> Before we set out to hang one social scientist each day, until the survivors
|> confess the technically valid concept of a corporation or commonwealth, let's
|> assume they are innocent until they convict themselves out of their own mouth
|> by denying the model after the public understands and accepts the principles
|> of the model. The exact time of arrival of that improved condition of public
|> understanding cannot be predicted. But it must arrive eventually, if the
|> process of diffusion of information among a free people has not been
|> completely obliterated by New Age Thinking as described by French author
|> Raymond Aron in his 1957 book, THE OPIUM OF THE INTELLECTUALS.
|> Those principles of the model are:
|> 1, The expense of developing a productive asset (capital or human) must be
|> completely invested before the asset can be brought into production.
|> Consequently, the asset cannot bootstrap itself into production and is
|> dependent on an external investor. This principle explains why Evolution
|> takes so long and Creation theory still has a following.
|> 2, The total and continuing expense of developing all English speaking
|> productive assets was assumed by the commonwealth when the Elizabethan Poor
|> Law of 1601 was enacted. Since 1601, the only topic of discussion in English
|> has been: Does it matter whether that fixed expense is charged to the family
|> budget or to the public revenue?
|> 3, In his 1974 book, FROM POOR LAW TO WELFARE STATE, Walter I. Trattner
|> reminds us in 362 well written pages of how completely we have subsidized
|> society's criminals, its poor, its insane, its deformed, its useless, and its
|> elderly. But, there is no feedback from these unfortunate elements of
|> society to the overall performance of society. They are simply a burden
|> which society carries out of human kindness.
|> 4, It is the 132 million productive members of American society, the work
|> force, together with the dependents they support, which social scientists
|> must study to re-discover the optimum financial structure of a corporation or
|> commonwealth. If the unfortunate elements enumerated in # 3 above were to
|> die of natural causes, or be shipped to Australia, the 132 million productive
|> members of society would breath a sigh of relief and scarcely miss them.
|> 5, You say that 132 million variables are too many to handle with your
|> limited knowledge of mathematics on your small computer. Not so! Any ten
|> year old can handle more variables than that on a few sheets of 8.5" X 11"
|> paper by plotting the variables as an Input/output "scatter diagram" with
|> linear X, Y, scales and a Z, axis measuring Frequency of Occurrence" of the
|> 132 million productive assets.
|> 6, Granted that education of society's children is as certain as the subsidy
|> of society's criminals, its poor, its insane, its deformed, its useless, and
|> its elderly; there remains only the question: Is the performance of a
|> society significantly affected when a public expense similar to 5% of GNP,
|> similar to the DOD budget, is imposed on households as a head tax at the rate
|> of $5,000/year/dependent?
|> Any ten year old who can read the numbers in the current World Bank ATLAS
|> knows that the distribution of the tax burden in each country has
|> significantly affected the performance of producers at the lower levels of
|> income in each nation while being scarcely noticed at the higher levels of
|> income.
|> This Teflon Topic really should be on your agenda, not on mine. After all,
|> I'm one of the retired elderly, living on your production, thanks to your
|> human kindness, and affecting nothing at all as far as I can see.
|> On with the work of Ludwig von Bertalanffy,
|> WesBurt
|> P.S. My recent e-mail mentioned another symptom, not the root-cause, of what
|> ails us. As long as our public men talk only about the symptoms, we will
|> continue to sink deeper into the Status-Quo!
|> ------------------------ Begin quot in recent e-mail
|> ----------------------------
|> * "Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored *
|> * to government, and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred *
|> * responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of *
|> * democracy is idle and futile ... Once a nation parts with control of *
|> * its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws.*
|> * Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. *
|> * *
|> * -- Past Prime Minister of Canada, Mackenzie
|> King --
|> ---------------------------- End quot in recent e-mail
|> ------------------------
|> The late great Soviet Union had complete government control of the issue of
|> currency and credit for 72 years, a massive sales tax, practically no
|> personal income taxes, and nobody learned anything from the 72 year
|> experiment.
|BF>Has anyone learned anything from Fascist economics? How can a
|"corporation" be a valid model for a free society? All talk of "English
|disease" or liberal economics aside, simply look at the strucutre of a
|corporation and understand that under such a structure there is no
|freedom or unapproved mobility. If your economic agenda, which seems to
|be a kind of attempt to stimulate production at the cost of useless
|speculation and consumption, works, then by definition it works at the
|expense of something. Am I wrong to suggest that, to an extent, useless
|speculation and consumption are symptoms of a free society, and that
|English disease can, if injected in the right amount, innoculate us from
|more serious plagues? My humble opinion.