Skip to main content

Home/ Socialism and the End of the American Dream/ Group items tagged redistribution-of-wealth

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

Professor Hoppe's new book: "The Competition of Crooks") | The God That Failed - 0 views

thegodthatfailed.org/...uner-the-competition-of-crooks

Hans-Hermann-Hoppe Libertarian Democracy

shared by Gary Edwards on 29 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • And perhaps then, finally, will come the realization that democracy – in whose name all these dirty tricks have been done – is nothing more than an especially insidious form of communism, and that the politicians who have wrought this immoral and economic madness and who have thereby enriched themselves personally (never, of course, being liable for the damages they have caused!), are nothing more than a despicable bunch of communist crooks.
  • democracy which is causally responsible for the fatal conditions afflicting us now
  • The number of productive people is constantly decreasing, and the number of people parasitically consuming the income and wealth of this dwindling number of productive people is increasing steadily. This can’t work in the long run.
  • ...20 more annotations...
  • That the whole democratic house of cards has not yet completely collapsed speaks volumes about the still tremendous creative power of capitalism, even in the face of ever-increasing governmental strangulation.
  • And this fact also allows us to conjecture about what economic ‘miracles’ would be possible if we had unimpeded capitalism liberated from such parasitism.
  • the correct realization becomes generally accepted that the only antagonistic conflict of interest in society is the one between tax-payers, i.e. the exploited, and tax-consumers, i.e. the exploiters.:
  • In other words, between the class of people on the one hand who earn their income and assets by producing something that is bought voluntarily and valued accordingly by others; and the class of those on the other hand who produce nothing considered to be of value, but who live instead by living off and enriching themselves from the incomes and assets of other, productive people, forcibly taken via taxation – that is to say all government employees and all recipients of government “welfare assistance”, subsidies and monopolistic privileges.
  • book’s thesis is that the government is a monopolist of ultimate justice and law enforcement and that every monopoly is always bad from the perspective of the consumer – in this case the citizen. Your alternative solution is a private law society.
  • The basic idea is quite simple. Abolish monopoly and encourage competition.
  • I can only go to a state court of law, staffed by judges who themselves are paid from taxes to enforce government regulations.
  • In this way, government-staged robbery, assault, manslaughter, murder, war is “legally” sanctioned.
  • In a private law society, if we had such a conflict, we would instead approach arbitrators who are independent of both parties, and who are competing with other arbitrators for voluntarily paying customers.
  • We would not use an inherently biased judge working for and paid directly by the state, who is therefore partisan, but rather a neutral third party, to adjudicate the normal human legal conflicts arising between existing and recognized property rights and private contract law.
  • the mediation market.
  • My income from my work is my property (not the state’s) and the restaurant is my property (not the state’s).
  • Therefore, any government-imposed tax upon me or use restrictions upon my property (such as a smoking ban) would therefore be judged unlawful, as robbery and expropriation.
  • the state is nothing but a “great band of robbers,” a mafia, only a much larger, more overwhelming and dangerous one.
  • the subject of class consciousness
  • “there’s absolutely no reason in any case why the state should have anything at all to do with the production of money.”
  • And every newly printed bill causes a redistribution of social wealth.
  • More paper money doesn’t make a society richer overall. It’s just more paper. But every new piece of printed paper reduces the purchasing power of all the other previously-existing paper bills
  • these machinations, taking place every day on an almost unimaginable scale, are nothing more than a gigantic case of fraudulent theft.
  • in a competitive environment, a better kind of money would be produced. Why? Because there’ll always be a demand for means of exchange.
  • Gary Edwards on 29 Dec 12
     
    Interview with Hoppe where he once again pushes libertarian thinking forward.  Hoppe puts most of the blame on "democracy" itself, caling it "an insidious form of communism".  Good stuff.  Highlighted parts. excerpt: "That the whole democratic house of cards has not yet completely collapsed speaks volumes about the still tremendous creative power of capitalism, even in the face of ever-increasing governmental strangulation. And this fact also allows us to conjecture about what economic 'miracles' would be possible if we had unimpeded capitalism liberated from such parasitism. If, and when, this insight finally bears fruit will depend upon the class consciousness of the population. There is a Marxist myth, eagerly promoted by the state, of an irreconcilable clash of interests between employers (capitalists) and employees (workers), or between the rich and the poor. As long as this myth prevails in public opinion, nothing at all will change and disaster is inevitable. A fundamental change can only occur if, instead of this, the correct realization becomes generally accepted that the only antagonistic conflict of interest in society is the one between tax-payers, i.e. the exploited, and tax-consumers, i.e. the exploiters.: In other words, between the class of people on the one hand who earn their income and assets by producing something that is bought voluntarily and valued accordingly by others; and the class of those on the other hand who produce nothing considered to be of value, but who live instead by living off and enriching themselves from the incomes and assets of other, productive people, forcibly taken via taxation - that is to say all government employees and all recipients of government "welfare assistance", subsidies and monopolistic privileges. Only when the producer class clearly recognises this, and publicly speaks out; when the producers are finally confident to take the moral high ground and reject the insolent admonitions from the po
Gary Edwards

Gun Control: WWJD? | RedState - 0 views

www.redstate.com/...gun-control-wwjd

Ben-Shapiro 2nd-Ammendment Jesus Constitution

shared by Gary Edwards on 15 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 15 Jan 13
     
    Excellent discussion of the 2nd Amendment and the gun control arguments of the socialists.  The article centers on the well trod socialist argument, "What would Jesus do?".  The author, Ben Howe, demolishes this argument and then moves on to the core issue of why the 2nd Amendment is important.  Includes a must see youtube capture of the idiot Piers Morgan interview with Ben Shapiro of Breitbart Magazine.  Awesome job Ben!! Great closing quote: "Without the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution is just a wishlist". excerpt: "As the gun control debate rages in America following the abominable events in Newtown, eventually, perhaps inevitably, the media will ask itself, "What would Jesus do?" They've done it for years as it relates to wealth redistribution and Obamacare. Obama gave an entire speech about taxes in which he used Jesus for his justification. I'd wager that the tactic is designed to hit God fearing southerners where, in keeping with the caricature that the media has created of them, they are most likely to submit without question and accept the answer given to them by their betters. Of course this vastly underestimates the target, but putting that aside, is there any truth to the idea that Jesus would deplore a concealed carry license or a mom defending her children from an intruder? After all, Jesus has some pretty radically pacifist quotes that need only be lifted from the Bible without context to sound convincing. Such has been the case on Twitter where I've already more than once been the victim of "well meaning" gun control advocates who simply want me to be as "peaceful as Jesus." Virtually without fail, they point to Matthew 5:39: But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away fr
Paul Merrell

American Democracy is Owned by the Rich | Al Jazeera America - 1 views

america.aljazeera.com/...he-rich-own-our-democracy.html

U.S. Congress corruption

shared by Paul Merrell on 19 Feb 15 - No Cached
  • Two new studies by political scientists offer compelling evidence that the rich use their wealth to control the political system and that the U.S. is a democratic republic in name only. In a study of Senate voting patterns, Michael Jay Barber found that “senators’ preferences reflect the preferences of the average donor better than any other group.” In a similar study of the House of Representatives, Jesse H. Rhodes and Brian F. Schaffner found that, “millionaires receive about twice as much representation when they comprise about 5 percent of the district’s population than the poorest wealth group does when it makes up 50 percent of the district.” In fact, the increasing influence of the rich over Congress is the leading driver of polarization in modern politics, with the rich using the political system to entrench wealth by pushing for tax breaks and blocking redistributive policies.
  • At the turn of the decade, political scientists Larry Bartels, Jacob Hacker and Martin Gilens wrote several incredibly influential important books arguing, persuasively, that the preferences of the rich were better represented in Congress than the poor. After the books were published, there was a flurry of research arguing that they had overstated their case. Critics alleged two key defects in Bartels’ and Gilens’ arguments. First, because polling data on the super-wealthy were sparse, it was difficult to prove that there were large differences in opinion. Political scientists often rely on composite measures of policy liberalism, but since the poor tend to be more economically liberal but socially conservative, the differences between the poor and moderately rich can often be obscured. Second, there was no way to show that influence of the wealthy was caused directly by the influence of money. It might well be that the rich are simply opinion leaders or are more likely to vote.
  • Recent research offers compelling answers to these criticisms. The new evidence adds credence to the Bartels-Gilens-Hacker view that money is corrupting American politics. By using a massive database of ideology that includes the super wealthy, Schaffner and Rhodes found that “members of Congress are much more responsive to the wealthy than to their poor constituents.” However, this difference is not equal between both parties; rather, Democrats are far more responsive to the poor than Republicans. (This is not surprising; other research supports this claim.) They find that both parties strongly favor the upper-middle class, those with $100,000 to $300,000 in wealth. But Republicans are not only more responsive to the rich, but particularly to rich donors. Schaffner and Rhodes argue that, “campaign donations, but not voter registration or participation in primary or general election, may help explain the disproportionate influence of the wealthy among Republican representatives.” Barber’s study is the first to directly examine the policy preferences of the donor class. Barber sent 20,500 letters to people who contributed to 22 Senate elections in 2012 and asked about various policy questions. This allowed Barber to examine the differences in representation between donors and non-donors. His finding: Donors’ preferences tend to be far better represented than non-donors’. The chart below measures the ideological differences between various groups, with 0 indicating a perfect fit. The data show that Senators are almost perfectly aligned with their donors, but rather distant from voters.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • In fact, politicians are almost perfectly aligned with donors, but less aligned with partisans (people who voted for the Senator and share party affiliation), supporters (people who voted for the Senator) and voters in general. He Barber also finds that donors tend to be far more extreme in their views (see chart below). For instance, while about sixty percent of non-donor Republicans oppose the Affordable Care Act, opposition among donors is “almost unanimous.” Barber also notes that donors tend to be far more extreme than non-donors (see chart). (This is supported by other studies).
  • Such data could explain the rising polarization of Congress, as politicians increasingly respond to their donors, rather than to voters. Political scientists Walter J. Stone and Elizabeth N. Simas have found that challengers raise more money when they take extreme positions, which helps explain why incumbent representatives tend to be more partisan than departing representatives. It certainly explains the intransigence of the last two Congresses: Republicans, who are responding to their rich donor base, are incentivized to oppose any action, particularly those supporting Obama, lest they lose funding. Since Senators have to raise approximately $3,300 a day every year for six years to remain viable, they will inevitably have to succumb to the power of money if they wish to be reelected. This research raises the disturbing thought that our political system is no longer representative. As Barber notes, about half of all donors are from out of state, meaning that politicians are no longer responsive to their voters (though they are slightly more during election years). Given that only .22 percent of Americans made a donation of more than $200 (the level Barber studies) in 2014, we have power evidence that America is now a government of the one percent — indeed, of the one-fifth of one percent.
  • This disturbing trend affects politics at all levels. At the state level, political scientists Gerald Wright and Elizabeth Rigby found that state party platforms are far more influenced by the rich than the poor. Elsewhere, Barber found evidence that presidents are more responsive to donors than non-donors. Recently Griffin and Newman found representation gaps between whites and people of color as well as low-income voters. This finding is supported by Christopher Ellis, who found that donors were better represented than non-donors (although using a less comprehensive method than Barber). In a frank moment, U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D – Conn.) said, “I talked a lot more about carried interest inside of that call room than I did in the supermarket.” He’s correct: Donors tending to be far richer and wealthier than non-donors (see chart).
  • There are still unanswered questions. It is possible that politicians cast ideological votes to appease donors and partisans (for instance, the vain attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act dozens of times), while also working to benefit the poor and middle class through less visible means. This might explain why political journalists, who often focus on major legislation, miss the distributional impacts of political appointments and regulatory action. It may be that politicians work to maximize votes, and then political donations follow (though there is strong evidence this isn’t the case). Either way, the most up-to-date evidence strongly suggests that money is distorting our system, and that evidence appears to be growing stronger by the day.
  • The solution, as a recent Demos report suggests, is to help reformist candidates gather donations with a public matching system. Since voters who are non-donors are less ideological, the solution is to balance out the political distortions from the donor class by turning these non-donors into donors. Citizens United has only increased the stranglehold of moneyed interests on our political system, and is daily choking the life of our democracy. Only by restoring influence to all voters will our republic be restored.
Gary Edwards

321energy :: The Greatest Transfer of Wealth in History :: Bob Moriarty - 0 views

www.321energy.com/...moriarty081008.html

financial-crisis obama-socialism wealth-transfer redistribution-of-wealth banksters

shared by Gary Edwards on 05 Nov 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 05 Nov 09
     
    Bob Moriarty from 321 Energy provides a brief explanation of the fundamentals -  excerpt: I've made it clear for a year that I believe we have entered what will be the most serious depression in history. It also will involve the greatest transfer of wealth in history. There are two basic classes of assets. There are paper assets and real assets. An ounce of gold is a real asset. A copper mine is a real asset. A house is a real asset. An oil field is a real asset. Over the counter derivatives now total over $596 trillion dollars, (click here [pdf]) ten times the size of the world economy. Those are paper assets, their value is derived from some other asset. That derivative size is what is going to destroy the world's financial system, it's all fraud. A mortgage is a paper asset. A T-Bill or T-Bond is a paper asset. A $100 bill is a paper asset. It's pretty easy to see that a $500,000 mortgage on a house now worth $250,000 isn't worth very much. Latest figures show 9.6 million homes in the US have negative equity. How many of those loans are going to be paid back? According to an ex-Fed Director, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are bankrupt. They were leveraged 65-1. For those comforted by the thought of the FDIC bailing you out should the banking system fail entirely, you need to realize the FDIC is leveraged at 130-1. We are told that the collapse of Washington Mutual alone could bankrupt the FDIC. In a depression, no real assets appear or disappear. Paper assets, on the other hand, turn to vapor. But the ownership of real assets will change as the real assets move from weak hands into strong hands.
Gary Edwards

Intrade Prediction Markets - 0 views

www.intrade.com/

intrade prediction-markets election politics polls

shared by Gary Edwards on 29 Oct 08 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 29 Oct 08
     
    The InTrade realtime electoral vote predictor has been tracking Dow Jones stock market averages with near perfect precision. As Obama's stock rises on InTrade, (and McCain's falls), the Dow Jones sinks. Meaning, McCain's InTrade value is tracking the stock market averages with an incredible precision. This should not come as a surprise since InTrade Prediction Market investors are betting on what they believe to be the elections outcome. They do not bet on who they personally favor or politically support. McCain has an investor friendly - free market friendly - capitalist friendly tax plan. Obama is a socialist bent on taxing the productive members of the economy to redistribute those valuable investment and business resources to the least productive. Obama is not offering a wealth producing - jobs producing plan. Socialism is not what made America an economic powerhouse - a wealth producing engine the likes of which mankind had never previously seen or imagined. Free market capitalism balanced with Constitutional rule of law, property ownership and individual freedom account for this success. All of which the free market traders at the Irish InTrade market seem to recognize as important.
Gary Edwards

ObamaCare suckers needed, inquire within | RedState - 0 views

www.redstate.com/...-suckers-needed-inquire-within

ObamaCare-TAX ObamaCare-Exchanges Healthcare

shared by Gary Edwards on 21 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • The exchanges need roughly 2.7 million healthy 18-t0-35-year-olds to sign up to be solvent.
  • The majority of that group is nonwhite and male, according to Simas’ data, and a third are located in just three states: California, Texas and Florida.
  • If too few choose to enroll because they don’t know about the law, don’t like it, or feel they don’t need insurance, the exchanges will fail. And so will the law.
  • ...20 more annotations...
  • In other words, ObamaCare needs an army of young dupes to pay through the nose, in order to make this ridiculous program appear solvent while it showers other people with benefits.  
  • It’s a wonder young folks are lining up around the block to pay those 50 to 150 percent increases in their health insurance premiums.
  • he latest Government Accountability Office report says ObamaCare implementation remains months behind schedule, even though the insurance exchanges are supposed to go live in just four months.
  • Under Obamacare, insurance companies can no longer turn away people with preexisting conditions.
  • And so a crucial aspect of implementation is getting enough young, healthy people to enroll to offset the cost of insuring older, less-healthy enrollees.
  • The Congressional Budget Office expects some 7 million people to sign up when the exchanges open on Oct. 1, eventually reaching 22 million.
  •  The embarrassing degeneration of ObamaCare into a wealth transfer program that feeds off healthy people is a perfect inversion of the insurance concept.
  • Normally, the young and hearty folks would pay a low fee for health insurance, because providers would make the reasonable actuarial gamble that most of those customers would not be filing expensive claims.
  • The notion of selling “insurance” to someone with an pre-existing condition, guaranteed to make big claims, would be absurd.  
  •  Older people with higher risks pay more.
  • Instead, we’ve got another corrupt, inefficient redistribution system powered by the liquefied assets of chumps.
  • It’s starting to visibly panic over not being able to pump enough chumps to fill its gas tank.
  • And I do mean corrupt, because it’s not as if most of this money is going to doctors or medical supplies.
  •  Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, describes the billion dollars flowing into the California health insurance exchange as tax money laundered into Democratic party-building funds:
  • The Obama administration granted a whopping $910 million to California to set up its insurance exchange. That money is not for bandages, surgery, nurses and doctors to care for the sick. Nor is it for insurance plans, though $910 million could buy generous coverage for at least 113,000 people!
  • Shockingly, the $910 million is slated for bureaucracy, including rich compensation packages for exchange employees ($360,000 a year for the executive director) and contracts for computer equipment, public relations and “outreach. “
  • Outreach is the largest expenditure and where the real monkey business occurs.
  • Amazingly, California legislators passed a law that the exchange could keep secret for a year who received the contracts and indefinitely how much they were paid. California’s open-records laws would otherwise prohibit such secrecy.
  • McCaughey describes six- and seven-figure grants to the California NAACP, the Service Employees International Union, the AFL-CIO, and Community Health Councils, “a California organization with a long history of political activism against fracking, for-profit hospitals, state budget cuts and oil exploration.”
  • I can’t imagine why young people are reluctant to plow their money into a racket like this!
  • Gary Edwards on 21 Jun 13
     
    Excellent summary of where ObamaCare sits today.  Obama has to convince millions of young, healthy "chumps" to pay massive amounts of their income into ObamaCare Exchanges if the greatest socialist redistribution plan ever conceived is to continue. "At the White House, health care implementation has become an obsession. Chief of Staff Denis McDonough spends two hours a day on Obamacare implementation, staffers said, and senior aides like Simas and Tara McGuinness, who joined the White House in April as a senior communications adviser, work on the issue nearly full-time. Hardly a week goes by without Obama finding some way to plug the effort as well. The reason: the law is increasingly unpopular. According to an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll released earlier this month, 49% of Americans now believe the law is a bad idea, the highest percentage recorded, with only 37% saying it is a good thing. Many states have already opted out of key provisions to expand Medicaid. In Washington, Republicans continue to lay siege to the law; they have voted to repeal it 37 times in the U.S. House."
Paul Merrell

Top Stories - U.S. Government Redistributes Wealth…to the Rich - AllGov - News - 0 views

www.allgov.com/...butes-wealthto-the-rich-121224

class warfare income inequality

shared by Paul Merrell on 26 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • For about thirty years now, the federal government has been implementing policies that take tax dollars from middle class Americans and give them to the rich, supposedly as a way to spur economic growth. Although Americans actually want greater economic equality, the net effect has been to redistribute wealth to the rich and create the most unequal developed society on earth.   According to a series of reports by Reuters, since 1989 inequality has risen all across the U.S. to levels not seen since before the Great Depression:
  • • Inequality has increased in every state except Mississippi, which is the poorest state in the Union;   • The poverty rate increased in 43 states;   • In 28 states inequality and poverty rose while median income fell;   • In every state, the richest 20% of households far outpaced the income gains of any other quintile;   • Income for the median household fell in 28 states.
  • Three specific aspects of federal policy—low taxes for the rich, outsourcing government functions to private companies, and the financial clout of Washington lobbyists—have been the major drivers of growing inequality.
Gary Edwards

Fears of a New Bubble as Cash Pours In - WSJ.com - 0 views

74.125.155.132/search

financial-crisis obama-socialism wealth-transfer bankers-suck banksters

shared by Gary Edwards on 05 Nov 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 05 Nov 09
     
    Those bastard banks have taken over $2 Trillion from the taxpayers, and are using this cash to invest in emerging markets instead of the USA.  The Feds are providing interest free money to central banks, which then are used to invest in emerging economies.  The bankers get the profits and USA taxpayers get stuck with the cost.   There is no possible upside for USA taxpayers unless of course you agree with Obama that the USA standard of living and extraordinary economic prosperity must be lowered before global economic equality can be achieved.  This isn't just about greedy bankers and self interested international corporations.  Wealth redistribution is now the official policy of our government.  And the Federal Reserve is carrying it out with unexpected zeal. The numbers are coming in.  The facts are on the table.  The USA is being gutted. excerpt:  Asian stock prices are shooting up, in part due to low interest rates in the U.S. Investors looking for higher yields are borrowing in U.S. dollars and then pouring that money "into countries that are growing more rapidly," said Stephen Cecchetti, chief economist at the Bank for International Settlements, the central banks' central bank, which warned early of the last asset bubble and is beginning to do so again. "That runs the risk of creating property and equity booms in those countries." About $53 billion has gone into emerging-market stock funds this year, according to data collector EPFR Global. Through Monday's trading, the broad MSCI Barra Emerging Markets Index this year was up 60.7%. Brazil was up 100%, and Indonesia had gains of 102.7%. Over the same period, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 11.5%.
Gary Edwards

Kathleen Marquardt -- Agenda 21, the end of Western Civilization - 0 views

www.newswithviews.com/...kathleen103.htm

Agenda-21 ABAG

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Apr 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Apr 12
     
    Four part series describing the Globalist project known as Agenda 21.  In the Bay Area, this globalist "new world order" effort operates on the ground driving the Agenda through ABAG meetings, regulations, proposals and propositions.  Sickening stuff, but happening everywhere. excerpt: Wake-up call, Part 1 "Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." -Professor Maurice King Birth of an abomination ...... In simple terms Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the end of civilization as we know it. It is the end of private property, the elevation of the collective over the individual. It is the redistribution of America's wealth to the global elite, it is the end of the Great American Experiment and the Constitution. And, it is the reduction of 85% of the world's population.
Gary Edwards

Member List - ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA - 0 views

www.icleiusa.org/...member-list

Property-Rights Property-Seizure-AND-Redistribution-of-Wealth Agenda-21 ICLEI

shared by Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 13 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 13
     
    ICLEI is a UN Agenda 21 initiative.  It's a direct assault on property ownership rights.  I had my own first hand view of these Marxists at work in the small town of Belmont California, when the Fire Chief presented a plan to turn 2/3rd's of the cities land over to the State by declaring it "a risk fire hazard zone".  The declaration would move the 2/3rds to State control and regulation, dramatically increasing the costs of building codes compliance and insurance, while effectively ending development and property improvement.  It would also end the sale of homes in these sectors since Home Owners insurance and property compliance would be prohibitively expensive.  Agenda 21 at work.  Right next door.   From TeaPartyORG:  http://goo.gl/QHIOS ......   "The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is a conglomerate of 600 national, regional, and local government associations who promote "sustainable development" and protection of the environment because of man-made global warming that does not exist. "Sustainable development" is the United Nations effort to contain and limit economic development in developed countries and thus control population growth. It is "sustainable de-growth," plain and simple. The focus is "low-income agriculture" and to set limits on the developed world. United Nations and its affiliates believe that first world countries polluted significantly during their development while urging third world countries to reduce pollution thus impeding their growth. Implementation of"sustainable development" would revert our society to a pre-modern lifestyle. ICLEI wants to keep the environment as pristine as possible through "ideal-seeking behavior." These euphemisms are not clearly defined in terms of what or who will evaluate or set the standards for this "ideal-seeking behavior." Agenda 21 sets up the global infrastructure to manage, count, and control assets. It is not concerned with
Gary Edwards

The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means and how to respond - Agenda - The World... - 0 views

agenda.weforum.org/...at-it-means-and-how-to-respond

shared by Gary Edwards on 26 Dec 15 - No Cached
  • The First Industrial Revolution used water and steam power to mechanize production. The Second used electric power to create mass production. The Third used electronics and information technology to automate production. Now a Fourth Industrial Revolution is building on the Third, the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.
  • Like the revolutions that preceded it, the Fourth Industrial Revolution has the potential to raise global income levels and improve the quality of life for populations around the world. To date, those who have gained the most from it have been consumers able to afford and access the digital world; technology has made possible new products and services that increase the efficiency and pleasure of our personal lives. Ordering a cab, booking a flight, buying a product, making a payment, listening to music, watching a film, or playing a game—any of these can now be done remotely.
  • In the future, technological innovation will also lead to a supply-side miracle, with long-term gains in efficiency and productivity. Transportation and communication costs will drop, logistics and global supply chains will become more effective, and the cost of trade will diminish, all of which will open new markets and drive economic growth.
  • ...16 more annotations...
  • As automation substitutes for labor across the entire economy, the net displacement of workers by machines might exacerbate the gap between returns to capital and returns to labor. On the other hand, it is also possible that the displacement of workers by technology will, in aggregate, result in a net increase in safe and rewarding jobs.
  • I am convinced of one thing—that in the future, talent, more than capital, will represent the critical factor of production.
  • This will give rise to a job market increasingly segregated into “low-skill/low-pay” and “high-skill/high-pay” segments, which in turn will lead to an increase in social tensions.
  • In addition to being a key economic concern, inequality represents the greatest societal concern associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
  • The largest beneficiaries of innovation tend to be the providers of intellectual and physical capital—the innovators, shareholders, and investors—which explains the rising gap in wealth between those dependent on capital versus labor.
  • Technology is therefore one of the main reasons why incomes have stagnated, or even decreased, for a majority of the population in high-income countries: the demand for highly skilled workers has increased while the demand for workers with less education and lower skills has decreased. The result is a job market with a strong demand at the high and low ends, but a hollowing out of the middle.
  • A winner-takes-all economy that offers only limited access to the middle class is a recipe for democratic malaise and dereliction.
  • An underlying theme in my conversations with global CEOs and senior business executives is that the acceleration of innovation and the velocity of disruption are hard to comprehend or anticipate and that these drivers constitute a source of constant surprise, even for the best connected and most well informed. Indeed, across all industries, there is clear evidence that the technologies that underpin the Fourth Industrial Revolution are having a major impact on businesses.
  • On the supply side, many industries are seeing the introduction of new technologies that create entirely new ways of serving existing needs and significantly disrupt existing industry value chains. Disruption is also flowing from agile, innovative competitors who, thanks to access to global digital platforms for research, development, marketing, sales, and distribution, can oust well-established incumbents faster than ever by improving the quality, speed, or price at which value is delivered.
  • Major shifts on the demand side are also occurring, as growing transparency, consumer engagement, and new patterns of consumer behavior (increasingly built upon access to mobile networks and data) force companies to adapt the way they design, market, and deliver products and services.
  • A key trend is the development of technology-enabled platforms that combine both demand and supply to disrupt existing industry structures, such as those we see within the “sharing” or “on demand” economy. These technology platforms, rendered easy to use by the smartphone, convene people, assets, and data—thus creating entirely new ways of consuming goods and services in the process. In addition, they lower the barriers for businesses and individuals to create wealth, altering the personal and professional environments of workers. These new platform businesses are rapidly multiplying into many new services, ranging from laundry to shopping, from chores to parking, from massages to travel.
  • On the whole, there are four main effects that the Fourth Industrial Revolution has on business—on customer expectations, on product enhancement, on collaborative innovation, and on organizational forms.
  • Overall, the inexorable shift from simple digitization (the Third Industrial Revolution) to innovation based on combinations of technologies (the Fourth Industrial Revolution) is forcing companies to reexamine the way they do business. The bottom line, however, is the same: business leaders and senior executives need to understand their changing environment, challenge the assumptions of their operating teams, and relentlessly and continuously innovate.
  • governments will increasingly face pressure to change their current approach to public engagement and policymaking, as their central role of conducting policy diminishes owing to new sources of competition and the redistribution and decentralization of power that new technologies make possible.
  • Ultimately, the ability of government systems and public authorities to adapt will determine their survival. If they prove capable of embracing a world of disruptive change, subjecting their structures to the levels of transparency and efficiency that will enable them to maintain their competitive edge, they will endure. If they cannot evolve, they will face increasing trouble.
  • In the end, it all comes down to people and values. We need to shape a future that works for all of us by putting people first and empowering them. In its most pessimistic, dehumanized form, the Fourth Industrial Revolution may indeed have the potential to “robotize” humanity and thus to deprive us of our heart and soul. But as a complement to the best parts of human nature—creativity, empathy, stewardship—it can also lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness based on a shared sense of destiny. It is incumbent on us all to make sure the latter prevails.
Gary Edwards

Liberty Defined: The Ten Principles of a Free Society by Ron Paul - 0 views

www.lewrockwell.com/...paul732.html

Ron-Paul Libertarian Liberty-Tryanny Constitutional-Republic

shared by Gary Edwards on 18 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 18 Jan 12
     
    excerpt: This is the Appendix to Ron Paul's new book, Liberty Defined. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people's money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.
Gary Edwards

Michael Coffman -- Goodbye Property Rights - How Agenda 21 will destroy the Constitution - 0 views

www.newswithviews.com/...mike137.htm

Agenda-21 property-rights Property-Seizure-AND-Redistribution-of-Wealth progressive-socialism

shared by Gary Edwards on 05 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 05 Dec 12
     
    Excellent historical background to the Agenda 21 effort to regulate private property and eventually put all private property under the control of the UN regional governments. "Since the early 1970s there has been a systematic and deliberate effort to destroy private property rights in America through the warm and fuzzy goal of sustainable development. David Rockefeller co-founded the Club of Rome in 1968 as an elite, somewhat occult think tank. The Club of Rome published Limits to Growth in 1972, which called for severe limits on human population and state control of all development in the world to achieve "sustainable development." Sustainable development was eventually formalized into a United Nations global action plan called Agenda 21, which President Bush committed the U.S. to at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. President Clinton put into action by the creation of Sustainable America in 1996. If fully implemented, private property rights will be a thing of the past. Concurrent to Limits of Growth, New York's Governor Nelson Rockefeller introduced legislation to create the Adirondack Park Agency in 1971 patterned after Limits of Growth. It was so successful that Nelson's brother-Laurence Rockefeller-commissioned and led a study entitled Use of Land: A Citizen's Policy Guide to Urban Growth as a set of goals for America. Published in 1973, the nationally based Use of Land was a companion to the Club of Rome's internationally based Limits of Growth. The Use of Land was edited by William Reilly, who would later be appointed by George H. W. Bush as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1989. Reilly also attended the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where he advised President Bush to sign the UN Agenda 21, thereby committing the United States to Agenda 21. Although utterly evil, the Rockefeller's effort to destroy the constitutional basis of property rights was brilliant. The thrust of the Use of Land report sup
Gary Edwards

There is nothing new about Obama's Socialism: Mark Levine in The Corner on National Rev... - 0 views

corner.nationalreview.com/post

politics obama socialism marxism

shared by Gary Edwards on 29 Oct 08 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 29 Oct 08
     
    The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us - today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich."
Gary Edwards

Works and Days » OK, Let's Decline - 0 views

pajamasmedia.com/...ok-lets-decline

victor-david-hanson obammunism

shared by Gary Edwards on 01 May 11 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 01 May 11
     
    excerpt:  We may well decline, and pass on a weaker, more divided, more insolvent and at-risk America to our children. But that is again, entirely a choice, not a fate. It is a decision that many prosperous, but tired and squabbling societies - 4th-century Athens, 5th-century A.D. Rome, 1950s Britain, 1970s America - chose willingly when they redistributed rather than created wealth, embraced envy rather than emulation as their collective creed, whined about not being liked rather than unapologetically assumed unpopularity is always the price of leadership and jealousy its constant twin, and talked of rationing, lectured on what they could not, rather than could, do, and made bickering between the generations, the sexes, the races, the classes, and tribes a national sport, rather than collectively and confidently looked forward to expanding, creating, and uniting in national purpose.
Gary Edwards

The Fix Is Already in for This Election - The Daily Reckoning - 0 views

dailyreckoning.com/fix-already-election

Trump Federal-Reserve-Bankster-Cartel GOLD

shared by Gary Edwards on 03 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • But Yellen isn’t going to let any normal course of events happen before Election Day, especially since a Trump presidency would be every central banker’s worst freaking nightmare…Trump is deeply suspicious of the Fed… as many of us are.He’s rightfully and repeatedly said that Fed policies have created a stock market bubble that will burst. He’s called the Fed’s QE nonsense a bad economic idea that produced “phony numbers.”He told GQ that he prefers the gold standard to a Fed-manipulated fiat currency: “Bringing back the gold standard would be very hard to do — but boy, would it be wonderful. We’d have a standard on which to base our money.”And he also supports an extensive audit of the Fed to bring transparency and accountability to the secretive “central bank” that’s brought devastating boom-and-bust cycles for decades.
  • Of course, nobody knows if Trump will follow through on these promises if elected. Once in Washington, he could very well become just another lying politician. But right now, the last thing Yellen and her New World Order cronies want to do is take a chance on President Trump.They want to keep their unchecked power to create endless amounts of money out of thin air… to build and pop one financial bubble after another… all to redistribute from the little people to the elites… and destroy free-market capitalism in the name of state-manipulated Ponzi finance.We know that won’t change under Clinton. And maybe it won’t change under Trump. But you can bet central bankers don’t trust that business as usual will continue with Trump.So come the next Fed meeting in mid-September, expect a lot of sophisticated talk from Yellen about this or that economic item, assorted indecipherable mumblings and an army of TV talking heads lapping it all up as if an economic god had spoken.Just don’t hold your breath waiting for a rate hike… no matter what the economy’s doing.
  • Gary Edwards on 03 Sep 16
     
    "Trump is staging a fierce comeback… Hillary Clinton's post-convention lead in the polls has nearly disappeared. Prominent pollster Rasmussen Reports now has Trump leading Clinton 40% to 39%. Trump also has a 3% lead (45% to Hillary's 42%) in the Los Angeles Times poll. And Hillary's edge in the polls in which she's still leading has narrowed sharply. There'll be more back-and-forth momentum swings in the horse race to come, but these new polls show one thing: The odds of a Trump presidency shot higher this week. And that means the odds of a Fed interest rate hike before Election Day got lower… The fix is in… Look, Janet Yellen isn't going to do anything to jeopardize a Clinton presidency. They're both card-carrying Deep Staters. They're both liberals who served under Obama. They both dress the same: Mao chic. And most of all, Yellen wants to keep her job when her term expires in February 2018. She's a lock to stay on in a Clinton administration. But it won't happen in Trump's. He's already told TheWall Street Journal that he wouldn't keep Yellen as Fed chair. I don't see how Yellen can raise rates between now and Election Day… if Trump can win. If she did, it would tank the stock market, nail the economy and give Trump the White House. When the Fed raised rates in December 2015, the stock market plunged, with the Dow dropping more than 1,300 points in the month following. A plunging market would wipe out trillions in paper wealth and slam the economy into recession."
Gary Edwards

American Thinker: Wrecks, Lies and Barney Frank - 0 views

www.americanthinker.com/...cks_lies_and_barney_frank.html

politics bailout barney-frank fannie-freddie

shared by Gary Edwards on 29 Oct 08 - Cached
  • But then a caller challenged Frank's continued insistence that the meltdown was brought on by Republican deregulation, citing the 1999 NY Times article concerning Clinton Administration efforts to force Fannie to ease mortgage standards in order to provide more minority and lower-income lending. The caller reminded Barney of his own words as ranking member from a 2003 Times piece reporting Bush's initiative to reign in Fannie and Freddie by creating new oversight under the Treasury Department:
  • "The recklessness of government is a primary culprit here. For years, Congress has been pushing banks to make risky, subprime loans. Using the authority of the Community Reinvestment Act, the big push for subprime mortgages began in earnest during the Clinton years. Banks that didn't play ball were subject to serious fines and lawsuits, and regulatory obstacles were placed in their way. While expanding access to the American Dream is a worthy goal, by blindly pursuing that goal and allowing the end to justify any means, we put millions of Americans at financial risk."
  • In truth, the Bill that would have likely averted the Fannie/Freddy failure -- the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S. 190) -- was Republican legislation introduced by Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE] in January of 2005. 
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • What's more, the "regulation" Frank now takes credit for was not his (H.R.1427 passed the House last year but never escaped Senate committee) but rather Nancy Pelosi's (H.R. 3221 - The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008). And Pelosi's version, not surprisingly and unlike its Republican predecessors, was signed marked up with over 66 pages of Liberal wealth redistribution wish-fulfillment under the guise of assuring "affordable housing."  While it did establish (and way too late, Barney) the Federal Housing Finance Agency, with regulatory authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Office of Finance, it's bogged down with tons of pork-fat. This oinker even increased the national debt limit from $9.82 trillion to $10.62 trillion, and commissioned a boatload of programs for low income families to spend it on.
  • Frank did, however, introduce legislation of his own in October of last year. Would you believe that H.R. 3838 was actually an attempt to temporarily increase the caps on Fannie/Freddie portfolios and to mandate the "use of 85% of such increase for refinancing subprime mortgages at risk of foreclosure?
  • Gary Edwards on 29 Oct 08
     
    But then a caller challenged Frank's continued insistence that the meltdown was brought on by Republican deregulation, citing the 1999 NY Times article concerning Clinton Administration efforts to force Fannie to ease mortgage standards in order to provide more minority and lower-income lending. The caller reminded Barney of his own words as ranking member from a 2003 Times piece reporting Bush's initiative to reign in Fannie and Freddie by creating new oversight under the Treasury Department:
Gary Edwards

The Golden Calf of Increased Tax Rates | RedState - 0 views

www.redstate.com/...en-calf-of-increased-tax-rates

Don-Bongino Taxes Tax-&-Spend Property-Seizure-AND-Redistribution-of-Wealth

shared by Gary Edwards on 19 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Economics and a degree of common sense also tells us that we will always be more cautious in spending our money than a third party will be.
  • Milton Friedman used this brief explanation to drive home the point. There are four ways to spend money.
  • You can spend your money on yourself, and when you do both the cost of the product and the quality matters.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • Finally, the most inefficient method to spend money of the four is other people, spending other people’s money, on other people. Cost doesn’t matter because it is not your money and quality doesn’t matter because it is not your product or service either.
  • Other people can spend other people’s money on themselves, in this case cost doesn’t matter, as it is not your money, but quality does as you are buying the product or service for yourself.
  • You can spend your money on someone else, in this case cost matters but quality is not as important.
  • In the final case, I just described to you government spending. And, to be clear, government spending is
  • taxation, while deficit spending is future taxation plus interest. It cannot be any other way.
  • Finally, we are frequently rhetorically assaulted by the “fair share” moralists on the left.
  • The paradoxical truth is that the tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.
  • Gary Edwards on 19 Nov 12
     
    Good argument explaining the relationship between tax rates and tax receipts. excerpt: Economics and a degree of common sense also tells us that we will always be more cautious in spending our money than a third party will be. Milton Friedman used this brief explanation to drive home the point. There are four ways to spend money. You can spend your money on yourself, and when you do both the cost of the product and the quality matters. You can spend your money on someone else, in this case cost matters but quality is not as important. Other people can spend other people's money on themselves, in this case cost doesn't matter, as it is not your money, but quality does as you are buying the product or service for yourself. Finally, the most inefficient method to spend money of the four is other people, spending other people's money, on other people. Cost doesn't matter because it is not your money and quality doesn't matter because it is not your product or service either. In the final case, I just described to you government spending. And, to be clear, government spending is taxation, while deficit spending is future taxation plus interest. It cannot be any other way. Arguing that accumulating debt on your personal credit card is not going to require you to take money from your account in the future to pay the debt is foolish, therefore, why would you think that the national credit card would obey a different set of economic rules? Finally, we are frequently rhetorically assaulted by the "fair share" moralists on the left. ....................... This is an argument where they are correct on principle and completely devoid of substance regarding evidence...........
Gary Edwards

Articles: A Property Rights Revolution for 2013 - 0 views

www.americanthinker.com/...ights_revolution_for_2013.html

Property-Rights Property-Seizure-AND-Redistribution-of-Wealth

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Feb 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Feb 13
     
    Very interesting article on property rights in Virgina, and the how local citizens are fighting against government politicians and their kleptocracy to protect those rights......... excerpt: "A previously apolitical organic farmer in Virginia has set off a property rights revolution that would make Founders Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and author of Virginia's Declaration of Rights George Mason proud. Martha Boneta had a business license for her tiny farm store in scenic Paris, Virginia, yet she was threatened with fines of up to $5,000 per violation per day for selling organic tea and wool products crafted from her rescued animals, and for hosting a birthday party for eight 10-year-old girls. Officials from Fauquier County using zoning ordinances to bully Mrs. Boneta never obtained a warrant nor set foot on her property to gather actual evidence.  Instead a county bureaucrat relied on unscrupulous, unlawful methods to make these charges against Mrs. Boneta.  Her store remains closed out of fear of further uncertain charges carrying even criminal penalties.  The bullying bureaucrat ignored due process of law and American rules of evidence because she thinks she is the law, which is a common phenomenon used to intimidate citizens into forfeiting their rights. The county also tried to cite Martha for having a boarding facility without a permit.  It appears that the county did not like the fact that she and Christian college students interning on Spring Break openly prayed over the crops and farm animals.  To cure this government lawbreaking and protect farm rights, Delegate Scott Lingamfelter introduced H.B. 1430, the Boneta Bill, to amend the Virginia Right to Farm Act.  As introduced, the bill would have done three things: (1) clarify that the flawed, toothless Right to Farm Act protects farmers' commerce, (2) expressly protect constitutional rights on farms, and (3) provide remedies against local government officials who violate the Right to Farm Act."
Gary Edwards

An Inconvenient Truth: Liberal Climate Inquisition Can't Explain Past Temperature Changes - 0 views

dailysignal.com/...plain-past-temperature-changes

Climate-Change Global-Warming Carbon-Tax redistribution-of-wealth

shared by Gary Edwards on 07 May 16 - No Cached
  • For instance, the chart above shows reconstructed average world temperature data for the past 500,000 years. Depending on the magnification and size of your monitor, each pencil dot would span something on the order of 1,000 years. The myriad 10-degree Celsius temperature flips all happened before man-made carbon dioxide could have had any impact—the final temperature spike started at the end of the last ice age.
  • Now see if you can follow this: The “science thought police” insist that even though none of the temperature variations for the first 499,950 years had anything to do with human activity, virtually none of the temperature increases of the past 50 years had anything to do with nature. Got it?
  • Gary Edwards on 07 May 16
     
    "In the week prior to the administration signing what should constitute an international climate treaty, one think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was subpoenaed for casting doubt on the agreement's associated science of climate catastrophe. As disturbing as such thuggery from state attorneys general would be in any case, the premise of the subpoena is faulty. The Competitive Enterprise Institute did not cast doubt on the dubious climate science. The actual data cast the doubt. The think tank and others have simply pointed out what the data show. It looks like thoughtcrime has now moved from George Orwell's novel "1984" to the twisted reality of our judicial system. Pointing out facts should never be a real crime. The Heritage Foundation's new Paris-bubble-popping science summary is also a case of letting the numbers tell a story. A story many never hear in the media-hyped spectacle that is international climate policy."
‹ Previous 21 - 40 of 43 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page