'SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT' THE EVIL FACING AMERICA Part One

"The world's top central banking authority has warned that the Bank of England's inflation-busting tactics are largely responsible for the dangerous pile-up of household debt"

How can the govt force people to borrow money??????

 

Well, Poncho, I lived in Germany for six years. One of my German friends invited us to visit E. Germany, which we did. People there went into their bathrooms and ran the baths at full throttle in order to speak without being overheard. Everywhere they went, there was a police presence. Each apartment building had informants who kept their eyes on everyone else, and reported regularly to the Stasi. There was no political opposition, because any suspicion of it was quelled immediately. And, yes, doors were kicked in.

That's a police state. We are nowhere's even near a police state. To suggest otherwise is sheer intellectual dishonesty. We have functioning courts, elected officials at local, state, and federal levels, with too much free speech (witness the treasonous reporting by the New York Times ), and a rule of law subject to the will of the people. We have a Constitution that upholds our rights. We have peaceful transitions when one party is elected over another. We have people exercising their right to protest in the streets. Try that in East Germany or Cuba or Vietnam. The only protests there are government organized.

Communism and it's cousin, socialism, are the biggest evils on the planet. These systems are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the last century, and to compare them to what we have in this country is absolute lunacy.

Remember the boy who cried wolf? There is so much outlandish claims going on that most people are tuning it out. If we ever do have a police state, nobody will believe you.

 

Sorry, Poncho, I was pretty busy at the time. Fascism is not much different, in terms of it's lack of respect for human rights. But it does, at least, protect some property rights, which is more than one can say about communism.

I don't need philisophical arguments about communism -- I've seen it first hand, and socialism is the "slippery slope" into communism. 100 years of socialism has failed to solve anything, and has made a lot of things worse. Poverty, war, pollution, income disparities between the "haves" and "have nots" -- still present, even in communist or socialist societies. We talked earlier about those who create value, and those who don't. All socialism does is make that problem worse. It takes incentives away from those who create to create more, and incentives away from those who don't work to work more.

FDR's "temporary" social measures made the Depression worse and longer, and Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" loaded us with liabilities we can't support anymore (medicare, and medicaid). Our social security program is untouchable. (Did I ever mention that I couldn't get SSI/Disability, because I didn't have enough work credits in the previous 5 years? Yet, I've paid into it for years, and continue to pay whenever I'm lucky enough to make a profit? Yet I am ineligible?)

Just what do you think are the benefits? I've been fortunate enough to have lived overseas for a third of my life, and I've traveled to roughly half of the countries in the U.N. Enough to see the effects of communism on keeping people down, right where the "ruling powers" want them. And I've had enough friends who managed to escape from Eastern Europe and Vietnam to know what a police state is, and the U.S.A. isn't one. Not even close.

Europe is a basket case. Africa is even worse. The socialist economies of Latin America are crippling the ability of their citizens to escape grueling poverty, which I have seen firsthand. The USSR has collapsed (thank God!) Even China is getting into a market economy. Why do you put down a nation as great as ours, poncho? Compared to the rest of the world, well -- there is no comparison.

As Larry Kudlow is fond of saying, "Capitalism is the best road to prosperity." Of course, there must be laws to restrain monopolistic tendencies, but no other system in man's history has spread prosperity to so many, in such a short time.

 

May God bless him, Poncho.

 

Poncho, I'm glad your brother is okay.

I appreciate the straight talk. I don't substantially disagree with anything that you have said, which means we have common ground after all. I just don't buy into conspiracy theories about a very real war between radical Islam and the West.

Being the weekend, with the kids home from school, I need to direct their chores and think about my response. So it might be awhile before I get back. If you took me off "ignore", we could communicate a little better without boring the public with my workday necessities.

 

Glad your brother is okay, poncho.

I have to tell you, I love these discussions where both sides post back and forth without namecalling, insults, personal attacks, etc., and that show the willingness to listen to each other. These are the kinds of discussions I enjoy so I'm enjoying this thread.

Lady Eagle

 

Poncho and Lady Eagle,
I am really enjoying your posts. Both of you inspire me to stick to what I believe about the two major parties. Its all a matter of really caring for the American people.

 

Thanks for your kind words, poncho. We all (and I do include myself) tend to say things we regret, and posting on a BB increases that tendency, I think.

I agree with all of your definitions, but just don't see much of an alternative to capitalism, given the present state of both domestic and foreign affairs, and the evil heart of man.

I have known poverty (still do), and I have also spent money foolishly when I was younger. I tithe to spread the gospel, even though my personal income is below $10K -- poverty by any standards. I live in a 100-year old house where the floors have literally caved in; 1/4 of the floors cannot be walked on. (With the labor of my wife and children, and wood we have milled from the forest, we are slowly rebuilding the floors.) My doctor recently cut my prescription drugs down to 11 (from 19), because it is very difficult to purchase them, but they are absolutely necessary. Still, there are some things I can do, in spite of my disabilities, and I owe society for what I can do. I give away most of the furniture I build, because I'd rather see it used by someone who needs it than for it to be "merchandise" in a cold, taxable exchange of cash. I barter computer services for work on my tractor. I think that we all need to work together to improve the lot of those worse off; we have a social responsibility that is vastly ignored due to greed and selfishness.

The local churches will not help us (or anybody local), because they have apparently "been taken advantage of in the past." It seems to me that the church has failed to do what it can to alleviate poverty (even forgetting my own situation). I see some take multiple vacations a year, one who owns a Lear jet, another who owns maybe a tenth of the county, etc. The current church discussion is whether or not to spend $80,000 on stained glass windows. Yet this is one of the poorest counties in the nation -- nearly half live below the poverty line. So, I see a failure of leadership at all levels: ecclesiastical, local, state, and federal.

Jesus tells us that "the poor you will always have" (Mt 19:21), suggesting that no political/economic system devised by man will eliminate poverty. The commandment against theft tells me that private property rights are to be protected. We are told to work for our needs (2 Thes 3:10) and to protect the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the stranger (too many verses to quote, here). The parables of Jesus seem to deal with money more than anything else, at least on the surface. And King Solomon amassed more wealth then anyone before or since, I think.

So, what conclusions can we draw? Property rights don't exist in communism, so we can exclude that system. Socialism has some concept of property rights, but they can be given or taken at the whim of the state. Both of these systems relegate the individual to either labor or management , cold terms that dehumanize and divide. They stifle individual creativity, incentive and productivity. Resources are more efficiently used when they are not controlled by the state. We see this even in the U.S., where it is the private sector, not the government, that is in the forefront of rebuilding after Katrina.

Capitalism seems to be a good model, as long as there is constant growth (as you mention in your definition of capitalism) and investment. The key there is to enforce anti-mopolistic laws (which you also correctly point out are not being enforced), pursue productivity increases (the real source of rising standards of living), and to implement a strong safety net for those who can't survive on their own.

But high taxation, especially of capital, reduces employment and real wages, because it reduces investment. We now have the second highest corporate taxes in the world, behind Japan (where there is almost no growth). The tax cuts of the Bush administration may benefit the wealthiest disproportionately to the poorest, at least on the surface, but it has permitted new capital investment which has created millions of new jobs. (Even my family benefited, because of accelerated depreciation on our cattle and other equipment, and an direct increase in the child credit, to the tune of several thousand dollars per year. That was badly needed, and well appreciated). In the long run, the rich have too much money to spend, so they invest it, and that results in increased employment, tax revenues, and possibly profits (if there's anything left over). They take risks with their money, and should be rewarded with profit potential free from confiscatory taxation, so they might begin the cycle anew.

Our current accounts deficit (trade deficit) is directly attribitable to our desire for foreign goods, excess regulations and taxes here in the U.S., and our addiction to foreign oil. It amounts to a huge transfer of wealth out of our country. We are doing it to ourselves. We buy foreign, instead of domestic. We put large areas of our country off-limits to oil & gas exploration and development, and then holler at our politicians when supply and demand factors push energy costs higher. We slap new regulations on our businesses everyday (does anybody know how many regulations there are? ) and then stand in puzzlement when these same businesses move overseas, where there are cheaper labor costs and fewer regulations. Capital has never been more mobile than it is today, and it will flow to the least point of taxation and regulation.

All of that's good for the poor in other countries, because it is providing infrastructure and jobs overseas. 40% of global consumption now comes from "emerging market" countries, such as India, China, Indonesia, etc., that didn't have this foreign investment a decade ago. For example, I see Intel is investing $650 million for a semiconductor plant in Vietnam, raising local wages from $15/day to $45/day. That's their gain, and our loss. It is reducing poverty faster than all the years of direct handouts from the U.N. and NGOs. That builds up a class of formerly poor people who want what we want -- material possessions.

The biggest obstacles to reducing poverty are corrupt, totalitarian governments. We have enough food to feed the planet, but it's not getting to those who need it. I see we are going to plow another $115 million of food aid (through the UN) to North Korea, for example, but it will most likely be redirected to the military, rather than those who need it most. Same with Africa, the ignored continent.

So I see a need to replace these regimes with ones who care about their own people, and are willing to permit both direct aid and investment that will benefit their citizens, rather than just the "leadership." It is futile to send aid to them now -- it is absolutely not helping them. Regime replacement can be a good thing, and doesn't necessarily have to involve military force. I know that there are a lot of disagreements over Iraq, for example, but at least the torture and killing of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) has stopped. [I don't want to get drawn into an argument over Iraq here, but the humanitarian aspect should be highlighted].

One of the times that I was stationed in Northern Virginia, I came home to see two men beating a taxi cab driver badly with baseball bats, while perhaps 40-50 people stood by and watched. I went into my apartment and returned with a .45-cal pistol, and stopped the attack. Next thing I knwe, there were police swarming around looking for me -- the crazy with a gun, instead of the attackers (who had fled). This is the way I am. I can't stand to see a bully. If we, as a nation, have the ability to stop a bully masquerading as a national leader, than it is our right and responsibility to do so.

I simply don't see a conspiratorial manipulation into war for the sake of free trade. Islam has been a threat for centuries, and now, with modern technology, it has reached the point where it can destroy us. The development of WMD is their ultimate trump card, and it must be stopped wherever it occurs. The U.N. isn't doing this (witness the advanced state of WMD development in Libya, for example, and also North Korea), so we must. Radical Islam must be confronted, not ignored. We will be destroyed, if we fail. I see the hand of Satan behind it, and he is quite pleased that we are so badly divided as a nation, as a society, and even as a Church.

If the U.N. would organize to the point where it would systematically replace the corrupt, dictatorial regimes on the planet, then reducing poverty and alleviating suffering would have a fighting chance. But the U.N. is too corrupt for that, and needs complete reform or dissolution. It has utterly failed in it's mission. Few of its members live up to the charter, such as providing basic human rights, religious toleration, self-determination, etc. It is more interested in transferring wealth than solving the problems we face.

Absent an effective, multilateral approach, we must do this on our own (or with whatever allies we can find). We are the only superpower, at least until China catches up, so it is our responsibility. God judges nations as well as individuals (Jer. 18), and our failure to act will not escape judgement. We are too busy fighting ourselves to confront the greater evil -- radical Islam, which exploits poverty, among other factors. We can't survive in the long run without ceasing our partisan bickering, and that would mean we can't help others, either, if we crumble into dust as a power. This has been my argument all along. We have had a window of opportunity in the history of mankind to lift the lot of all, and we are squandering it.

I don't know what you can piece together from all of this, poncho. I'm not an intellectual. I'll probably get beat up for this post, from some quarters, but I just see many opportunities that are being frittered away, and time is getting shorter. I do know that we need people in government, at all levels, who realize that they are there to serve, not to enjoy power and privilege. We need citizens who are willing to sacrifice, rather than loot the treasury. We need business owners who seek profits to help others, rather than just for the sake of profits. We need journalists who inform, instead of manipulating information. We need strong church leadership with which to better organize and channel resources to those in need, spread the gospel, and educate us on our responsibilities to each other. We need church members who take our responsibilities seriously, give more of what we can, and do more with what we have. We need the kingdom of Christ, an absolute monarch who will rule us fairly without corruption. Come soon, Jesus, come soon!

 

Take your time, poncho. I'll be gone tomorrow for "nuclear perfusion" heart testing, but I'll be back Wednesday.

And despite our differences, I call you a friend...

 

elijah_lives, I really enjoyed and agreed with a lot of your last post and felt it provided a lot of excellent intellectual, practical and spiritual insight.

All the best on your heart test and poncho, I hope your bro is ok and I hope he makes a full recovery.

 

Ponch, I applaud your fine post, in which I have no disagreement. I know that we are manipulated by the spinmeisters, especially "journalists" who are really "activists" in disguise, manipulating information rather than informing us. I would rather find the truth, regardless of what it is, than to start with a paradigm and attempt to force "facts" to support it. That makes it real difficult to filter out what's real and what's not, and what information is important or otherwise.

I love the founding documents of our Republic, which have basically been twisted and deformed into "principles" that were never intended, and the appearance of a state controlled by it's citizens, instead of the men in black robes who rule from the bench. I think it would take a revolution to return to "ground zero", when the thoughts and actions of our Founding Fathers shook the world with the birth of true liberty. Of course, that is just an observation (advocating rebellion is a crime, I think), but we can't simply push the "reset" button on the video game, and start over.

I still don't buy conspiracy theories about this war, and remain dedicated to fighting terror in all of its forms; it is the scourge of civilization, and threatens the very foundations of our society. All else pales in the face of radical Islam, a relentless foe with patience and momentum on it's side.

In terms of regaining control of our destiny, we need to emphasize truth in education. If this means that we have to start parallel school systems, funded by the church, I think it would enable concerned parents to transfer their kids from the public school system into one more free from the dictates of the state, and less subject to manipulation. It might take a generation or so to counter the current school system, but it took a generation for the public schools to churn out education failures. (I was shocked to learn recently that my high school, Chantilly High is rated in the bottom third of the nation; when I graduated in 1979, it was one of the top ten public schools in the country.) This would place many demands on our churches, especially financial, and would require cooperation between various congregations. We need to ignore the trivial issues that divide us, and worry only about the "heaven and hell" issues that absolutely block salvation (not a good way to put it, but I can't find the words I'm looking for.)

I'll cede the floor back to you, poncho, and thank you for an excellent discourse that I have enjoyed tremendously. I won't know about my heart testing results until late this week or early next week. Now, I have to figure out how to pay for it!

 

Gold Dragon, thank you for your kind words. What do you think about all of this?

 

I'm obviously not a believer in conspiracy theories. I don't have enough faith in humans to cooperate to the extent required by theories suggested to pull them off.

Regarding the media, they definitely come with their spins and biases. Everyone does. And the consolidation of media ownership is a concern. But I think simple human greed prevents them from cooperating the way conspiracy theorists suggest.

Regarding globalization, I don't understand how poncho can call it communist. I see globalization as the brain-child and of most benefit to capitalist corporate American and to a lesser extent, Europe.

I do not consider myself anti-globalizaionist, but I think many of the problems of globalization are things that sustainable developement tries to address. Globalization encourages corporations to enter poorer countries and use their human and natural resources for short term profit. It may help with much needed job and wealth creation in those countries. But if globalization isn't balanced with the concepts of sustainable development that also look out for the long term growth of the social and environmental elements in developing countries, corporations will run roughshod over the foreign countries often without the social and environmental laws and infrastructure in place to keep them in check. The countries are at the mercy of the corporation which can pull out and leave at any time they wish and hop on over to the next developing country in need of $$$ and jobs.

If the corporations themselves adopt some concepts of sustainable development in their business model, that would be ideal. Short of that, governments need to be aware of these potential issues and not just see the $$ that corporations tempt them with.

Regarding the conspiracy theory of terrorism, I defer to Occam's Razor.