What should a US president do now?

[Jason]

This would be the end to the USD world reserve currency status, cause a trade war that would lead to millions and millions of deaths, and cause the crash in the dollar that so many on here are worried about. Dudes, some are willing to say this price is worth it. Are you, dudes?

I have issues with anyone that thinks a debt based worldwide reserve currency is a good thing. It would not however lead to a worldwide trade war anymore than growing your own garden can be blamed for Walmart boycotting your farmers market. That may well occur but doing the right thing would not be the cause. You might want to read about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act and decide whether you like Reed Smoot or not. Likewise it would not crash the dollar, that's fundamentally absurd as it assumes the regulation and operations of the USD remain the same. At any rate I could spend years literally articulating the fine points of each line, but in the end you either get it or you don't and there are much larger issues to debate endlessly.

Issues... lol. You can fool yourself all you want, but you clearly do not understand how markets and world trade works. But it's all good, dudes, bad fundamentals lead to bad results more often than not. Lemme point ya in the right direction and get that foundation set up square and plum. I got meself a great modern analysis. Dudes, read Barry Eichengreen's work. It'll give ya all the straight arrows ya need, dudes.

Your suggestion would cause a crash and any professional worth his salt knows this. It's the armchair economists with zero professional training and a couple one trick pony's who say it would not.

....LOL...that was great! Like the 1st grader who just figured out 2+2 telling the physics professor what can or can't cause an earthquake....

[1984Orwellherenow]

Natural resource ownership is a big deal and should not be privatized into the hands of the inevitable few. If you support that, then you support the mistakes of parents binding their ancestors to slavery.

To put it simply:
If you and I and another washed up on a small island and the only food source available to us was coconuts. Should I be able to gather them all up upon arrival and only give you some if you will do what I say? Why or why not? By rights I attached my labor to them and they became mine. To bad you didn't think quicker!

In reality a much better model is holding natural resources largely in common from which any man may exalt himself so long as he does no harm and causes no loss to the rest of society who has equal rights to exalt themselves (as do their children) from those same common resources. "It is not given that one man should posses that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin."

This is the Zion model of stewardships that may or may not become inheritances. It is the only way to prevent massive inequities upon future and present generations.

Locking up the resources? Hardly, it would open them up to development, while discouraging the inequalities of wealth distribution we currently see.

Dudes, I really like your liberal views here. I've found it hard for the anarcho-capitalist mindset to realize the importance of balancing between feudalism and socialism. Dudes, I'm sure we would differ on policy preferences, but that's what the democratic portion of our republic is all about. Nice work, dudes!

[HeirofNumenor]

Your suggestion would cause a crash and any professional worth his salt knows this. It's the armchair economists with zero professional training and a couple one trick pony's who say it would not.

You mean we should leave it to the "professionals" such as:
A) Financial Advisers and Stockbrokers (all of whom get commissions and bonuses based on what they convince the client to do),
B) Wall Street Brokerage Houses and Banks Too Big to Fail (who get billions in TARP $ to start lending and getting people buying again, but instead apply that money ONLY to erase their bad debts on their books so they look profitable - thereby declaring that since they had a banner year of performance - they're in the black, they must have made money! - that they award themselves massive bonuses, many into the $ millions), and
C) Federal Reserve Chairmen, Treasury Secretaries, International Bankers and Multinational Corporations all of whom make A & B possible, and have their own vested interests in controlling everything, enriching themselves while they ship jobs overseas, squander pension funds, manipulate governments and currencies, etc. and end up owning all the chips while the American citizens end up impoverished serfs - as Jefferson put it "slaves on the continent their forefathers conquered".

Naturally, we must include accomplices such as
D) politicians of both major parties - as well as academics, journalists, and others who shape opinion - all of whom are either bought off, threatened, or either ignorant or approving of the nature of economics and power. This includes lobbyists who generally get $ steered towards B & C.
E) The American people themselves, who fall for the me first thinking, voting for those who would give them special breaks, instead of demanding the same break for all (i.e. instead NO income tax - do a flat tax on % of income or else a sales ta; fair trade, no US corporations moving operations overseas only to sell back to American buyers what they should have made here in the first place, etc.)

While I write this with America in mind, the same problems afflict all nations.

The Cleansings, Zion and the United Order cannot come fast enough!

[Rincon]

Removed

[durangout]

I agree, HOWEVER no president will ever do any of those things. So, where does that leave us?

[Rincon]

It leaves us up a creek without a paddle, but we can dream anyway.

[1984Orwellherenow]

Your suggestion would cause a crash and any professional worth his salt knows this. It's the armchair economists with zero professional training and a couple one trick pony's who say it would not.

You mean we should leave it to the "professionals" such as:
A) Financial Advisers and Stockbrokers (all of whom get commissions and bonuses based on what they convince the client to do),
B) Wall Street Brokerage Houses and Banks Too Big to Fail (who get billions in TARP $ to start lending and getting people buying again, but instead apply that money ONLY to erase their bad debts on their books so they look profitable - thereby declaring that since they had a banner year of performance - they're in the black, they must have made money! - that they award themselves massive bonuses, many into the $ millions), and
C) Federal Reserve Chairmen, Treasury Secretaries, International Bankers and Multinational Corporations all of whom make A & B possible, and have their own vested interests in controlling everything, enriching themselves while they ship jobs overseas, squander pension funds, manipulate governments and currencies, etc. and end up owning all the chips while the American citizens end up impoverished serfs - as Jefferson put it "slaves on the continent their forefathers conquered".

Naturally, we must include accomplices such as
D) politicians of both major parties - as well as academics, journalists, and others who shape opinion - all of whom are either bought off, threatened, or either ignorant or approving of the nature of economics and power. This includes lobbyists who generally get $ steered towards B & C.
E) The American people themselves, who fall for the me first thinking, voting for those who would give them special breaks, instead of demanding the same break for all (i.e. instead NO income tax - do a flat tax on % of income or else a sales ta; fair trade, no US corporations moving operations overseas only to sell back to American buyers what they should have made here in the first place, etc.)

While I write this with America in mind, the same problems afflict all nations.

The Cleansings, Zion and the United Order cannot come fast enough!

Classical moonbat. A meaningless argument against those who spend lifetime studying a particular system. LOL, dudes. You don't suppose there are any of these smart guys at an LDS run college, eh?

I've met a few wise people who live behind dumpsters too, dudes.

[HeirofNumenor]

Classical moonbat. A meaningless argument against those who spend lifetime studying a particular system. LOL, dudes. You don't suppose there are any of these smart guys at an LDS run college, eh?

I've met a few wise people who live behind dumpsters too, dudes.

So we should turn it all over to YOU, and your infinite wisdom? ^:)^

DUDE.

Go smoke your crack. :YMALIEN:

[Shimdidly]

Natural resource ownership is a big deal and should not be privatized into the hands of the inevitable few. If you support that, then you support the mistakes of parents binding their ancestors to slavery.

To put it simply:
If you and I and another washed up on a small island and the only food source available to us was coconuts. Should I be able to gather them all up upon arrival and only give you some if you will do what I say? Why or why not? By rights I attached my labor to them and they became mine. To bad you didn't think quicker!

In reality a much better model is holding natural resources largely in common from which any man may exalt himself so long as he does no harm and causes no loss to the rest of society who has equal rights to exalt themselves (as do their children) from those same common resources. "It is not given that one man should posses that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin."

This is the Zion model of stewardships that may or may not become inheritances. It is the only way to prevent massive inequities upon future and present generations.

Locking up the resources? Hardly, it would open them up to development, while discouraging the inequalities of wealth distribution we currently see.

This is tricky. I'll admit that mineral/natural resource rights are something that I haven't put much thought in. What I'm worried about is a situation where I buy an acre of land with an oil well on it, and the government says, "You don't own the oil because it's a natural resource." That sounds unfair to me.

[Jason]

I agree, HOWEVER no president will ever do any of those things. So, where does that leave us?

Depends....

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

This is tricky. I'll admit that mineral/natural resource rights are something that I haven't put much thought in. What I'm worried about is a situation where I buy an acre of land with an oil well on it, and the government says, "You don't own the oil because it's a natural resource." That sounds unfair to me.

Agreed, that's why I lean so heavily on the "no harm," judiciary. If harm can be proved and quantified then it can be rectified (repented). Land and resource ownership has to be absolute or it is nothing at all. But at the same time I run the math and see the worlds wealth largely amassed into a few hands and growing exponentially without work (I couldn't even spend the simple interest on Carlos Slim's $74 Billion). 8% of the worlds population hold 79.3% of it's wealth and 68.4% of the population live on 4.2% of the worlds wealth. If ditch diggers were in the first catagory I may not have a problem with it and I'd chalk it up to work, but that's not reality. Reality is that gamblers (investors and global manipulators among others) are among the wealthiest. Did they earn it? Not really. If I was smart enough to legally obtain all the worlds wealth and thus enslave the masses would I have earned it? It is hardly possible for me to claim that I worked harder than the cumulative sum of billions of others. Does/did Carlos Slim work 370,000 times harder/more than someone with a net worth of $200K (largely in their house)? Not likely. Is he 370,000 times more of a genius? 370,000 times more virtuous (watching the rest of his country starve and flood across our borders to find work and opportunity)?

A human can only posses so much without waste (Yachts/cars/homes/lands sitting idle the majority of the time etc...). How much cavier and Dom Perignon can one man consume? How many rooms can he sleep in and how much silk can be heaped atop how big of a bed before he suffocates on his excess?

I don't envy others wealth. All I ever wanted was an 80-86 or 92-96 Ford Bronco a small cottage on a decently private lot (my 5 acres works well enough). I wouldn't want more. The times I have had extra money it was given away freely and will be again. Time is the real talent and human relationships all that we can take with us.

I don't believe in "fair," but I do believe in equity, in equal rights to the earths resources from which any man may exalt himself by work and a consecration of the surplus either individually or collectively in an order. It isn't hard to find people with a plausible dream to invest in and help them help themselves. It's just that there are so many people leading lives of quiet desperation and so few willing to help or let go of their amassed resources long enough to let somebody else have a go at them.

It's definitely a balance between collective ownership and individual ownership and quite honestly I would probably encourage enforcement via social pressure and not through any law enforcement.

Social pressure is possibly the most underrated resource/form of recourse we have available to us. They say that people won't vote money out of their own pockets, but here locally numerous people have signed on to form a borough government that admits openly it would not serve them in any way shape or form and would only tax them for their effort. And yet they continue to sign for one reason only: social pressure. Look at public school and the lengths kids go to achieve social acceptance. It doesn't change much with age.

We could accomplish a great deal with united social pressure.

[Shimdidly]

Well Pitchfire, this delves into a deeper issue that, again, I don't have a solid understanding of. In other words, I haven't made up my mind on how it should be properly handled: Property.

My theory is that property should start out as not being owned by ANY entity, even government. A person will stake a claim on that property on a first-come-first-serve basis. The person also owns everything that is on the land when he buys/claims it. Later on property can be traded just like anything else of value. Government should never be used to take from one man to give to another, which is why I think a person should have full right to whatever resource is on his property.

[HeirofNumenor]

Good points all, SwissMrs...

But regarding this:

I don't envy others wealth. All I ever wanted was an 80-86 or 92-96 Ford Bronco a small cottage on a decently private lot (my 5 acres works well enough). I wouldn't want more. The times I have had extra money it was given away freely and will be again. Time is the real talent and human relationships all that we can take with us.

This may actually belong in a different thread, but since you mentioned here, and others posted in this thread about farming and homesteading:
You have 5 acres....assuming you were able to farm that land (health, ability, family help, climate & weather, etc.)...how much land would you need to effectively grow enough food for your family each year, with maybe a little for surplus/storage (not counting desire to sell the excess): 5 acres, 20, 50, 100 acres? And would that be all crops and orchards, or would you set aside acreage for livestock, and if so - how much?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Brigham Young believed an acre and a quarter (it's in "discourses of" I believe) but they had very large families back then, and Thoreau would likely second that. It can certainly be done on far less than that amount. Start researching yields broken down by the acre and you'll see it pretty quickly.

http://www.verdant.net/food.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://urbanhomestead.org/journal/2009/ ... est-tally/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

As to private property rights John Locke had it about spot on. And this is quite possibly the best text on the issue:
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jason]

fwiw - A good number of organic growers make upwards of 6 figures growing on 10 acres or less.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Many of them in the foothills no less!