I read a book by Lester Thurow-the economist in 1999 describing
styles of national economic management. The Bush II administration fit
the maint. method-largely uncreative and reliant upon military and
natural resource extraction business and the war on terror has been
profitable to bureaucrats and the extraction industries and military
contractors. I think that's likely to continue for a while.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/40603/william-diebold-jr/the-zero-sum-solution
https://www.getabstract.com/en/summary/economics-and-politics/the-future-of-capitalism/3353/
http://www.questia.com/library/325249/dangerous-currents-the-state-of-economics
Negative interest rates for government auction of debt allowed the U.S. and U.K. to erase nearly 40% of public debt between the 1940s and 1970s. It's an odd concept for us non-economists, yet perhaps the quantitative easing does that. During the 40s to the 70s U.S. economic growth was more substantial than today however, and the public debt was nearly so large. Negative interest rates on auctioned government bonds purchased by the Fed (who else would do that?) might have long rang effects in other areas one would think.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Plainly not increasing taxes to pay for the Orwellian forever 'war' isn't historically a good idea. The public really hasn't felt the cost yet. I wonder if the female majority in the Democrat Party that are middle class have the slightest interest in having their taxes increase? In the future it may require a triple portion of taxation to pay for that trillion dollar a year in interest, for which the people will get nothing material in exchange by the end of the Obama administration.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
If there are political consultants channeling F.D.R. to political leaders contemplating the federal budget it is possible that F.D.R. might whisper to them 'Cut taxes and economic growth will pay for two wars' yet in my opinion it's doubtful.
If a nation hasn't a good sense of direction or purpose it would find it difficult to lead. The New York Jets football time might be an illustrative example-as are the Philadelphia Eagles. Each team could probably do better if they had Tim Tebow and Michael Vick sharing the running quarterback role with an Adrian Peterson in the backfield too. The method of keeping a running Q.B. benched or playing them full time rather than half-time to recover from head butts and gut shots is just ineffective.
The U.S.A. probably needs to be an ecological restoration business leader rather than a global corporate outsourcer of its own national independence accompanied with a left agenda of making the rest of the world comfortable for a butch hegemony under corporate censorship of expression.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/40603/william-diebold-jr/the-zero-sum-solution
https://www.getabstract.com/en/summary/economics-and-politics/the-future-of-capitalism/3353/
http://www.questia.com/library/325249/dangerous-currents-the-state-of-economics
Negative interest rates for government auction of debt allowed the U.S. and U.K. to erase nearly 40% of public debt between the 1940s and 1970s. It's an odd concept for us non-economists, yet perhaps the quantitative easing does that. During the 40s to the 70s U.S. economic growth was more substantial than today however, and the public debt was nearly so large. Negative interest rates on auctioned government bonds purchased by the Fed (who else would do that?) might have long rang effects in other areas one would think.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Plainly not increasing taxes to pay for the Orwellian forever 'war' isn't historically a good idea. The public really hasn't felt the cost yet. I wonder if the female majority in the Democrat Party that are middle class have the slightest interest in having their taxes increase? In the future it may require a triple portion of taxation to pay for that trillion dollar a year in interest, for which the people will get nothing material in exchange by the end of the Obama administration.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
If there are political consultants channeling F.D.R. to political leaders contemplating the federal budget it is possible that F.D.R. might whisper to them 'Cut taxes and economic growth will pay for two wars' yet in my opinion it's doubtful.
If a nation hasn't a good sense of direction or purpose it would find it difficult to lead. The New York Jets football time might be an illustrative example-as are the Philadelphia Eagles. Each team could probably do better if they had Tim Tebow and Michael Vick sharing the running quarterback role with an Adrian Peterson in the backfield too. The method of keeping a running Q.B. benched or playing them full time rather than half-time to recover from head butts and gut shots is just ineffective.
The U.S.A. probably needs to be an ecological restoration business leader rather than a global corporate outsourcer of its own national independence accompanied with a left agenda of making the rest of the world comfortable for a butch hegemony under corporate censorship of expression.
No comments:
Post a Comment