Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'll grab the most critical one.

Originally Posted by David '47

John Q Public is not penalized because the value of his or her holdings are either denominated in current dollars (assets) or they are earning interest at a premium rate that accommodates the underlying inflation. If neither is true, then JQP is a fool.

This is, flatly, false. The dollar John Q put in his wallet yesterday is worth less today and every subsequent day as the gov't "monetizes" its capital consumption. I'm not speaking about non-cash holding, but about monetary holdings.

Then you must be worried for the mattress stuffers, since they are the only ones holding quantities of $$$ long enough for the change to make a difference. Surely those with cash accounts don't matter, since they are either used for funds distribution, which should involve relatively short term holdings, or as a cash reserve, which should be earning interest.

In the case of funds distribution accounts, personal checking being an apt example, the utility of the account more than off-sets the cost due to inflation - and is small in comparison to other costs imposed.

Originally Posted by ... then Justin

Every person desires a certain amount of liquidity in their assets. This amount will be reflected by their cash holdings -- whether in a wallet as in John's case -- or in an openly accessible bank account, as in other instances. It is the case that most bank accounts (particularly checking accounts) are hedged against expected monetary fluctuations. This has no bearing on the underhanded nature of "monetization" of capital expenditure -- which, much like the rest of the Keynesian program, is founded upon the notion of fooling the public (see his program of inflation as a way to quell labor disturbances).

Well, I was wrong. You are interested in the mattress stuffers. Since they are the only ones who have actively exempted themselves from the modern economic system, they lose some and gain none.

Originally Posted by ... then Justin

The fact remains that, no matter how one hedges against it, the "monetization" of debt via inflation is a program which substitutes stealth for openness in government expenditures, as, rather than simply taking the money outright, the government shaves value off every monetary unit held -- to the detriment of the holders.

I think stealth is a poor choice of words. How about subterfuge? There is definitely a subliminal effect to the application of gentle inflation. I don't find it at all unsettling or objectionable. The alternative: gentle deflation is. Instead of worrying about small losses that are offset by larger gains, why not celebrate the effect that acts to prevent assets from declining in value with time. How many homeowners could tolerate a decline in home values when they are carrying a mortgage? How many could buy a home without one?

You've let philosophy overcome common sense. I'll chose the latter.

Originally Posted by David '47

Then you must be worried for the mattress stuffers, since they are the only ones holding quantities of $$$ long enough for the change to make a difference. Surely those with cash accounts don't matter, since they are either used for funds distribution, which should involve relatively short term holdings, or as a cash reserve, which should be earning interest.

There has been a lot of criticism of my generation (I was born in 1961) because we were the first wave of people who did not save money. Yet there is a reason that we did not save. We were teenagers and came of age in the '70's when inflation was a real problem. Saving money in a bank account (the common way to do it in those days) meant that the money would be worth less later even with interest than it was when we got it. Therefore, in order to see any value at all, we spent the money immediately. It really was not worth it to save. So being pragmatic, we did not. Thus we did more poorly than our parents and grandparents and many of us finally were able to buy houses very late in life (during the last few years) or have not yet been able to do so.

Inflation does have real consequences on people and the choices they are able to make. The concept that we can indefinitely avoid paying the piper for our public debt is a chimera. We will pay for it in one way or another.
The inflation of the '70s was the result of putting off paying the piper for Vietnam, the real cost of energy (oil) and the huge transfer of money to the older generations. In that era, the United States wanted to have it's cake and eat it, too!

Elisheva

Originally Posted by David '47

I think stealth is a poor choice of words. How about subterfuge?

I'll go with that. Plus, it sounds a lot cooler.

There is definitely a subliminal effect to the application of gentle inflation. I don't find it at all unsettling or objectionable.

Then it's never come accounting on your back. That's just fine by me; keep your priorities where you feel they should be.

The alternative: gentle deflation is.

First off, "gentle" is a word that can only be applied by those who sit high enough up the information processing chain to not be hit very hard by the consequences of the phenomenae. Second, there is a third (at least) alternative. As Mike indicated above, a non-fiat currency is quite resistant to either inflation or deflation, as a fluctuation in the value of the monetary unit will affect the production of the commodity to tend to keep thing equalized.

Instead of worrying about small losses that are offset by larger gains, why not celebrate the effect that acts to prevent assets from declining in value with time.

Ah yes, the old "gorge, guzzle, and wench, for tomorrow we get gutted" philosophy. Would you say the same to a person with a leech hanging off their leg? -- "Don't worry about the small loss; you're still making good time through the swamp". A loss is a loss is a loss. The fact that it appears small in your experience makes no difference to anyone but you. I'm sure plenty of people feel that a loss of freedom to speak out against war on Iraq (to pick an egregious example) would be "no big deal" -- does their belief make it so?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

a loss of freedom to speak out against war on Iraq (to pick an egregious example)

"Egregious", yes, if it ever actually occurs.

Originally Posted by Sanford

Originally Posted by Justin '77

a loss of freedom to speak out against war on Iraq (to pick an egregious example)

"Egregious", yes, if it ever actually occurs.

Egregious and unlikely, then.

Here is a WorldNetDaily article which discusses this new phenomenon of mass radical distrust in the wake of the Wellstone crash. When it begins to infect the mainstream, I do not see how we could be in any turning but a 4T. Obviously, the status quo to which we have grown accustomed in the 3T cannot be sustained much longer. Regeneracy is now within distant sight:



www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29487

(For educ. and discussion)



DEATH OF A SENATOR
Was Wellstone assassinated?
Skeptics, conspiracy buffs wonder if Minnesota Democrat targeted for murder


Posted: October 31, 2002

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joe Kovacs

? 2002 WorldNetDaily.com


In the cutthroat world of politics, there seems to be an endless supply of conspiracy theories, from the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy to the mysterious death of Vince Foster.

Now the name of Sen. Paul Wellstone can be added to the list.

Late Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn.
With control of the U.S. Senate hanging in the balance, political junkies, talk-radio hosts, journalism professors and Internet websites are promoting wild speculation that there's more to last week's plane crash than meets the eye.

"Some Democrats and progressive Americans are asking the unthinkable about an administration they increasingly believe to be ruled by thugs and renegades," writes nationally syndicated cartoonist and commentator Ted Rall. "Did government gangsters murder the United States' most liberal legislator?"

Wellstone's plane crashed Oct. 25 in freezing rain and light snow on approach near the Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport, about 175 miles north of Minneapolis. A pilot who witnessed the incident said the twin-engine craft seemed to veer away from the usual approach to the runway.

Two years ago, just several weeks before election day, another Democratic senator, Mel Carnahan of Missouri, was killed in a small plane crash in heavy weather. His family has maintained a failed vacuum pump and manifold system are to blame.

"The fact that we're having this discussion at all is a symptom of the polarizing effect that Bush and his top dogs have had on the United States since assuming office and even more so in the hard-right free-for-all that followed the Sept. 11 attacks," writes Rall in his column:

Ronald Reagan may have been a hard-line conservative, but had Wellstone died during his watch you wouldn't have heard liberals asking whether the Gipper had had him offed. Bush is different. Asking mailmen to spy on ordinary Americans, creating military tribunals for anyone deemed an "enemy combatant," locking prisoners of war in dog cages, spending a decade's worth of savings in six months, allowing journalists to die rather than provide them with help in a war zone, smearing Democratic politicians as anti-American, invading sovereign nations without excuse ? these are acts that transgress essential American reasonableness. A man capable of these things seems, by definition, capable of anything.

Talk-show hosts including unabashed liberal Mike Webb of Seattle's KIRO-AM spent Saturday on the air entertaining the possibility of an assassination, explaining his gut reaction was that the crash was no accident. At least one caller who had just returned from a local anti-war rally said she had felt the same.

Questions of an assassination plot have also reached the halls of academia, where some professors are openly discussing the possibility.

"We need to confront these rumors," says Dr. Michael Niman, professor of journalism and media studies at Buffalo State College. "What I'm looking for is closure."

In a partisan commentary entitled "Was Paul Wellstone Murdered?," Niman wrote his initial reaction to the news of the senator's death was "surprise that Wellstone had lived this long."

There is no indication today that Wellstone's death was the result of foul play. What we do know, however, is that Wellstone emerged as the most visible obstacle standing in the way of a draconian political agenda by an unelected government. And now he is conveniently gone. For our government to maintain its credibility at this time, we need an open and accountable independent investigation involving international participation into the death of Paul Wellstone. Hopefully we will find out, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that this was indeed an untimely accident. For the sake of our country, we need to know this.

While Niman's comments evince an anti-Bush stance, the professor says politics is not his motive.

"It's not a left [versus] right issue," he told WorldNetDaily. "Supporters of the Bush administration should want to see this put to bed also."

He suggests asking aviation officials from Canada to investigate the crash as an independent third party in lieu of the Federal Aviation Administration.

"People aren't going to accept [the FAA] as an impartial board," said Niman.

Meanwhile, the anti-Bush website voxnyc.com is claiming that not only is the president tied to Wellstone's death, but that it had predicted in May 2001 that another Democratic senator would soon be killed, with a plane crash as a likely scenario.

The death will appear to be either a plane "accident" or by "natural causes" ? whichever is most easily accomplished. ...

If the death occurs just prior to the midterm senatorial elections, expect it to be in a state with a close race. Expect a Mel Carnahan-style hit. ...

The mission to eliminate one or more of these senators is assuredly underway this very moment. It is now the single most critical mission of the current Bush administration.

Neither the White House nor Wellstone's office returned calls for comment on the assassination theory, but the Republican National Committee calls the accusation "bizarre."

There [are] theories aliens walk among us, that UFOs fly above our heads," RNC spokesman Jim Dyke told WorldNetDaily. "To me, it takes away some of the serious advances the Internet has made."

Conspiracy theorists aren't just targeting Republicans in this matter. Some suggest that Democrats themselves could be the perpetrators, fearing Wellstone would lose Tuesday's election to Republican challenger Norm Coleman and give control of the Senate back to the GOP.

Similar questions of foul play were raised during the Clinton administration, after Commerce Secretary Ron Brown died in a plane crash in Croatia in 1996.

Air Force Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, a medical doctor, forensic pathologist and deputy medical examiner with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, released photos and x-rays which purported to show that Brown had a gunshot wound in his head.

No autopsy was ever performed on the secretary, and as WorldNetDaily reported, Cogswell and other military officials who publicly questioned the investigation subsequently had their careers jeopardized with transfers and bad reviews.


Paul Wellstone trading card
If accusations of murder weren't enough, some Americans are now cashing in on Sen. Wellstone's death, courtesy of eBay.

The online auctioneer is posting a wide variety of Wellstone-related goods. Some include photographs of the senator with other well-known figures, campaign buttons, pins and road signs, an autographed biography, Wellstone trading cards, bar coasters, and even a program from Tuesday night's memorial service/political rally.


Paul Wellstone bar coaster
"I'm surprised that they would do this so soon," said Rick Frese, a government professor at Bentley College in Waltham, Mass., quoted in the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

"I can see some loyal supporters wanting to save their posters or lawn signs," said Frese, himself an avid collector of political memorabilia. "But I'm a little surprised that people would try to exploit this 'instant market.'"

Gore Vidal has published a comprehensive analysis of 911 and what the Bush administration is really up to in Central Asia and the Middle East in The Observer. The essay is long but well worth the read. It is difficult to see all this as 3T.



The Observer, Sunday 27th October 2002, Review Section, Pages 1-4

The Enemy Within

http://iraq-info.1accesshost.com/vidal4.html

Hi!

Stonewall Patton often posts diatribes aimed at, in his words, "Our glorious Fuehrer [Bush] und Herren Ashcroft and [FBI Director] Mueller". Typical of his blathering is something like this, "Even the Gestapo and KGB lacked the technology to accomplish this feat. But our faithful federal perverts have finally negotiated this hurdle and can now achieve full violation of your soul at will. Don't fight it. Just let the demons have their way with you."

Anybody remember that great tune from the sixties, "Their coming to take me away, ha ha, to the funny farm, he he!"?

Joe Farah, head web-guy at WorldNetDaily.com, one of Patton's favorite haunts, has decided to take both Patton and the FBI head on today. Of said FBI, Farah writes, "Beyond that we have another problem. The FBI is just no good. It's too big and unwieldy to be effective. It is too political. It bends to the winds of political correctness. It's been a long time since the successes of Elliot Ness. The FBI has seen better days. Today, it's more like the Keystone Kops than the agency that brought the country so much pride during the much-maligned days of J. Edgar Hoover."

If you would like, you can read the whole Farah piece: What good is the FBI? Or you can jump in with Patton on his next silly goose-chase on how "Fuehrer" Bush, and his daddy's CIA assassinated Wellstone.

It's your choice. :wink:

O.K,
3T or 4T?
OR
the stupidest crap you've ever read:
For full story go HERE

UT frat suspended over incident
Complaints about blackface episode bring action

By J.J. Stambaugh, News-Sentinel staff writer
October 31, 2002

A University of Tennessee fraternity has been suspended because of an incident last week in which white members painted their faces to look like the black pop group The Jackson Five.

The national office of Kappa Sigma has suspended its UT chapter, which means the fraternity "no longer has standing as a registered student organization and is suspended from participating in university activities, such as Homecoming," according to a statement issued Wednesday by UT Vice President and Provost Loren Crabtree.

Fraternity members couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday, but Crabtree said the national office was cooperating in an ongoing investigation.

A number of black students complained to campus officials last week after a group of fraternity members allegedly walked from their fraternity house to a party on the Cumberland Avenue Strip dressed as the Jackson siblings, according to UT's account.

This sounds more of what we should see in an early 4T election before the reallignment. The real action starts with the state elections. This article makes the case that a majority of democratic governors would profoundly change the balance of power between the political parties. Perhaps it could provide the stepping stone for a democrat, with a more progressive 4T style vision, to run in 2004 or 2008 who will become the grey champion.

Governorship Odds Look Bad for GOP
Shift of Power Could Have Big Implications

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Oct30.html

By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 31, 2002; Page A01


CHICAGO -- Republicans running for governor of Illinois are not supposed to be struggling against the odds. It has been 30 years since a Democrat was elected to the top job in Springfield, but this year, every poll for months has showed Democrat Rod R. Blagojevich, a relatively little-known junior House member from Chicago, running ahead of Republican Jim Ryan.

Indeed, few Republicans face as many vexations as Ryan does. He has had to endure the confusion of his name with that of the retiring GOP governor, George H. Ryan, who has been enmeshed in scandal. At the final debate of the campaign, held here last week, reporters pressed him about the drivers' license bribery cases that occurred when George Ryan was secretary of state -- well before Jim Ryan was first elected state attorney general.

The circumstances in Illinois are unique, but across the country Republicans are facing so many problems that Democrats could emerge with a majority of governors for the first time since 1994. A combination of retiring incumbents, slumping revenues and, in many states, strong Democratic challengers has put the GOP's strength in the state houses in serious jeopardy, particularly in the industrial Midwest. The likelihood of a significant power shift is far greater in the 36 gubernatorial elections than in the House or Senate contests.

While overshadowed by the close battle for Congress, the gubernatorial races could turn out to be of greater political importance. Four of the last five presidents have come from the ranks of governors. George W. Bush's path from the Texas governorship to the White House was smoothed by other Republican governors -- 28 of them at the time -- who mobilized their contributors and their campaign organizations on his behalf.

Having his brother Jeb in the Florida governorship was vital to Bush in the recount battle that ultimately gave him the presidency, and keeping Florida Republican was the top priority for White House operatives -- at least until recent polls indicated that the upset bid of Democrat Bill McBride appeared to be falling short.

Scott Reed, a Republican consultant who managed Robert J. Dole's 1996 presidential campaign, said the likely power shift among governors has large implications. "For the last 10 years, Republican governors have been the backbone of the party, the incubator of ideas, the financial base and the key players in presidential campaigns," Reed said. "It looks like there will be a reversal this year -- especially in the Midwest. If California is out of reach [for Bush in 2004], the Midwest will be critical, and it will be tougher to win with Democratic governors setting the agendas in those states."

Illinois may offer the worst-case scenario for Republicans, but around the country, so many governors were first elected in the banner GOP year of 1994 and now face term limits that Democrats find themselves with a wealth of opportunities. Republicans are defending 23 governorships, the Democrats 11. Two are held by retiring independents. Twelve Republican states are open (without incumbents running), while Democrats have only six open seats to defend.

Wins last year in Virginia and New Jersey upped the Democratic total to 21 governorships and a net gain of five governorships -- for a majority -- appears to be well within their reach.

Among the other states where Democrats are favored are Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, all now in the GOP column, and Maine, where independent Gov. Angus S. King Jr. is stepping down after two terms.

In the private scorecards of both parties, Democrats are highly competitive also in Arizona, Kansas, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Wyoming, all of which have GOP governors, and Minnesota, where independent Jesse Ventura is retiring. Against those dozen Democratic opportunities, Republicans have a shot at replacing Democrats in seven states: Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, South Carolina and Vermont.

A few governors in each party appear to be strong enough to ride to reelection despite the revenue slump that has opened budget holes in the vast majority of states across the country.

Among the safe or favored Republicans are Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Bill Owens of Colorado, John G. Rowland of Connecticut, Jeb Bush of Florida, Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Kenny C. Guinn of Nevada, George E. Pataki of New York, Bob Taft of Ohio and Rick Perry of Texas.

The Democrats who are leading their races include Gray Davis of California, Roy E. Barnes of Georgia and Tom Vilsack of Iowa.

Here in Illinois, Republicans have not given up on salvaging the governorship, but admit they are facing tough odds. Multiple indictments of officials in the secretary of state's office when George Ryan was its head have brought the issue of corruption in Springfield, the state capital, to a head. Blagojevich has criticized Jim Ryan repeatedly for "not lifting a finger" to investigate the bribery charges after becoming attorney general eight years ago. Jim Ryan's defense is that federal prosecutors were on the case and he could only have gotten in their way.

If the current governor's troubles were not enough, Jim Ryan also endured a tough three-way primary, in which a moderate woman and a hard-right conservative took turns assailing him. Meantime, Blagojevich (pronounced Bluh-goya-vich) dispatched a credible but underfinanced opponent, former Chicago public school chief Paul G. Vallas, by rolling up a vote in normally Republican downstate Illinois.

Republicans have tried to turn the corruption issue against Blagojevich, the son-in-law of a powerful Chicago alderman and ward boss, by identifying convicted criminals who were part of that ward organization. They also have assailed the lawmaker for missing votes during the campaign. An endorsement of Ryan by the Chicago Tribune on Sunday may help with suburban independents. But it remains an uphill struggle.

In the debate, Ryan acknowledged, "People are angry. People want change," then went on to argue that it requires "more than a change of names or political parties." As an 18-year prosecutor, "never tainted by corruption," he said, "I am the one to end the sleaze."

But as a Republican strategist conceded, "That's a more complicated argument to make" than Blagojevich's simple declaration: "You can vote for the status quo or you can vote for change. I think Illinois is ready for change."


? 2002 The Washington Post Company

Note the explicit comparison between the two decades that are exemplars of 3Ts in the 20th Century and the feeling that, after 911, 'we can't go home again'. I guess the idea that we're in a crisis era is starting to catch on, even with people who don't know the theory.

Standard disclaimers apply:

Wishing for the Boom Boom 90s
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/busin...ia_021031.html


The Good Old Days?
For Some People, the ’90s Seemed Like a Golden Decade

By Catherine Valenti

Oct. 31
Wendy Wallis looks back on the 1990s as a time when she didn't need
to give a second thought to the cost of things like dinner out with
friends.


An independent software consultant for 20 years, Wallis says her
company had more work than it could handle during the boom years of
the '90s. But 18 months ago, she was forced to abandon her career
path — and her comfortable six-figure salary — when the work dried
up. Now, the 49-year-old from Walnut Creek, Calif., is working as a
mortgage broker and selling off possessions to maintain a cash flow.

"It's an incredible place to be when you're used to going out to
dinner every night and you haven't been out to dinner in three
months," Wallis says.

But more troubling to Wallis is the lack of innovation she sees
going on in the technology world because many of the major players
have had to cut research and development budgets. And like Wallis,
many of her friends and former colleagues who worked in technology
in northern California have been forced to look for work in other
industries.

"They're missing the drive of changing things and moving things
around and making a difference, all the way to 'Will we be able to
afford the same lifestyle again?'" she told ABCNEWS.com.

Such nostalgic feelings for a time period that ended not so long
ago might seem unusual.

But experts point to the dramatic changes in many peoples'
financial situations and increased anxiety levels since the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks and the recent sniper shootings. They say the
good old days — for some people — weren't all that long ago.

"Normally it would be odd to start getting nostalgic on a cycle of
four years rather than a cycle of 10 or 20," says Robert Thompson,
director of Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse
University. "But it's not unusual given that we've had some
cataclysmic and fundamental changes going on."

Return of the Sock Puppet

Pop culture watchers say nostalgia for 1990s pop culture will
probably not emerge for years to come, simply because many
television shows, songs and movies that were popular late in the
decade are still hot now.

"You're only going to get that charge off of the things that we
aren't even aware that we've forgotten," says Tim Burke, a cultural
historian and history professor at Swarthmore College in
Swarthmore, Pa.

But looking back on 1990s cultural icons is already starting to
show up in the media.

For example, the infamous sock puppet that was once the pitchman
for Pets.com (a company that spent a reported $2 million on a
30-second Super Bowl commercial spot in 2000) is now the "pitchman"
for 1-800-BAR-NONE, a company that provides car loans to people with
bad credit.

And a recent magazine advertisement by Phoenix Wealth Management
shows a group of four young, hip-looking 20-something men wearing
open-necked shirts that would not look out of place at the latest
nightclub opening, with the caption "Company founders, circa 1997."

Seated in front of the these young entrepreneurs is an older,
graying, distinguished-looking man in a light blue button-down shirt
and conservative yellow tie, described as the "Company whiz kid,
circa 2002." The tagline for the ad: "Money. It's just not what it
used to be."

A spokeswoman for Phoenix says the ad is meant to convey the
message that traditional ideas on who has money has changed and that
people from a wide range of backgrounds can be considered high net
worth individuals.

But for the countless investors who have seen their retirement
savings diminish since the stock market started plummeting in early
2000, this ad may harken back to a golden age when almost anyone
could make money in the market.

Roaring ’90s

Some historians say a yearning for the 1990s might be comparable to
the 1930s, when people might have looked back at the pre-Depression
1920s era with fondness, although most agree the market's latest
downturn has not caused nearly as much damage as the 1929 crash.

"The best example would be right after the stock market crash at
[the] end of October 1929 onto 1930 and thereafter, people were
looking to the 1920s as the golden age," says Allan Winkler, a
professor of history and American studies at Miami University in
Oxford, Ohio.

Syracuse University's Thompson notes that the decade began right
after the falling of the Berlin Wall in late 1989, and the
subsequent New Year's Eve celebration that year when thousands of
Germans ushered in the 1990s by celebrating at the Brandenburg Gate.
And despite the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991, many middle-class
Americans remember the decade as a relatively stable time.

"It was like this decade for many people where the big stories
seemed to be filled with happy news," says Thompson.

Professor Winkler, who is currently writing a high school history
textbook, says over time, what he's written about the Gulf War
crisis has been shortened as the conflict is put into a broader
perspective.

"When I wrote about the Gulf War 10 years ago, it was three pages.
Now it's boiled down to about a paragraph," he says. "In the
aftermath of that we see a larger picture, other kinds of crises
have emerged that were more important."

Golden Age or House of Cards?

Of course, not everyone agrees that the 1990s offered such a gay
old time. Many investors have been disheartened to learn that some
of the so-called blue chip companies they had so much faith in —
like Enron and WorldCom — were allegedly engaged in fraudulent
activities to make their books look better.

"The way in which people are remembering the dot-com moment is
mostly not nostalgic, it's a mixture of chagrin and embarrassment,"
says Burke.

"Obviously there were people who were unhappy in the '90s," agrees
Thompson, who notes that decades like the 1950s, which had turbulent
events like the Korean War, were nevertheless often looked upon as
a happier, more innocent time by many.

Still, for those investors who got used to earning double-digit
returns in their portfolios in the 1990s and are now lucky if they
get single-digit losses in their 401(k)s, it was a happy time
indeed. Jokes Thompson, "Every time I open my quarterly statements I
get very nostalgic for the '90s."

Originally Posted by justmom

Kiff? You would call Kennedy a progressive?

I would too I suppose since it's all in the definition:

"Progressive Drunk"
"Progressive Taxer"
"Progressive Boor"

:lol:

Yes, he is a progressive, or liberal, or whatever you want to call us on the left. In fact, isn't Teddy the poster boy for liberalism?

And Teddy has settled down his personal life in the last ten years or so. Give him a little credit for that. He's buddies with Orrin Hatch; he can't be all that bad. ;-)

Originally Posted by elilevin

Originally Posted by David '47

Then you must be worried for the mattress stuffers, since they are the only ones holding quantities of $$$ long enough for the change to make a difference. Surely those with cash accounts don't matter, since they are either used for funds distribution, which should involve relatively short term holdings, or as a cash reserve, which should be earning interest.

There has been a lot of criticism of my generation (I was born in 1961) because we were the first wave of people who did not save money. Yet there is a reason that we did not save. We were teenagers and came of age in the '70's when inflation was a real problem. Saving money in a bank account (the common way to do it in those days) meant that the money would be worth less later even with interest than it was when we got it. Therefore, in order to see any value at all, we spent the money immediately. It really was not worth it to save. So being pragmatic, we did not. Thus we did more poorly than our parents and grandparents and many of us finally were able to buy houses very late in life (during the last few years) or have not yet been able to do so.

Actually, your generation was NOT the first to spend rather than save. That inflation cycle began with Johnson's Guns and Btter policies of the mid-60s. The hyper-inflationary period began with Nixon's appointment of Arhtur Burns to the Fed (1970), and first oil embargo (1973). The ones affected the most were the boomers just entering the job market, but not yet well established.

Besides being blind-sided by events, boomers (and silents) were not well prepared for the new paradigm.

Originally Posted by ... continuing, Elisheva

Inflation does have real consequences on people and the choices they are able to make. The concept that we can indefinitely avoid paying the piper for our public debt is a chimera. We will pay for it in one way or another.
The inflation of the '70s was the result of putting off paying the piper for Vietnam, the real cost of energy (oil) and the huge transfer of money to the older generations. In that era, the United States wanted to have it's cake and eat it, too!

Agreed. And we appear to want the same things now. In fact, we are even less willing to pay our own way than we were then. After all, the highest income tax rate in the '50s was 90%. It was Kennedy that lowered it, thus creating the "lower rates = higher tax collections" chimera.

Would today's public tolerate 90% marginal rates for any reason? Would they tolerate 70%?

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Note the explicit comparison between the two decades that are exemplars of 3Ts in the 20th Century and the feeling that, after 911, 'we can't go home again'. I guess the idea that we're in a crisis era is starting to catch on, even with people who don't know the theory.

The bumpersticker that reads "I WANT TO BE IRRATIONALLY EXUBERANT AGAIN" has already been commented on in this forum.

The article Vince posted refers to the 1990's as "The Roaring '90's".

This is absolutely trivial, but I think Allan Greenspan's famous quote should forever be enshrined by dubbing the 1990's "The Exuberant '90's".

Again, this is trivial, but I think it would be neat.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by David '47

... There is definitely a subliminal effect to the application of gentle inflation. I don't find it at all unsettling or objectionable.

Then it's never come accounting on your back. That's just fine by me; keep your priorities where you feel they should be.

In what way has gentle inflation come "accounting on (your) back"? I'm curious, since this is an unlikely problem for someone your age. If you were 20 years older, I might be less surprised.

Originally Posted by then Justin

Originally Posted by when I

... The alternative: gentle deflation is.

First off, "gentle" is a word that can only be applied by those who sit high enough up the information processing chain to not be hit very hard by the consequences of the phenomenae...

Well I'm not that far up the chain, so I guess I must be self-deluded.

Originally Posted by ... continuing with that thought, Justin

... Second, there is a third (at least) alternative. As Mike indicated above, a non-fiat currency is quite resistant to either inflation or deflation, as a fluctuation in the value of the monetary unit will affect the production of the commodity to tend to keep thing equalized.

What commodity would you recommend for this application? I hope you've decided against gold and silver, since both have industrial uses that out-strip their values as "money". In fact, I can't think of any commodity that meets the requirement.

Originally Posted by then Justin

Originally Posted by when I

... Instead of worrying about small losses that are offset by larger gains, why not celebrate the effect that acts to prevent assets from declining in value with time.

Ah yes, the old "gorge, guzzle, and wench, for tomorrow we get gutted" philosophy. Would you say the same to a person with a leech hanging off their leg? -- "Don't worry about the small loss; you're still making good time through the swamp". A loss is a loss is a loss. The fact that it appears small in your experience makes no difference to anyone but you. I'm sure plenty of people feel that a loss of freedom to speak out against war on Iraq (to pick an egregious example) would be "no big deal" -- does their belief make it so?

Maybe I missed something, but how does the inflationary effect on housing prices qualify as "gorge, guzzle, and wench ..."?

Typically, homeowners buy real estate as follows:

• They buy their first house at or near the limit of their ability to finance it,
• Wait for the value to rise (~5 years on average)
• Sell at a "profit"
• Use the money received as the downpayment on a nicer, bigger, and/or better located house at similar monthly cost
• Repeat until the final property is acquired.

Show me how that is accomplished using hard money.

... and FWIW. Regarding the leech - there have been times in my life when making time through the swamp was highly prefereable to removing one.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Note the explicit comparison between the two decades that are exemplars of 3Ts in the 20th Century and the feeling that, after 911, 'we can't go home again'. I guess the idea that we're in a crisis era is starting to catch on, even with people who don't know the theory.

Standard disclaimers apply:

Wishing for the Boom Boom 90s
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/busin...ia_021031.html

The Good Old Days?
For Some People, the ’90s Seemed Like a Golden Decade

Vince, it does seem amazing how many people are now starting to write say things that one would think would have to be based off of S&H theory. While it's certainly possible these people are familiar with the theory, it's more likely that, as you say, people are starting to wake up from their unravelling into a 4T world.

Here's another interesting article. Perhaps if any such "chaos" of the likes of E2K is repeated next tuesday, then the crisis mood will finally be firmly locked into place, and peple will once and for all realize that there is no going back.

Here's one quote from the article I find of particular interest: "The potential for trouble is underscored by the fact that there is no one system of voting nationwide. Not only do the methods vary by state, but they can also vary by county." This brings to mind perhaps a fundamental problem of which we shall soon be seeing more of: lack of efficiency and uniformity, two things which must change during a crisis. Such lack of uniformity became apparent in E2K, but nothing really was done about it. Perhaps the "quick fix" solutions that have been attempted will end up making things worse for tuesday's election. Bush has signed a law which will help address the problem at a national level, but it still sounds like a 3T solution, which by no means can last and will not address the true problems inherent in our current system. I really would not be surprised if either the election next week or that of 2004 bring to the public mind more problems with the system, that we may hear calls (not just by a few radicals, but by perhaps a mojority) for a MAJOR overhaul of our electoral system. One thing's for sure, as I think many have said in this forum before, this crisis will be "messy"--the excesses from the previous 3T and the amplification of the problems ignored during that era will most certainly make this crisis extensive and far-reaching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Experts cite prospect of election 'chaos'
New equipment, tight races could spell trouble
From Kate Snow and Sean Loughlin
CNN Washington Bureau
Friday, November 1, 2002 Posted: 7:37 AM EST (1237 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- This year's midterm election has the potential for the same kind of confusion that marked the presidential election of 2000, according to experts, who say little has changed over the past two years about the way the nation votes.

"There is a potential for chaos," said Doug Chapin, direction of Electionline.org, a non-partisan Web site that serves as a clearinghouse for election information. "Can't predict where it'll be, but there is definitely potential."

Unlike 2000, there is no presidential race, so it's unlikely there will be any single post-election battle that could captivate the nation in quite the same way as when Democrat Al Gore went to the courts to push for a recount in certain Florida counties. The Supreme Court rebuffed his effort about five weeks after the election, a move that allowed Republican George Bush to claim victory.

But there are several states where races for either the governor or Senate are expected to be close, and some states are trotting out new equipment that could prove troublesome Election Day.

Case in point: Florida. During the Democratic gubernatorial primary in September, some voters complained they had to wait in line for hours to vote because of problems with new equipment. And some poll workers didn't know how to run the new machines.

Some tight and odd races could also make for less-than-clear results next Tuesday night. Consider these states:

?In Louisiana, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu could be forced into a runoff if she doesn't grab at least 50 percent of the vote in a race with eight other candidates.

?In Minnesota, the Senate contest between Democrat Walter Mondale and Republican Norm Coleman is ripe with the potential for a post-election fight if the outcome is tight and the question of absentee ballots -- sent out before the death of Paul Wellstone -- becomes key.

?In Hawaii, there is the possibility that a dead congresswoman will be re-elected, a result that would lead to a special election. Democratic Rep. Patsy Mink died before her name could be taken off the ballot.

Some states are trying out new equipment. In Georgia, for example, voters will face new ATM-style voting machines -- being put to their first big test in a year featuring a key and close Senate race between incumbent Democrat Max Cleland and GOP challenger Saxby Chambliss.

"States are going to work very hard to avoid the types of issues that people experienced two years ago, but I think it's fair to say that there are going to be some problems," said Dan Gwadosky, president of the National Association of Secretaries of State.

President Bush recently signed a election-reform bill, but the changes outlined in that bill will not take effect this year.

The potential for trouble is underscored by the fact that there is no one system of voting nationwide. Not only do the methods vary by state, but they can also vary by county. The methods include punch cards, levers, paper ballot, optical scans and electronic machines.

Experts say the potential problem isn't simply a matter of the machines -- which are subject to malfunctions or vulnerable to power failures -- but also the people who operate and use them.

"Poll workers are a crucial element of the election process," said Chapin. "You can buy new machines, you can educate voters, but really the poll workers are the bridge between the polling place and the voter."

It looks like this guy has been compiling all inconsistencies as they arise (and on the linked original page he has hotlinks to sources). If this unease sticks, perhaps people will finally hold the federal government accountable for a change and ensure that all inconsistencies in this investigation are addressed directly, explicitly, and unambiguously, while tolerating none of the federal arrogance and insolence to which we have grown so accustomed in the 3T. That would be a tremendous step toward 4T regeneracy and of course it is the way things were intended to be at the founding.



http://www.strike-the-root.com/colum...bottoms25.html

(For educ. and discussion)



How Very Convenient...

by John Bottoms

How very convenient. How very damned convenient. ~ L. Neil Smith, 1995

L. Neil wrote these bitterly sarcastic words in response to the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, but they seem to resonate more strongly every day, as calamities pile up, seemingly always in the furtherance of State power. So, with the recent death of Minnesota?s Senator Wellstone, it's my turn to say it:

How very convenient...

...that Democratic anti-war Senator Wellstone died, to the advantage of his Republican adversary, whose ascension to the Senate will give a majority to the Republican Party.

...that Wellstone died right after Republicans conceded privately that he was going to win his Senate race in spite of, or maybe even because of, his anti-war vote.

...that he died after voting against Bush's unilateral attack on Iraq, against Bush's Homeland Security Department, and in favor of an independent 9-11 investigation over Bush and Cheney's objections.

...that he died one day before time ran out to name a replacement candidate. Running posthumously, Wellstone would surely have won, and a replacement named by Minnesota Democrats. Replacement candidate over-the-hill Mondale has less of a chance. Senator Wellstone?s wife was conveniently killed also, preventing a repeat of John Ashcroft?s defeat two years ago by the wife of newly deceased air crash victim Mel Carnahan.

...that a weather radar map from the hour that the plane went down shows no precipitation anywhere in northern Minnesota, and the on-the-scene reporter said there was no indication that weather was a factor, which was confirmed by officials the day of the crash. But two days later Robert Benzon, the NTSB official in charge of the investigation describes temperatures near freezing with icy and snowy conditions at the time of the crash, and is searching for ?valves and cockpit switches that could indicate whether the plane's de-icing equipment was functioning.? The story takes shape.

...that another pilot who left the same airport about an hour after the crash reported only ?trace to light icing,? but the NTSB investigator wouldn't speculate on whether such minimal icing was sufficient to cause the crash, although they've been happy to speculate that icing may be the cause almost from the start.

...that Wellstone's airplane lacked the usual flight data recorder and a cockpit voice recorder, even though FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto said that the plane was supposed to be so equipped.

...that Carol Carmody, the acting head of the NTSB, said on the day of the crash that the plane had a cockpit voice recorder, but retracted it the next day.

...that the first rescue party at the Senator's crash site told St. Louis County Sheriff that ?the fuselage was intact, the wings were separated from the plane and the tail had broken off.? But the next day, the NTSB said that ?only the burned tail section was still intact, but everything else was destroyed.? Acting NTSB head Carmody said that the fuselage was destroyed and the cockpit was ?gone,? and that ?the impact destroyed the fuselage and the cockpit.?

...that ?the condition of [the plane's] de-icing system...may be impossible to document because of the badly burned condition of the wreckage.?

...that the plane's poor condition prevented investigators from learning whether either of the plane's two independent de-icing systems (a set of valves, air lines and expandable boots on the wings) worked or were activated.

...that investigators have few clues to go on ?since the plane had neither a cockpit voice recorder nor a flight data recorder, issued no distress call and was mostly consumed by fire.? But they?re quite willing to speculate that the weather was the cause.

...that the NTSB says they may ?spend at least a year? determining the cause of the accident. That?s plenty of time to start several new wars of conquest.

...that in these days when the federal government is issuing almost daily terrorism alerts, the NTSB has apparently already rejected sabotage as a possible cause of the crash, instead focusing solely on the weather.

...that the Bush administration has had an active ?Plan Wellstone? for more than a year, and recently campaigned for his opponent.

...that ?just hours after [Wellstone] perished in the fiery accident, WABC Radio's resident Democrat Richard Bey complained that he thought the Wellstone crash defied mere coincidence--then pointed out that the Bush White House had made the Minnesota liberal one of its top political targets. By the next day Bey had second thoughts, telling his audience he didn't want to encourage such bizarre speculation.? Did someone get to him?

...that Wellstone avoided an apparent assassination attempt in Colombia (where there?s an active CIA presence) less than two years ago.

...that 9 other powerful and outspoken politicians have died in often mysterious plane crashes over the last 30 years. Most convenient was the death of Mel Carnahan, John Ashcroft's Senate opponent, almost exactly two years ago.

In the weeks and months to come, don?t be surprised if the contradictions and misinformation start to pile up, so that we may someday view Senator Wellstone?s death as something far more ominous than merely ?convenient.?


October 31, 2002

Paul Wellstone was killed by the "Bush Administration"
So the Democrats could hold a 3 hour Democrat Rally.

Ah, well, what goes around
Comes around

I really have to object to all this conspiracy theory nonsense from Stonewall Patton.

If Nixon and company could not keep the theft at Watergate a secret - and he and his people were much more competent than "Dubya" - how on earth would something like this "assassination" that Mr. Stonewall Patton refers to be kept secret? I don't buy it! You complain about W. Bush and company being not very bright, being thugs taking away our freedoms: but the amount of competence needed to carry this out would be beyond their abilities. And be specific: what are you not allowed to do right now, Mr. Patton, that you were able to do before the election of 2000? Has your family been put in a concentration camp? Has your church been closed down? Why haven't the secret police of Mr. Bush come and put you away for trashing him every day on this website?

I'm no fan of W. Bush either, but sometimes you'll just have to accept that the world is chaotic: there are no conspiracies controlling things either for good or for evil. Bad things just happen sometimes. Grow up!

Here is a cartoon. I don't recall seeing anything this bold and direct with Bush I, and not even with Clinton despite all the plots and schemes attributed to him by many on the right. Until very recently, this would have been regarded as beyond the pale and authors/artists would have drawn back. Now there no longer appears to be any pale left. Can we really become any more unraveled? I don't think so. Surely this is an indication that we are in pre-regeneracy 4T:

Originally Posted by Stephen Pulaski

I really have to object to all this conspiracy theory nonsense from Stonewall Patton.

I hear you, comrade, but it won't do any good. Stonewall's brain has been on "ALL CONSPIRACY, ALL THE TIME" mode for as long as I've been on the forum. He's probably a lost cause. Every once and a while, I tilt at windmills, though...

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Here is a cartoon. I don't recall seeing anything this bold and direct with Bush I, and not even with Clinton despite all the plots and schemes attributed to him by many on the right. Until very recently, this would have been regarded as beyond the pale and authors/artists would have drawn back. Now there no longer appears to be any pale left. Can we really become any more unraveled?

Well, YOU can't.

Look, Stonewall, you've been posting this same sort of thing for months. Bush I had as many bad things said about him, as did Clinton (hell, Clinton was a serial murderer if you believed some talk radio hosts). You have personally posted as bad things about Bush I. There is nothing special about this Wellstone-related drivel. These sort of conspiracy theories have been going on since before either of us were born. Ever hear of JFK?

The thing is, Stonewall, you are spending so much time on sites that are dedicated to comming up with this crap, of COURSE you find it.

You don't see any of this in the mainstream, though. In the mainstream, this sort of drivel is being derided as absurd nonsense.

Show me a Gallup poll that says a significant fraction of Americans believe Wellstone was murdered. These cartoons from fringe sites don't prove anything.

The lunatic fringe is still the lunatic fringe. So what?

"Ever heard of JFK?"


Yes, and call me crazy (and maybe I am, because I've actually read and re-read, the Warren Report), but it's always been hard to believe that Oswald acted alone.. :o

Originally Posted by Sanford

Originally Posted by Stephen Pulaski

I really have to object to all this conspiracy theory nonsense from Stonewall Patton.

I hear you, comrade, but it won't do any good. Stonewall's brain has been on "ALL CONSPIRACY, ALL THE TIME" mode for as long as I've been on the forum. He's probably a lost cause. Every once and a while, I tilt at windmills, though... The lunatic fringe is still the lunatic fringe. So what?

Good deal, guys. Stonewall Patton is a false prophet, and you shall "know them by their fruit."

Thus, I re-post proof of the "fruit", as Mr. Patton just moves on to the next false prophecy:

Stonewall Patton often posts diatribes aimed at, in his words, "Our glorious Fuehrer [Bush] und Herren Ashcroft and [FBI Director] Mueller". Typical of his blathering is something like this, "Even the Gestapo and KGB lacked the technology to accomplish this feat. But our faithful federal perverts have finally negotiated this hurdle and can now achieve full violation of your soul at will. Don't fight it. Just let the demons have their way with you."

Anybody remember that great tune from the sixties, "Their coming to take me away, ha ha, to the funny farm, he he!"?

Joe Farah, head web-guy at WorldNetDaily.com, one of Patton's favorite haunts, has decided to take both Patton and the FBI head on today. Of said FBI, Farah writes, "Beyond that we have another problem. The FBI is just no good. It's too big and unwieldy to be effective. It is too political. It bends to the winds of political correctness. It's been a long time since the successes of Elliot Ness. The FBI has seen better days. Today, it's more like the Keystone Kops than the agency that brought the country so much pride during the much-maligned days of J. Edgar Hoover."

If you would like, you can read the whole Farah piece: What good is the FBI? Or you can jump in with Patton on his next silly goose-chase on how "Fuehrer" Bush, and his daddy's CIA assassinated Wellstone.

It's your choice, folks! :wink: