May 2009
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
		Jun »
	1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Archive for May 2009

not Capitalism OR Socialism- Concordianism

31. May 2009 by admin.

Concordianism- A Definition

Concordianism is a new way of measuring the economic health of the economy. This new way of measuring the economy’s health has implications that go towards a revolutionary way of restructuring the mechanisms by which we manage and maintain our economic systems, methods that create what Concordianism calls ‘Economic Justice’.

The measure of an economy’s health today is measured by the overall wealth in the system. No distinction is made between monetary wealth and real wealth. Concordianism will argue that the health of the economy should be measured in the overall REAL wealth of the economy, and the degree to which real and monetary wealth are in concord with one another.

Why do we measure the economy that way? In what ways can we change the rules to guarantee that concord between monetary and real wealth? And why is it necessary that this state exist? We will talk about ‘Economic Justice’, the new Concordian model of economics, and why today’s way of thinking about the economy is all wrong.

An Introduction to Concordianism-

Classical Model of Economics

Before we try to understand Concordian economics, let’s examine what it is not. In the classical model of economics savings = income – consumption. But what is investment? Let’s look further at the implications of the classical model. If Savings = income – consumption, then Income = consumption + savings. Where is investment?

Investment can only be equated with savings, because savings is measured as income – consumption. Let’s summarize:

Classical Model of Economics:

Savings = income – consumption, therefore…

Income = consumption + savings, therefore…

Investment = Savings.

What is missing from this traditional model of economics? Hoarding. Hoarding is a whole other element of economics altogether unmeasurable in this system because savings is both hoarding and investment. No distinction is made in this system. Now let’s look at the Concordian model of economics.

Concordian Model of Economics

In the Classical Model:

Savings = income – consumption

In the Concordian Model:

Investment = Income – Hoarding

What is so revolutionary about this nuanced change in the old formula? Where is the measure of health for an economy in a Classical Model? It would be savings. In the classical model, consumption eats into savings, the engine of a Capitalistic system (with savings here being a component of Investment). Where is the measure of health for an economy in a Concordian Model? Investment. The goblin, if you will, in this system is hoarding, an element altogether missed in the classical model.

Do you notice something missing from the Concordian Model? The word consumption is not used. Where can it be? Consumption can’t be Income and it certainly can’t be hoarding. You’ll find, in the Concordian Model, that consumption is considered investment, and this is a key to understanding Concordianism.

To summarize:

Consumption in a classical model takes away from the engine that drives that system, savings. Savings equals both investment and hoarding.

Consumption in a Concordian model adds to the engine that drives that system, Investment. Investment equals Investment plus Consumption.

Hoarding is a positive part of the Classical model, being a component of savings.

Hoarding detracts from the engine that drives a Concordian model, Investment.

You must see by now how two key elements, hoarding and consumption, are reversed in importance. Where one detracts from economic health in one system, it contributes to it in another. But this is about more than playing around with words.

Before we can go on, you need to understand two things, the two different types of wealth and the economic cycle.

Two types of Wealth:

Real Wealth- Physical wealth

Monetary Wealth- Paper or Digital Wealth

A Concordian Economic Cycle:

Producers (real wealth) give to Consumers.

Consumers (monetary wealth) give to Producers.

A successful Concordian Cycle is one in which the Monetary Wealth transferred to the Producers is then converted to Real Wealth that is eventually transferred to the consumers. An unsuccessful Concordian Cycle is one in which Monetary Wealth is taken out of the system in the form of hoarding, thus taking away Real Wealth from the Cycle and allowing, essentially, for the high jacking of that wealth, the concentration of that wealth towards the top echelon of society.

The real value of the Concordian economy is in the actual real wealth within that system. Monetary wealth is simply the ability of individuals and companies to take real wealth out the system, to keep the flow of monetary to real wealth from occurring. In any system in which hoarding predominates, the differences between the haves and the have-nots will be great. The more acute the occurrences and degrees of hoarding, the more dramatic that difference will be.

The Allegory of the Twigs and the Worms:

There are two birds. One bird is good at getting twigs. To get the twigs, the bird needs worms to have the energy to get the twigs. Another bird is good at getting worms, but not so good at getting twigs. The bird who can’t get twigs (let’s call her the consumer bird) works out an arrangement with the bird who CAN get twigs (let’s call him the producer bird).

In this relationship, it is plain to see that if the bird who gets the twigs begins to hoard the worms, he won’t be able to produce as much twigs. The other bird, our consumer bird, will have to work harder to get more worms so as to produce enough worms for the producer bird to both get twigs and hoard his stash of worms. The greater the degree of hoarding, the harder the consumer bird will have to work to get the amount of twigs she needs to build her nest.

She is creating monetary wealth (the worms) that she transfers to the Producer bird. The monetary wealth she has created is not completely converted to real wealth (the twigs). Part of that wealth, her wealth in essence, has been co-opted by the Producer bird who has chosen to hoard some of his monetary wealth instead of using it to create real wealth (get the twigs).

As this allegory shows, hoarding is equivalent to freezing up other people’s wealth. But we all do a degree of hoarding, and in the world we operate in it would almost be foolish not to do so. How can we change the system so as to eliminate hoarding? How can we create a Concordian Cycle that truly creates a state of Concord between Real Wealth and Monetary Wealth?

Economic Justice: The Four Core Principles of Concordian Economics

Concordian Economics seeks to create Economic Justice through the implementation of four policies:

Land Policy- We pay taxes only on the land and natural resources we use according to the degree of benefit we derive from their possessions.

Monetary Policy- Loans can only be issued for purposes of creating real wealth, and these loans can only be given at cost.

Labor Policy- Workers are Contractors and should be compensated according to the value they bring to the company.

Industrial Policy- In essence, you cannot hoard. Hoarding is a system of co-opting others’ real wealth.

To be sure, what you have read is merely a brief explanation of a complex system that has been developed over 30 plus years by former Fulbright Scholar Carmine Gorga. What we want is for you to understand the very basic principles and ideas of Concordianism. If you believe in the principles, but have questions then we encourage you to find out more about this system.

This article does not explain all of the many aspects of Concordianism and how certain dilemmas are solved (like how do you purchase a home in a Concordian system, or how do you protect yourself from economic hardships if you can’t hoard?)

Paul Collier

This article may be reprinted fully so long as this link is included: find more Obama-related news editorials at http://blog.obamanewstweets.com

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

5-30-9 Obama News- Obama Parody- Right

30. May 2009 by admin.

The Butchers of Liberty

The Shutdownitus Operation

Starring Lady Liberty as Mrs. Libertas

Nancy Pelosi as Dr Losi

Barrack Obama as Dr. Bomarx

And the musical stylings of D. Mint

Doctor Losi:

Mrs. Libertas?

Mrs Libertas:

Yes, Doctor Losi?

Doctor Losi:

This is my colleague, Doctor Bomarx, who will be explaining things to you in more detail.

Mrs. Libertas:

How’s my child?

Doctor Losi:

I’m afraid your child suffers from Shutdownitus, a very rare disease that causes organs to slowly shut down.

Mrs. Libertas:

Can you save my child?

Doctor Losi:

Doctor Bomarx will talk to you about this.

Doctor Bomarx:

First of all, let me tell you we are sure we are going to possibly save your child, but you have to trust us and we have to act quickly, ok?

To hear the rest of this webpay- go to http://blogtalradio.com/obama_tweets live- Monday 9 EST- or visit our archive site at http://obamacare.tv

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

Sotomayor Nomination 5-28-9

29. May 2009 by admin.

obamachronicles

‘Latina woman’ remark

may dominate hearings

http://tinyurl.com/n4gbn7

“For all her experience and accomplishments, the Senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor could hinge on one sentence she uttered more than seven years ago.“Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 5/27/2009

http://twurl.nl/t7gkrl

Gibbs warns Sotomayor critics to ‘be careful’

SBAList

@KarlRove in @WSJ:

Empathy is Code for Judicial Activism

http://bit.ly/ntGi5

“Empathy” is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn’t pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.”

SheridanFolger

Sotomayor Ruled Against a Blogger

http://ff.im/-3lyyc

Sotomayor joined two other judges from the 2nd Circuit in ruling that the student’s off-campus blog remarks created a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” at the student’s high school and that the teenager was not entitled to a preliminary injunction reversing a disciplinary action against her, Education Week reports.

LimbaughWire

According To #Limbaugh,

#Obama Wants #Sotomayor

to Impose Race-Based Justice:

http://bit.ly/FmAns

“Rush read from an AP Spin Meter article on the argument over Sotomayor’s statements about courts making policy and white men and Latinas. Rush said the last paragraph of the story was key: “The problem for Sotomayor is that she went beyond the experience-is-important line. She said the Latina experience leads to ‘better’ decisions than the white experience. It’s hard to imagine a judge getting nominated to the Supreme Court after saying white men made better decisions than black women, or Catholics better than Jews.” That’s exactly right, said Rush”

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »

Pelosi- On President Obama’s Speech- Should Pelosi go?

24. May 2009 by admin.

NancyPelosi
On President Obama’s Speech
on National Security
http://twurl.nl/ey36u7

This is a two-paragraph speech, of which the second paragraph is the one of most provocative, this section being the honey spot, if you will, the meat of the bone:

“President Obama proved again today that being honest with the American people about the threats we face, without resorting to hyperbole and fear mongering, is how responsible leaders conduct themselves in dangerous and difficult times. ….”

Pelosi is trying two simultaneous strategies at the same time, the first is to criminalize the mere questioning of her statements. After all, by extension, her ‘fear mongering’ quote is a very serious charge to levy not just at republicans but those pesky reporters who want to ask any more questions about this…which leads to the second part of her strategy…

The ‘above it all’ approach….

My silence on this matter is not to be inferred to be anything but a grave sense of responsibility to my nation to uphold decency and civility in our American Political Process…No, that was little ole me that wrote that ghost language, not a Pelosi staffer (I just know they WISH they wrote it..yeah..I’m that good), but it echos her attempt to cloak herself in the prestige of her office as a way of justifying her refusal to answer a very serious charge, did she just lie to the American people and undermine the effectiveness and morale of the CIA in the process, a woman who is two heartbeats removed from the presidency (by the way, that one heart just got lost in his pantry again..he thinks it’s a secret nuclear sub or something), pretty much demands some serious working out to truth, one way or another.

Lest the right get that glossed-over ‘I’m gettin’ puddin’ look on their faces, the Pelosi dustup is a distraction, at least to a wholly separate debate that America needs to have: Are we going to apply our American Citizenship standards to the rest of the world? And if so, what are the legitimate security concerns from opening up our process to every single person in the world? Do the moral reasons alone compel us to willingly sacrifce power leveraging for the sake of being ‘decent’?

This editorial does not attempt to take a position on the matter, only that Pelosi’s CIA charge is wholly separate to the EIT debate. Her actions were possibly irresponsible, which, were she a Congresswoman alone could be allowed to be forgotten for the sake of the real debate we have to have with ourselves as Americans, but as the Speaker of the House of the United States of America, the woman who controls the purse of the CIA, when she accuses the CIA of lying to congress she undermines our standing amongst ourselves, amongst the CIA folks trying to protect our nation, and even amongst our worldwide enemies.

How do you think Bin Laden feels when Pelosi calls the CIA a bunch of liars? That cave gets a little warmer that day…like Christmas in Pakistan with deranged Islamo-Fascist killers ….without the Christmas..but with ALLLLLLLL the joy.

Mind you, the right does not want to push this point too strongly? Why? They like their damaged Speaker better than someone that might replace her and revitalize the democratic partycongresional image, which will never be strong as long as that face is in front of the cameras doing that arab dance interpretation thing with her hands (what was that..early onset of pelosikan disease?).

They also like using Pelosi to shut down the EIT debate. Exploiting a valid concern for political gain? Nooooo! To the left, I say, don’t put your party in front of the country. If Pelosi lied, she must go, and, in truth, long term you will be all the stronger for it. She is a party hack , corrupt through and through, and she needs to be placed by one of your young guns, maybe someone who doesn’t accuse the CIA of lying..even if they did.

Which brings me to the last point of this editorial…

If the CIA has lied before, well, no one would be terribly surprised by that. But yet, that’s one of those things you don’t share with people who will exploit your statements to train killers to hate us. It’s kind of like when a family member gets arrested for drunk driving and you know he was an idiot. You don’t necessarily want to go to his workplace and complain about his stupidity. Again, if she were merely a congresswoman (congress members are about as useful as those tags on pillows telling me not to de-tag the pillow..vested interest in that, no doubt), this would not be worthy of continuing to investigate..

But she is the speaker of the House. Not that I would wish a special investigation or any investigation that requires money (we’re like so broke..can you check back in a decade or two?)…you see, the fact that the Speaker of the House of the United States, using the prestige of her office, accused the CIA of lying, is more than enough for Americans from all sides of the aisle to rise up and call for Pelosi to go.

This will delay the implementation of Obamacare, and, unless he gets some positive news soon, his political capital might not last much longer (not his popularity, that should remain high). For Progressives who have been waiting for decades to prove their plan will work, Pelosi needs to stay until they get the most essential elements of ObamaCare through Congress.

For republicans (there are no conservatives left in Washington with any real power, even within the republican party), it is in their best interest to keep Pelosi as the face of the democratic party. She drives away dems like no one else (save for that other winner of ‘in touch with the people’, Harry Reid). They just want to carve out a nice niche for themselves in the new progressive reality.

But America must move to remove this irresponsible wletoman from such a powerful and essential part of our American government, even if it delays ObamaCare, even if it strengthens the dems for 2012. Party be damned, let no Speaker feel they can be so irresponsible with the lives of our young men and women serving in dangerous lands around the world without suffering draconian consequences, the loss of their Speakership.

I do not conceal that I am a right-leaning libertarion Freedomist, and I will confess that Pelosi in office is good for my cause, for 2010, and even more for 2012, but I would sacrifice anything, including my own life, to preserve America as a viable nation, even if it means the progressives will be in charge a little longer.

We cannot allow our nation to be run by a woman who has sacrificed so much for the sake of preserving her political capital amongst the hard left. Didn’t we learn enough from Bush and Clinton..and..and..

Ivo Fisic

An American Freedomist- for ObamaCare

This article may be used so long as this link is included: find more articles like this at http://blog.obamanewstweets.com

Congress will continue to work hand-in-hand with the President to provide our military and intelligence services all the tools they need to fight terrorism and to keep the American people safe.”

Posted in Obama Blog Archives | No Comments »