Free Enterprise or Corporatocracy By Unlawfulcombatant

Many blame our current economic difficulties on Capitalism. There are certainly good arguments for doing so. However, there are even better arguments to blame it on current perversions of capitalism, and the corporatocracy that has replaced "free enterprise."Capitalism is an extremely productive economic system. Unfortunately it is subject to almost unlimited abuses and perversions. It is these abuses that will ultimately lead us to an Economic Armageddon, not capitalism itself. "Corporatocracy" is a better definition of our current economic system, rather than free enterprise capitalism.

The number of anti-free enterprise, pro-corporate laws and policies of our government is extensive. When extensive legislation exists to protect corporate interests, our system of "free market" capitalism is compromised. There are many examples of such corporate protection. Patent exclusivity is one example. Numerous extensions of patent exclusivity greatly reduce competition. These are anything but "free enterprise" policies.

When huge amounts of taxpayer funds are given to business interests, the free market is compromised. Many "private" entities survive almost exclusively on taxpayer money. The defense industry is one such example. The only thing "private" about the defense industry is that profits go into the pockets of "private" individuals. Many other industries also gorge themselves at the taxpayer-funded feeding trough. Much of the money that funds HMO"s, health care insurance, and pharmaceutical cartels comes directly from the taxpayer, not private individuals.Less direct monetary assistance also perverts the free market. Government insurance of loans encourages riskier and less productive investments. Corporate bankruptcy protection further insulates Corporate America from paying the consequences for poor business investment and practice. It also allows for abuse of the system and rewards misappropriation of funds.

Government granted monopolies, such as phone and power companies, are further perversions of the free market system. Regardless of any issues of necessity, such monopolies limit competition.The whole concept of anti-trust policy has been perverted as well. Anti-trust legislation was designed to prevent monopolies and the control of the market by large corporations and businesses. It was designed to prevent price-fixing, as well as other market-controlling issues. Today anti-trust legislation is used to prevent smaller entities from grouping together, such as labor groups. Anti-trust legislation is now used ensure the exorbitant profits of Corporate America. It is rare for any government body to block a merger. Yet it is not uncommon to see collective bargaining rights denied under the guise of "anti-trust" violation. (For example, unionization of doctors has been blocked as an anti-trust violation.)Our tax system is another method used to subvert "free enterprise" and support corporatocracy. Tax deductions for 401Ks and IRAs encourage workers to donate part of their wages to Corporate America, thus providing even more funding for Corporate America, allowing more over-investment and misuse of funds. Few realize that much of their money goes toward CEO salaries, and further pro-corporate lobbying of Congress. Some of this money even goes into pro-corporate campaign contributions.

Deceptively encouraging workers to give part of their income to Corporate America is definitely [b]not[/b] "free enterprise." [b]There is also an ongoing trend of Corporate America to focus on short-term gains, at the expense of long-term gains.[/b] This may well be the most damaging of modern business trends. The reduction of labor costs (and labor/consumer income) may increase short-term profits. But it reduces consumer income, as well as the market created by that income. The end result is a continual reduction in the income necessary to buy American production. Much of this problem has been [b]created[/b] by government intervention, as well as selective removal of key regulations. Legislation to protect Corporate America, extensive taxpayer funding, and pro-corporate tax policy have largely eliminated "free market" capitalism. Adam Smith, the most noted proponent of "free enterprise," would roll over in his grave if he heard today's Corporatocracy was being touted as "free enterprise." Smith believed the government should take an active role to [b]promote[/b] free enterprise, not stifle it like the current administration is doing.The shortfalls of current pro-Corporate, anti-free enterprise policies have gone largely unnoticed. The reduction in labor/consumer income, government-enhanced price increases, and demand decreases that would have resulted, have been obscured by increasing consumer "deficit" spending. Consumers have been able to maintain demand with borrowed money, despite declining real wages. Spending financed with borrowed money has compensated for real wage declines. Had consumer spending been limited to income, the current Corporatocratic excesses would never have occurred. Business revenue would have been limited by the wage income that consumers had to spend.The result of current government policy has been an over-investment in most assets, as well as investment in minimally productive assets. Market forces have not been allowed to provide the negative feedback for bad business investment and practices.

As a result, bad investments and business practices have continued unchecked by normal market forces. The current business climate in America is not the result of capitalism, or "free enterprise." It's the lack thereof that is the biggest problem. Though so-called "capitalists" may be the cause of an Economic Armageddon, capitalism itself will [b]not[/b] be the cause. The cause will be the many perversions that are masquerading as capitalism and free enterprise.

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

The Misinterpretation Of Keynes By Unlawfulcombatant

Keynesian economics has been criticized for its advocacy of government spending to prop up AGGREGATE DEMAND. But it is a mistake to define Keynesian economic theory simply as advocacy of increased government spending. This was a very limited part of his theory. Keynes' greatest contribution to economic thinking was his recognition of the importance of AGGREGATE DEMAND. Keynes correctly identified aggregate demand as THE most important factor in economic activity. Keynes explained why aggregate demand was the major driving force of an economy. With no aggregate demand, there is no production or industrial output. Low aggregate demand results in low production and industrial output.


Keynes advocated increasing aggregate demand through increased government spending if it was insufficient to drive industrial output. This could be done through government deficit spending. This was NEVER intended to be anything but a short-term fix. This temporary fix was designed to put labor back to work, thus increasing labor/consumer income, as well as the increased consumer demand that would follow. The desired end result was to put labor and production facilities back to work, returning them to their wealth-creating function. No production or wealth is created when workers and production facilities sit idle. By temporarily increasing aggregate demand, those facilities would be restored to their wealth-creating function. With the newly increased aggregate labor/consumer income, and the increased consumer demand that resulted, a self-perpetuating cycle would be initiated. The increase in consumer income and production demand would cause FURTHER increases in demand for workers to provide that production. As a result, more workers would be hired and aggregate labor/consumer income would increase still further. Again, this would further increase consumer spending and demand, causing even further hiring of workers to provide the increased demand. Though not specifically stated by Keynes, but of equal importance, the ever increasing demand for labor would increase wages as well. This would even further increase the AGGREGATE DEMAND that Keynes was trying to prop up. Keynesian government "pump-priming" efforts were less successful initially than would have been predicted.

There were 2 general reasons for this. The 1st related to the magnitude of "pump-priming" necessary. The other related to consumer behavior. The biggest reason for the suboptimal result of Keynesian aggregate demand infusion was that it was not large enough. The pre-World War II government spending increases that Roosevelt put in place were simply not enough to adequately jump-start the economy. Inadvertently, it was the much larger increase in government spending caused by World War II that successfully jump-started the economy. The massive government spending that entailed increased AGGREGATE DEMAND enough to get the economy rolling again, and end the Great Depression. Keynes was proven right about the necessity of aggregate demand, and that increasing it would restore the economy to normal. But no one knew how much was necessary until the onset of World War II. The 2nd reason Keynes' ideas were not initially successful was due to consumer behavior. The limited increases aggregate consumer income did not have the magnitude of effect on consumer spending that was anticipated. After years of low income and poverty, Americans were less likely to spend their increased income than they would have been today. They held on to much of their increased income, instead of spending it.

Consumers were uncertain as to what the future might bring. The less than predicted consumer spending caused a less than predicted increase in consumer production demand, and aggregate demand as a whole. The suboptimal production demand increase caused a suboptimal demand for labor to provide that production. The Depression had caused consumers to semi-permanently lower their spending habits. Again, the result was consumer spending & demand lagged behind consumer income. One might say there was a pronounced lack of "consumer confidence." This understandable lack of confidence fed back on itself, however, causing aggregate demand to be insufficient to resurrect the economy. Again, it took the massive increase in production demand, employment, and consumer income caused by World War II to break the cycle. Keynes never envisioned increased government spending as a PERMANENT solution to an aggregate demand deficiency. It was to be a TEMPORARY solution only. Once the economy was doing well the debt was to be paid down. The fact that it wasn't has nothing to do with Keynes, or his theories. Many who discredit Keynes are fully aware of this point, but claim otherwise. They attempt to dismiss Keynes as simply an advocate of "big government." Again, his critics are being dishonest with this claim. Their true dislike of Keynes has nothing to do with Keynes' alleged advocacy of big government or government spending.

The REAL motivation is Keynes' recognition of the importance of AGGREGATE DEMAND. Acknowledgment of this importance discredits many popular, yet illogical, economic beliefs. It refutes the completely illogical notion that "investment creates jobs." It refutes many tenants of classical economics, as well as monetarism and supply-side theories. In general, acknowledgment of AGGREGATE DEMAND's significance refutes the beliefs that "trickle-down" economics, or "priming the pump" from the top, is of any benefit. In a more practical sense, it refutes the benefits of high-end tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, and labor cost reduction through outsourcing. In fact, Keynes showed that anything that was bad for the consumer was bad for business, as well as labor and the overall economy in the long run. Keynes demonstrated that reduced aggregate demand would hurt the economy, regardless of how much investment capital was available. He showed clearly that it is DEMAND that creates jobs, not investment. The Great Depression proved him right.

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

Wage-Productivity Gap By Unlawfulcombatant

The most damaging factor to our economy today is the Wage-Productivity gap. This refers to the increase in the hourly output of workers vs. the increase in hourly pay. This concept is described quite well in Chapter 6 of economist Ravi Batra's book, "Greenspan's Fraud." During times of true economic prosperity, wages have kept pace with productivity increases. Workers have shared in the benefits of their increased productivity. The result is that wages remained sufficient to purchase our nation's industrial output.

Borrowing, or debt-financed consumer spending, was unnecessary to maintain sufficient consumer spending to purchase our production. More production can be purchased because more wages are paid. Demand, created by wages, matches supply, which is created by productivity. This creates a balance that makes massive borrowing unnecessary. And such balance maximizes economic "growth." This balance has not been maintained, however, during recent years. It has worsened greatly under the Bush administration. Productivity has increased significantly during the Bush years. In contrast, wages have actually decreased. This trend started before Bush took office, but I'll confine the time frame to December 2001 through March of 2005. These are years for which records are readily available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Below is a graph from the New York Times showing how productivity is outpacing wages.http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/02/business/03cov1.graphic.gif

Starting in January of 2003, productivity (or output per hour) has increased 11.2% thru the 1st quarter of 2005. In contrast, hourly wages have declined 2.3% over the same time period, from an inflation-adjusted $8.32/hour in January, 2003, to $8.13/hour in June, 2005. Production has exceeded the ability of wage earners to purchase the production by 13.5%. This gap has been filled by consumer borrowing. The amount borrowed must steadily increase, in order to keep pace with our increasing industrial production. If it did not, our economy would sink into recession. However, maintaining demand through borrowing is not a sustainable path.Statistics on Hourly Wages can be found at:http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0500000049


Statistics on U.S. Productivity can be found
at:http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=PRS85006092

Sometimes the effect of the wage-productivity gap can be seen better from a distance. An example of the effect of the wage-productivity gap can be seen with Japan's economy. Again, this was described by economist Ravi Batra in Chapter 6 of his book, "Greenspan's Fraud." Dr. Batra makes a very compelling case that Japan's economic problems resulted from the increasing gap between Japanese wages and productivity. I will paraphrase his explanation here. Japan experienced extremely rapid growth between 1960 and 1975. During that time there was a 168% increase in per capita GDP. Their per capita GDP increased from $2,139 in 1960 to $5,750 in 1975. Real wages increased 217% during that time. Manufacturing productivity increased 264% during these 15 years. Japan prospered and its economy grew during this period because wages, which create demand, kept up with productivity, which creates supply. There was sufficient WAGE-FINANCED demand to stimulate production. And the necessary demand was maintained by consumer income, not consumer borrowing.

After 1975, productivity growth began to outpace wage growth. The result was a much slower growth in GDP. Between 1975 and 1990, productivity increased 3% more than wages per year. During that period, wages increased 27%, while productivity increased 86%. The per capita GDP increase was 64% from 1975 to 1990. Less of the wealth produced by Japanese workers was being shared with them. As a result, business profits soared, increasing money available for investment. This caused Japanese investors to over-invest in both the stock market and housing. Japanese stock markets and real estate values soared as a result of this over-investment. Meanwhile, there was insufficient wage-financed demand to keep up with this capital investment.This necessitated increased levels of borrowing to maintain the demand that wages could not maintain. By 1990 there was a huge Japanese stock market bubble and real estate bubble. And in 1990 this overvaluation all came crashing down.

The Japanese economy has still not recovered 15 years later. By 2003, the Japanese stock market was still 80% below its peak in 1990. From 1990 thru 2002, per capita GDP increased 13%. Compare that with the 168% increase between 1960 and 1975. Compare this latter 15-year increase with the 59% increase during the 27 years from 1975 to 2002. Japan's per capita GDP increased 3 times as much during the 15 years prior to 1975, than it did during the 27 years after 1975. The pre-1975 rate of increase was 5 times faster than the post-1975 increase. What caused this slowdown? The rise in the wage-productivity gap. Worker income that could have been put to good use buying Japanese goods was siphoned off as corporate profits. Since the benefits of investment capital are limited by consumer demand, the result was over-investment of Japanese stock and housing markets, and maintenance of consumer demand by borrowing.


Does this situation describe any other economy you can think of?

http://unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

Bush supply-side pseudo-economic policies are destroying our economy By Unlawfulcombatant

Bush supply-side pseudo-economic policies are destroying our economy.

It would take all of about 20 minutes to explain to someone how his
economic mismanagement is worsening the economy, in addition to the
complete absence of logic to his economic policies. His policies are actively
worsening life for the lower 98% at present. And they will make 100% of
us poorer in the future.

Tax cuts for the affluent, and other "supply-side" giveaways make no
economic sense. Many people aren't aware of this, because it does take a
little time to explain. But not very much. So I'm going to try here.
Our country became the world's most powerful economy under
administrations that practiced "Demand-Side" economic policies. In general,
demand-side economics centers on consumer spending and demand. Profits are made when goods are sold, not when produced. Industrial production is
driven by DEMAND for goods made from that production. Consumer spending
creates the demand for that production. Without demand, there is no
production. That's because there's no benefit to that production. No profits
can be made from unsold production.

Consumer demand is the ONLY factor that increases job and wage growth.
Demand for goods also creates demand for labor to produce goods.
Increased demand for anything increases the price. Thus, increased demand for labor increases the price of that labor. In other words, it increases
wages. It also increases hiring. Demand increases the number of people
working, as well as the wages of those people working.
If more workers are working and average wages are higher, it increases
the aggregate (or total) demand for goods in our country. Aggregate
Demand, when measured in dollars, is the ultimate limiting factor of
industrial production. Aggregate Demand in dollars is total spendable
dollars available to consumers. (Republicans hate the concept of Aggregate
Demand. It conflicts with their "alternate reality" economic theories.)
Again, aggregate demand for goods is the engine that drives our
economy. It drives production, hiring, and wage increases. The demand cycle
has a self-perpetuating effect. As labor/consumer income increases, so
does the demand for goods. That's because consumers have more money to
spend. This increased demand further increases labor demand. Which
further increases wages and hiring.

Supply-side concepts have never been accepted by a large number of
economists. What I mean here is that they are not even accepted as a valid
economic theory. Many economists refuse to call supply-side policies a
theory. Some refer to them as "voodoo economics." Supply-side policies
are essentially economic mythology. They are a completely illogical set
of ideas that were concocted to justify tax cuts for the rich. The
major proponents were not even economists. Most were actually journalists,
such as Robert Bartley, the late editor of the Wall Street Journal.
Let me try to show the error of some supply-side propaganda. A major
point is about tax cuts for the rich. This is supposed to stimulate
investment. That investment is supposed to go into building production
facilities and increasing production (supply). There is an obvious problem
here. What if consumer spending doesn't necessitate increased
production? If consumer spending doesn't keep up with supply, that investmentmoney is completely wasted. Profits are made by SELLING products, not producing them. Un-sold goods do not "grow" our economy. (Neither do
increased CEO salaries.)

Another less important, but even more illogical assumption, is that if
you tax people less, they will produce more. It may be true that
high-end taxpayers would have more money to invest. However, that's where the truth ends, and the fantasy begins. Even acknowledging that smidgeon of
truth, the benefit of that money is questionable. The extra investment
money is supposed to lead to increased goods production(supply). Again,
there is no benefit to producing more goods than consumers can pay for.
This increased investment money is useless unless demand necessitates
increased production.

There is also a definite negative to these supply-side fantasies.
Increasing the deficit to fund these cuts increases inflation, as well as
devaluing the dollar. That means consumer dollars are worth less. So
consumers will buy less. And provide less demand for goods, causing less
demand for labor. Which starts us on another self-perpetuating downward
spiral.

The big picture is this. In order for production to increase, demand
for production must increase. Consumers need to have enough spendable
wealth to purchase increased production. Increasing production without
increasing consumer spending is putting the cart ahead of the horse. The
cart isn't going to "push" the horse forward. And manufacturers aren't
going to "push" consumer spending forward. Only consumers can drive our
economy. They provide the demand that "pulls" production forward.
Remember the old adage: "Necessity is the mother of invention." So it is
that "Demand is the mother of production." Demand for goods leads to
increased production of those goods. However, supply of goods does not
increase demand. Unsold goods are worth absolutely $0.
Demand-Side Economics were almost universally accepted until the
mid-1970's. However, sometime in the 70's, supply-side mythology was born.
(Under a rock, in a dark cave.)

Today we're seeing the fruits of supply-side mythology.
Consumer income has decreased during Bush's "economic reign-of-terror."
Tax cuts for the top 2% favor investment, not consumer spending. Though
consumer income was obviously declining, Bush decided his rich friends
needed more money to "grow" the economy. According to Bush, they would
produce more goods and increase production capacity. Also, as Bush
dishonestly claimed, they would hire more workers.

Does this make any sense? Will a company hire more workers just because
they have more money? Do they hire more just because they can afford
to? No, absolutely not. They only hire workers when they NEED them. No
amount of corporate giveaways will increase hiring, unless demand for
production increases, which increases demand for labor to provide that
production.

Let me give an example. Let's say I'm a doctor who sees 6 patients per
day. I need one nurse. What if my new friend, George Bush, gives me $1
million because he likes me. (for some unknown reason.) Will I hire
more nurses? Of course not. I don't NEED more nurses. They won't increase
my profits any, and they will cost me money. So I'm not going to hire
them.

Let me change the example. Let's say I'm the same doctor, and my
ex-friend, George Bush, takes back the $1 million. He then gives it to the
potential patients who live around my office. Now more people can afford
medical care. Now I have 30 patients per day. Am I going to hire more
nurses? Yes, indeed. Because now I NEED more nurses. The DEMAND for
nurses has increased. Hiring more nurses will increase my profits.
In the above example I hired more nurses only when I NEEDED them. I
hired none when I didn't need them, even though I could afford them. Being
able to afford hiring of nurses had no effect on hiring. Demand for
their services did. This increased demand was due to increased consumer
income. Increased consumer income ALWAYS increases aggregate demand. (It
may effect demand for individual products differently. But is still
increases the sum total of demand for goods and services produced.)
In the above example, nurses spendable income increased because of
demand increase. In turn, their income increased aggregate consumer income.
This increases demand for the goods they buy, and the labor that
produces those goods. It helped the entire economy as a result.
Again, increased consumer income increases demand for production. But
how does consumer spending increase, if consumer income decreases? It
increases through credit and borrowing. Current consumer spending has
been maintained through increased borrowing and credit card spending. To
phrase this differently, it has been maintained by consumer "deficit"
spending. And this is becoming an increasingly larger portion of consumer
spending. A lot of this deficit spending has been financed by the
artificially increased value of homes, and the resulting increase in home
equity loans. Interest rates have almost a direct effect on the market
value of homes. The higher the fraction of buyer's cost going to
financing, the less the market value of the home. This is because the seller
receives a smaller fraction of the total payment. If interest rates are
low, the seller receives a higher fraction of the buyer's payment.
Let me give a brief illustration. Let's say I want to buy a home. Let's
say I am a perfect example of all potential buyers in my area. I'm
willing to pay $300,000 total for a home. This includes all finance
charges, as well as principal payment. Let's say the total financing costs
$150, 000. That means the seller will get the other $150,000. That means
the market value of his home is $150,000, because that's what he
actually gets.

Let's change the finance charges. I'm still only willing to pay
$300,000 total for the home, including all finance charges. But the finance
charges are only $50,000 now, because of a lower interest rate. The
seller now gets $250,000, instead of $150,000. The market value of his home
is now $250,000. The market value of his home has increased $100,000
because of a reduced interest rate. The reduced interest rate accounts
for 100% of the increase in market value. This increases the equity, and
increases the amount he can borrow off this equity.

Lowered interest rates have greatly increased home equity values. They
have also greatly increased the amount of money that can be borrowed
off this equity. This money has made a significant contribution to
consumer spending during the last 4 years. Current estimates are that it
contributes $200-300 billion per year to our $12 trillion GDP. This is 1.5
to 2.5% of our GDP. Borrowed money has prevented consumer spending from
sinking. As interest rates rise, home equity values will decrease.
Money borrowed from this reduced home equity will also decrease. The
contribution to consumer spending from this money will also decrease.
From this, it becomes obvious that consumer demand cannot be maintained
by this consumer deficit spending. We are nearing the limit now. We are
going to reach this limit in the near future. The home-refinancing loan
bubble, and its contribution to consumer spending, is about to burst.
When it does, consumer spending and demand will drop. And they will
continue to drop, because this is also a self-perpetuating cycle. As
consumer demand for production decreases, so will the demand for labor to
provide that production. As a result, hiring will decrease and layoffs
will increase. This will further decrease consumer income, and the
spending that comes from that income.

We need to change our economic course. We can't let Republicans
distract us from major issues. We can't let them waste our time with
discussion right-wing planted distractions. Subjects such as steroids in
baseball, the Robert Blake trial, Michael Jackson, and Terry Shiavo provide
cover for what the Republicans are really up to. Corporatization of
social security and extension of tax cuts for the rich affect all of us. Job
loss to the cheap slave labor of foreign countries affects all of us.
Let's not help provide cover for the Bush/Snow/Greenspan "economic
axis-of-evil."

Clinton was right. It is "the economy stupid." Let's not let the
Republicans convince us otherwise.

http://unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com

Proxmire By Fred Cederholm (12-2005)

Dec 25, By Fred Cederholm

TH*NK*NG (PROXMIRE)
I guarantee NOBODY elsewill take THIS approach to the Bush Speech of Sunday night .

I’ve been thinking about Proxmire. Actually I’ve been thinking about the Senate,
The Golden Fleece Awards, Uncle $ugar’s spending, our national debt, plastic money, and legacies. Last week on December 15, 2005, former US Senator William Proxmire (D – Wisconsin) passed away at the age of ninety. While he was first elected to the Senate in 1957 to complete the term of Senator Joe McCarthy, his place in history marks far more than the end of the McCarthy Era of the witch hunts for “un-American” activities.

You see, the Proxmire career in the Senate focused on spending and “big government” - how a profligate Congress had lost control of the purse strings. He authored two books; Uncle Sam – The Last of the Bigtime Spenders (1972) and The Fleecing of America (1980). He is perhaps best known for creating the monthly “Golden Fleece Awards” in 1975. In this way, he "publicized outlandish government spending, bureaucratic wastage, or money misused in the case of self-advancement". He also served as chairman of the Committee on Banking.

When Proxmire joined the Senate in 1957, our National Debt stood at $275 BILLION; when he began the “Golden Fleece Awards” in 1975, our National Debt stood at $577 BILLION-a 210 percent increase; when he retired from the Senate in 1989, our National Debt stood at $2.857 TRILLION – another 495 percent increase; and when he died on December 15, 2005, our National Debt stood at $ 8.1 TRILLION- yet another 284 percent increase, or rather a 2,945 percent increase from when he first joined the Senate in 1957.


Proxmire may seem like one muted voice in the wilderness of big government spending run amok, but he was unrelenting in his quest to keep the public informed. He passionately believed that governing be exercised in the light of day with full disclosures made to the people. He never forgot that when President submits a budget, and when a Congress approves it (and appropriates the dollars for spending); it is the peoples’ money that is being spent. This applies to “money” raised by taxes and “money” raised by debt as well.
His Golden Fleece Awards spotlighted Federal funding for “tequila fish” – were drunken fish more aggressive?, “how to buy Worchestershire sauce,” the “New Jersey Sewer Museum,” using 64 Navy planes to fly 1,334 officers to the Las Vegas Hilton for the 1975 Tailhook reunion, “how to find a good surfing beach,” housing moon rocks in a $2.8 MILLION lunar lab addition, and let us NEVER forget the infamous $600 toilet seats. Is that why they are called “thrones?”

The Golden Fleece Awards are needed now more than ever, but they need to be upgraded to becoming the Platinum Fleece Awards. This will reflect the catastrophic drop in the purchasing power of the US dollar – a 2005 dollar has the purchasing power of SEVEN CENTS relative to that of the dollar in 1900. Inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods and our ballooning debt has accelerated the demise of the value of the buck – and the plastic bucks.

We as individuals and households have escalated/upgraded from the mundane generic plastic of ordinary credit cards - thru those gold cards of more status and bigger lines of credit -to the current generation of platinum card with $100,000 lines of credit. This is also the case for Uncle $ugar. Millions have given way to Billions, and Federal “accounting” (and I use that term loosely as an oxymoron) is now figured in terms of Trillions. I mean… on the day of Proxmire’s death, Uncle $ugar had already “maxed out” 8.1 MILLION platinum cards – each with a $100,000 line of credit. Given my recent holiday shopping experiences, I wouldn’t want to be behind Uncle in line as he searches his “hummer” for a useable card!

Proxmire will be missed and remembered. In researching this column, I came upon this quote of his: “Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous” WHOA! What were you watching Sunday night at 9:00 EST? I’m Fred Cederholm and I’ve been thinking. You should be thinking, too.
Copyright 2005 Questions, Inc. All rights reserved.

To “audit” this column and to learn more about the subjects discussed, please check out:

William Proxmire – 1905 to 2005 http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=P000553

Memorable Proxmire quotes. http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/william_proxmire/

Debt to the Penny http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

The Daily History of the Debt
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~www/opdpen.cgi

Historical Debt Outstanding by Year 1950 -2005
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

The Golden Fleece Awards http://www.taxpayer.net/awards/goldenfleece/about.htm

welcome notice

Thanks you so much for your confidence and devotion.