[Grovenet] Indentured Servitude (WAS: Are you better off ? ? ??)

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

David wrote:

"A realistic view of world economic would help, but it isn't going to  
be popular."

Then isn't that the job of any one who would be a leader in our country, to
make a realistic world view popular?

Since foreign policy is the President's first responsibility, the ability to
do that is the first criteria for anyone who is qualified to be President. 

All the rest about "stimulus" at home is just babble that rightfully belongs
in Congress, according to our nation's founders. From Congress I want to
know how borrowing more money to put in people's pockets in 2008 will do
anything but make our situation worse over time. 

I added "indentured servitude" to the subject yesterday thinking of how
those who borrow against the future for today's comfort are just that:
indentured servants. Any one who uses credit to pay for daily on-going
expenses is indenturing themselves into service for some time into the
future to pay off that debt. Anyone with "consumer debt" does, indeed, owe
their soul to the 'company store' (to borrow a phrase from the old popular
song). 

That is the situation too many Americans find themselves in today, and the
situation our nation finds herself in today among the nations of the world. 

Like the poor sod who ran up a credit card debt buying big-screen TV's,
cars, going on vacation and the like, America needs to work off its debt to
the world by again becoming a contributor instead of a consumer. 

I believe that if the American people understood that, and if they were
shown how to do that, the people of America would enthusiastically support
that. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 


-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:45 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Indentured Servitude (WAS: Are you better off ? ?
??)


A realistic view of world economic would help, but it isn't going to  
be popular.

In the arena of international trade, the slide of the dollar against  
the other major currencies will help the American manufacturers.   
Given the higher prices to consumers, there would be reduced total  
consumption with a higher percentage made in America.  Given the  
lower selling price overseas that should increase international  
demand for American goods which should translate into higher demand  
for American workers, which should offset some of the higher cost of  
consumption.

The down side would be the flight of foreign investors who are  
important holders of the national debt.  The government would then be  
forced to offer higher rates to attract investment in government debt  
- which would raise interest rates here, which would reduce consumer  
borrowing, which is tied to consumer spending.

We have a problem with the national debt, but we had a window of  
opportunity to reduce the national debt when Bush was handed a  
balanced budget on assuming office.  The Republican Congress and  
Administration chose to do something besides reducing the debt, so we  
have the consequences now.

The higher price of importing petroleum should help American  
producers of petroleum and alternatives.  Especially if the  
government would stop talking about keeping the price of fuel  
artificially low.  If the government chose to fund their "war for  
oil" by a tax on oil, we could see what oil really costs, and the  
alternatives would be better able to compete in the open market  
without subsidizing both oil and the alternatives.  That would  
improve both our tax shortfall and our federal spending.

The down side would be a push for expanded exploration in  
environmentally sensitive areas, and a push to improve fuel  
efficiency by reducing pollution standards.  Of course conservation  
is the cheapest and least polluting energy source, but it doesn't  
have an advertising machine to match the petroleum and auto  
industries machine.

It is possible, that the higher cost of imported fuel and foods might  
stimulate the American agricultural system to produce more food for  
humans and less food for livestock.  That might bring a return to  
less total consumption of meat and meat products.  Depending upon the  
replacement food, that might be more or less healthy than the current  
eating habits.

Higher fuel and energy costs might affect the practice of  
centralized, intensive processing of foods.  Whether that would  
translate into improved market opportunities for local Washington  
County food growers and sellers would be an interesting question.  We  
had major food producers throughout the Willamette Valley.  With  
higher costs for imported foods and higher shipping cost for out of  
state goods, maybe local businesses could again be profitable sources  
of employment.

A slide of the dollar against the Peso would be a good thing,  
although it isn't a likely possibility.  Should that happen it would  
slightly reduce the impetus for foreign workers to cross the border  
illegally.

Will any of this happen?  Since it is an election year, likely not.   
Instead, we will get a package out of Congress and approved by the  
President to continue on our road to poverty.

David


On Jan 18, 2008, at 9:11 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
>
> Of course! That's the purpose of dropping interest rates too.
>
> It's pretty clear that sending money to China isn't going to help.
>
> What's not so clear is what might help.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet