by Arnie Webre, Jr.
The time is ripe for economic solvency of the United States, but how do we make it happen?
A 20-percent flat tax, with no exemptions, except for those with low incomes [to even the playing field] and a standard consumption tax on all discretionary new purchases would do it [given time].
Such a tax simplification would increase growth in the United States, increase tax compliance, and it would decrease the administrative costs of the IRS. Additionally, the United States would then see strong growth in the ensuing years that would make Ronald Reagan's economic miracle look just like a warm-up for the real deal.
It would be like Babe Ruth coming up to bat with the bases loaded in the last inning of the game with his team behind by one run.
Let's get busy on that Congress and Mr. President, sir!
Period.
Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Economic and political changes
by Arnie Webre, Jr.
I remember walking across the campus of The University of Texas at Austin as a 19-year-old student on a sunny day in August of 1971. What joy I had felt at that moment in having so few responsibilities, a little money in my pocket, and I looked forward to studying about the fall of Rome that evening.
Even then I loved history and its bed-fellows: economics and politics.
I had joined the Young Texas Democrats on campus that summer, Richard Nixon was then President of The United States of America and the Vietnam War was still going on.
As I came up to the main drag, that day, to cross the street to 2-Js hamburger joint (restaurant), I waited for a red light to change, while I read the last lines of a New York Times newspaper [the old paper version] article that continued about Nixon taking the United States off of the "gold standard."
Why does Nixon taking us off of the gold standard in 1971 matter to us today? Well, we need to know where we have been and compare that with where we are now, in order to know where we want to go in the future, right?
Might it not be valuable for us to not commit the same mistakes as in the past? Is it not fair to say that we have all been complicit in the reduction of the fortunes of the United States?
Have not most voters and consumers in the U.S. been trying to milk the system for everything it was worth, since the last time we had a real surplus was when John F. Kennedy was President of the United States?
Yes, you are right, for decades Republican and Democratic administrations have been changing the basket of commodites used to get the monthly and quarterly U.S. government inflation rates to make it appear that our deficits were not that bad or for deficits to magically become feel-good imaginary [political] economic surpluses.
On August 15, 1971, Nixon effectively ended the Breton Woods agreement and the U.S. dollar became a fiat currency. Due to the Vietnam War, the U.S. had a balance of trade deficit and domestic inflation had risen substantially.
America was not used to such things. Uncle Sam [read as "U.S. politicians"] had already mismanaged its home grown currency, and other nations had been exchanging U.S. dollars for gold in record amounts. In short, the U.S. had printed too many paper dollars, and there was not enough gold to redeem all American greenbacks.
While I ate my 2-Js double-cheeseburger, fries with a Coke, which I later paid for with fiat currency, I watched and listened to an American news commentator on 2-Js television. The newsman cut to everyday American citizens and Japanese politicians, who spoke about what a wonderful thing Nixon had done.
I wondered if what Mr. Nixon had done was more to the benefit of Japan than to the U.S. If the U.S. dollar became worth less and less, would not that make Japanese Yen more valuable? Would that put Japan in a better position than the U.S. in the flow of trade and balance of payments between our two great nations?
On the other hand, what does a 19-year-old student know, I thought?
It was not long before the realities of life came crashing down around my ears. After an unplanned pregnancy and a quick marriage and divorce, before the approximate end of my second year of college -- my son hates me to this day for leaving his, in my opinion, histrionic mother -- in later years I returned to finish college.
On February 21, 1972, Nixon arrived in Beijing [mainland China] to meet with Premier Zhou En Lai to establish detente between our two governments.
In 1979, I had taken a number of the history of Japan, Korea and China-type courses from Dr. Young-Ick Lew, who now chairs Korean History at the Graduate School of Yonsei University. He was a brilliant Harvard PhD whose every word I listened to, intently.
On the day in question, the exact date in 1979 has been lost to posterity, Dr. Lew, then a history professor at The University of Houston, Main Campus, had just given a stimulating lecture on Chinese history. After class I stayed as all other students left.
We spoke about his belief that Deng Xiaoping of China was shrewd and that he could very well re-energize China with his proposed economic zones, where it had been projected that a form of capitalism would be practised. He also spoke about cheap labor in China and how the Chinese could build submarines much cheaper than could American industry.
Dr. Lew said that the U.S. might want to re-think its flat-ship U.S. Navy policy, which might not be a match for cheaply made Chinese submarines -- the plans of which had likely been stolen from the United States.
Professor Lew was, and I am certain is, to this day, staunchly anti-communist, as they had killed scores of his relatives in South Korea during the Korean War and by later assassinations.
At the end of his after-class mini-lecture, where I listened to and weighed every word, the time had come for me to ask Dr. Lew my burning question. Could the Chinese get rid of their differences with the Soviet Union and challenge the United States economically and militaristically, within our lifetimes?
Dr. Lew said it was possible to challenge the U.S. economically in time, but militarily that would require China and Russia to be on the same page, and that was not likely to happen in a rock-solid way in our lifetimes. "China and Russia have concrete, serious issues with each other," said Lew, or words to that effect.
In my opinion, history has backed Dr. Lew's view about China challenging the United States economically. However, challenging the U.S. militarily is more problematic for the Chinese, though they seem to be working on that as well.
Some years back, I remember a UPI/AP article about the Chinese equivalent to our CIA director defecting to Canada. When the Canadian authorities asked him why he was defecting to Canada, his answer was, "I have rich relatives in Canada, and the Chinese communists are crazy, as they believe they might be able to militarily dominate the world," or words to that effect.
Yes, I know. I think that is crazy also, folks. Nevertheless, the fact that these comments came from a former head of the Chinese spy agency (the Chinese Guoanbu), means that they need to be taken seriously.
Yes, there really are people and nations out there who do not wish us well.
This same defector to the West said that mainland China has thousands of spies in the United States, Canada and Australia, often mainland Chinese students, professors, businessmen, delegations, and those who work in Chinese companies in the U.S., Canada and Australia. They are looking for human intelligence about the intentions of our Western governments, as well as looking to steal Western technology.
There is a direct correlation between the current economic over-indebtedness of the United States and the quick on-going build-up of mainland Chinese military forces, the never-ending collection of intelligence and the stealing of Western technology by Chinese who visit the West.
By the early 90's, I was more than one-half my way through 20+ years in the U.S. military, and for a part of the 80's, all of the 90's and until the early 2000's, I thought I was a Republican. Unfortunately, our last president, the one before Barack Obama, put an end to that notion.
It should be required that every U.S. president read The Prince, by Machiavelli, and that they memorize it word-for-word before assuming office. They should especially take note of the part about not having more than one war at a time, as your country's treasury cannot afford such an extravagance, no matter how much gold and silver you have, or, as is the case in the United States, no matter how much gold and silver your country does not have.
On the other hand, we do have lots of fiat money and debts in the United States, as far as the eye can see.
From January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton was president of the United States. During that time, he pressured government sponsored enterprises through the Freddie Mac organization to give sub prime mortgage loans to millions of Americans who could not have otherwise obtained them.
It was certainly the democratic thing to do, was it not?
Then in 2008 the sub prime mortgage loan system imploded and that caused a severe worldwide liquidity crisis that was most acute in the U.S. and Europe.
As a result of the above, information, it is now clear that we need to change our ways, if we expect there to even be a United States of America, in the future.
After reading the above short recounting of a small part of modern American history, if you do not now think that it was a mistake for the United States to go off of the gold standard and effectively remove all economic discipline, restraint and reality, when we now have nothing but debt as far as the eye can see, then you are not a part of the solution; additionally, your ability to survive the consequences of our past wanton ways is in question.
Next week, I will give you practical suggestions to survive in a weak dollar environment.
That is it for this week, dear readers. However, some administrative matters on the horizon: my brother Randy, a professional editor, is soon taking over editorial duties, as Mr. ADD, yours truly, is quite good at making clerical and grammatical errors.
My journalism professor, John Lenger, taught me just how valuable an editor can be. To this day, I remember him reading my articles, overflowing with ideas, helping me shape and give them form.
I still hate to throw away ideas that do not fit into the theme of an article, and I remember a number of conversations with John, who wears about seven hats in Harvard's publishing and journalism community, about story themes and hooks.
Now I am talking with Randy, and he is encouraging me to be more specific. Therefore, in future articles I will give you specific recommendations, economically and politically, for what I believe is in our immediate and intermediate future, as a nation.
On the other hand, other ideas will come from our interplay in this blog, and, as Americans, we are all responsible for turning this boat [USA] around.
Lastly, after I have given you brass tacks specifics, economically, in the future I intend to write about universal health care, needed changes in our political system [hint: viable third and fourth political parties would inject much needed competition in the American election system that would stop the poor results of business as usual, politically. Bull Moose Party, anyone?].
Yes, I know. No one likes to lose, but there is no other way to challenge the status quo, which will just give us more of the same [poor results] without viable third and fourth political parties in the United States.
I will also write about the U.S. tax system (needs some common sense changes), needed modifications in the thinking and behavior of us all (voters and politicians -- get personal responsibility and dump our political ideology for what works and what we can afford), the common wealth is more important than "Me," you plus all of us are more important than "Me," asset recommendations for an uncertain future with a flawed currency [the U.S. dollar].
When you think sub prime loans, think Bill Clinton -- ironically, other than the Lewinsky affair, Bill Clinton accomplished some constructive things for the United States and his heart was always in the right place.
Other than not reading The Prince [or, perhaps, reading The Prince, but not following its guidance], by Machiavelli, George Bush, who was not well-liked, did some notable things that were in the best interests of the United States, not the least of which was providing leadership at a time when America desperately needed it [that was and always will be his strong suit].
Yes! I am glad he was calm, cool and collected when he was told about 9/11, while he visited a school room of children in Florida.
I will review many more economic and political subjects in future posts; however, I am certain that I will not be able to resist, in future articles, writing blogs about three of the most interesting people I know of: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. No matter what any of us thinks about them, mixed bag or not, in my opinion, they are the three most likable presidents of The United States in the last 45-years.
I remember walking across the campus of The University of Texas at Austin as a 19-year-old student on a sunny day in August of 1971. What joy I had felt at that moment in having so few responsibilities, a little money in my pocket, and I looked forward to studying about the fall of Rome that evening.
Even then I loved history and its bed-fellows: economics and politics.
I had joined the Young Texas Democrats on campus that summer, Richard Nixon was then President of The United States of America and the Vietnam War was still going on.
As I came up to the main drag, that day, to cross the street to 2-Js hamburger joint (restaurant), I waited for a red light to change, while I read the last lines of a New York Times newspaper [the old paper version] article that continued about Nixon taking the United States off of the "gold standard."
Why does Nixon taking us off of the gold standard in 1971 matter to us today? Well, we need to know where we have been and compare that with where we are now, in order to know where we want to go in the future, right?
Might it not be valuable for us to not commit the same mistakes as in the past? Is it not fair to say that we have all been complicit in the reduction of the fortunes of the United States?
Have not most voters and consumers in the U.S. been trying to milk the system for everything it was worth, since the last time we had a real surplus was when John F. Kennedy was President of the United States?
Yes, you are right, for decades Republican and Democratic administrations have been changing the basket of commodites used to get the monthly and quarterly U.S. government inflation rates to make it appear that our deficits were not that bad or for deficits to magically become feel-good imaginary [political] economic surpluses.
On August 15, 1971, Nixon effectively ended the Breton Woods agreement and the U.S. dollar became a fiat currency. Due to the Vietnam War, the U.S. had a balance of trade deficit and domestic inflation had risen substantially.
America was not used to such things. Uncle Sam [read as "U.S. politicians"] had already mismanaged its home grown currency, and other nations had been exchanging U.S. dollars for gold in record amounts. In short, the U.S. had printed too many paper dollars, and there was not enough gold to redeem all American greenbacks.
While I ate my 2-Js double-cheeseburger, fries with a Coke, which I later paid for with fiat currency, I watched and listened to an American news commentator on 2-Js television. The newsman cut to everyday American citizens and Japanese politicians, who spoke about what a wonderful thing Nixon had done.
I wondered if what Mr. Nixon had done was more to the benefit of Japan than to the U.S. If the U.S. dollar became worth less and less, would not that make Japanese Yen more valuable? Would that put Japan in a better position than the U.S. in the flow of trade and balance of payments between our two great nations?
On the other hand, what does a 19-year-old student know, I thought?
It was not long before the realities of life came crashing down around my ears. After an unplanned pregnancy and a quick marriage and divorce, before the approximate end of my second year of college -- my son hates me to this day for leaving his, in my opinion, histrionic mother -- in later years I returned to finish college.
On February 21, 1972, Nixon arrived in Beijing [mainland China] to meet with Premier Zhou En Lai to establish detente between our two governments.
In 1979, I had taken a number of the history of Japan, Korea and China-type courses from Dr. Young-Ick Lew, who now chairs Korean History at the Graduate School of Yonsei University. He was a brilliant Harvard PhD whose every word I listened to, intently.
On the day in question, the exact date in 1979 has been lost to posterity, Dr. Lew, then a history professor at The University of Houston, Main Campus, had just given a stimulating lecture on Chinese history. After class I stayed as all other students left.
We spoke about his belief that Deng Xiaoping of China was shrewd and that he could very well re-energize China with his proposed economic zones, where it had been projected that a form of capitalism would be practised. He also spoke about cheap labor in China and how the Chinese could build submarines much cheaper than could American industry.
Dr. Lew said that the U.S. might want to re-think its flat-ship U.S. Navy policy, which might not be a match for cheaply made Chinese submarines -- the plans of which had likely been stolen from the United States.
Professor Lew was, and I am certain is, to this day, staunchly anti-communist, as they had killed scores of his relatives in South Korea during the Korean War and by later assassinations.
At the end of his after-class mini-lecture, where I listened to and weighed every word, the time had come for me to ask Dr. Lew my burning question. Could the Chinese get rid of their differences with the Soviet Union and challenge the United States economically and militaristically, within our lifetimes?
Dr. Lew said it was possible to challenge the U.S. economically in time, but militarily that would require China and Russia to be on the same page, and that was not likely to happen in a rock-solid way in our lifetimes. "China and Russia have concrete, serious issues with each other," said Lew, or words to that effect.
In my opinion, history has backed Dr. Lew's view about China challenging the United States economically. However, challenging the U.S. militarily is more problematic for the Chinese, though they seem to be working on that as well.
Some years back, I remember a UPI/AP article about the Chinese equivalent to our CIA director defecting to Canada. When the Canadian authorities asked him why he was defecting to Canada, his answer was, "I have rich relatives in Canada, and the Chinese communists are crazy, as they believe they might be able to militarily dominate the world," or words to that effect.
Yes, I know. I think that is crazy also, folks. Nevertheless, the fact that these comments came from a former head of the Chinese spy agency (the Chinese Guoanbu), means that they need to be taken seriously.
Yes, there really are people and nations out there who do not wish us well.
This same defector to the West said that mainland China has thousands of spies in the United States, Canada and Australia, often mainland Chinese students, professors, businessmen, delegations, and those who work in Chinese companies in the U.S., Canada and Australia. They are looking for human intelligence about the intentions of our Western governments, as well as looking to steal Western technology.
There is a direct correlation between the current economic over-indebtedness of the United States and the quick on-going build-up of mainland Chinese military forces, the never-ending collection of intelligence and the stealing of Western technology by Chinese who visit the West.
By the early 90's, I was more than one-half my way through 20+ years in the U.S. military, and for a part of the 80's, all of the 90's and until the early 2000's, I thought I was a Republican. Unfortunately, our last president, the one before Barack Obama, put an end to that notion.
It should be required that every U.S. president read The Prince, by Machiavelli, and that they memorize it word-for-word before assuming office. They should especially take note of the part about not having more than one war at a time, as your country's treasury cannot afford such an extravagance, no matter how much gold and silver you have, or, as is the case in the United States, no matter how much gold and silver your country does not have.
On the other hand, we do have lots of fiat money and debts in the United States, as far as the eye can see.
From January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton was president of the United States. During that time, he pressured government sponsored enterprises through the Freddie Mac organization to give sub prime mortgage loans to millions of Americans who could not have otherwise obtained them.
It was certainly the democratic thing to do, was it not?
Then in 2008 the sub prime mortgage loan system imploded and that caused a severe worldwide liquidity crisis that was most acute in the U.S. and Europe.
As a result of the above, information, it is now clear that we need to change our ways, if we expect there to even be a United States of America, in the future.
After reading the above short recounting of a small part of modern American history, if you do not now think that it was a mistake for the United States to go off of the gold standard and effectively remove all economic discipline, restraint and reality, when we now have nothing but debt as far as the eye can see, then you are not a part of the solution; additionally, your ability to survive the consequences of our past wanton ways is in question.
Next week, I will give you practical suggestions to survive in a weak dollar environment.
That is it for this week, dear readers. However, some administrative matters on the horizon: my brother Randy, a professional editor, is soon taking over editorial duties, as Mr. ADD, yours truly, is quite good at making clerical and grammatical errors.
My journalism professor, John Lenger, taught me just how valuable an editor can be. To this day, I remember him reading my articles, overflowing with ideas, helping me shape and give them form.
I still hate to throw away ideas that do not fit into the theme of an article, and I remember a number of conversations with John, who wears about seven hats in Harvard's publishing and journalism community, about story themes and hooks.
Now I am talking with Randy, and he is encouraging me to be more specific. Therefore, in future articles I will give you specific recommendations, economically and politically, for what I believe is in our immediate and intermediate future, as a nation.
On the other hand, other ideas will come from our interplay in this blog, and, as Americans, we are all responsible for turning this boat [USA] around.
Lastly, after I have given you brass tacks specifics, economically, in the future I intend to write about universal health care, needed changes in our political system [hint: viable third and fourth political parties would inject much needed competition in the American election system that would stop the poor results of business as usual, politically. Bull Moose Party, anyone?].
Yes, I know. No one likes to lose, but there is no other way to challenge the status quo, which will just give us more of the same [poor results] without viable third and fourth political parties in the United States.
I will also write about the U.S. tax system (needs some common sense changes), needed modifications in the thinking and behavior of us all (voters and politicians -- get personal responsibility and dump our political ideology for what works and what we can afford), the common wealth is more important than "Me," you plus all of us are more important than "Me," asset recommendations for an uncertain future with a flawed currency [the U.S. dollar].
When you think sub prime loans, think Bill Clinton -- ironically, other than the Lewinsky affair, Bill Clinton accomplished some constructive things for the United States and his heart was always in the right place.
Other than not reading The Prince [or, perhaps, reading The Prince, but not following its guidance], by Machiavelli, George Bush, who was not well-liked, did some notable things that were in the best interests of the United States, not the least of which was providing leadership at a time when America desperately needed it [that was and always will be his strong suit].
Yes! I am glad he was calm, cool and collected when he was told about 9/11, while he visited a school room of children in Florida.
I will review many more economic and political subjects in future posts; however, I am certain that I will not be able to resist, in future articles, writing blogs about three of the most interesting people I know of: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. No matter what any of us thinks about them, mixed bag or not, in my opinion, they are the three most likable presidents of The United States in the last 45-years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)