From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:40:53 GMT

In article <14DEC199200393771@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.024829.3387@athena.mit.edu>, 
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes...
>
>>In article <13DEC199219304722@utarlg.uta.edu> 
>>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>
>>>Let's see: Move all the manufacturing out, since it's cheaper to
>>>produce overseas. Cut American incomes in tenths, since they're 
>>>overpaid according to market principles. Ah yes I see, but...
>> 
>>the destruction of the manufacturing base is the problem, not the solution.
>>i for one have never said otherwise.
>> 
>>and north americans are overpaid. but there's no need to cut our
>>incomes -- inflation will take care of that in time.
>
>No you haven't said it, that I know of. That was directed to the wider
>"audience," who is welcome to jump in at any time. Especially the
>NAFTA proponents, be they libertarian, free market conservatives,
>or corporatives. Perhaps you do side with them on the matter?

i still don't know about free trade. i have seen what it has done
to canada, but then that was going to happen anyway due to all the
things i talked about in that thread. one of the main reasons that
i think NAFTA has been put into place is that if we make the mexicans
richer, they will form a bigger market for us to sell to, and they
will stop trying to illegally immigrate.

>Even though NAFTA is such an obvious illusion. Such as the free-market
>inside of Amerika. The one that liscenses broadcast companies, and
>restricts cable and telephone companies, and such (food, drugs, health,
>..). 

waxing rhetorical again, general? ah yes. are you sure your first name
isn't "ragnar"?

>And even if the government just hands out checks left and right 
>(why print money, checks will do) why would "monetized" dollars
>buy what's produced abroad? Trash is trash after all.

but you're wrong. it's *not* trash. that's what they said here
in the 50's about japanese electronics. now look at them. they
said that in the 60's about japanese cars. now look at them!

tsk, tsk.

>>>And as a reminder, even Ross Perot never covered dealing with the
>>>Federal *Debt*, only austerity measures for resolving the yearly
>>>Federal Deficit -- which would have taken too long to accomplish to 
>>>make any difference, anyhow. (As I was saying Charles.)
>> 
>>as *you* were saying?
>>don't get me wrong, the poetry was cute, the quotes were nifty and i'm
>>glad you're now actually discussing this, but....
>
>You hand out compliments like you do name-calling. Thanks anyway.
>Back to the issues.

why thank you! :^)
don't worry, i predict my tone will change again a few lines down...

>>>And no one
>>>is willing to bring state & local debt into the analysis for fear
>>>that the lenders will all die of a heart attack.
>> 
>>true and sad.
>>though some states appear to be trying to do something about it..
>
>The power of the states were constitutionally slashed by the Supreme 
>Court, and finally broken during the Civil War. What a state can do
>now largely rest on moneys funneled back from the federal government.
>Unless the citizens of a state were willing to give up those funds, 
>which they've paid in already, they'll remain satellites. At least 
>until an xssr-like dissolution. 

i wouldn't rule out the possibility. california is already big
enough that it would replace canada in the G7 if it seceded.

>My new and shiny _world almanac '93_ p. 137, shows US cumulative state
>debt as $345 B for '91. When last I went into the Dept. of Commerce
>"Government Finances" report for '89-'90, total state *and local* debt 
>was something like $900 billion. 

that's actually a much smaller percentage of the federal debt than
i expected. it's also a much smaller percentage of the federal debt
than exists in canada (of course). hey, they're on the leading edge!
{socialist response warning}

>>>The "simple sad fact" is... (as Broward Horne would put it)
>>>
>>>   America is a corpse on life-support now. Rather than live
>>>   with all the pain, let's pull the plug and get on with it.
>> 
>>is he wrong?
>
>Well I goofed, I should have said,
>
>The "simple sad fact"  (as Broward Horne would put it) is...
>
>   America is a corpse...  [my assertion]
>
>"Sad" certainly, I'll mourn with the rest, in fact I keep black-ribbons
>around to remind me that the American Spirit is still being held hostage
>by the Globalist. I did most of my grieving back in july though, when
>the media killed the American Dream. Not surprisingly, the Black Ribbon
>is growing in meaning for me as a symbol now, basically because I'm an
>ideological anarchist. And I'll wear it as sackcloth and ashes until
>the resurrection of the the Red, White & Blue. 

i keep a 1/10th ounce gold coin on my desk to remind me of the ideals
that founded this country, and of the true value of excellence.
and that it will happen again someday.

>>>The quicker it's dead, the quicker the new Phoenix will arise. Easiest
>>>way to do that ...
>
>to "kill the national zombie" that is
>
>>>...is use emergency powers to implement centralized universal 
>>>health, universal education, right to food and shelter, infrastructure
>>>programs, etc. -- you know, The Soviet Model. Congress will back it, no
>>>problem. And we still have military dominance so no one will mess with
>>>us in the process. Unless we wait. 
>
>Am I worried? Nope. The Soviets took 75 years, in our current economic
>state it may take 4 years if they're given free reign. And yes I changed 
>to your metaphor.

oh, it will take much more than 4 years. canada is at least that far
ahead of us, and everything's still hunky dory up there. :^)

>
>"Nations" come and go, merely as a matter of politics. "Countries"
>remain. Others will disagree with the distinctions, but I hope I've
>communicated my point. "Give 'em line."
>
>In so many words CK, I believe we agree. Neither of us see any help
>coming from the federal government which doesn't require selling 
>your soul and your first born's, and their first born's, and...

it's already been sold. all we have to do now is wait for the holders
of the notes to come cash 'em in... but in the meantime, let's
sell some more! what the hell? there's still the second born and the third.

>My material needs are meager though. I'll gladly forego whatever the
>government offers as a bribe. If I had six kids, a mother-in-law,
>and a wife -- no doubt I'd need a lot more material, and I'd be a 
>Democrat.

oooooh. i have more substantial needs and i'm not one.

>
>>p.s. your description sounds as much like canada as it does the soviet union.
>>i am told they want to pass a bill there guaranteeing the "right to
>>shelter". perversion.
>
>No doubt while mandating housing codes.

actually, here's yet another gem from the wonderful "non-socialist" (NOT)
NDP government of ontario, which is appropriate to that line. in their
never ending quest to protect the poor tenants of ontario from the
unscrupulous misers and winklers known as landlords, the "government"
has come up with yet another law. this is in addition to the rent-control
system currently in place which, until the recession hit and everyone
started moving out of the city, ensured that the only way to get a 
good apartment at a reasonable price was to "know someone" (sound like
a former asian empire? but i digress).

this new law requires that landlords still maintain their buildings to
all the codes and regulations, but that they are not allowed to pass
on any expenses for renovation to the tenants in the form of increased
rent. neither are they allowed to make enhancements to their buildings
and raise the rent. a victory for tenants everywhere! never mind that
landlords are letting their buildings go to pot. never mind that the
*construction industry* is suing the government over this. hey, the
unions put them in power, and landlords only get one vote, so what the
hell! (gee, i am starting to use *your* style... sure is more fun!
and no-one is listening anyway, so might as well have some fun, right?
how else am i supposed to deal with the enslavement of producers?)

>I have to admit in browsing the canadian thread that, I found several
>points interesting. The one that comes most strongly to mind was made
>by the socialist I think, oddly enough, who observed that what works
>in Canada (socialism-wise) may not in America due to size. I take this
>for granted, first as a simple extension of information theory. 

but it *doesn't* work, as i have pointed out.
even the health insurance system will eventually
collapse. don't believe the bull about "we spend less on health care
per capita than the US". i don't. it will come tumbling down too.

>To get a message through a large, complex system, with minimal errors, 
>a good deal of redundancy has to be put in (we used to call this red
>tape considering the bureaucracy). That redundancy (which is what
>bureaucracy is really about) so slows down the system that beyond a
>certain size, the errors incurred will cause the whole system to fail. 

believe me, canada has more than enough bureaucracy to go around.
if your statement is true, why are there cities of 50,000 people going bankrupt
all over the place? it is negligence and corruption. you give them
too much credit.

>And the bigger the loop, the bigger the scam. 
>Shall I go back to poetry?

might as well (aren't we getting cozy now?)

i try to be serious and get responses with my challenges deleted and
instead anecdotes filled with smiley faces.
i am just getting an ulcer and no-one is listening anyway. alas,
i toil in vain, but it is better than giving up.

make the next one rhyme a little more. and put a big mushroom cloud
at the end (credit to broward). that would be a nice touch.

>-=  Government today is an "anarchy of regulation," with hundreds   =-
>-=  of administrative units independent of the president (although  =-
>-=  most of them are not supposed to be) and independent of their   =-
>-=  departments.  -- Michael J. Parenti _Democracy for the Few_     =- 

ask me to tell you about the mass. turnpike authority sometime.
fits right in with that quote.

--
charles