Posts Tagged ‘stimulus’

The Canadian government has passed new legislation which extends the foreign worker visa program from one (1) to three (3) years in the past 6 months. On December 15, 2008, professionals seeking to work temporarily in Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) can now receive work permits for up to three years, the Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, announced today. Previously, NAFTA workers were required to renew their work permit every 12 months.

Below is a letter written by an EconoChristian.com writer who is dismayed with the Canadian government’s repeated attempts to displace and reduce the middle working class of citizen in that country. Indeed, it has already undermined middle class workers by its unfettered immigration policy which allows some 400,000 new immigrants into the country. Proponents argue that increasing immigration increases economic prospertiy, while critics argue it actually limits economic opportunity because a majority of immigrants granted citizenship are sponsors of highly skilled immigrants.

Skilled immigrants are what Canada needs, not the former type of person. Indeed, the reason so many immigrants are admitted is because a majority of them are sponsored into the country (often family members), but also because of humanitarian reasons. Essentially Canada is a dumping ground for all kinds of people who do not contribute anything substantial to the economy.

If one were to look at other countries such as Japan and other Asian countries, one will quickly discover that their economies are prosperous not because of increased immigration, but because of an export-oriented economy and a high savings rate that the Japanese have been known for and is ingrained in their cultural consciousness. Canadians, on the other hand, and Americans, have extremely low savings rates and are actually borrowing money from places like China. Take a look at the growing trade deficits and the US dollar holdings of treasuries the Chinese have because of these deficits.
[ad#coinsrndm468ad1]
OUR GOVERNMENT’S OWN RESEARCH CONTRADICTS WHAT IT IS DOING

The federal government’s own research has told it that with regards to Canada’s economy, immigration consumes 99% of the economic benefits it produces. With regard to population decline, in 1990, when Canada had a population of 26+ million, Health and Welfare Canada’s demographic research told the federal government that Canada’s population would continue growing until 2026 with half (130,000) the immigration we have today, so population decline should not have been an issue to be looked at in 1990. The same Health and Welfare study concluded that Made-In-Canada alternatives (such as making use of 45+ year old unemployed males and encouraging more females to enter the workforce) are superior to immigration in dealing with a larger number of older people in Canada.

In other words, the federal government’s research contradicts what it is doing. (See highlights of the major federally-sponsored studies entitled “Charting Canada’s Future” and New Faces In the Crowd” in the “Research” section of this web site) (Canadian Immigration Watch, 2009).

---

Dear Readers,

I am writing to protest my dismay to the changes in the Federal government’s immigration rules which now allow foreign workers to remain in Canada for three (3) years instead of one (1) year. I am writing you to halt your destruction of the labor force of our country, as well as undercutting the permanent residents of Canada by importing cheap labor from other countries.

The United States has taken similar steps to fill supposedly vacant positions for which employers “can not find applicants” for, particularly in the engineering, scientific, and information technology fields, by instituting the H1B Visa program. Much evidence, particulary from government studies, institutes, and numerous other think-tanks have found that there is indeed no such labor shortage (1) and that the only reason the government has instituted such “temporary” guest worker programs is to undercut the American working class.

There is strong evidence [2,3,4] from numerous think-tanks and institutions showing that a similar situation in Canada is developing, and that the real reason we are changing our immigration rules to allow more supposedly highly-skilled immigrants and foreign workers is just to undercut permanent Canadian resident citizens’ earnings. An example is the skills and labour shortage in the Eastern Canada region (2), where top University professors dubbed Nova Scotia a “low wage ghetto” due to the increase in productivity in the past 15 years, but an overall reduction in wages.

Why would someone stay in a Province that continually reduces wages, does not allow workers to easily unionize, or has an employer which does not participate in training and/or profit-sharing programs?
[ad#coinsrndm468ad1]
I severely question why our elected representatives and those whom we pay taxes to continually try to undermine our way of life by importing cheaper labor from other countries instead of providing incentives to corporations/companies to train existing employees in “higher skilled labor” or paying them sufficient wages to perform “jobs that regular Canadians do not want to do.”

I am also very, very disappointed that you, our elected representatives, do not invest public funds or provide tax incentives for companies to train permanent resident Canadians in the the areas of the economy that need these workers.

Indeed, this kind of practice was largely shown to have been extremely detrimental to other countries in the past who have practiced completely open borders, such as the Corn Laws of Great Britain; the bracero program of 1942-1964 that is so often touted by immigration enthusiasts as the example of how well such things work; as well as a study in 1991 by the Economic Council of Canada found that periods of immigration were not directly linked to periods of high growth [6].
[ad#ewv468ad1]
A study by the C. D. Howe Institute, a conservative think tank, suggests that immigration cannot keep Canada’s population young and could possibly contribute to population ageing in the near term.[3] Employment statistics also bring into question whether skilled worker immigrants, with a 34% unemployment rate,[4] are successfully meeting existing labour market needs in Canada. Many developed nations have much lower fertility rates than Canada but have not embraced immigration (Japan, Korea, etc).

In conclusion, I am writing to you to do your duty and lobby the Federal government to limit the amount of immigrants we admit each year, as well as reduce the amount of time temporary workers from other countries stay in our country; taking our positions when a fully-qualified or potentially fully-qualified Canadian could already take the job. I am very tired of paying taxes to our government when it does nothing to attract and retain quality companies to provide spending power to permanent Canadian residents.

[ad#yhoolstor468ad1]

Canadians are not fooled by the government Public Relations material which is released to the media for consumption of the public. We do our home-work and experience these events daily and we do not agree with the increases in immigration or the need for longer-staying foreign workers when permanent resident Canadians could be trained to fill these jobs.

Sincerely,

Author

Windsor, Ontario

References:

(1) A study by the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University also found that there is no shortage of U.S. engineers. Eighty percent of respondents to a Pratt survey say U.S. engineering jobs are filled within four months, and 88 percent didn’t offer signing bonuses.

(2) Larry Haiven, a professor at Saint Mary’s University, said the report he wrote for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives shows while productivity has increased over the past 20 years, Nova Scotia’s wages are lagging far behind.

(3)No Elixir of Youth: Immigration Cannot Keep Canada Young, Backgrounder, C. D. Howe Institute, Number 96, September 2006, URL accessed 29 November 2006

The LETS is a cooperative common currency that has been talked about in freedom circles for many, many years, and it appears that something similar to it has been catching new ground as the US dollar begins its slow decline into obliteration and imitation of every currency that has been printed and debased out of existence by a tyranical federal government.

Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS) also known as LETSystems are local, non-profit exchange networks in which goods and services can be traded without the need for printed currency. In some places, e.g. Toronto, the scheme has been called the Local Employment and Trading System.

A Brief History Of Currency in Jesus’ Time

In the time of Jesus the coins current in Israel were Roman, Greek, Syrian and Jewish. However, the Jews were allowed to issue coins only in bronze.

Large sums were expressed in talents and mnas. The talent equaled about $2,000 in US currency. The mina was 1/60 of a talent, or about $35.00.

The silver coins mentioned in the NT are: The Syrian stater (about 50 cents), the Roman denarius (about 20 cents), the Greek drachma, equivalent to the denarius. The stater was accepted as equal to the Jewish shekel, 1/50 of a mina (about 65 cents), which was the Temple tax for two persons. The denarius was the usual day’s wage for a laborer in the field, and it was the coin of the tax to the Emperor.

The bronze coins referred to, are the Roman assarion (one cent), and quadrants (1/4 of a cent), the Jewish perutah or lepton, which was worthy only 1/8 of a cent, was the coin of the “widow’s mite.”

Where LETS started

Michael Linton originated the term “Local Exchange Trading System” in 1983 and, for a time ran the Comox Valley LETSystems in Courtenay, British Columbia.[1] The system he designed was intended as an adjunct to the national currency, rather than a replacement for it,[2] although there are examples of individuals who have managed to replace their use of national currency through inventive usage of LETS.[citation needed]

LETS networks use interest-free local credit so direct swaps do not need to be made. For instance, a member may earn credit by doing childcare for one person and spend it later on carpentry with another person in the same network. In LETS, unlike other local currencies, no scrip is issued, but rather transactions are recorded in a central location open to all members. As credit is issued by the network members, for the benefit of the members themselves, LETS are considered mutual credit systems (Wikipedia).
[ad#fncsrndm468ad1]
A small but growing number of cash-strapped communities are printing their own money. Borrowing from a Depression-era idea, they are aiming to help consumers make ends meet and support struggling local businesses.

The systems generally work like this: Businesses and individuals form a network to print currency. Shoppers buy it at a discount — say, 95 cents for $1 value — and spend the full value at stores that accept the currency.

Communities print their own currency to keep cash flowing

Workers with dwindling wages are paying for groceries, yoga classes and fuel with Detroit Cheers, Ithaca Hours in New York, Plenty in North Carolina or BerkShares in Massachusetts.

Ed Collom, a University of Southern Maine sociologist who has studied local currencies, says they encourage people to buy locally. Merchants, hurting because customers have cut back on spending, benefit as consumers spend the local cash.

“We wanted to make new options available,” says Jackie Smith of South Bend, Ind., who is working to launch a local currency. “It reinforces the message that having more control of the economy in local hands can help you cushion yourself from the blows of the marketplace.”
[ad#yhoolstor468ad1]
About a dozen communities have local currencies, says Susan Witt, founder of BerkShares in the Berkshires region of western Massachusetts. She expects more to do it.

Under the BerkShares system, a buyer goes to one of 12 banks and pays $95 for $100 worth of BerkShares, which can be spent in 370 local businesses. Since its start in 2006, the system, the largest of its kind in the country, has circulated $2.3 million worth of BerkShares. In Detroit, three business owners are printing $4,500 worth of Detroit Cheers, which they are handing out to customers to spend in one of 12 shops.

During the Depression, local governments, businesses and individuals issued currency, known as scrip, to keep commerce flowing when bank closings led to a cash shortage.

By law, local money may not resemble federal bills or be promoted as legal tender of the United States, says Claudia Dickens of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

“We print the real thing,” she says.

The IRS gets its share. When someone pays for goods or services with local money, the income to the business is taxable, says Tom Ochsenschlager of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. “It’s not a way to avoid income taxes, or we’d all be paying in Detroit dollars,” he says.
[ad#trdkng468ad1]
Pittsboro, N.C., is reviving the Plenty, a defunct local currency created in 2002. It is being printed in denominations of $1, $5, $20 and $50. A local bank will exchange $9 for $10 worth of Plenty.

“We’re a wiped-out small town in America,” says Lyle Estill, president of Piedmont Biofuels, which accepts the Plenty. “This will strengthen the local economy. … The nice thing about the Plenty is that it can’t leave here.”

Brought to you by EconoChristian.com but written by Marisol Bello of USA TODAY.

This is a particularly good article that one of my former professors wrote a few months back.  In this article he describes how governments use crises like the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers to push certain agendas; notably the curtailment of civil liberties, economic freedom, and personal mobility.

By Lloyd Brown-John, Special to The Windsor Star December 5, 2008

At best, it was perversely amusing and at worst, it was sheer hypocrisy. Big Three automaker executives pleading before a U.S. Congressional Committee for support for their industry. The auto industry is in crisis so to whom do pontificators of the free market system turn? Why, to government, of course.

What BJ does not mention is that there really is no so-called “free market” in that the financial and economies of the world are still very heavily controlled by governments thru the influence of big business.   Yes, big businessmen often rotate between public and private roles; hence, this is how corporations get their lobbying interests passed thru (the politicians often leave the private sector for the public one).

All over Canada and U.S., those who preach for reduced government involvement in the economy and society are suddenly in the face of perceived crisis making appeals to governments for bailouts, guarantees and enhancements.

Yes, of course they are, because bailouts, guarantees and enhancements are pretty much free public money to be dumped into private corporations’ pockets by the hand of their public-sector buddies who often have very well-knit connections thru lobbying.  Who wouldn’t want free money?  What corporation wouldn’t want more regulation with the effect of choking out competition as regulations do?

I am neither disputing either their right to make appeals or even that such appeals should go unheeded. Rather, I want to illustrate a point and that is that even the most conservative business executive, when faced with a crisis over which they apparently have little control, can become implorers of government intervention into the free market system.

It should be noted again that the author of this article is a public administration professor;  basically a shill for government involvement and intervention in the supposed free market.  It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that his interests lay in promoting government public administration as the saviors rather than leaving the economy to private interests (where it should be).

Crisis does that to people. Crisis brings forth subdued resources and talents. Persons who risk their lives to save people in a burning home rarely are able to explain their behaviour in rational terms. None of us is trained to deal with emergencies, but some are exceptionally capable of handling crisis situations. Others falter and, in neither instance, are most able to explain their actions. Likewise, governments are ill-prepared, yet fully-equipped to engage in macro-crisis management.

Yes, governments are fully-equipped to handle macro-economic management like a bulldozer is equipped to perform fine gardening on a sunday afternoon.  Governments time and time again have been proven to be extremely wasteful, inefficient, and cannot possibly forecast or manage an economy as well as private interests can.  When I say “private interest” I mean the pricing signals generated by millions of people buying and selling on an open market.  When government intervention comes in, it makes a mess of the natural signals given off by millions of people; it heavily distorts the market.

Unfortunately when a public crisis emerges, almost invariably, we presume that in some form government will shoulder responsibility and manage the crisis. We absolve ourselves and turn to governments.

This mind set has been prevalent especially so since the advent of Keynesian economics which highlight government intervention, insane spending, and economic control of the market.  Would we not have had Keynesian economics’ (or ‘the government will save us’ mindset among the public) stranglehold on the mind set of politicians and bureaucrats, things would have been much different and people would not look for help from the government.  The problem has always been that government has been controlled by a few wealthy people who have pushed for control of the market and people thru the hand of government.

Our financial and automotive corporate executives have more or less said, “Yes, we made the financial mess but you — government — will have to clean it up.”

Yes, they say this because they want more regulation and control imposed on the “evil free market” because these regulations restrict and impose new barriers to entry into business for small-time players.  As an example, carbon taxes have been touted by big oil companies to be a good thing for everyone, but the real truth is that oil companies want these so-called environmental regulations because it restricts competition. (link)

Naturally, we all should appreciate that governments alone have a capacity to universally impose solutions to problems during periods of crisis. After all, governments in democracies exercise virtually absolute legitimate authority. The recent minority Conservative government’s throne speech offered insights both into how a refreshed government proposes to deal with an economic crisis and how, to some extent, that same government will employ the crisis to pursue its own conservative agenda.

Governments exercise absolute legitimate authority because they have a monopoly on the use of force through the judicial and law enforcement systems, especially through the military.  When’s the last time a politician has truly listened to and taken their electorates’ opinions into consideration and implemented plans for the common man?  Governments are violent thugs and have been proven to be all thoughout history.

To be fair, some governmental, collectivist programs may be considered to be beneficial to populations, but when looking at the whole picture, many of these peograms are doomed to fail because the way monetary system is structured, it becomes apparent that the entire system is doomed to fail.  For instance, fiat currency has been implemented and distorted by government with the abolishment of hard money standards (gold, silver).  No longer does capitalism work for the common man (as it was intended to do).

Employing a crisis to manage a specific policy agenda is not new. Throughout the world, post 9-11, governments employed — and still employ — the threat of terrorism to impose constraints on individual rights and freedoms. Many governments, already inclined to authoritarianism, used self-serving interpretation of crisis management to further restrain their citizens.

He makes a good point here for sure.  I highlighted this in the first paragraph.

Fragile freedoms and modest rights were further eroded not only by enthusiastic regimes in many countries, but they were also aided and abetted by a rapidly developing technological industry where the rewards are extensive for innovative and creative ways of watching, snooping and hiding from citizens.

It is this industry which has given us a technology to completely hide an active battlefield tank and its heat imprint behind a curtain of reflective materials. It is the same high technology industry which now offers airport security the opportunity to evaluate your personal body parts as prospective security threats.

I believe he is describing the military-industrial complex that former President Eisenhower warned us about many, many years ago, but the author of this article probably didn’t want to spook people with so-called “conspiracy theories” when in fact it has been proven that the military-industrial complex is responsible for wars and bloodshed with profit and control as the main motivator.

Soon we may have Ontario drivers’ licences which will contain details of your existence which details eventually should be available to anybody either with a scanner or exceptional hacking ability. Crisis offers opportunity and many technology industries are jumping at those government-induced opportunities. Of course, there is a symbiotic relationship as high-tech security related industries induce governments to consider even more invasive forms of “security” systems.

Throughout history would-be dictators, despots, and politicians have used “terrorism” (notably false-flag terror) to create events where citizens acquiesce and beg their so-called representatives to “save them” from the disaster that unfolded. When false-flag terror is mentioned, this is often a pseudonym for the often planned events necessary for citizens to give up their freedom. It has been used time and time again throughout history by dictators looking for easy ways to control and decimate populations.

Notable events in history which have been proven to be planned and conspiratorial in nature have been the burning of the Reichstag Building in Germany by supposed communists, when in reality it was proven that it was secret agents commanded by shadow governments to carry-out terrorism and blaming it on a created enemy.

This rush to encase our lives in alleged security networks is one issue. The other is a broader approach which the throne speech signalled to employing an economic crisis as a base from which new, unrelated, policy initiatives may be launched.

The warning, for example, to federal public servants that the government would legislate solutions to ongoing collective bargaining was very quickly followed by an agreement between the treasury board and public service unions. The throne speech warning appears to have been heeded.

Yet there remains a multitude of opportunities for the minority Conservative government to pursue specific policy objectives under a pretext that they are in some manner related to managing the economic crisis.

The very term “public interest” is regularly employed as a guise for specific government policy actions.

I would not dispute the current federal or even provincial government’s right as a governing party to pursue its own particular public policy agenda. Policy initiatives will be couched in terms of “public interest” and, whenever possible, cloaked in current crisis management spin. That is the prerogative of any government temporarily imbued with legitimate authority and political power.

What I urge, however, and based upon experiences after 9-11, is that we as a public always view with some skepticism claims both that a policy initiative is invariably “in the public interest” and, more specifically, that it is part of the government’s overall plan to manage the economic crisis.

Crisis is opportunity.

The Vietnam War was another notable event, specifically the Gulf of Tonkin Incident where “rather than being on a routine patrol Aug. 2, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers — in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force. ‘The day before, two attacks on North Vietnam…had taken place,’ writes scholar Daniel C. Hallin. Those assaults were “part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964.” (link)

The opportunity for you, the reader, is to become more aware that the currency you are issued by your government is destined to become worthless because history shows that fiat money eventually becomes worthless as politicians cannot help themselves but to spend it out of existence.   Gold and silver are the only reliable alternatives to fiat money in this day and age of hyperinflation and deflation.

This is a brief explanation of what happened during the last Great Depression and what government, society, and individuals did in attempts to stave-off massive financial loss and collapse. Also, provided is some advice as to what you can do to stave-off financial ruin.

The stock market crashed, banks went belly-up, big-time deflation set in big time, and for a period of time, prices on everything dropped as  business dumped inventory to stay afloat.  Then, as government tried to intervene (as they always do) there were years of hyper-inflation and depression.  History will tels us that the inflated prices of goods never came back and that those who held lots of cash at that time were hit the most. 
[ad#ewv468ad1]
Capital was only preserved by those who — early in the deflationary part or before — changed cash into objects of lasting value — things like hard assets including gold, silver, housing, and so on. Unfortunately did not understand the advantage of accumulting such property until the inflation was far along. by that time the prices of all goods had risen so much that there were no bargains and plenty of shortages.

As analyst Harry Schultz pointed out in a New York Times article in 2004, when gold prices are low the financial press calls gold a commodity. When prices are high, they call it a currency. Investors cannot afford to sit idly by while their dollar accounts lose another 30% in value, so the rise in demand for gold is hardly surprising. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul221.html)

Cash became an asset that miserably decreased in value. Even if the magnitude of this depression is only as bad as the last depression, holding cash makes no sense. Also, if this time is worse than the Weimer republic of Germany, personaly property will become a valuable barter commodity in a system that may arrise from the rubble/aftermath.

So, for you and your family’s sake, stock up on guns and ammo; reloading parts; ammo of all flavors; gold and silver; land; coffee, tobacco, and liquor (even if you don’t use them); lumber, hardware, and tools of all sizes. Gasoline can be stored in drums and stabilized. You will also need drugs, painkillers and pharmaceuticals and other toiletteries.

What we can say is that the inflation from inflation scare from the price highs a year ago was a cyclical turning point for the economy and is profoundly deflationary.

Most economists believe that deflation is a problem in a modern economy because of the danger of a deflationary spiral. Deflation is also linked with recessions and with the Great Depression. Additionally, deflation also prevents monetary policy from stabilizing the economy because of a mechanism called the liquidity trap. Wikipedia

[ad#ewv468ad1]

Deflation comes first as the world’s banks deleverage, but when this process has wound itself out, then inflation will heat up again. Nobody believes this now, but when oil was approaching $150 per barrel, nobody was talking about deflation. Now that it’s approaching $50 per barrel, nobody is talking about inflation. Perhaps gold is telling us something here? Perhaps there’s a trading opportunity or two out there? (George Kleinman)

You might be asking yourself how government could possibly hurt the poor. In the post World War 2 era, people have come to rely on government for social services including health care, schooling, infrastructure development, financial regulation, and so on. It would be pretty difficult for the regular layman to realize how government hurts the poor seeing all the so-called positives, but how many people actually think about how society would function without the hand of government? Would it work better?

The following may get a little technical, but allow me to try to explain some key points as to how government harms poor people. The point trying to be made is that government is not the almighty savior that so many people make it out to be and have been doing so for the past few generations. The truth is that many problems associated with the economy and social structures are often caused by governments and their regulations. One important point to remember is that government is supposd to represent the people. When’s the last time a politician has told the truth?
[ad#dbldycdnchrst468ad1]
Here are many different ways that the government hurts the poor:

1. Skyrocketing taxes contrain the poor directly by raising their living prices.
2. Minimum wage laws damage employment opportunities for low income earners.
3. When government puts itself first, the poor always suffer.
4. Poor people are treated like second-class citizens over creditors.
5. Relief for low income earners won’t cover their mortgages.
6. Regulations on imports raise prices for low income earners.
7. Low income earners pay property taxes even if they rent.
8. Poor people suffer when government spends wrecklessly.
9. Social programs and government spending meant to help poor people ends-up hurting them in the long-run.
10. The schooling system is messed-up for poor people by not focusing on vocational education to get them jobs.

Here is a break-down of each point mentioned above:

The minimum wage laws in many Western countries have been a contentious issue for generations. The poor people have been brainwashed by government propaganda into thinking that it benefits them by allowing them to buy more and become similar to their higher-income neighbors. The fact is that no matter what politicians tell you, the minimum wage disables employers from hiring more workers due to increased labor costs; it also raises inflationary pressures by increasing product prices which disables the poor from buying more than previous to the government increasing their wage.

Government often ties the hands of the poor when they tax them to death and puts the bureaucratic machinery before them.  Taxation strips property (money) from the lower-class (not to mention the upper class) and gives it to bankers to pay for debt.  The solution here would be to utilize some form of flat-tax or negative income tax system which guarantees a certain level of money for people making under a  certain amount.  This kind of system is working in places like Belgium.

Banks and governments work together to strip poor people of their assets when they are in arrears.  What should be happening is that the politicians should help the poor people to pay the  debt instead of helping the banks destroy their lives.  The ultimate solution would be for banks not to loan money to people who cannot afford it!

We always hear the middle-class protesting the loss of jobs to other countries, correct? While this is an honourable deed, for sure, the real problem here is that governments over-taxate companies and populations and makes it too expensive to manufacture products.

Also, governments like the Peoples’ Republic of China, whose government manipulates its currency and financial systems, create incentive for American companies to leave the USA.  In the short-term, the prices are cheaper, but in the long-run, when your children grow up, their jobs and infrastructures will be so badly degraded that there will be a need for more government intervention, also known as “government stimulus.”  Sound familiar?
[ad#phnpwrdgps468ad1]
The most important societal defect which government greatly attributes to is the schooling system.  By the way, did you realize the word “system” is a root latin word for “sewer?”  You could we say we have a sewer system right now.  Going on, everyone knows our public educational system wreaks of corruption and mediocrity.   Some blame unions, while others blame administrators who take money from the “system” when it should be going to teachers who actually do the real work of educating our children.

This may be debateable, but it is the opinion of this author that the real reason we have so much waste in the schooling system is because we have many so-called teachers who have “useless” subject areas and the fact is that the unions are literally forced to hire these people with non-productive teaching subjects.

Ask yourself:  where are all the math, science, chemistry, language, computer science teachers? They’re all working  for the private sectors making much more money than they would if they were teachers.  Why don’t the school boards and governmental institutions make it more enticing for graduates and experienced workers in these “in demand” fields become teachers?

Enrolling your children in private schools, as well as having them home-schooled may be a much better bet in the long-run for your childrens’ sakes due to the fact that they will get much more individualized, attention-focused education rather than the “rhyme and rote” system the Marxist factories we call public schools today.
[ad#nypas468ad1]

If the US and global economy as a whole are about to enter into a depression (if we’re not there already), has anyone bothered to wonder how long such a depression would last?  Many commentators and analysts, including economists and so-called financial gurus — who have been wrong numerous times in the past — have tried to predict various scenarios not necessarily dealing with an upcoming depression.  However, the trend is there that the people we put so much trust in to manage our finances — both public and private — are often times very wrong.

This time, on the other side of the coin, is Martin Armstrong.  A controversial financial analyst who predicted the 1987 market crash, the sputtering-out of the Japanese economy, and many other events, has came out with a startling revelation as to how long the depression many (if not most) analysts believe we are in at this moment. In his startling revelatory essay called “The Coming Great Depression and why government is powerless” he illustrates that we are facing a depression that will last 23 to 26 years.  Indeed, the longest depression in modern times.

It is frustrating to read so many comparisons of our current situation with 1929 while watching policy be set-in-motion to create spending on infrastructure. Everyone has their hand out looking for a bailout like a bunch of street burns pleading for money so they can get drunk or stay drunk. Almost nothing of what I have read is close to being accurate. The scary part is depressions are inevitably caused by politicians who may be paving the road with good intentions, but are relying upon analysis so biased, we do not stand a chance.

Our fate will not be determined by the stock market performance. Neither can we stimulate the economy by increasing spending on
infrastructure any more than buying your wife a mink coat, will improve the grades of your child in school. We are facing a Depression that will last 23-26 years. The response of government is going to seal our fate because they cannot learn from the past and will make the same mistakes that every politician has made before them. Even if the Dow Industrials make new highs next week (impossible), the Depression is unstoppable with current models and tools.

The subsequent response from government is going to ultimately seal our fate because politicians have not been able to learn from past mistakes or done their homework by reading wide varieties of academics like the Austrian school.  Confirming this, leading economists like Marc Faber has stated in the past that this depression will be worse than the last one we had during the 1930s because of the stimulus packages the governments around the world are proposing.  However, Marc has been forecasting a depression lasting between 2 to 15 years.

Monetary Safe Haven?

[ad#contentad1]

As always, storing your money in the form of gold or silver is the safest bet to keep your money safe from inflation or deflation. This cannot be stressed enough and if you want to keep your family safe, it would be advisable to keep a sizeable chunk of your assets in hard form such as the precious metals. Whether it be bullion, gold jewellery, silver coins, or any other physical form of precious metal, you will be much safer than the guy down the street who stores his money in “fiat” government paper money.

Don’t believe me? Check this out.

Weaker U.S. Dollar Boosts Gold and Silver
Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:05pm

(CEP News) – Gold prices are extending their gains Thursday as the U.S. dollar continues to tumble lower.

Gold, along with all commodities, appears to be benefiting from the FOMC decision to implement major quantitative easing measures on Wednesday. The Fed announced that it would expand its balance sheet by almost $1.2 trillion, which includes purchasing $300 billion in longer-term Treasuries.

Gold prices sold off modestly in overnight trading, but prices held around $930 an ounce and sharply recovered just ahead of the North American trading session. Renewed pressure on the U.S. dollar at 8 a.m. EDT helped to push gold prices to session highs. Gold is trading just below $960.

In the last two days, CBOT spot prices have climbed over $75 dollars and commodity strategists are looking for further gains, as investors move into gold as a hedge against inflation.

Along with gold prices, silver has also done extremely well. Although the precious metal didn’t receive much of a boost following the FOMC announcement and ended the day around $12 an ounce, it has outperformed gold on Thursday. CBOT silver futures started rallying during the European session and have been on a steady rise, jumping over 8% during the trading day.

I’ve always been a huge fan of Ron Paul’s since about 3 years ago when I heard about him online. It appears he has been controversial for the better part of his political career. Thank heavens for controversial people!

He has always been a contrarian type of guy in that he’s always challenged conventional thinking. He is the biggest congressional supporter of gold and silver being staples of sound monetary policy. Alas, the mainstream media does not report him at all.

Is Spending The Answer

By Ron Paul

This week, Congress and the administration once again showed their lack of economic understanding, as they ramped up spending to record levels. On the surface, maybe it does look to some like the economic crisis is a liquidity problem, that the economy is in trouble because money is not changing hands at the pace it once did in the boom years. They believe that to get back to a booming economy money needs to start changing hands again – and the quickest way to do this is for the federal government to massively expand spending to pump new money into the system. If this is the extent of their understanding, no wonder they call for spending, taxing, bailouts and inflation.

If spending was the solution, we never would have had a problem. During the last eight years, we’ve blown up the size of government and certainly had no want of spending on foreign or domestic policy. The Bush administration increased spending almost 20% in its first term, and nearly doubled the national debt by the end of the second term. Certainly the case cannot be made that lack of government spending created the problem or can be the solution.

[ad#opxprs468ad1]
This is mirrored in American households. According to CNN private sector debt is 365% of private sector gross domestic product. Many relied simply on steady and continued increase in home values to enable spending and secure more debt. That trend has proven unsustainable and many Americans are adjusting their finances accordingly. For the first time, household debt is beginning to fall as consumers wake up to the realities of paying off debt and living within their means.

Wouldn’t it be great if the government would do the same?

A lot of capital and liquidity is out there waiting in the wings as the new administration is bringing about government uncertainty, a concept discussed by Robert Higgs as prolonging the Great Depression. In other words, it is a foregone conclusion that government will act. But, like a chicken with its head cut off, no one knows which way it will run, just that it will flail about wildly until it collapses.

Why start a business, when businesses could face the brunt of an increase in future taxation? Similarly, why hire a new employee if tax policy will just force you to fire them later on to stay afloat? Why buy a house, when you have no idea how future government meddling in the housing market will affect its value? Why spend at the shopping mall, or buy a new car when you don’t know how tax policy will affect your family budget, or if your job will come under the axe because your employer’s tax burden is increased?

I argue these kinds of questions and concerns contribute to the weakening economy. This type of tax policy keeps capital out of third world nations, and now is keeping capital in hiding here in the US. People are concerned about security and savings again, retrenching their household and business budgets. The economy could be helped if the government would just get out of the way and restore sound monetary and fiscal policies.