1
2 (current)
# 7193 bydinmont2@... on Nov. 21, 2005, 7:16 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Which only proves the need for People to keep an eye on their
government and be willing to breath down their necks hard. Making
elected officials responcible for the actions of the burocrats and
judges they appoint is something People have got to do.
nothing people can do. They have to organize.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers, "Bill" wrote:
>
> > It still is a mute point. The local government can collect the
taxes
> > when you use the countries legal currency to purchase the paypal
> > money or any other type of money.
>
> I suppose they can at that.
>
> > Once you have the paypal money do as you please the taxes are
> > already paid.
>
> Well, as long as they don't tax it out of existance, so what?
> Governments need movey to build roads.
>
> > Also if this becomes too big of a problem, there is nothing
> > stopping the local authorities from banning purchase of pay pal
>
> Might be tough to enforce, but yeah, if they can ban a chemical
> almost the same as that found in nutmeg just because they don't
like
> the idea of people having fun, then they can ban the buying of pay
> pal. Then again, look how effective the ban on happiness chemicals
> has (not) been.
>
> > money or the outright closing of the organization.
>
> I doubt that the government of Texas can shut down a company in
Tokyo.
>
> > I, in Canada, was part of a online organization that did
explicitly
> > barter online in my local area (mostly services, but used, and
> > sometimes new commodity where normal) and when the organization
> > became just a little to lucrative the Federal government raided on
> > tax fraud and that was the end of that.
>
> Feds overriding locals. Not locals overriding the whole world
(much
> less the entire Solar System).
>
> > I don't know what happened to the principals of the company, but
> > they had enough data on everyone participating to also charge them
> > if they so desired. They did not.
>
> This is the scary part. The government shouts "CHILD
PORNAGRAPHY!!"
> or, in these post 9/11 days, "TERRORISTS!!!" and people willfully
> give away all rights to privacy. Most of the information gathered
on
> people has nothing to do with stopping kiddy porn or terrorists,
but
> it is very useful for this kind of thing, as well as for stifling
> political dissent. Let anybody suggest this and "YOU'RE A PEDIFILE
> PERVERT ON THE SIDE OF THE TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!"
>
> > The black and grey markets have been around for centuries, but
when
# 7194 bylevi1_ca@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 12:02 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
wrote:
>
> Which only proves the need for People to keep an eye on their
> government and be willing to breath down their necks hard. Making
> elected officials responcible for the actions of the burocrats and
> judges they appoint is something People have got to do.
>
> Governments are by nature corrupt but that does not mean there's
> nothing people can do. They have to organize.
>
Perhaps in a new system you can start by having a declaration that
limits government power - I know that government gets bigger by
sticking their noses in more and more areas and people let them not
realizing that it costs more for the government mismanagement than
it ever was to fix the problem so just do not let them from the very
first - let some problems fix themselves or die out - have standard
values and adhere to them such as no polluting the colony - no
discrimination ( you never know who is going to save your life in an
emergency) - allow people freedom to do as they wish as long as they
do not harm others -= if there is serious offences there is always
help out the door. - go back to a place that will accept foolishness
# 7195 bydinmont2@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 12:57 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hate to be a Kill Joy on this but the United States Constitution is
the most restrictive of constitutions on the power of government.
Unfortunately it left the Government the job of enforcing it.
through 'evolving' standards giving government all kinds of powers.
They routinely redefine their power. They have redefined 'Cruel and
Unusual Punishment'. Some are trying to redefine Marriage and Family.
If I were to ammend it. I would first transfer tax collecting to the
states with the power to withhold what they collect when ever the
Feds get too big for their britches. Then I would give people the
power to withold their taxes whenever their state government gets too
big for its britches.
At the same time I would certainly set up standards of Good Behavior
by which Judges can be paid and hold office.
Ultimately, the only means to restrict Government is if People take
it upon themselves to do the job.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "levi1_ca"
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
> wrote:
> >
> > Which only proves the need for People to keep an eye on their
> > government and be willing to breath down their necks hard. Making
> > elected officials responcible for the actions of the burocrats
and
> > judges they appoint is something People have got to do.
> >
> > Governments are by nature corrupt but that does not mean there's
> > nothing people can do. They have to organize.
> >
> Perhaps in a new system you can start by having a declaration that
> limits government power - I know that government gets bigger by
> sticking their noses in more and more areas and people let them not
> realizing that it costs more for the government mismanagement than
> it ever was to fix the problem so just do not let them from the
very
> first - let some problems fix themselves or die out - have standard
> values and adhere to them such as no polluting the colony - no
> discrimination ( you never know who is going to save your life in
an
> emergency) - allow people freedom to do as they wish as long as
they
# 7196 byxenophile2002@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 2:53 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers, "terrierkeeper" wrote:
> is the most restrictive of constitutions on the power of
> government.
> Unfortunately it left the Government the job of enforcing it.
Well, the government oand the people who vote for them. The courts
are not elected so that they won't be swayed by public opinion. It's
really amazing that it has done as well as it has over more than two
centuries, considering that it's main job has been to keep American
free in spite of ourselves.
> Liberal judges have taken to reading things into the document
> through 'evolving' standards giving government all kinds of powers.
Not just liberals. Any time a right-wing judge decides that the
Fourth Amendment(*) means that the cops can, in fact, do any damn
thing they like any damn way they like any damn time they like, said
conservative judge is just as engaged in judicial activism as any
liberal ever hatched.
> They routinely redefine their power. They have redefined 'Cruel and
> Unusual Punishment'. Some are trying to redefine Marriage and
> Family.
One wonders why government should have any power to define or
redefine Marriage and Family in the first place.
> If I were to ammend it. I would first transfer tax collecting to
> the states with the power to withhold what they collect when ever
> the Feds get too big for their britches.
Which means that the states would decide that the Feds were getting
too big for their britches every time the states decided that they
wanted the movey for themselves. Which means that the Feds would
officially be too big for their britches all the time, no matter what
they actually did.
> Then I would give people the power to withold their taxes whenever
> their state government gets too big for its britches.
Which means that whenever I want to hold on to every last dollar, I
simply declare the state to be too big for its britches, and the
roads don't get built.
> At the same time I would certainly set up standards of Good
> Behavior by which Judges can be paid and hold office.
Good Behavior has to be more "they make decisions I like." Elsewise
they are nothing more than pollsters with power.
> Ultimately, the only means to restrict Government is if People take
> it upon themselves to do the job.
Absolutely. Having a press that will DO IT'S JOB would help.
(*) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
# 7197 byvolatilis_leo@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 4:11 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Or a very useful tool. Cash can be useful, but travel to any bar, strip
club, mall, clothing store, etc... and you will find many people happily
frittering away their finances - in cash. Fiscal discipline is not dependent
on cash usage.
# 7198 byvolatilis_leo@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 4:12 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Note that GDP is growing significantly faster than the debt.
# 7199 byvolatilis_leo@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 4:22 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
You missed the point. However, organized crime is heavily into electronic
money movement... The much maligned Patriot Act was designed in large part
to hamper just that - not to snag Billy picking up a dime bag.
# 7200 byvolatilis_leo@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 4:26 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
To add a bit: The states rights issues mentioned were very instrumental in
perpetuating the slave trade in the U.S.
# 7201 bydsw_s@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 8:08 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> Not just liberals.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Valens Agnitio"
wrote:
>
> To add a bit: The states rights issues mentioned were very
instrumental in
> perpetuating the slave trade in the U.S.
>
> >From: "Xenophile"
> >Reply-To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> >To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: TAXES
> >Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 02:52:54 -0000
> >
> >--- In spacesettlers, "terrierkeeper" wrote:
> >
> > > Hate to be a Kill Joy on this but the United States
Constitution
> > > is the most restrictive of constitutions on the power of
> > > government.
> > > Unfortunately it left the Government the job of enforcing it.
> >
> >Well, the government oand the people who vote for them. The
courts
> >are not elected so that they won't be swayed by public opinion.
It's
> >really amazing that it has done as well as it has over more than
two
> >centuries, considering that it's main job has been to keep
American
> >free in spite of ourselves.
> >
> > > Liberal judges have taken to reading things into the document
> > > through 'evolving' standards giving government all kinds of
powers.
> >
> >Not just liberals. Any time a right-wing judge decides that the
> >Fourth Amendment(*) means that the cops can, in fact, do any damn
> >thing they like any damn way they like any damn time they like,
said
> >conservative judge is just as engaged in judicial activism as any
> >liberal ever hatched.
> >
> > > They routinely redefine their power. They have
redefined 'Cruel and
> > > Unusual Punishment'. Some are trying to redefine Marriage and
> > > Family.
> >
> >One wonders why government should have any power to define or
> >redefine Marriage and Family in the first place.
> >
> > > If I were to ammend it. I would first transfer tax collecting
to
> > > the states with the power to withhold what they collect when
ever
> > > the Feds get too big for their britches.
> >
> >Which means that the states would decide that the Feds were
getting
> >too big for their britches every time the states decided that they
> >wanted the movey for themselves. Which means that the Feds would
> >officially be too big for their britches all the time, no matter
what
> >they actually did.
> >
> > > Then I would give people the power to withold their taxes
whenever
> > > their state government gets too big for its britches.
> >
> >Which means that whenever I want to hold on to every last dollar,
I
> >simply declare the state to be too big for its britches, and the
> >roads don't get built.
> >
> > > At the same time I would certainly set up standards of Good
> > > Behavior by which Judges can be paid and hold office.
> >
> >Good Behavior has to be more "they make decisions I like."
Elsewise
> >they are nothing more than pollsters with power.
> >
> > > Ultimately, the only means to restrict Government is if People
take
> > > it upon themselves to do the job.
> >
> >Absolutely. Having a press that will DO IT'S JOB would help.
> >
> >(*) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> >papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
> >shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable
> >cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing
# 7202 bydsw_s@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 8:24 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Iirc, that depends on how you measure "growing faster". In absolute
number of dollars, yes.
of GDP at time two, I think it depends on what times you pick for
comparison: debt growth has been huge through the entire Dubya
administration, and GDP growth was slow during most of the first
term, but the partial rebound of GDP in the last year or two may be
fast enough that debt is a shrinking percentage of GDP over that
time. Iirc he doesn't measure up to Reagan for debt as a percentage
of GDP, and won't until the rest of his back-loaded tax cuts kick
in. (And of course in the pre-Reagan era there were even some
Republicans who were into fiscal sanity as a real principle, not
just as a pretext for opposing particular spending they didn't want
for other reasons.)
Debt growth rate as a percentage of debt versus GDP growth rate as a
percentage of GDP, at the same time, I think never on Republicans'
watch.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Valens Agnitio"
wrote:
>
> Note that GDP is growing significantly faster than the debt.
>
> >From: "Dan Wylie-Sears"
> >Reply-To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> >To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: TAXES
> >Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:18:02 -0000
> >
> > > You think congress people have trouble keeping a budget since
> > > they're spending everybody else's money, get a credit card.
> > > They're a quick way to get into debt.
> >
> >And now that the tax-and-spend liberals are extinct and instead
> >we've got borrow-and-spend conservatives spending everyone else's
> >money on credit, we find out that the two effects are more than
> >additive.
> >
> >--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Much of what curently passes for 'civilisation' Sucks.
> > >
> > > Though I doubt this has relevence with any future Space
Colony, I
> > > like to go off on my own and occasionaly indulge myself with an
> > > anynomous purchase. I must admit one thing the Internet has
done
> >is
> > > the number of Book Fairs has gone down. The one at Timonium no
> >longer
> > > happens. I was rather looking forward to seeing if any of the
Book
> > > merchants might be marketing my novel. Something to strike up a
> > > conversation with. I like the up close work world. None of the
> >book
> > > merchants marketing my novel I have sent e-mails to have
returned
> >my
> > > messages. Not one has told me what they think of it. What
people
> > > coming into their establishments who look it over think of it.
I
> >miss
> > > casually chatting business of books with people who are
> >enthusiastic
> > > about their subjects. The internet and modern 'civilisation'
are
> > > doing away with all that.
> > >
> > > Another good thing about Cash is that you see yourself spending
> >it.
> > > Which makes spending hard earned dollars painful. Many of the
> >kids I
> > > went to the local community collage spent themselves into debt
> >with
> > > their first credit cards. I like cash. I like writing checks.
They
> > > give you the means to see your money go. Which makes it hurt.
> >Which
> > > makes keeping a budget easier than with a credit card or
electonic
> > > mony. You think congress people have trouble keeping a budget
> >since
> > > they're spending everybody else's money, get a credit card.
> >They're
> > > a quick way to get into debt.
> > >
> > > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Wylie-Sears"
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > provide anonymity only to those who are willing to forgoe
many
> >of
> > > > > the convenieces of civilization - Ted Kaczynski, for
instance.
> > > >
> > > > I expect organized crime is a much larger source of cash
> > > > transactions than non-organized people like Ted.
> > > >
> > > > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Valens Agnitio"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The current net worth of just the U.S. is quite far into
the
> > > ten's
> > > > of
> > > > > trillions, and only about 800 billion is in printed cash,
> >perhaps
> > > > a great
> > > > > deal less. The vast majority of transactions in this
country,
> >and
> > > > indeed the
> > > > > world, are conducted electronically already, and have been
for
> > > > some time.
> > > > > All substantiative transactions certainly are. Cash
> >transactions
> > > > are
> > > > > trivial in comparison, and provide anonymity only to those
who
> > > are
> > > > willing
> > > > > to forgoe many of the convenieces of civilization - Ted
> > > > Kaczynski, for
> > > > > instance.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: Lucio de Souza Coelho
> > > > > >Reply-To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: TAXES
> > > > > >Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:40:29 -0200
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On 11/16/05, terrierkeeper wrote:
> > > > > >(...)
> > > > > > > But I do believe, ONE of these days there may come the
> > > Cashless
> > > > > > > society with all transactions electronic in which
> >Government
> > > > can tax
> > > > > > > automaticly its people. If a man is paid, income and
> >Social
> > > > Security
> > > > > > > taxes automaticly deducted, along with any form of tax
> >some
> > > > burocrat
> > > > > > > cares to assign. Buy something, sales taxes and value
> >added
> > > > taxes.
> > > > > > > The there are government fees such as the Phone tax.
Make
> >a
> > > > phone
> > > > > > > call, a person is billed to fill governmetn coffers.
That
> >is
> > > > what I
> > > > > > > see.
> > > > > >(...)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Maybe I was not clear... Perhaps there will soon exist a
> >society
> > > > that
> > > > > >is officially cashless in the sense that all money will be
> > > > electronic
> > > > > >and therefore an easy prey for the government. Extra-
> >officially,
> > > > > >though, in practice people will invent their own "cashful"
> > > > economic
> > > > > >system and informal economy that will evade completely
> > > monitoring
> > > > by
> > > > > >the government. BTW, some estimate that informal economy
in
> > > Brazil
> > > > > >represents already over 50% of our PIB, which is clearly a
> > > > response of
> > > > > >the population to our abusive (for Third World standards)
tax
# 7203 bydinmont2@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 4:04 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
GOOD BEHAVIOR is requiring the courts to stay within the
Consitution's confines rather than acting as a Supeior Legislative
body. Good Behavior is requiring they follow the Original intent of
the founding fathers rather than resort to chicanery of fraudulently
introducing foreign laws and Judicial rulings to justify their
legislating from the bench. The United States was established by the
American people not the EU or the UN.
means. Good Behavior is one of the better means.
And the Supreme Court wasn't created as a check against The Mob it
was created to apply the laws enacted by Congress fairly.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers, "terrierkeeper" wrote:
>
> > Hate to be a Kill Joy on this but the United States Constitution
> > is the most restrictive of constitutions on the power of
> > government.
> > Unfortunately it left the Government the job of enforcing it.
>
> Well, the government oand the people who vote for them. The courts
> are not elected so that they won't be swayed by public opinion.
It's
> really amazing that it has done as well as it has over more than
two
> centuries, considering that it's main job has been to keep American
> free in spite of ourselves.
>
> > Liberal judges have taken to reading things into the document
> > through 'evolving' standards giving government all kinds of
powers.
>
> Not just liberals. Any time a right-wing judge decides that the
> Fourth Amendment(*) means that the cops can, in fact, do any damn
> thing they like any damn way they like any damn time they like,
said
> conservative judge is just as engaged in judicial activism as any
> liberal ever hatched.
>
> > They routinely redefine their power. They have redefined 'Cruel
and
> > Unusual Punishment'. Some are trying to redefine Marriage and
> > Family.
>
> One wonders why government should have any power to define or
> redefine Marriage and Family in the first place.
>
> > If I were to ammend it. I would first transfer tax collecting to
> > the states with the power to withhold what they collect when ever
> > the Feds get too big for their britches.
>
> Which means that the states would decide that the Feds were getting
> too big for their britches every time the states decided that they
> wanted the movey for themselves. Which means that the Feds would
> officially be too big for their britches all the time, no matter
what
> they actually did.
>
> > Then I would give people the power to withold their taxes whenever
> > their state government gets too big for its britches.
>
> Which means that whenever I want to hold on to every last dollar, I
> simply declare the state to be too big for its britches, and the
> roads don't get built.
>
> > At the same time I would certainly set up standards of Good
> > Behavior by which Judges can be paid and hold office.
>
> Good Behavior has to be more "they make decisions I like."
Elsewise
> they are nothing more than pollsters with power.
>
> > Ultimately, the only means to restrict Government is if People
take
> > it upon themselves to do the job.
>
> Absolutely. Having a press that will DO IT'S JOB would help.
>
> (*) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
> shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable
> cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing
# 7204 bydinmont2@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 4:08 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Actually States Rights was the instrument by which Slavery began to
be abolished. Starting with Massachuessets.
control of the Federal Government to Republicans. Prior to that they
frequently flouted them. Violating State Habeus Corpus. State Due
process and court jurisdictions. And let us not forget Bleeding
Kansas.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Valens Agnitio"
wrote:
>
> To add a bit: The states rights issues mentioned were very
instrumental in
> perpetuating the slave trade in the U.S.
>
> >From: "Xenophile"
> >Reply-To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> >To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: TAXES
> >Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 02:52:54 -0000
> >
> >--- In spacesettlers, "terrierkeeper" wrote:
> >
> > > Hate to be a Kill Joy on this but the United States
Constitution
> > > is the most restrictive of constitutions on the power of
> > > government.
> > > Unfortunately it left the Government the job of enforcing it.
> >
> >Well, the government oand the people who vote for them. The courts
> >are not elected so that they won't be swayed by public opinion.
It's
> >really amazing that it has done as well as it has over more than
two
> >centuries, considering that it's main job has been to keep American
> >free in spite of ourselves.
> >
> > > Liberal judges have taken to reading things into the document
> > > through 'evolving' standards giving government all kinds of
powers.
> >
> >Not just liberals. Any time a right-wing judge decides that the
> >Fourth Amendment(*) means that the cops can, in fact, do any damn
> >thing they like any damn way they like any damn time they like,
said
> >conservative judge is just as engaged in judicial activism as any
> >liberal ever hatched.
> >
> > > They routinely redefine their power. They have redefined 'Cruel
and
> > > Unusual Punishment'. Some are trying to redefine Marriage and
> > > Family.
> >
> >One wonders why government should have any power to define or
> >redefine Marriage and Family in the first place.
> >
> > > If I were to ammend it. I would first transfer tax collecting to
> > > the states with the power to withhold what they collect when
ever
> > > the Feds get too big for their britches.
> >
> >Which means that the states would decide that the Feds were getting
> >too big for their britches every time the states decided that they
> >wanted the movey for themselves. Which means that the Feds would
> >officially be too big for their britches all the time, no matter
what
> >they actually did.
> >
> > > Then I would give people the power to withold their taxes
whenever
> > > their state government gets too big for its britches.
> >
> >Which means that whenever I want to hold on to every last dollar, I
> >simply declare the state to be too big for its britches, and the
> >roads don't get built.
> >
> > > At the same time I would certainly set up standards of Good
> > > Behavior by which Judges can be paid and hold office.
> >
> >Good Behavior has to be more "they make decisions I like."
Elsewise
> >they are nothing more than pollsters with power.
> >
> > > Ultimately, the only means to restrict Government is if People
take
> > > it upon themselves to do the job.
> >
> >Absolutely. Having a press that will DO IT'S JOB would help.
> >
> >(*) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> >papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
> >shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable
> >cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing
# 7205 bylucioc@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 4:25 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 11/22/05, terrierkeeper wrote:
> GOOD BEHAVIOR is requiring the courts to stay within the
> Consitution's confines rather than acting as a Supeior Legislative
> body. Good Behavior is requiring they follow the Original intent of
> the founding fathers rather than resort to chicanery of fraudulently
> introducing foreign laws and Judicial rulings to justify their
> legislating from the bench. The United States was established by the
> American people not the EU or the UN.
(...)
amount of American citizens, then this population has changed
drastically (ethnically, culturally, etc) since the time of the
Founding Fathers (BTW, I am not American nor live in the US and so my
question may sound a bit silly, but was there no Founding Mother?) ,
in part because of massive and constant immigration, and so I would
think it perfectly natural for the American law system to incorporate
values from other countries as time passes.
# 7206 bydsw_s@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 6:55 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> GOOD BEHAVIOR is requiring the courts to stay within the
> Consitution's confines rather than acting as a Supeior Legislative
> body. Good Behavior is requiring they follow the Original intent
> of the founding fathers rather than resort to chicanery
idea of what they think Original Intent was (hint: it will always
match their ideology and the interests of their cronies), and
overruling the courts on the basis of it, why not cut out the
middleman and just eliminate the courts entirely?
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
wrote:
>
> GOOD BEHAVIOR is requiring the courts to stay within the
> Consitution's confines rather than acting as a Supeior Legislative
> body. Good Behavior is requiring they follow the Original intent
of
> the founding fathers rather than resort to chicanery of
fraudulently
> introducing foreign laws and Judicial rulings to justify their
> legislating from the bench. The United States was established by
the
> American people not the EU or the UN.
>
> Congress needs to crack down on this. The Constitution gives them
the
> means. Good Behavior is one of the better means.
>
> And the Supreme Court wasn't created as a check against The Mob it
> was created to apply the laws enacted by Congress fairly.
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers, "terrierkeeper" wrote:
> >
> > > Hate to be a Kill Joy on this but the United States
Constitution
> > > is the most restrictive of constitutions on the power of
> > > government.
> > > Unfortunately it left the Government the job of enforcing it.
> >
> > Well, the government oand the people who vote for them. The
courts
> > are not elected so that they won't be swayed by public opinion.
> It's
> > really amazing that it has done as well as it has over more than
> two
> > centuries, considering that it's main job has been to keep
American
> > free in spite of ourselves.
> >
> > > Liberal judges have taken to reading things into the document
> > > through 'evolving' standards giving government all kinds of
> powers.
> >
> > Not just liberals. Any time a right-wing judge decides that the
> > Fourth Amendment(*) means that the cops can, in fact, do any
damn
> > thing they like any damn way they like any damn time they like,
> said
> > conservative judge is just as engaged in judicial activism as
any
> > liberal ever hatched.
> >
> > > They routinely redefine their power. They have
redefined 'Cruel
> and
> > > Unusual Punishment'. Some are trying to redefine Marriage and
> > > Family.
> >
> > One wonders why government should have any power to define or
> > redefine Marriage and Family in the first place.
> >
> > > If I were to ammend it. I would first transfer tax collecting
to
> > > the states with the power to withhold what they collect when
ever
> > > the Feds get too big for their britches.
> >
> > Which means that the states would decide that the Feds were
getting
> > too big for their britches every time the states decided that
they
> > wanted the movey for themselves. Which means that the Feds
would
> > officially be too big for their britches all the time, no matter
> what
> > they actually did.
> >
> > > Then I would give people the power to withold their taxes
whenever
> > > their state government gets too big for its britches.
> >
> > Which means that whenever I want to hold on to every last
dollar, I
> > simply declare the state to be too big for its britches, and the
> > roads don't get built.
> >
> > > At the same time I would certainly set up standards of Good
> > > Behavior by which Judges can be paid and hold office.
> >
> > Good Behavior has to be more "they make decisions I like."
> Elsewise
> > they are nothing more than pollsters with power.
> >
> > > Ultimately, the only means to restrict Government is if People
> take
> > > it upon themselves to do the job.
> >
> > Absolutely. Having a press that will DO IT'S JOB would help.
> >
> > (*) The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses,
# 7207 bydsw_s@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 7:22 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
>...because of massive and constant immigration, and so I would
> think it perfectly natural for the American law system to
> incorporate values from other countries as time passes.
right. The way foreign law actually enters into the deliberations
of judges is that when an an ambiguous provision of US law is
similar to one in foreign law, and no previous case provides
precedent to determine how the law applies to the case at hand,
sometimes rather than just deciding for themselves what
interpretation to use judges will look at arguments made in foreign
cases. Only US statute and precedent is binding on US judges:
foreign cases are relevant only on the strength of their arguments
and only insofar as those arguments are applicable to US law.
The right in this country is wholly depraved, devoid of any
principles either intellectual or ethical; accordingly they're
willing to spread any lie that might be convenient. They claim that
judges take foreign law as applicable to the US, as though the
legislature of one country somehow had authority over another.
Influence via immigrant population would presumably happen as
legislators were aware of foreign law, and used that knowledge in
crafting the best legislation they're able to. That's neither what
is alleged here, nor the truth of what the allegations are about.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Lucio de Souza Coelho
wrote:
>
> On 11/22/05, terrierkeeper wrote:
> > GOOD BEHAVIOR is requiring the courts to stay within the
> > Consitution's confines rather than acting as a Supeior
Legislative
> > body. Good Behavior is requiring they follow the Original intent
of
> > the founding fathers rather than resort to chicanery of
fraudulently
> > introducing foreign laws and Judicial rulings to justify their
> > legislating from the bench. The United States was established by
the
> > American people not the EU or the UN.
> (...)
>
> How do you define "The American People"? If it is simply the total
> amount of American citizens, then this population has changed
> drastically (ethnically, culturally, etc) since the time of the
> Founding Fathers (BTW, I am not American nor live in the US and so
my
> question may sound a bit silly, but was there no Founding
Mother?) ,
> in part because of massive and constant immigration, and so I would
> think it perfectly natural for the American law system to
incorporate
# 7208 byxenophile2002@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 7:25 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers, "Valens Agnitio" wrote:
> electronic money movement...
I don't doubt it. It would take some organization to beat corporate
security measures, but the potential reward is huge.
> The much maligned Patriot Act was designed in large part to hamper
> just that - not to snag Billy picking up a dime bag.
If that's the case, then we were LIED TO about the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act!
We were told that it was to stop alQieda from blowing up buildings.
# 7209 bydinmont2@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 7:29 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Nothing personal. My ancestors left Europe to start over. I see no
reason to bring over europe's bad ideas to follow them.
societies into the ground. Feel free to do so. Crime and Punishment
feel free to keep it as pathetic as you want.
The American People are voting for politicians who believe in a
person's right to acquire and own property, for strong application of
the Death penalty and retributive standards of justice, and for a
return to the traditional moral values intelectuals so despise.
I see no justification for some activist judge to make them law here
without subjecting them to the the legislatures and the people.
Judges are appointed to apply law within the confines of the
constitution not make it up as they go. Those decisions are the
perogative of the elected officials and the people.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Lucio de Souza Coelho
wrote:
>
> On 11/22/05, terrierkeeper wrote:
> > GOOD BEHAVIOR is requiring the courts to stay within the
> > Consitution's confines rather than acting as a Supeior Legislative
> > body. Good Behavior is requiring they follow the Original intent
of
> > the founding fathers rather than resort to chicanery of
fraudulently
> > introducing foreign laws and Judicial rulings to justify their
> > legislating from the bench. The United States was established by
the
> > American people not the EU or the UN.
> (...)
>
> How do you define "The American People"? If it is simply the total
> amount of American citizens, then this population has changed
> drastically (ethnically, culturally, etc) since the time of the
> Founding Fathers (BTW, I am not American nor live in the US and so
my
> question may sound a bit silly, but was there no Founding Mother?) ,
> in part because of massive and constant immigration, and so I would
> think it perfectly natural for the American law system to
incorporate
# 7210 bylucioc@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 8:29 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 11/22/05, terrierkeeper wrote:
(...)
> The American People are voting for politicians who believe in a
> person's right to acquire and own property, for strong application of
> the Death penalty and retributive standards of justice, and for a
> return to the traditional moral values intelectuals so despise.
(...)
that will make them ever more similar to some of the enemies that you
have been fighting over the last years.
# 7211 byrabrooks@... on Nov. 22, 2005, 9:02 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 11/22/05, Lucio de Souza Coelho wrote:
>
> On 11/22/05, terrierkeeper wrote:
> (...)
> > The American People are voting for politicians who believe in a
> > person's right to acquire and own property, for strong application of
> > the Death penalty and retributive standards of justice, and for a
> > return to the traditional moral values intelectuals so despise.
> (...)
>
> Interestingly, then, the American People is voting for politicians
> that will make them ever more similar to some of the enemies that you
> have been fighting over the last years.
>
> The main problem with saying The American People do this, that and the
other simply is that there is no such animal.
In fact Americans are as divided as they have been in many years, perhaps
going back to the Civil War (about 1860 - 1865, for those of you who don't
bother with history).
Traditional Moral Values are another area that is defined differently. As I
remember my history, Traditional Moral Values once included segregation,
lynching those shortsighted enough to be born with darker skin, and "No
Irish need apply."
Intellectuals (those whose read without moving their lips and can count
past ten without taking their shoes off) have a nasty habit of saying things
like, "Those who do not remember the mistakes of the past, are condemned to
repeat them."
What I find disturbing is that, like before the Civil War, extremists seem
to have captured both main sides of the argument.
# 7212 bytango_dancer@... on Nov. 23, 2005, 12:19 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Valens Agnitio"
wrote:
True, but also note a few nuances to this trend. Asset price levels
move up and down while debt pricing remains fixed. We're currently in
a major housing boom (dieing off in some locales) and the increasing
price of housing is adding significantly to the rising GDP. If we have
a housing slowdown or a burst bubble, the price of the commodities
used in housing will decline due to lessened demand, so too will the
prices of goods and labor, but the the debt levels will be immune to
revaluation (neglecting for the moment the secondary debt markets.)
Also, GDP is increasing but the distribution of the wealth is becoming
more skewed as the US gini coefficients are rising. However, on the
flip side, most of the cases of poverty are people who are here
illegally. If we restrict illegal immigration the gini coefficient
would become more favorable.
Another also, take a look at what's been happening to the GNP/GDP
ratio over the years. As our GDP increases, the increased wealth is
being captured, to a ever larger extent, by foreign capital owners.
Yet another also, take a look at the SIC categories in which the US
maintains a trade surplus. Here they are:
Over A Billion Dollars:
098 Edible Products And Preparations, N.e.s.
122 Tobacco, Manufactured (whether Or Not Containing Tobacco Substitutes)
211 Hides And Skins (except Furskins), Raw
251 Pulp And Waste Paper
282 Ferrous Waste And Scrap; Remelting Ingots Of Iron Or Steel
533 Pigments, Paints, Varnishes And Related Materials
574 Polyacetals, Other Polyethers And Epoxide Resins, In Primary
Forms; Polycarbonates, Alkyd Resins And Other Polyesters, In Primary Forms
582 Plates, Sheets, Film, Foil And Strip Of Plastics
597 Prepared Additives For Mineral Oils Etc.; Liquids For Hydraulic
Transmissions; Antifreezes And Deicing Fluids; Lubricating Preparations
728 Machinery And Equipment Specialized For Particular Industries, And
Parts Thereof, N.e.s.
Over Two Billion Dollars:
012 Meat, Other Than Of Bovine Animals, And Edible Offal, Fresh,
Chilled Or Frozen (except Meat And Meat Offal Not Suitable For Human
Consumption)
041 Wheat (including Spelt) And Meslin, Unmilled
044 Maize (not Including Sweet Corn) Unmilled
081 Feeding Stuff For Animals (not Including Unmilled Cereals)
263 Cotton Textile Fibers
511 Hydrocarbons, N.e.s. And Their Halogenated, Sulfonated, Nitrated
Or Nitrosated Derivatives
575 Plastics, N.e.s., In Primary Forms
598 Miscellaneous Chemical Products, N.e.s.
723 Civil Engineering And Contractors' Plant And Equipment
Over Five Billion Dollars:
222 Oil Seeds And Oleaginous Fruits Used For The Extraction Of Soft
Fixed Vegetable Oils (excluding Flours And Meals)
714 Engines And Motors, Nonelectric (other Than Steam Turbines,
Internal Combustion Piston Engines And Power Generating Machinery);
Parts Thereof, N.e.s.
874 Measuring, Checking, Analysing And Controlling Instruments And
Apparatus, N.e.s.
Over Twenty Billion Dollars:
776 Thermionic, Cold Cathode Or Photocathode Valves And Tubes; Diodes,
Transistors And Similar Semiconductor Devices; Integrated Circuits,
Etc.; Parts
792 Aircraft And Associated Equipment; Spacecraft (including
Satellites) And Spacecraft Launch Vehicles; And Parts Thereof
Here are all the SIC codes:
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/reference/codes/sitc/sitc.txt
With the major exception of Boeing most of our trade surplus is
derived from sales of agricultural products.
Some more info:
In 2002, the US exported $682 Billion in products and $292 Billion in
services. In the same year it imported $1,165 Billion in products and
$227 Billion in services.
Breaking down the EXPORT in services we find that Travel accounted for
$66.5 Billion, Passenger Fares for $17 Billion, Other Transportation
for $29.2 Billion, Royalties & License Fees for $44.1 Billion, Other
Private Services for $122.6 Billion, Transfer Under US Military Sales
Contracts for $11.9 Billion, and US GOv't Misc. Services for $0.8 Billion.
Breaking down the IMPORT in services we find that Travel accounted for
$58 Billion, Passenger Fares for $20 Billion, Other Transportation for
$38.5 Billion, Royalties & License Fees for $19.3 Billion, Other
Private Services for $69.4 Billion, Direct Defense Expenditures for
$19.2 Billion, and US GOv't Misc. Services for $2.9 Billion.
Our $65 Billion trade surplus in services is accounted for by two
categories: license fees and other private services.
In Advanced Technology the US is running a deficit of $24 Billion for
the first 11 months of 2003.
TangoMan
# 7213 bydinmont2@... on Nov. 23, 2005, 2:15 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
My father was a soldier before I was born. Most of my life he was a
burocrat who worked for the militery.
your friend and it will be your ever strong regret that your foes can
not be your friends and your 'friends' can not be your foes.
But the US doesn't chop off the hands of thieves (though I have no
sympathy for them). We don't gas women and children or employ slave
labor. (We don't do business with people who do UNLIKE certain
countries). We don't torture our political opponants for their
beliefs.
At the same time when a people are confronted by strong enemies, they
must become strong to deal with them. Making themselves strong within
as well as by taking up arms to fight them.
Truth is a society's first duty is to maintain itself and gurantee
its own growth so it may grow and live into the future. Western
Civilisation currently seems to have forgotten this which is probably
why we're not reaching for the stars to colonize them).
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Lucio de Souza Coelho
wrote:
>
> On 11/22/05, terrierkeeper wrote:
> (...)
> > The American People are voting for politicians who believe in a
> > person's right to acquire and own property, for strong
application of
> > the Death penalty and retributive standards of justice, and for a
> > return to the traditional moral values intelectuals so despise.
> (...)
>
> Interestingly, then, the American People is voting for politicians
> that will make them ever more similar to some of the enemies that
you
# 7214 bydinmont2@... on Nov. 23, 2005, 2:25 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Most of whose Ideas were created by the Intellectuals of their time.
Such as the Drop of Ink rule in defining Race which is about as much
nonsence as the current ideas in regards to 'gender'. Which, along
with the current hocum goes to prove there are somethings so stupid
only an intellectual will believe.
currently found on collage campuses. Let us not forget how
Thanksgiving has suddenly found itself on the Unmentioned list in
regards to how it happened along with Mother's Day or Father's Day.
Should I go Further?
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Rick Brooks
>
> On 11/22/05, Lucio de Souza Coelho wrote:
> >
> > On 11/22/05, terrierkeeper wrote:
> > (...)
> > > The American People are voting for politicians who believe in a
> > > person's right to acquire and own property, for strong
application of
> > > the Death penalty and retributive standards of justice, and for
a
> > > return to the traditional moral values intelectuals so despise.
> > (...)
> >
> > Interestingly, then, the American People is voting for politicians
> > that will make them ever more similar to some of the enemies that
you
> > have been fighting over the last years.
> >
> > The main problem with saying The American People do this, that
and the
> other simply is that there is no such animal.
> In fact Americans are as divided as they have been in many years,
perhaps
> going back to the Civil War (about 1860 - 1865, for those of you
who don't
> bother with history).
> Traditional Moral Values are another area that is defined
differently. As I
> remember my history, Traditional Moral Values once included
segregation,
> lynching those shortsighted enough to be born with darker skin,
and "No
> Irish need apply."
> Intellectuals (those whose read without moving their lips and can
count
> past ten without taking their shoes off) have a nasty habit of
saying things
> like, "Those who do not remember the mistakes of the past, are
condemned to
> repeat them."
> What I find disturbing is that, like before the Civil War,
extremists seem
# 7215 bylucioc@... on Nov. 23, 2005, 4:45 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On 11/22/05, victoriatangoman wrote:
(...)
> With the major exception of Boeing most of our trade surplus is
> derived from sales of agricultural products.
(...)
usual to hear economists shaking their heads and saying "Brazil's huge
trade surplus is solely based on agriculture and mining - commodities,
in other words", as if that was the end of the world and as if
"commodity" was some kind of dirty word. Now, if the major economy in
the world is in a similar situation, why should we be complaining
about that? ;-)
# 7216 byvolatilis_leo@... on Dec. 2, 2005, 5:51 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
True enough in a limited sense, but they also prolonged its demise. This is
not an argument in favor of the federal government, but merely pointing out
that extreme states rights have had effects that the original writer would
have found unsavory. A working balance between states rights and federal
power seems to be the formula that works best in practice.
# 7217 byvolatilis_leo@... on Dec. 2, 2005, 5:56 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Sigh... You were not lied to. This act was intended to be part of a
mutlipronged approach to fight such orginizations. Obviously cutting off
their funding as much as possible is essential. I have to deal with the
headaches produced by this act everyday, but I recoginize its utility.
# 7218 byvolatilis_leo@... on Dec. 2, 2005, 6:01 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Look at the numbers. Debt vs. GDP is the only valid, functional way to view
the debt burden. Neither of the two major parties talks about it in these
terms, preferring instead to preach politics. Note that elimination of debt
is not only impractical, but harmful as well.
# 7219 byvolatilis_leo@... on Dec. 8, 2005, 4:07 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
>From: "victoriatangoman"
>Reply-To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: TAXES
>Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:16:49 -0000
>
>--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Valens Agnitio"
> wrote:
>
> > Note that GDP is growing significantly faster than the debt.
>
>True, but also note a few nuances to this trend. Asset price levels
>move up and down while debt pricing remains fixed. We're currently in
>a major housing boom (dieing off in some locales) and the increasing
>price of housing is adding significantly to the rising GDP. If we have
>a housing slowdown or a burst bubble, the price of the commodities
>used in housing will decline due to lessened demand, so too will the
>prices of goods and labor, but the the debt levels will be immune to
>revaluation (neglecting for the moment the secondary debt markets.)
>
However, I don't see the extremes that are necessary for an event of that
magnitude, and real estate is far more resistant to deflationary pressure
than other types of equity investments. Since there as been such a large
pull back from said equity investments, and a huge inflow into fixed income
instruments, and the fact that the Fed is far more educated in application
of its controls, any recession should be relatively mild and short lived.
Also, it appears that for a variety of reasons, the economy is far more
resilient than in the past, and the speed f recovery is correspondingly
shorter. So, in spite of all the pitfalls and demons, I am very optomistic.
>Also, GDP is increasing but the distribution of the wealth is becoming
>more skewed as the US gini coefficients are rising. However, on the
>flip side, most of the cases of poverty are people who are here
>illegally. If we restrict illegal immigration the gini coefficient
>would become more favorable.
>
Interesting... Where did you pull the data on the illegal contribution to
the gini? Although this makes sense, I was not aware that effect would be as
large as you imply.
It follows that if an economy rewards performance, there will be a
distribution of wealth that generates a gini > 0. I am not sure where the
optimal range moght be, especially when our current examples of the spread
have varying degrees of transparency in how wealth is measured, and in some
societies, simple distribution of wealth defined as personal ownership of
wealth is not as meaningful as in others. So, though I haven't payed any
attention to the gini coefficient, I am not sure how to read it. Perhaps it
is really only useful as an indicator of change in a single economy, and not
used as a benchmark to compare to others.
>Another also, take a look at what's been happening to the GNP/GDP
>ratio over the years. As our GDP increases, the increased wealth is
>being captured, to a ever larger extent, by foreign capital owners.
>
True, but there is always eb and flow, and the current percent owned by
foreigners is not alarming. It does not necessarily follow that the trend
will extrapolate unfavorably. At any rate, it isn't clear that increased
foreign investment is a bad thing, though it is certainly a sign that our
economy, at least for the moment, is the best game in town.
>Yet another also, take a look at the SIC categories in which the US
>maintains a trade surplus. Here they are:
>
>Over A Billion Dollars:
>
>098 Edible Products And Preparations, N.e.s.
>122 Tobacco, Manufactured (whether Or Not Containing Tobacco Substitutes)
>211 Hides And Skins (except Furskins), Raw
>251 Pulp And Waste Paper
>282 Ferrous Waste And Scrap; Remelting Ingots Of Iron Or Steel
>533 Pigments, Paints, Varnishes And Related Materials
>574 Polyacetals, Other Polyethers And Epoxide Resins, In Primary
>Forms; Polycarbonates, Alkyd Resins And Other Polyesters, In Primary Forms
>582 Plates, Sheets, Film, Foil And Strip Of Plastics
>597 Prepared Additives For Mineral Oils Etc.; Liquids For Hydraulic
>Transmissions; Antifreezes And Deicing Fluids; Lubricating Preparations
>728 Machinery And Equipment Specialized For Particular Industries, And
>Parts Thereof, N.e.s.
>
>Over Two Billion Dollars:
>
>012 Meat, Other Than Of Bovine Animals, And Edible Offal, Fresh,
>Chilled Or Frozen (except Meat And Meat Offal Not Suitable For Human
>Consumption)
>041 Wheat (including Spelt) And Meslin, Unmilled
>044 Maize (not Including Sweet Corn) Unmilled
>081 Feeding Stuff For Animals (not Including Unmilled Cereals)
>263 Cotton Textile Fibers
>511 Hydrocarbons, N.e.s. And Their Halogenated, Sulfonated, Nitrated
>Or Nitrosated Derivatives
>575 Plastics, N.e.s., In Primary Forms
>598 Miscellaneous Chemical Products, N.e.s.
>723 Civil Engineering And Contractors' Plant And Equipment
>
>Over Five Billion Dollars:
>
>222 Oil Seeds And Oleaginous Fruits Used For The Extraction Of Soft
>Fixed Vegetable Oils (excluding Flours And Meals)
>714 Engines And Motors, Nonelectric (other Than Steam Turbines,
>Internal Combustion Piston Engines And Power Generating Machinery);
>Parts Thereof, N.e.s.
>874 Measuring, Checking, Analysing And Controlling Instruments And
>Apparatus, N.e.s.
>
>Over Twenty Billion Dollars:
>
>776 Thermionic, Cold Cathode Or Photocathode Valves And Tubes; Diodes,
>Transistors And Similar Semiconductor Devices; Integrated Circuits,
>Etc.; Parts
>792 Aircraft And Associated Equipment; Spacecraft (including
>Satellites) And Spacecraft Launch Vehicles; And Parts Thereof
>
>Here are all the SIC codes:
>http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/reference/codes/sitc/sitc.txt
>
>With the major exception of Boeing most of our trade surplus is
>derived from sales of agricultural products.
>
>Some more info:
>
>In 2002, the US exported $682 Billion in products and $292 Billion in
>services. In the same year it imported $1,165 Billion in products and
>$227 Billion in services.
>
>Breaking down the EXPORT in services we find that Travel accounted for
>$66.5 Billion, Passenger Fares for $17 Billion, Other Transportation
>for $29.2 Billion, Royalties & License Fees for $44.1 Billion, Other
>Private Services for $122.6 Billion, Transfer Under US Military Sales
>Contracts for $11.9 Billion, and US GOv't Misc. Services for $0.8 Billion.
>
>Breaking down the IMPORT in services we find that Travel accounted for
>$58 Billion, Passenger Fares for $20 Billion, Other Transportation for
>$38.5 Billion, Royalties & License Fees for $19.3 Billion, Other
>Private Services for $69.4 Billion, Direct Defense Expenditures for
>$19.2 Billion, and US GOv't Misc. Services for $2.9 Billion.
>
>Our $65 Billion trade surplus in services is accounted for by two
>categories: license fees and other private services.
A very important reason for enforcement of intellectual property rights. I
am suprised that in all of that you didn't mention the enormous impact on
the deficit created by increased energy prices. Which, by the way, I think
is a good thing. It will spur develpment of alternative energy sources, and
really get the creative wheels turning in things that were not ecnomically
viable before.
>
>In Advanced Technology the US is running a deficit of $24 Billion for
>the first 11 months of 2003.
Disappointing... But the invisible hand is at work. Hopefully whatever
administration is in charge will encourage policies that encourage economic
growth. I keep hoping that a small fraction of that ten's of trillions of
wealth focuses on our favorite topics...
1
2 (current)