Re: Greenspan, a common criminal

From: Johnny Marcos (johnny5_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/05/04 

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:02:23 GMT

royls@telus.net wrote in news:40e98ef7.5331549@news.telus.net:

> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:09:31 -0400, Les Cargill
> <lcargill@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Right. Rome fell because without the land taxes that the nobles were
> exempt from, it couldn't _pay_ the cohorts.

You fail to understand there will always be an equality division in any
large scale society - brotherly love only works in small tribes because
they are brothers. market economies based on property rights is in place
because it works, usufruct works in small societies.

There is no way to control brotherly love across 6 billion with usufruct
and that is why you won't tell my bumb friend where you live so he can
park on your land but you would tell your blood brothers and that is why
he must buy land and have property ownership if he wants to not be
bothered by police.

Rome fell because businessman needed peace to GROW the economy - but as
rome grew so did its military - they made battles with Atilla instead of
building him libraries - war and conquest was how you attained social
status - not building libraries - the war machines KILL nations. Ask
Russia about thier growing war machines. Switzerland has how many nukes?

The empire grew while it served its citizens, when it was not longer
beneficial to the citizens - it was time for it to die.

Necessity is the mother of invention and growth, Uselessness is the
mother of decay and destruction. Romes leviathan had outgrown its
usefulness and people were tired of funding a standing army for
diminishing returns.

  The barbarians overran
> empty fortifications they could never have passed had they been
> garrisoned.

The barbarians were made up of ex roman soldiers and generals who helped
build the garrisons and were sick of the battles rome kept asking them to
fight - Make Love not War. They understood from a personal level war was
all romes leviathanic head seemed to want to do - not build the libraries
of alexandria and they saw the uselessness of this - they were never
going to get to enjoy the baths and upper roman society - all they were
ever going to do was fight and die for things they did not believe in
anymore. They were not getting lifted up in the rising tide of peace and
free trade festerd by PRIVATE ownership while war was waged.

  The legions were all working in the private armies of the
> large landowning nobles,

Either fight and die for that far away place you have only read about or
fight and die for your brother and father that feeds you off the farm -
who are you gonna fight for Roy L? The citizens willingly jumped into
league under the large land owners to escape central rome and its WAR
MACHINE that they had grown tired of funding.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html

Beginning with the third century B.C. Roman economic policy started to
contrast more and more sharply with that in the Hellenistic world,
especially Egypt. In Greece and Egypt economic policy had gradually
become highly regimented, depriving individuals of the freedom to pursue
personal profit in production or trade, crushing them under a heavy
burden of oppressive taxation, and forcing workers into vast collectives
where they were little better than bees in a great hive. The later
Hellenistic period was also one of almost constant warfare, which,
together with rampant piracy, closed the seas to trade. The result,
predictably, was stagnation.

They worked to serve the states war machine - they got tired of that ***
Roy L.

Stagnation bred weakness in the states of the Mediterranean, which
partially explains the ease with which Rome was able to steadily expand
its reach beginning in the 3rd century B.C. By the first century B.C.,
Rome was the undisputed master of the Mediterranean. However, peace did
not follow Rome's victory, for civil wars sapped its strength.

"As civil wars are going to sap ours here if we keep letting the mexicans
come in and not assimilate them."

 who could afford to pay them because they
> weren't paying any taxes to the Empire that had been shoveling land
> rent into their pockets for centuries.

Following the murder of Caesar in 44 B.C., his adopted son Octavian
finally brought an end to internal strife with his defeat of Mark Antony
in the battle of Actium in 31 B.C. Octavian's victory was due in no small
part to his championing of Roman economic freedom against the Oriental
despotism of Egypt represented by Antony, who had fled to Egypt and
married Cleopatra in 36 B.C. As Oertel (1934: 386) put it, "The victory
of Augustus and of the West meant . . . a repulse of the tendencies
towards State capitalism and STATE SOCIALISM which might have come to
fruition . . . had Antony and Cleopatra been victorious."

The long years of WAR, however, had taken a heavy toll on the Roman
economy. Steep taxes and requisitions of supplies by the ARMY, as well as
rampant inflation and the closing of trade routes, severely depressed
economic growth. Above all, businessmen and traders craved PEACE and
stability in order to rebuild their wealth. Increasingly, they came to

Not garrisons well stocked ROY L - NO GARRISONS - Peace for ALL! War
machines kill free trade.

believe that peace and stability could only be maintained if political
power were centralized in one man.

Benevolent HEAD of the Leviathan ROY L.

 This man was Octavian, who took the name Augustus and became the first
emperor of Rome in 27 B.C., serving until 14 A.D.

Although the establishment of the Roman principate represented a
diminution of political freedom,

Bush and Kerry dimunated the POLITICAL freedom and the wealthy control
the state - when they outlive thier usefulness - they will decay and be
destroyed.

 it led to an expansion of economic freedom. [1] Augustus clearly favored
private enterprise, private property, and free trade (Oertel 1934: 386;
Walbank 1969: 23).

PRIVATE PROPERTY ROY L PRIVATE PROPERTY MarkeT based FREE TRADE with
PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Peace brought a revival of trade and commerce, further encouraged by
Roman investments in good roads and harbors. Except for modest customs
duties (estimated at 5 percent), free trade ruled throughout the Empire.
It was, in Michael Rostovtzeff's words, a period of "almost complete
freedom for trade and of splendid opportunities for private initiative"
(Rostovtzeff 1957: 54).

PEACE ROY L - NOT WELL STOCKED GARRISONS!

Within the framework of the Empire, embracing vast territories in which
PEACE was established and communications were secure, it was possible for
a bourgeoisie to come into being whose chief interests were economic,
which maintained a form of economy resting on the old city culture and
characterized by individualism and private enterprise, and which reaped

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE Roy L

all the benefits inherent in such a system. The State deliberately
encouraged this activity of the bourgeoisie, both directly through
government protection and its liberal economic policy, which guaranteed
freedom of action and an organic growth on the lines of "laissez faire,
laissez aller," and directly through measures encouraging economic
activity.

Of course, economic freedom was not universal. Egypt, which was the
personal property of the Roman emperor, largely retained its socialist
economic system (Rostovtzeff 1929, Milne 1927). However, even here some
liberalization did occur. Banking was deregulated, leading to the
creation of many private banks (Westermann 1930: 52). Some land was
privatized and the state monopolies were weakened, thus giving
encouragement to private enterprise even though the economy remained
largely nationalized. [2]

Communist China has state backed monopolies - who is your real enemy
worldwide? Wealthy democratic societies or communist leviathan? You
created a useful beast - when it becomes useless - take it down - the
weaker heads used against the strongest head and on down you go.

You build up the farm, the state, the nation, the world, you disperse the
tower of babel of the world then disperse the nation then disperse the
state until you get down to a low enough level it is not overbearing
anymore and outliving its usefulness to the market.

You need the wealthy land owners to take down rome central - then use the
small land owners to take down the wealthy land owners.

The preservation of uninterrupted grain flows from Egypt to Rome was,
therefore, a major task for all Roman emperors and an important base of
their power (Rostovtzeff 1957: 145).

The world wants to be fed when they get hungry - not have bombs dropped
on them - there is enough food in the world to feed all the people - its
not getting to them - world population control - world currency control -
world democracy - this could help fix that problem. Dropping more bombs
or growing the military is a negative downward spiral - fueling china's
war machine and the resulting arms race - negative downward spiral.

Think of where we would be today if russia and america had put all that
money and time into genetic research and medicine instead of WAR MACHINES
- NO MORE GARRISONS ROY L - MORE LIBRARIES!

The result was a sharp increase in the influx of rural poor into Rome, as
well as the freeing of many slaves so that they too would qualify for the
dole. By the time of Julius Caesar, some 320,000 people were receiving
free grain, a number Caesar cut down to about 150,000, probably by being
more careful about checking proof of citizenship rather than by
restricting traditional eligibility. [4]

The MEXICANS are coming into ROME and it is going to BREAK US.

Nevertheless, despite the free grain policy, the vast bulk of Rome's
grain supply was distributed through the free market. There are two main
reasons for this. First, the allotment of free grain was insufficient to
live on. Second, grain was available only to adult male Roman citizens,
thus excluding the large number of women, children, slaves, foreigners,
and other non-citizens living in Rome. Government officials were also
excluded from the dole for the most part. Consequently, there remained a
large private market for grain which was supplied by independent traders
(Casson 1980).

FREE MARKET ROY L - FREE MARKET ECONOMY BASED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND
PROFIT - THE MARKET ALWAYS KNOWS BEST - YOU CANNOT FIGHT THE MARKET FOR
LONG AND LIVE - ASK ROME - ASK PLAINS INDIANS - you have to ADAPT - no
one solution works at any one time - it is a dynamic complex mix of chaos
that you try to pull order and meaning from.

The expansion of the dole is an important reason for the rise of Roman
taxes

Letting the FREELOADERS come into ROME and suck our food down - NO MORE
MEXICANS!

In the earliest days of the Republic Rome's taxes were quite modest,
consisting mainly of a wealth tax on all forms of property, including
land, houses, slaves, animals, money and personal effects. The basic rate
was just .01 percent, although occasionally rising to .03 percent. It was
assessed principally to pay the army during war. In fact, afterwards the
tax was often rebated (Jones 1974: 161). It was levied directly on
individuals, who were counted at periodic censuses.

As Rome expanded after the unification of Italy in 272 B.C., so did Roman
taxes.

Rome's pro-growth policies, including the creation of a large common
market encompassing the entire Mediterranean, a stable currency, and
moderate taxes, had a positive impact on trade. Keith Hopkins finds
empirical support for this proposition by noting the sharp increase in
the number of known shipwrecks dating from the late Republic and early
Empire as compared to earlier periods (Hopkins 1980: 105-06). The
increase in trade led to an increase in shipping, thus increasing the
likelihood that any surviving wrecks would date from this period.
Rostovtzeff (1957: 172) indicates that "commerce, and especially foreign
and inter-provincial maritime commerce, provided the main sources of
wealth in the Roman Empire."

Hopkins (1980: 106-12) also notes that there was a sharp increase in the
Roman money supply which accompanied the expansion of trade. He further
notes that this expansion of the money supply did not lead to higher
prices. Interest rates also fell to the lowest levels in Roman history in
the early part of Augustus's reign (Homer 1977: 53). This strongly
suggests that the supply of goods and services grew roughly in line with
the increase in the money supply. There was probably also an increase in
the demand for cash balances to pay taxes and rents, which would further
explain why the increased money supply was non-inflationary.

During the early Empire revenues were so abundant that the state was able
to undertake a massive public works program. Augustus repaired all the
roads of Italy and Rome, restored the temples and built many new ones,
and built many aqueducts, baths and other public buildings. Tiberius,
however, cut back on the building program and hoarded large sums of cash.

Spend like there is NO TOMORROW - live for today - forget about the
deficit - it will take care of itself.

This led to a financial crisis in 33 A.D. in which there was a severe
shortage of money. This shortage may have been triggered by a usury law
which had not been applied for some years but was again enforced by the
courts at this time (Frank 1935). The shortage of money and the
curtailment of state expenditures led to a sharp downturn in economic
activity which was only relieved when the state made large loans at zero
interest in order to provide liquidity (Thornton and Thornton 1990). [7]

Under Claudius (41-54 A.D.) the Roman Empire added its last major
territory with the conquest of Britain. Not long thereafter, under Trajan
(98-117 A.D.), the Empire achieved its greatest geographic expansion.
Consequently, the state would no longer receive additional revenue from
provincial tribute and any increase in revenues would now have to come
from within the Empire itself. Although Rostovtzeff (1957: 91) credits
the Julio-Claudian emperors with maintaining the Augustinian policy of
laissez faire, the demand for revenue was already beginning to undermine
the strength of the Roman economy. An example of this from the time of
Caligula (37-41 A.D.) is recorded by Philo (20 B.C-50 A.D.):

So ROY L - as the benefits of EMPIRE reduced - the need for the empire
reduced and it declined. When expansion stops - time for the central
govt to reduce - as has always been true in history - it can either
reduce peacefully or violently.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_3.htm

It is not likely that this progressive redistribution of global wealth to
a few rich nations can go on forever without serious consequences for the
global economy. Trade imbalances can rapidly cripple economies in
developing nations. Brazil's enormous debt of $232+ billion (as of 2002)
has caused them to consider defaulting on repayment to the European and
North American banks that loaned them much of this money. Brazil is not
alone in struggling under a relatively huge national debt and trade
deficit. Russia, Mexico, China, Indonesia, Argentina, Turkey, and India
all owe $100-200 billion. If these nations defaulted on their debts, the
rich creditor nations would face a severe economic crisis. In order to
prevent this from happening, there needs to be more balanced reciprocity
in global trade. Without it, commerce cannot continue indefinitely. It
is not possible for nations to forever buy more than they sell and have a
net loss of wealth.

Give your land back to the indians roy - fly to south africa and give
them all your money. Go join the tribe.

Poor slave towelhead gives me oil, it goes into my science research and
industry - out pops NEW knowledge - technology that rises the tide for
all the boats. Destroy the library of alexandria and we all go down.

Rome took resources and grew its MILITARY - we dont need to grow
MILITARIES - we need to grow Libraries - Schools - technology - WAR
MACHINES are the enemy - PEACE INSITUTIONS are the friend.

Peace Roy L