Re: Retooling the Vision for Space Exploration

On Mar 9, 10:37 pm, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 9, 1:54 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

You accuse me wrongly of several things.  You also say you're
confused.  So, let me be clear;

Every modern depression, recession, business panic and collapse was
preceded by military action in the modern age - from the Civil War
forward.

Nope. Where is the depression following WW2?

The recession of 1953 in the United States. This was relatively mild
compared to the turmoil in Europe, because the US was able to export
its economic difficulties through the Marshall plan and the Lend Lease
Act and the US still had all its capital in place while demand was at
an all time high.

Improved economic management by the central banks and experience of
the the previous world war reduced the economic impact of the war on
the United States as well. During the war consumer products dropped
40% and there was a difficult choice between 'guns and butter' - but
the decision was made to deflate the currencies of all nations, and do
both guns and buteter post war. This had a predictable effect on the
value of currency which began an exponential reduction in value over
this period. It wasn't until the tax cuts of 1961 that the economy
actually began recovering in substantive terms, but by the mid 60s
increasing imports began taking their toll on US economy.


Europe was depressed, due to the share degree of destruction, but USA
wasn´t.

Well we are all one economy are we not? Yes, Europe was a basket
case, but so was the US. Honest reporting during the war period is
sketchy in the US due to wartime controls. Europe was badly impacted
by the destruciton though, no doubt about that. UN aid helped a lot
from 1943 onward and the Marshall plan did too at first in 1946, but
later became restrictive according to many, as were things like the
Lend Lease act, which limited exports from Britain - meant to apply
during the war, but the US insisted on restrictions after the war the
beginning of US economic imperialism - to maintain its economy so it
could maintain a war footing in the nuclear age and keep the world
safe from nuclear war..

.
The depression of 1929 and onwards had no connection with WW1.
Remember, it happened after the roaring 20s.

Don't lecture me ***. I know about the roaring twenties. Read
Temin LESSONS FROM THE GREAT DEPRESSION - available at your bookstore
for $24 - published by MIT Press.

Temin shows conclusively that Friedman's monetary model is
incomplete. The way markets respond to massive destruction is to
immediately begin building which creates growth in the unaffected
areas. This is temporary as reserves of capital and demand are
shallow compared to pre-war conditions, after this is gone through
there is a collapse. The size of this reserve is unknown to those
investing as yet. So there is an inevitable over-investment, and
collapse as the economy adapts to the destruction, and the degree of
destruction becomes known to the market in terms the market can
process. Facile analysis merely points to the post-war booms, and
wonders where the busts a decade after comes from. Temin demonstrates
these are related in clear terms.

The roaring twenties weren't so roaring in Europe. Most of Europe
became communist or socialist as the only means to survive, while the
US profited from the rebuilding. Again, the depth of capital and
demand were nowhere near what they were pre-war, and so, there was a
collapse in values as that reality dawned upon the market and those
reserves were expended.

After world war two American economists were a bit more sophisticated,
and FDR argued as early as 1942 for some sort economic stimulus and
recovery program. Thats how Marshall in the State Department got
involved. After the war all parties adopted Keynesian economic model,
which actually reduced the severity of unemployment and capital
utilization - though there was still a recession in 1953 - it was very
mild in the US - but at a cost of what previous generations would call
the collapse of currency values. This caused massive inflation
throughout the 50s and 60s and by the 1970s inflation caused collapse
of the gold standard and low interest loans and with that abandonment
of major capital projects.

That happens because wars are not only very costly, but they destroy
things like factories and tools and farms and kill they people, people
who know how to do things like use factories tools and farms to make
stuff, and the destruction despite your foolish commentary isn't just
limited to the battle field.

The WW2 ended the world depression.

Ended unemployment you mean. I wouldn't say a family where the wife
is working for substandard pay in a munitions plant and the husband is
trudging through Europe for even less pay is a satisfactory solution
to unemployment or under production.

As a comedian said once, slavery, it didn't pay much, but the work was
steady.

Look at the economic history of the United States as reported in
wikipedia, and contrast it to the economic history of Great Britian
from the same source. Compare the reporting on the world war two
period and post-war period. You will see that the nature of the
reporting is quite different. That's because there is no economic
data from that period for the United States due to wartime
restrictions. This is not generally appreciated.

So we don't know really how bad things got. All we do know is that
there was a predictable expansion following the war as the US helped
rebuild Europe. We did avoid a major depression. This was due in
part to restrictions placed on the economy that limited over-
investment - so there were no roaring 50s - not to the degree laizze-
faire investors wanted - and monetary policies built around the new
Keynes model - limited the 'bounce' to the 1953 recession - which was
a success for the Keynes model, but put all currencies into a free
fall - until the 1961 tax cuts - but that was short lived as the US
began exporting capital to turn Germany and Japan into manufacturies
for US marketing companies which as I've said ultimately hurt the US..

We would have been far better off had we avoided both wars along the
Swiss model - and built our strength and economic stability up through
the war - and provided aid to those in need, provided they forego the
ability to wage war - as we demanded from Germany and Japan after the
war..

Some say that Germany and Japan if unopposed by the US would have
conquered the world and turned on us. I say that if we acted
decisively at Pearl Harbor we could have sunk the Japanese fleet then
and there just like we sunk them at Midway five months later without
the assets destroyed at Pearl Harbor. Those ships should never have
been bunched up like that, especially given the fact that Japan said
they were going to attack Pearl Harbor before they did it.

The German occupation of France during world war two was easily
opposed and disrupted by maquis freedom fighters - requiring very
little in the way of support. This is a good model, and absent direct
US involvement,would have bogged down the Germans for years and
ultiamately caused a withdrawal - as the Russians withdrew from
Afghanistan when opposed by guerilla fighters there supplied and
organized by US support. The same sort of effort would have kept the
Japanese busy in China until they collapsed economically.

When the inevitable collapse did come - we would be strong and stable
and be in a position to provide assistance, under our terms - which
demanded world peace..


Your points about world war one not being as destructive as world war
two because world war one didn't have aerial bombing campaigns is
stupid.  Tell a French farmer who lost his parents, his children, saw
his wife and daughter raped, that it wasn't that bad.  He'd cut your
nuts off and feed them to the pigs you callous ***.  War is Hell.
If you've ever been in one - you'd know.

Uh, right. The war was mostly fought on French grounds, which resulted
in the damage being concentrated in France, but only where the
battlegrounds were.

It takes talented labor and capital to make production. 40 million
people died in world war one.

Where do you live? How big would a circle have to be drawn around
you to encompass 40 million people? Now,take a map and draw that
circle. Now ask yourself what would the economic impact of all the
capital within the circle standing idle because no one was alive to
show up for work? Now how big would the circle have to be to
encompass 40 million males of fighting age? That's a bigger circle.
Now imagine the economic impact of all those bread winners gone - but
their wives and kids are still standing. Then you get a picture of
the impact of world war one on the world's economy, even if there wre
no destruction of capital (which there was) But not quite. Because
there were less than 2 billion people alive in world war one. So, in
terms of total population, you've gotta multiply the number by three.
120 million fighting men dead today would have the same economic
impact on the economy as 40 million fighting men dead in world war
one. That's about 2/3 of all the working men. Take them away and
productivity is 2/3 that of what it was before, even if all the
capital is left standing. The Depression saw a collapse in
productivity to about 1/3 that of pre Depression era.


Moreover, during WW2 the battlegrounds moved through most of Europe,
so Europe was more or less gutted by the twin actions of aerial
bombardment and ground fighting.

I agree. It doesn't change the economic impact of the war however.

The Germans fought for every town,
more or less, also in the occupied territories. Such fighting results
in immense degree of destruction.

I agree with that as well.

So WW2 was many, many times more destructive...and yet it wasn´t
followed by a world depression.

Actually, destroying capital along with destroying life generally (58%
were civilian in world war 2) rather than just fighting men - reduce
economic measures of hardship since demand and capital utilization are
'improved'

That is, the 72 million people who died in world war two were
accompanied by massive destruction of capital - and many of those were
children and women - dependents in that day and age. If the
destruction of both labor capital and demand are proportionate, plant
utilization and demand relationships which is what we're talking
about,are less affected.

You said that my comments were directed against the Marshall plan.
Nothing is further from the truth.  You say that because you don't
know anything really about history.  Or maybe you do and are counting
on others not to know.  But I'll assume you don't know - so, I won't
accuse you of that.

I said specifically, I was talking about the extensions Eisenhower
made to the Marshall plan that were designed specifically to undermine
the manufacturing sector in the United States.

Citation.

What sort of citation are you looking for? Eisenhower's policies to
maintain a disparity of income in the nuclear age? lol. sheez..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC_68

or citations that the retail function provides greater wealth with
less work than either the productive or extractive functions in an
economy?

lol.

Read a book dude.

Your comments about the Marshall plan make no sense since I'm not
talking about that.  In fact, you go out of your way to confuse the
issue as if there is no difference between policies that seek to help
Europeans build factories for their own use to get on their feet, and
policies that seek to build factories in Europe to produce stuff
primarily for American use, and policies that seek to remove American
factories from America to Europe to produce stuff for Americans in
ways that undermine American labor.  There is a big difference in all
of these policies, and all of these policies were pursued by Truman
and  Eisenhower - with the last policy the one I'm talking about - the
first one describing the Marshall plan.

That is incretibly stupit. USA deliberatelly opened it´s market for
goods made in Europe so that factories in Europe would not need to
depend on local markets alone, after all demand for manufactured goods
in Europe was also depressed.

Yet we used the Lend Lease act to restrict exports from Britain after
the war - much to the chagrin of Great Britain.

If you went beyond the hand outs and propaganda sheets from the State
Department from that era, and would speak to Europeans if you would
ask them, even Europeans from that era would say the US engaged in
dollar imperialism. They were given enough to survive to work for
America - and that was it.

The UN sponsored programs predating the Marshall plan, did more in
many European's estimation, because the aid was less restrictive.

The intension was after all to speed up the economic recovery of
Europe.

For what purpose? On the one hand the Soviet Union observed that
after the last great European war, half of Europe became communist.
They promised that after this war, the rest of Europe would become
communist. China fell to the communists following the second world
war. WE aided Europe and Japan after the war for that reason. We
also wanted to be paid for it. There is a difference in aiding
someone without expectation of reward, and aiding someone to make them
dependent on you. The US sought to make those we aided dependent on
the US and isolate us from Communist agression. Our policies were
primarily to keep China and Russia out of the world's oceans, while we
used the formerly British naval bases acquired under lend lease to
control world trade - to our benefit.

The point I'm making is that we should never have undermined our
manufacturing and farming and mining industries to the degree we did.
There's a lot of stuff that in hindsight we could have done better.
Not getting involved in any of the European wars would have been
best. The proper response to the sinking of the Lusitania would have
been to put up a defensive wall to shipping and end all shipping with
Europe until the war was over. The proper response to Japan would
have been to take their threats seriously, and follow the advice of
Admirals in the field and not bunch up our fleet in Pearl harbor. Had
we followed that advice the Japanese would have lost their fleet
totally, as they lost their fleet in midway five months later - to a
vastly reduced US force.

Isolating Eurasia from the world's oceans and support of
revolutionaries in Europe and China would have eventually caused the
collapse of Axis rule, and our sound and strong economy would have
supported a post-war rebuilding in eurasia that would have left the US
and the world in a far stronger position than otherwise.

Had we avoided both wars we would have avoided the great depression,
and the inflationary period following the world war two. This would
have allowed us

If the factories would have been for European markets alone,
due to the depressed demand due to the depressed economic situation in
Europe, there would simply not have been sufficient market for the
goods from the factories being built.

Nonsense. People in a war zone have greater need than people in a
city. The only thing they lack is the means to produce or pay for
it. A family roaming the bombed out streets of Dresden have far
larger needs than a family working in Poughkeepsie. They lack the
means to pay for meeting those needs. Now, you come along and give
them the means. Two questions. What's it cost you? What's it cost
them? Answer those questions and you understand the nature of the
transaction - its cost to both parties - and the nature of the
relationship.

The US giving had strings attached - strings that we felt we could get
away with under the circumstances, strings that implemented our
national security policies for the coming nuclear age.

So, what you are talking about would largelly have defeated the
purpose behind the Marshall plan.

No, following world war 2 we could have supported the UN Relief and
Recovery Administration - rather than launch our own European Recovery
Plan - spawned by the State Department. This was later added to by
Eisenhower to undermine US manufacturing since the retail function
produces more income with less effort than either the manufacturing or
farming functions. We had a policy to turn our former enemies and
allies into allies that would build our stuff, and we would consume
the bulk of it - by operation of the free market - by directing
capital appropriately at that time - set the stage for a permanent
superiority of the US - so the US could maintain world peace in the
nuclear age. Europe and Japan became close allies because that way
they would enclose the Communist regimes and keep them from entering
the world's oceans - for combat or trade. To challenge the US
conventionally - china would have to defeat Japan. to challenge the
US conventionally Russia would have to defeat Europe. Such efforts
would weaken both, and galvanize support behind any US response. It
was well worth the effort, as long as Europe and Japan could be kept
in line - and that would be done by segmenting the markets they would
play in. they would manufacture for us, and we would control the
retail function. so, the US became a nation o fmalls that sold ***
made in Germany and Japan. This gave us a huge advantage over our
allies, and allowed us to play world policemen. It also caused the
problems I spoke of - namely - collapse of our currency value as the
US has nothing to trade for its dollars it uses to pay for stuff. We
should have forced our currency on to Europe and Japan, if we were
going to do this, but couldn't.at the time.

You said it was the attraction of low-cost labor that caused the
market and American investors to naturally abandon perfectly good
factories in America and build brand new factories in war torn Europe
and Japan - where supply chains were non-existant, and material costs
astronomical.

Oh, it may not have been called the Marshall Plan after 1951, but that
date wasn´t in fact the end of US reconstruction efforts of Europe.

The UN Relief and Rehabilitation Administration operated from
1943-1947. The European Recovery Plan operated from 1947-1951. The
Soviets who supported the UN efforts, which were widely supported
following the Dutch Famine - felt the Marshall Plan had too many
restrictions and called it imperialistic. It set the stage for pro-US
European recovery - but many Europeans felt the burden of US
involvement. It is common in Europe even today, if an American
complains about a cut of meat or an article of clothing and so on - to
have the European say oh, I'm sorry sir, the best (cut of meat, cloth)
we sent to the USA - this is all we have left. (if they trust you
that is)

After  1951 US economic aid to Europe was organized through the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Yes, I read wikipedia too! lol. But the degress of dependence the
US demanded still irks many Europeans.

So in fact extensive US economic aid to Europe continued for years
afterwards, through the 50s and far into the 60s. As individual
countrie´s economic performance picked up, economic aid tapered off
gradually. During the 60s only the poorer V-European countries were
still receiving aid.

Wait a minute. Economic Co-operation is not Economic Aid friend.
The UN provided aid. The European Recovery Plan directed recovery
efforts. OECD organized the nature of the co-operation. Says so
right in their names.

How long does one need assistance? Not very long. So, why all this
alphabet soup of agencies? Obviously the US was managing and shaping
the nature of the European economy so that its aid would serve US
interests and so Europe (and Japan) would not challenge US interests,
no matter how much US capital was invested. The only areaas where US
were challenged were areas that were unpredictable or ignored on
ideological grounds in 1950s. .

So the Marshall plan began a process of continuous economic aid to
Europe which lasted untill the late 60s.

Economic co-operation isn't aid. Yet, on the military side, you have
NATO - and military aid which continues to this day. In both cases
the US uses these agencies to direct US investment and shape European
economic activity to suit US ends.


If you haven´t heard about that you have done so now.

You know a few things - you have yet to integrate that knowledge into
a clear cohesive understanding.

What are you talking about- "where supply chains were non-existant,
and material costs astronomical."

Ever try to get a meal in a war zone? Ever try to get anything in a
war zone?

It ain't cheap, and its not safe.

Shipping is cheap and raw materials
were and are plentyful in Europe,

When? Tell that to the folks who died in famines after they were
liberated. ***.

and also at the time cheaper than in
Europe due to the lower pay.

The cheapest workers were the 6 million displaced women after the
war. The cheapest most efficient least risky sources of raw material
were the surplus materials still be churned out by US industry for a
non-existant war effort.

In Europe people were starving, factories mills and mines were blasted
out of existence, people were roaming across the land with firearms
and nothing to lose. Millions of women were raped by soldiers on all
sides, though every nation denied it. Millions of illegitimate
children, The situation has social impact even today reflected in the
relations of men and women following the war and what their children
learned of such relations.

Where would you build a factory if you needed one?

The labour was not just cheap but also educated and used to factory
work. Basigly the same quality workforce as awailable in US but much
cheaper.

You are blinded by a total lack of appreciation of the facts. You
can hire street people cheaply too. I don't know if you'd get much
work out of them - despite their need. Now imagine a spot that once
was a city filled with those folks, desperate and armed and no police
in sight. You would be mad it invest in such a place. Especially if
all the survivors blamed YOU for the destruction.

Europe in 1951 was quite different than Europe in 1943. Due in large
measure to the efforts of the three agencies we discussed. No one in
their right mind would have invested a nickel in Europe before 1951.
All those supposed advantages didn't really make it a compelling
investment.

It wasn't the market, it was national policy to shape post-war Japan
and Europe into allies that were subservient to the US economically,
and served the purpose of keeping the communists out of the world's
oceans and isolating them from trade.


According to this argument of yours, there is no way to explain why
anyone built factories in China 10 years ago.

Nixon promoted the idea that China would be the next source of cheap
labor for US manufacturing at a time when Japan was challenging US
dominance by marketing products directly in the US. (Toyota Sony
etc.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nixon_Mao_1972-02-29.png



You continue to claim that it wasn't the incentives Eisenhower
provided - in fact you appear not to even acknowledge that the
Marshall plan was history when Eisenhower instituted his policies to
undermine US labor to support what he thought would maintain US
disparity of income - and allow us to maintain a constant war footing
in the nuclear age.

You ignore the fact that wage rates are only one cost component.  Cost
of capital, tax rates, import duties, cost of raw materials, all
contribute.

You ignore totally that the wage difference wasn't great enough to
justify the immense risks and difficulties of building factories in a
war zone.  You ignore the fact that in America, Rosie the Riveter had
worked in factories during the war, and were underpaid compared to
men.  Many women wanted to continue even when the troops returned, and
were willing in that day and age, to work as substantially less pay
than men - less even than European men.

Why didn't American investors use that work force close at hand
without the risks of setting up factories in a war zone?   The answer
obviously is that there were no strong incentives to lower those other
costs I mentioned, to expand productive capacity in the US using this
newly formed low cost labor force.

What are you babbling about, V-Europe wasn´t a warzone during the Cold
War.

Never said it was. Although you seem to have that difficulty in
timing. lol.

The Cold War never even once ran hot in Europe.

Well, not until Mastricht.

I'm talking about precisely what I'm talking about above. Business
would not have invested in Europe until after 1951 - and by that time
the US had shaped policy to turn Europe and Japan into dependent
economies that manufactured stuff for the US.


The United States at the end of the Eisenhower administration engaged
in a policy to shut down US factories and replace them with factories
overseas among our allies.  The world was to be divided economically
into four zones.

  1) The US - would own the capital, distribution, marketing, branding
  2) Allies - would build goods to be marketed by US firms
  3) Raw materials - obtained at lowest cost in LDCs
  4) Communists - excluded from raw materials and US markets

The goal was to collapse the Soviets economically, and to penetrate
them politically within through secret operations - and to generally
wreak havoc around the world to maintain control by maintaining
turmoil - as long as the turmoil stayed local and didn't interfere
with the production of foods, fibers, or extraction of raw
materials.

I really don´t know what works of fantacy you have been reading.

Fantasy? Only memos and reports from the era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC_68

In addition to this report there are State Department reports
available from that era - though not online. You can go to the
Library of congress and ask for them - if you know what to ask for.
No one has really organized them or made them easily accessible from
sources people could trust. But they're there.

During World War II, study groups of the State Department and Council
on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of
what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the
needs of the American economy.

The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe,
the Far East, the former British Empire the energy resources of the
Middle East and the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the
entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed.

Every part of the new world order was assigned a specific function.
The industrial countries were to be guided by the "great workshops,"
Germany and Japan, who had demonstrated their prowess during the war
and now would be working under US supervision.

The Third World was to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw
materials and a market" for the industrial capitalist societies, as a
1949 State Department memo put it. It was to be "exploited" (in
Kennan's words) for the reconstruction of Europe and Japan.

The point I'm making isn't that this was immoral. What was the
alternative? Let someone else be in charge? To what end? Someone
always ends up top dog, might as well be US. So, I'm not saying what
we did was bad. What I'm saying is what we did did not serve us
well!!! The advantages were short term, and the costs long term. We
are reaping those costs now, and should re-examine them.

The first step is to take the wraps off - open the doors - have a
frank and honest discussion of why the hell we're hated around the
world and what we can do about it now. Its not too late - andthe
sooner we act to secure long term stability and strength for the US -
the better no matter how long delayed.



This system was stable for a period of time, but the rise of terror
directed at the US and its allies is the end of this paradigm.  While
successful in the short term, in the long term it has permanently
undermined the US ability to function in the world, and denied us the
tools needed to function and prosper in the world by making real
contributions.   That is, it has dug a huge hole that the US will take
generations to get out of - assuming we survive at all.

This was done because there was a belief that this would provide long
term benefit to the US and help it maintain a large disparity of
income needed to maintain a strong economy and a continuous war time
footing in peace time.  It did so for about 50 years - and then gave
rise - predictably - to a reaction.

A former agent - trained by the CIA - hired to harass Soviet troops in
Afghanistan, trained, provided weapons and materiel for that purpose
by US CIA - this former agent ended up having a beef with his former
bosses - and turned against them.  That was the root of Al Queda and
Osama Bin Laden.  It may be the reason we let the Bin Laden's go in
the US that were here immediately following 9/11.

Now, the fantacy is looking more like lunacy.

Why? Are you saying that the US did not support opposition groups in
Afghanistan during the Soviet war there?

Marxists took over Afghanistan in 1978, the US responded by supporting
opposition groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Democratic_Party_of_Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_Near_East%2C_North_Africa%2C_South_and_Southwest_Asia#Afghanistan_1973
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Afghanistan_%281989-1992%29

One of those opposition groups was the Mujahideen...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Mujahideen_in_Afghanistan

coordinating with an intelligence service with connections to the CIA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Services_Intelligence

These people, despite their leader's strong family connections to the
United States, are obviously out of control. They turned against the
US. This counts as a failure of the control regime, or control
paradigm that I'm talking about. Its a challenge to the hegemony of
the United States. Its a predictable failure. The policies
themselves are flawed.

The impact of undermining manufacturing in the USA and sending it
overseas is also predictable.  The Eisenhower policies were instituted
in 1958 - by 1963 we began importing more than we exported.  By 1973
we went off the gold standard.  By 1978 inflation was so bad it led to
the destruction of long term investing - and with it low interest
rates, home ownership, Savings and Loans, turning America from Bedford
Falls into Potterville.  Its gotten worse since then.

Bla, bla, bla.

You asked the question, don't get pissed at me if you don't like the
answer. sheez.

..the US economy overheated, which resulted in
inflation,

What the hell does overheated mean? lol. You obviously are
mouthing catch phrases with no understanding whatever.

The US prints dollars to pay for stuff it buys from manufacturers over
seas. Those manufacturers have precious little they can buy with
those dollars. So, there is an imbalance that puts downward pressure
on the value of the dollar. Basic economics.


which resulted in that the gold standard became untenable.

The gold standard was untenable why? It was perfectly tenable for
200 years previously. Why is it suddenly untenable? lol Because
something got overheated? what the hell does that mean? lol.

the gold standard is untenable today because we're printing dollars to
pay for stuff and not offering anything in return. So, we have a
continually escalating price for gold. We did this because we wrongly
thought that we could contorl the trade in things we do not make. So,
the value of our currency declines as we lose control of that trade
having invested heavily in it being made overseas in the first place.
We stick with this policy until our low interest banking sources are
bankrupted, and still stick with it today. .

We have gone from exporter to importer, from strong currency, to weak
currency, from creditor to debtor - all as a result of closing down
factories in the US and opening factories overseas.

Unless we wake up and see what the hell these failed policies are
doing to us we're not going to come to a good end.

We had a choice to make at the start of the Cold War - and we made the
wrong one.  The attacks of 9/11 were a wake up call.  We've gone
deeper in denial.

At the time, there


.

Quantcast