The U.S. economy is becoming less based in the manufacturing and production of consumer goods and more based in a legal term known as “Intellectual Property” (IP).
Intellectual Property is anything a person or entity invents, designs, or creates and has ownership of in the form of a patent, copyright, trademark, or trade secret. This can be a software program, a unique business process, a design for a product or a piece of clothing, a shampoo formula, a recipe, or anything one gets a patent for. Trademarks, logos and other copyrighted material such as writing, music, and videos are also IP. A secret formula or process (trade secret), even without a patent can be IP.
I bring this up because the issue of piracy needs to be addressed, both on the internet and in our trade policies, especially with China. China’s allowing of production of bootleg copies of American movies and even fake books hurts sales and lowers our national GDP. The Chinese Government also keeps royalties that U.S. publications would otherwise be earning at a time when the industry is hurting badly.
Which brings me to a couple of key points…
04 June 2009
China - The Elephant in the Room (Part 2)
First let me say that I have studied Chinese Medicine, diet, philosophy, and T’ai Chi martial arts. Because of this I have a good amount of appreciation for certain aspects of Chinese society. China has a rich culture with amazing talent and industriousness and has much to offer the world. Their health care system, for one, is a great example of the integration of both wholistic and western medicine that we could learn from.
That being said, along with China’s disregard for intellectual property rights and the rights of their own citizens, nearly all of the solutions to the world’s problems rely on some degree cooperation from China but no one will really talk about them. Who is going to challenge them on global warming, for example? The truth is, America could follow an aggressive carbon reduction program and all the factories in China will continue to burn huge quantities of dirty coal. Many Chinese factories have a coal factory built right next to them that runs only the one factory. There’s no way that China is going to change their power infrastructure any time soon.
Global warming, genocide, proliferation of nuclear weapons, and providing weapons for terrorists are all areas that need to be addressed with China to be solved or at least prevented from getting worse. Then there’s the big one, the enormous debt that is owed to China, not just by the U.S., but by other countries too.
What options do we really have with them? The political climate there isn’t exactly open to change or even criticism. One option is to put economic pressure on China as much as possible, perhaps in the form of boycotting Chinese goods. A total boycott is not a possibility and even a partial one is a risky idea because the intense pressure within China to build the economy. Besides, how many people would even go along with something like that? Perhaps there is a way to convince them they can build their economy and benefit everyone at the same time. I have no ideas how to do that and I’m afraid the chances of convincing them as such are slim. Also, putting economic pressure on China could cause suffering to the Chinese people, which would not necessarily translate into pressure on the government.
That being said, along with China’s disregard for intellectual property rights and the rights of their own citizens, nearly all of the solutions to the world’s problems rely on some degree cooperation from China but no one will really talk about them. Who is going to challenge them on global warming, for example? The truth is, America could follow an aggressive carbon reduction program and all the factories in China will continue to burn huge quantities of dirty coal. Many Chinese factories have a coal factory built right next to them that runs only the one factory. There’s no way that China is going to change their power infrastructure any time soon.
Global warming, genocide, proliferation of nuclear weapons, and providing weapons for terrorists are all areas that need to be addressed with China to be solved or at least prevented from getting worse. Then there’s the big one, the enormous debt that is owed to China, not just by the U.S., but by other countries too.
What options do we really have with them? The political climate there isn’t exactly open to change or even criticism. One option is to put economic pressure on China as much as possible, perhaps in the form of boycotting Chinese goods. A total boycott is not a possibility and even a partial one is a risky idea because the intense pressure within China to build the economy. Besides, how many people would even go along with something like that? Perhaps there is a way to convince them they can build their economy and benefit everyone at the same time. I have no ideas how to do that and I’m afraid the chances of convincing them as such are slim. Also, putting economic pressure on China could cause suffering to the Chinese people, which would not necessarily translate into pressure on the government.
09 October 2008
House of Credit Cards
“When rich speculators prosper
While farmers lose their land;
When government officials spend money
On weapons instead of cures;
When the upper class is extravagant and irresponsible
While the poor have nowhere to turn;
All this is robbery and chaos
It is not in keeping with the Tao”
- Tao Te Ching
The Great Depression and subsequent boom of new industries changed the economic realities of many people. Some lost their once secure fortunes in the collapse and lost out to new entrepreneurs who prospered in new industries. Some of the wealthy were lucky and their fortunes survived. But if they had been scared of ever having to face economic reorganization in the future, they might have conceived a way to preserve their wealth through any circumstances.
If the banking industry wanted to make itself indispensible and ensure that its’ institutions would survive and never be replaced, they could do this by manipulating the way our financial system uses currency and credit. They could encourage a shift in our economy from a currency based system to a credit based system. They could make capital less available in general by moving funds offshore. They could get everyone used to operating on credit rather than currency. They could funnel money out of circulation by putting it into commodities, real estate, or foreign markets. They could influence the government to loosen regulations so they could do all of this easier and without oversight. They could make sure that our entire economy was so dependent on credit just to function day to day, that if they were ever in trouble, the government would have to keep them alive or risk having the economy grind to a halt. I’m not saying they did this, I’m just saying if they wanted to create such an insurance policy, this would be a way to do it.
Whether the banking industry intended to make us dependent on credit or it was a side effect, we are beginning to see the enormous price we will have to pay. The mortgage crisis has shown light on the underlying and more serious issue of our continued reliance on future resources to pay for what we use today. The house of cards is built on a house of credit cards. I didn’t realize how much our economy was dependent on credit until the bailout was proposed to restore solvency to the financial sector. I knew that credit cards were a problem for many Americans who were racking up more revolving debt than they could get out of. I knew that loans were necessary for businesses to start or expand, for students to go to school and pay their living expenses, and for people to purchase a car or home, but I had no idea that so many businesses use credit to cover expenses and payroll on a regular basis. I was under the assumption that businesses operated with cash on hand and only used credit for expansion. If my business couldn’t make payroll and cover day to day expenses without credit, I’d be concerned about the stability of my enterprise! The credit system, in fact, operates throughout the world now in the global economy and all the markets are dependent on this credit and banking system. The House of Credit Cards is really a high rise. Continued revolving debt can’t just be handed off forever without eventually crashing down under its’ own weight.
It baffles me that so many supposed experts thought this credit dependent economy was a stable situation. It seems obvious that this would be a recipe for disaster. You’d think this was common sense, but you’d be wrong.
There is a correlation between credit and money in circulation. Less money available will inevitably lead to increased reliance on credit. Over time, the population increases and prices go up, so we have to add money to the system somehow to continue to have enough to go around. We do this is by getting loans from China and the Federal Reserve, but theoretically that money has to be paid back and so that doesn’t add money unless we never intend to pay it back, which is a whole other discussion of what happens then. Anyway, if wealthy people keep their money in holdings, or move it into offshore accounts, foreign markets, commodities, or other investments, instead of spending it in America and keeping it circulating, then there’s less money available and credit spending goes up. How do we compensate for the losses and increased demand? Looking at the issue from a global perspective does not help. Prices still go up, population still goes up, and demand goes up as more countries seek to improve their economic standing. If stock markets and commodities continue to rise in value and investments continue to return interest, those increases must come from somewhere, either from other countries losing wealth or it must be increased artificially.
Our financial system is no longer based on sound economic principles for these and many other reasons including oil dependence, trade policies, spending habits, health care, social security, and so on. It doesn’t take a financial genius to see that we need more than just bailouts, regulations, or stimulus packages, we need complete restructuring. We must fundamentally change the way we think about money and exchange. We must find a way to achieve sustainability in our economy and our use of resources, both natural and manufactured. Until we do this, we will not have stable financial systems here or anywhere in the world.
12 August 2008
America War-Oil Salesman to the World
For decades, America has been the self-proclaimed hero on the world stage. In some cases, we were heroes fighting the good fight, like in WWII. In other cases, we thought we were doing the right thing which resulted in unwanted or unforeseen consequences, like Afghanistan and Vietnam. The U.S. has played a significant role in almost every war either by direct or indirect involvement. America's military spending in 2006 accounted for 48% of all the military spending in the world, which is sure to rise as spending increases in Iraq. That means one country spends as much as all other countries combined on war. Also, we are historically the top seller of arms in the world, although the UK may surpass the U.S. in 2008.
There are several programs under which the U.S. supplies military aid to other countries. There are two basic types of assistance, aid and sales. The aid programs include the Foreign Military Funding program (FMF), Economic Support Fund (ESF), International Military Education and Training (IMET) and Counter Narcotics Assistance (CNA). Under the FMF the U.S. has spent $121 billion from 1950 to 2005 in the form of military aid to foreign nations.
The sales programs include the Foreign Military Sales program (FMS), Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), and the Excess Defense Articles (EDA). The US has been selling arms amounting to more than $200 billion since 1992. Taxpayers are subsidizing more than half the amount of these sales and the rest goes back into the Pentagon Defense Fund whose spending is not transparent or fully accounted for. At a rate of about $15 billion per year, arms sales would rank among the top U.S. exports.
Where is the money going? Most of our military aid and sales go to Israel, which thanks to us, has the third largest and well-equipped military in the world. Supposedly the U.S. has the most well-equipped military but if that's the case, then why didn't our soldiers in Iraq have well-shielded tanks and adequate body armor? Israel's army, by contrast has the most sophisticated indestructable tanks in the world. Even more disturbing is Israel is turning around and selling their own versions of our weapons and technology to hostile countries and to China who sells technology to Iran and other potential threats to the U.S. Taxpayers are subsidizing weapons transfer to Israel who is turning a profit on the arrangement at our expense. Why are we spending so much money on defense and military aid to other countries while shortchanging our own soldiers on body armor, shielding for humvees, second-rate medical facilities, low pay, cheating them out of proper post-war treatment and benefits, and shoddy electrical wiring which has killed soldiers while they were showering in Iraq? When Bush and Cheney say "Support the troops", they really mean support the business of war because that is what they care about more than the troops.
The defense budget is being spent very irresponsibly. Large sums are going to big-ticket items, such as nuclear subs, long-range missiles, costly fighter planes, and other items that have no use or relevance to the Iraq war. The Bush administration has been particularly irresponsible in giving aid to undemocratic nations with poor human rights records and $5.7 billion in arms deals to poorer developing countries in which the majority of citizens live in poverty or have significant national debt. Although sometimes necessary, supplying foreign nations has a track record of creating more problems than solutions. In the 80's weapons we sold to Iran ended up in the hands of our adversaries, Iraq and Panama. In the last seven major conflicts America has fought in, enemy combatants were using our own weapons against us that we had traded to other countries. We covertly provided Afghanistan with missiles to fight the Soviets and failed to follow up with significant humanitarian aid, which resulted in Afghanistan becoming overrun by extremists and breeding ground for terrorism. In the most recent example, Georgia, who we have supplied militarily used the help we gave them to attack Russian territory and provoke them into an all out offensive against Georgian civilians, oil supply, and infrastructure. And how much has our aid to Israel over the years contributed to Islamic Radicalist hatred of the U.S.? Israel is probably not going to go to war with us for not supporting them, but radical Islamists will go to war with us for supporting them. What are the benefits to funding military and war all over the world and do the benefits really outweigh the risks?
These policies only benefit a few people and companies, while creating hardship for most everyone else, including economic hardship for American companies outside of the military industry. Those benefitting from war have a strong financial interest in convincing everyone that war is necessary, even if that involves using politics, fear, propaganda, and hiding the truth in order to maintain public support. This is what we very clearly saw the Bush adminstration do to promote the Iraq War. Bush and Cheney are not the only politicians who are influenced by the military industrial complex. War is big business and the majority (62%) of Weapons Industry campaign contributions in 2004 went to Republican candidates, while 38% went to Democratic candidates. Pentagon contracts almost doubled to $80 billion in contracts in 2003. Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton had the highest increase in awarded contracts from $500 million to $8 billion in contracts in 2004, a whopping 1600% increase and rising. Halliburton contributed 86% of its campaign donations to Republican candidates in 2004. No wonder the Republicans want to keep us at war or at least keep war going somewhere in the world. They are in deep in the pockets of the military industrial complex and weapons industry, most of whom would lose money if terrorism and drug cartels did not exist or if there were no wars going on.
To make matters worse, Bush has appointed at least 32 executives from top Pentagon Contractors to top policymaking positions in the Pentagon. Not only did he sell us the war on behalf of the Contractors, he put them in charge of it! It is to their economic advantage to prolong a war, and to their disadvantage to win, or otherwise end a war. No doubt, the policies they help to implement are designed to reduce the possibility of peaceful solutions to conflict.
We have got to stop selling war to the world, stop funding conflict, and stop letting the military industrial complex with their politician puppets call the shots. If we continue on this path, we lose lives, respect, economic security, education, and trillions of dollars that could be spent on making America and the rest of the world better, instead of worse. Most importantly, we have to stop the selling out of our children's and grandchildren's futures for the economic benefit of a few people who care nothing about our well-being or security.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp
www.worldpolicy.org
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/21/armstrade.saudiarabia
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0525-04.htm
There are several programs under which the U.S. supplies military aid to other countries. There are two basic types of assistance, aid and sales. The aid programs include the Foreign Military Funding program (FMF), Economic Support Fund (ESF), International Military Education and Training (IMET) and Counter Narcotics Assistance (CNA). Under the FMF the U.S. has spent $121 billion from 1950 to 2005 in the form of military aid to foreign nations.
The sales programs include the Foreign Military Sales program (FMS), Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), and the Excess Defense Articles (EDA). The US has been selling arms amounting to more than $200 billion since 1992. Taxpayers are subsidizing more than half the amount of these sales and the rest goes back into the Pentagon Defense Fund whose spending is not transparent or fully accounted for. At a rate of about $15 billion per year, arms sales would rank among the top U.S. exports.
Where is the money going? Most of our military aid and sales go to Israel, which thanks to us, has the third largest and well-equipped military in the world. Supposedly the U.S. has the most well-equipped military but if that's the case, then why didn't our soldiers in Iraq have well-shielded tanks and adequate body armor? Israel's army, by contrast has the most sophisticated indestructable tanks in the world. Even more disturbing is Israel is turning around and selling their own versions of our weapons and technology to hostile countries and to China who sells technology to Iran and other potential threats to the U.S. Taxpayers are subsidizing weapons transfer to Israel who is turning a profit on the arrangement at our expense. Why are we spending so much money on defense and military aid to other countries while shortchanging our own soldiers on body armor, shielding for humvees, second-rate medical facilities, low pay, cheating them out of proper post-war treatment and benefits, and shoddy electrical wiring which has killed soldiers while they were showering in Iraq? When Bush and Cheney say "Support the troops", they really mean support the business of war because that is what they care about more than the troops.
The defense budget is being spent very irresponsibly. Large sums are going to big-ticket items, such as nuclear subs, long-range missiles, costly fighter planes, and other items that have no use or relevance to the Iraq war. The Bush administration has been particularly irresponsible in giving aid to undemocratic nations with poor human rights records and $5.7 billion in arms deals to poorer developing countries in which the majority of citizens live in poverty or have significant national debt. Although sometimes necessary, supplying foreign nations has a track record of creating more problems than solutions. In the 80's weapons we sold to Iran ended up in the hands of our adversaries, Iraq and Panama. In the last seven major conflicts America has fought in, enemy combatants were using our own weapons against us that we had traded to other countries. We covertly provided Afghanistan with missiles to fight the Soviets and failed to follow up with significant humanitarian aid, which resulted in Afghanistan becoming overrun by extremists and breeding ground for terrorism. In the most recent example, Georgia, who we have supplied militarily used the help we gave them to attack Russian territory and provoke them into an all out offensive against Georgian civilians, oil supply, and infrastructure. And how much has our aid to Israel over the years contributed to Islamic Radicalist hatred of the U.S.? Israel is probably not going to go to war with us for not supporting them, but radical Islamists will go to war with us for supporting them. What are the benefits to funding military and war all over the world and do the benefits really outweigh the risks?
These policies only benefit a few people and companies, while creating hardship for most everyone else, including economic hardship for American companies outside of the military industry. Those benefitting from war have a strong financial interest in convincing everyone that war is necessary, even if that involves using politics, fear, propaganda, and hiding the truth in order to maintain public support. This is what we very clearly saw the Bush adminstration do to promote the Iraq War. Bush and Cheney are not the only politicians who are influenced by the military industrial complex. War is big business and the majority (62%) of Weapons Industry campaign contributions in 2004 went to Republican candidates, while 38% went to Democratic candidates. Pentagon contracts almost doubled to $80 billion in contracts in 2003. Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton had the highest increase in awarded contracts from $500 million to $8 billion in contracts in 2004, a whopping 1600% increase and rising. Halliburton contributed 86% of its campaign donations to Republican candidates in 2004. No wonder the Republicans want to keep us at war or at least keep war going somewhere in the world. They are in deep in the pockets of the military industrial complex and weapons industry, most of whom would lose money if terrorism and drug cartels did not exist or if there were no wars going on.
To make matters worse, Bush has appointed at least 32 executives from top Pentagon Contractors to top policymaking positions in the Pentagon. Not only did he sell us the war on behalf of the Contractors, he put them in charge of it! It is to their economic advantage to prolong a war, and to their disadvantage to win, or otherwise end a war. No doubt, the policies they help to implement are designed to reduce the possibility of peaceful solutions to conflict.
We have got to stop selling war to the world, stop funding conflict, and stop letting the military industrial complex with their politician puppets call the shots. If we continue on this path, we lose lives, respect, economic security, education, and trillions of dollars that could be spent on making America and the rest of the world better, instead of worse. Most importantly, we have to stop the selling out of our children's and grandchildren's futures for the economic benefit of a few people who care nothing about our well-being or security.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp
www.worldpolicy.org
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/21/armstrade.saudiarabia
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0525-04.htm
05 June 2008
Whatever happened to being a Good Samaritan?
An elderly man was hit by a car and the people watching didn't go help him or try to stop traffic. People watched and drove by as he lied in the street, paralyzed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4zAh3-HEE
There's a new trend for people to who witness a crime or see someone in danger to just stand there and not do anything. They don't want to get involved or are afraid of being sued or being subpoenaed into court. This is really sad. Whatever happened to being a good samaritan, to helping out a person in need, especially an elderly person?
Getting involved does not mean you have to go to court or deal with a lawsuit. There is a law that deals with this exact issue, which protects people who are acting as good samaritans. In the case of the elderly man, maybe you don't know first aid or cpr, but you could at least try to stop the traffic or get him out of harm's way. You could save someone's life or bring justice to a victim by just taking a few minutes to do the right thing. If you find yourself in this situation, remember, maybe you are there for a reason.
The deeper issue here is a lack of compassion in our society. There is so much pain and suffering that we see every day, that when we allow ourselves to care, it's overwhelming and unbearable. We feel helpless because the problems are so big and so many that there is nothing we can do to make an impact, so we cut ourselves off from caring and try to ignore what is unpleasant. Buddists teach that compassion is a virtue and should be cultivated. I am not a Buddist, but I believe this to be a universal truth. Even one small positive act can have huge impact on a person and can create a ripple effect that inspires other people to act.
I believe that in life we are given opportunities to serve and lift up others. If we let those opportunites pass by without acting, we may never realize the potential for good that we possess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s4zAh3-HEE
There's a new trend for people to who witness a crime or see someone in danger to just stand there and not do anything. They don't want to get involved or are afraid of being sued or being subpoenaed into court. This is really sad. Whatever happened to being a good samaritan, to helping out a person in need, especially an elderly person?
Getting involved does not mean you have to go to court or deal with a lawsuit. There is a law that deals with this exact issue, which protects people who are acting as good samaritans. In the case of the elderly man, maybe you don't know first aid or cpr, but you could at least try to stop the traffic or get him out of harm's way. You could save someone's life or bring justice to a victim by just taking a few minutes to do the right thing. If you find yourself in this situation, remember, maybe you are there for a reason.
The deeper issue here is a lack of compassion in our society. There is so much pain and suffering that we see every day, that when we allow ourselves to care, it's overwhelming and unbearable. We feel helpless because the problems are so big and so many that there is nothing we can do to make an impact, so we cut ourselves off from caring and try to ignore what is unpleasant. Buddists teach that compassion is a virtue and should be cultivated. I am not a Buddist, but I believe this to be a universal truth. Even one small positive act can have huge impact on a person and can create a ripple effect that inspires other people to act.
I believe that in life we are given opportunities to serve and lift up others. If we let those opportunites pass by without acting, we may never realize the potential for good that we possess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)