bank secrets

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ok, maybe if the whole thing crashes and the US somehow defaults on the debt, . . .

I suspect that the future will lie somewhere between the government's rosy projection and your picture of gloom. You may be right. I think not, and hope not. We'll know soon enough, and can resume the discussion (if you want to) when the 2009 and 2010 data changes from projection to historical fact.

I wish economics were physics, and even though some economists like to pretend that economics is like physics it really is not. The only things they really have in common is chaos theory. In the case of government, it should be simple.

My point was that physics, with its (relatively) well understood structure of cause and effect is pretty complicated and getting more so. Both economics and government have a much more complex, sensitive (in the sense of chaos theory), relation between cause and effect. This makes them much more difficult than physics. So, why is it that many assume that only a few are capable of doing physics but almost all can do government and politics?

You atheists always remember the establishment clause, but forget the other part "or that prohibits the free exercise of religion"! :) To be fair, I did say establishment, when I also meant the free exercise part as well.

I'm sorry, but how does *not* giving religion a tax (or other) advantage prohibit its free exercise? Is the worship of god based on large Norman styled buildings with stained glass windows and vaulted ceilings? Don't the Christians believe that Christ said "Give onto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's"? Does it take cash to pray, or gold to make a drinking vessel? For that matter, I do not begrudge the wealth of this world to the believers of the next -- I just want them to pay for it in this world like everyone else.

And don't even think of going the "power to tax is the power to destroy" route.

I would say that putting a tax on church revenue inter-tangles church and state to the point of violating the 1st amendment.

Why? First, the state already is mixed into religion. Consider the state's long existent partnership with religion on the topic of matrimony. Consider the (now greatly reduced) blue laws. But, even ignoring all that, please explain to me how making money relates to worshiping god? Clearly all religions (that I know of) have a sacred and a secular component. As long as the state stays out of the sacred, the Bill of Rights is observed. If religion wishes to avoid secular law, let it stay out of secular matters. Let them meet in a public field, take no collection, have no paid professional leaders, acquire no wealth. It was good enough, from what I've read, for their founders, it should be good enough for the followers.

After all, is religion the belief or the temple that houses that belief?

Actually, I didn't read that book and I'm not sure which one you are referring.

Sorry, got too cute there. Ludlum is a relatively popular author who writes, mostly, what are over-blown conspiracy theory books. Similar to Brown, but with a better grasp of English and a poorer ability to tell stories. And much more prolific. Not thinking of any specific book, just the genre.

I looked at the information on web sites of lawyers offering to handle estate tax issues.

Strange. The exclusion is presently at about $2 million. I'd think that families worth above that would already have a lawyer and that ambulance chasers need not apply.

Yes, I want government to be run by "The People" which to me means the average person.

That, given what passes for average nowadays, scares the crap out of me.

I don't want there to be a required set of knowledge to qualify for representing the people.

So, someone totally ignorant of the constitution, of history, of economic theories, of the world situation, of diplomacy, of geography, and of the English language is acceptable to you? Did we not learn anything from the past eight years?

Simplify government so that even the common man can do it.

You are applying the rational of a time when we were well separated from the world by two oceans, when education was the three r's, when health care was bleeding and amputations, when 'roads' were anywhere a horse could go, when armies kept their weapons over the mantel and could be assembled in minutes by ringing a bell, to an age that is much different. A simple government in a complex world is, to me, a recipe for disaster.

If you look at the founders, it was rare for anyone to be in "elected" office for more than 12 years.

Give me a beak. Pretty much all the Virginia notables of that time were 'planters', a term mostly meaning gentlemen farmers who never got their own hands dirty. They spent all of their time pursuing whatever gained their interest. Those whose interest was politics (Washington, Clay, Jefferson, to name just three) did little else. The same could be said of many others. Hancock was a merchant (polite for smuggler). Franklin a publisher (as well as about fifty other things) and, of course, publishers never dabble in politics.

Of course the founders were not in 'elected' office for long. Many were middle aged, or older (Franklin) before there was anything like an elected office. What they all were were members of an aristocracy of wealth. They were the people with the leisure and inclination to dabble in politics. So, if you truly want to turn the country over to the Kennedys and their ilk, then your proposal might suffice.

I would say, it is the combination of government that has grown too complicated with too many laws, an apathetic electorate, and a pack of self centered politicians grubbing for power and money.

The apathetic electorate is probably true, but I doubt if it is anything new. The 'pack of self centered politicians' is a gross generalization that has an element of truth behind it but, I think, is exaggerated. But, as to the complexity of government, that I think is inevitable given the complexity of modern life. I think that if you had your way and government was simplified, the elected officials simple men, we'd be back to where we are now in no time as laws needed to cover all the situations that crop up were passed. And, given the simple, inexperienced men you propose to make those laws, I think the government would be worse than it is.

Elections should not be contests between waring coalitions of the rich and powerful, and the corporate interests they represent.

Elections are decided by getting votes. Votes are gotten by convincing an apathetic majority to go out and pick your name. Since the voters are not going to come to you, you have to go to the voters where they are, and that's mostly in front of a TV with a Bud lite in their hands. You've got their whole attention span of ten seconds to let them know who you are and why they should vote for you. That's the reality, and it is expensive.

You want to change the process, you need to change who the voters are or what they are. Which you pick to do determines if you are a Jeffersonian or a Hamiltonian. But, remember, The Articles of Confederation failed.

I would like to see the USA return to being a representative democracy.

That presupposes that it once was in a sense that is different from now. It started as an 'old boys club' of wealthy (mostly) landholders. It was pretty well restricted to white christian upper class males of English descent. It passed through almost two centuries of political bosses, ward healers, and control by the wealthy. In most respects, it s closer to a representative democracy now than it ever has been.

. . . I try to self insure . . .

Since February 14, 2005, my medical bills have totaled nearly $1.5 million. I sure hope that that is a big mattress you've stuffed for emergencies.

When insurance is not voluntary, they call it extortion... unless the government does it.

Nonsense, unless you know of a government regulation forcing anyone to obtain insurance to protect themselves. The only insurance I know of that the government requires is automobile liability. That is not to protect the insured, it is to protect the potential victims of the insured. And it is not mandatory in most places if a person can establish that they are self insured.

When the Teamsters spend your retirement pension, they are indicted. When the government does it, it is called creative accounting.

Color me confused. These two statements might be true, but just what do they have to do with insurance?

There is a level of reasonableness to living in a compassionate society, although at some point as we move toward socialist thinking, the society becomes more important than the individual.

"It has long been known that one horse can run faster than another--but which one? Differences are crucial."- L. Long;)

--Pete

[Jester]

I wasn't counting State service.

So, instead of being lifelong federal politicians, career politicians would instead spend either the beginning, or end, of their careers as state politicians. Somehow, I don't think that would solve anything. Rather the contrary, it would eliminate what little incentive remains for politicians not to devolve into cheerleaders for their own states at the expense of the union. Or they would be shuffled into cabinet or other service positions. Tell me again why this is somehow better than just letting the people elect who they want, for however many terms they want?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

So, instead of being lifelong federal politicians, career politicians would instead spend either the beginning, or end, of their careers as state politicians. Somehow, I don't think that would solve anything. Rather the contrary, it would eliminate what little incentive remains for politicians not to devolve into cheerleaders for their own states at the expense of the union. Or they would be shuffled into cabinet or other service positions.

First of all, term limits are not a new idea in democracies. In the original articles of confederations, the fifth article was "no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to the continental congress] for more than three years in any term of six years."

Tell me again why this is somehow better than just letting the people elect who they want, for however many terms they want?

You mean other than the legacy of people like Strom Thurmond who serve so long (1956 - 2003) that they named the Senate portable oxygen cart after him. You have fixtures, not servants. People like Robert C. Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Charles Rangel (with both House and Senate longevity records!). Changing the representatives periodically will keep people involved in their districts politics. So, say with someone like Ted Kennedy, you have a primarily democrat area where his is the only choice every election. By default, he's already got the name recognition and the Democrat party apparatus at his side. It would be good to till the ground at least once every 12 years to keep things from getting stale.

Mostly, (and I was thinking this was obvious) it is to prevent any one person from aggregating too much power from seniority in the Congress, or the Senate.

[--Pete]

Hi,

First of all, term limits are not a new idea in democracies. In the original articles of confederations, the fifth article was "no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to the continental congress] for more than three years in any term of six years."

Just because the idea has been around doesn't make it good (or bad). And we all know how well the Articles of Confederation worked. But note that even in that (flawed) document, the limit is only on what fraction of the time a person can be in office. It does not limit the number of total terms, nor does it limit the total time in all offices combined.

You mean other than the legacy of people like Strom Thurmond who serve so long (1956 - 2003) that they named the Senate portable oxygen cart after him. You have fixtures, not servants. People like Robert C. Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Charles Rangel (with both House and Senate longevity records!).

Ever look at how old the top Forbes people are? Or notice how many of them made their *real* fortune after what many consider the retirement age? Dumping a useful person, a person with experience, a person of proven quality, simply because they are old, or have been in a position past an arbitrary time limit, is both wrong and foolish. A sufficient restriction would be that they could not hold the office for two continuous terms. That would negate the incumbent advantage which could keep a 'fixture' in office. But as long as they are capable of running for, and getting elected to, public office, then for so long should they be permitted to.

Changing the representatives periodically will keep people involved in their districts politics.

No. Some people are involved, the majority are apathetic. That's why most people who vote (and that is already a relatively small portion of the whole population) vote the straight party ticket -- they don't give a damn, they can't be bothered to actually think. Your proposal would hardly change that.

It would be good to till the ground at least once every 12 years to keep things from getting stale.

Poor analogy. The ground gets more worn out year after year without change. A person gets more experienced as the years go by.

Mostly, (and I was thinking this was obvious) it is to prevent any one person from aggregating too much power from seniority in the Congress, or the Senate.

I don't see that as too much of a problem. The House is so big, the power so dilute, that even powerful representatives are relatively weak. The Senate might be more of a concern, but it is the two party system, more than seniority, that concentrates power (and worries me, at least as little as the legislature worries me at all).

Besides, it is right and just that ancient fixtures rule in the Senate; senate, seniority, and senility all come from the same Latin root. They belong together, :whistling:

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Just because the idea has been around doesn't make it good (or bad). And we all know how well the Articles of Confederation worked. But note that even in that (flawed) document, the limit is only on what fraction of the time a person can be in office. It does not limit the number of total terms, nor does it limit the total time in all offices combined.

I'm in support of mechanisms that prevent our representation from being stagnant.

Ever look at how old the top Forbes people are? Or notice how many of them made their *real* fortune after what many consider the retirement age? Dumping a useful person, a person with experience, a person of proven quality, simply because they are old, or have been in a position past an arbitrary time limit, is both wrong and foolish.

My comment about Strom Thurmond, aside, I am not in favor of placing any age restriction on the offices. In Mr. Thurmond's case, as the life long incumbent, it is clear he was allowed to serve well past his effective ability to do so.

A sufficient restriction would be that they could not hold the office for two continuous terms. That would negate the incumbent advantage which could keep a 'fixture' in office. But as long as they are capable of running for, and getting elected to, public office, then for so long should they be permitted to.

Which is better than what we have now in many cases.

No. Some people are involved, the majority are apathetic. That's why most people who vote (and that is already a relatively small portion of the whole population) vote the straight party ticket -- they don't give a damn, they can't be bothered to actually think. Your proposal would hardly change that.

Which is a sad statement in the information age. I believe every election, I should be able to go to a sample ballot, with all the candidates and explore their positions, add my own notes, and print my selections before heading off to the precinct to vote (and some day, when the darn internet is secure enough, I could do it from my home).

Poor analogy. The ground gets more worn out year after year without change. A person gets more experienced as the years go by.

... or complacent. ... or beholden.

I don't see that as too much of a problem. The House is so big, the power so dilute, that even powerful representatives are relatively weak. The Senate might be more of a concern, but it is the two party system, more than seniority, that concentrates power (and worries me, at least as little as the legislature worries me at all).

Still, there are people who have held more than 20 consecutive 2 year terms.

Besides, it is right and just that ancient fixtures rule in the Senate; senate, seniority, and senility all come from the same Latin root. They belong together, :whistling:

Well, yes, then maybe there should be a minimum age limit, say 50 years old and a minimum of 20 years of relevant government related work experience.

[--Pete]

Hi,

This whole topic seems to be winding down. You know it's turned to glue when all we do is agree. :lol:

. . . maybe there should be a minimum age limit,

How about Article I, Section 3, third paragraph: "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years"? Adjust for life expectancy, and you come close to the fiftyish you suggest.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

This whole topic seems to be winding down. You know it's turned to glue when all we do is agree. :lol:

Agreed.

How about Article I, Section 3, third paragraph: "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years"? Adjust for life expectancy, and you come close to the fiftyish you suggest.

Maybe they could index it to the Social Security retirement age minus 20 years.

[kandrathe]

First, the state already is mixed into religion. Consider the state's long existent partnership with religion on the topic of matrimony.

My solution would be to disallow the state from performing marriages, and leave that entirely to the church. The state should offer instead, civil unions, which are the secular equivalent of marriage without all the religious baggage. A civil union would be in essence a contract or partnership. The part that troubles me about the concept of civil union would be when there are more than two people involved. It might get confusing.

It is interesting how things have changed. My study of my Swedish heritage has shown me just how intertwined Church and State can be. Research of genealogy here is greatly aided by the detailed church records kept, which amount to little more than strict state control. From the early 1500's up until 1991, everyone had to belong to THE Lutheran parish church, the crown was the leader of the church and the ministers are also government officials. Even church assemblies are chosen by direct elections.

Once a year the minister would visit every household in the parish and give the people an examination of catechism. If they did not pass, they were not allowed to hold some offices, participate in communion, and not allowed to marry. The parish Kyrkbök held all the information related to births, deaths, immigration, emigration, and the results of the examination. I believe the parish was also the mechanism for collecting the taxes for the crown. There are even kyrkoräkenskaper records extending back into the 1400's.

There were some positive side effects, other than aiding in my research. This law required that almost every person (men, women, children 15 and older) was literate enough to read the test and write the answers. By the early 1700's Sweden was a very literate nation. The repression of the Mission Covenant denomination was the reason many of my relatives sought the religious freedom offered by the USA.

[--Pete]

Hi,

My solution would be to disallow the state from performing marriages, and leave that entirely to the church.

In the seventies, I realized there are (at least) three aspects to 'marriage'. There is the religious aspect, the civil aspect, and the social aspect. This can be seen from the fact that ordained religious leaders can perform marriages, as can justices, and as can the principals themselves simply by cohabiting (at least where common law marriages are recognized). The fact that these three aspects are intertwined is what causes a lot of the problems today. The first true step in resolving the 'marriage issue' is to disentangle those aspects.

The religious aspect I gladly leave to the religions. However, in strict accordance with the separation principle, I think the religious aspect should have no bearing nor significance in any civil matter. It should be like baptism, first communion, confirmation, circumcision, bar mitzvah, or any other religious observance or sacrament, none of which are given any civil recognition nor incur any civil obligation. Thus, a person 'married' only in a religious ceremony would not, for instance, be able to sue for alimony in a civil court because, as far as the state is concerned, there was no contract. I would extend this to all non-religious matters, even those not directly involving the state. So that people married only in religion would not qualify for health insurance benefits provided through a spouse's employment, etc.

Of course, there would be and should be nothing to prevent people married in religion to also be 'married' in a civil contract. Whether such a union should be called a 'marriage' I leave for others to debate. For now, call it a civil union and leave it at that. These civil unions should be contracts between two or more people in which the rights, responsibilities, duties, and expectations are agreed to. Legal status and benefits or burdens should be based solely on these contracts. A 'standard' contract for the traditional marriage could well be used by those who so desire, but options should be unlimited.

And, as to the common law marriage, I have no bias against what consenting adults do. However, if they are not willing to provide for themselves, then I think they should not expect anything. I do not think that the concept of common law marriage should exist legally nor go beyond the social aspect of 'so-and-so are a couple'.

It is interesting how things have changed. My study of my Swedish heritage has shown me just how intertwined Church and State can be.

Throughout most of history and, I suspect, pre-history, there was no division between church and state. In most early civilizations, the secular ruler was at least a priest if not a god. A separation between the strictures of the religion and the laws of the state was very unusual. In the Western world, even as late as the middle ages there was a strong interrelationship between the two, with the church often (always?) being involved with the crowning and anointing of the kings and the kings often having the power to appoint religious leaders. Indeed most of the discord during the reformation is due to disagreements of who had what power and not about matters of creed.

You might marvel at how much has changed. I am equally amazed at how much has not. At how much power a totally useless construct still wields. But that's another show.;)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Just a side note on this,
Are you sure of this? I've seen inflation adjusted amount for both (JJ) Astor and (A) Carnegie (after selling his steel business, but before he started his endowments and charities) where they were ranked higher than Rockefeller when adjusted for inflation. They also were before Standard Oil really got going in the early 20th Century (Astor being mid 19th century and Carnegie being late 19th century and Carnegie was sitting on 1/2 Billion in the late 1880s/early 1890s when Morgan Stanely along with a large number of investors purchased his steel empire).

Niall Ferguson makes a better case for the Baron de Rothschild, late 1800's, being the richest man in history, inflation adjusted, than Jester does for Rockefeller.

However, they both had piles of what I like to call "f___ you" money. Rich enough to say "f___ you to pretty much anyone and have the weight to get away with it.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
The Romans even made it a part of their government, to be used in emergencies, and gave us the word for 'dictator' from 'one who speaks'.

--Pete

As opposed to potater, one who drinks.

*Gollum voice*

"What's tater's, precious?"

"It's drinks for them as wants it" says faux Sam.

Occhi

[Jester]

Niall Ferguson makes a better case for the Baron de Rothschild, late 1800's, being the richest man in history, inflation adjusted, than Jester does for Rockefeller.

However, they both had piles of what I like to call "f___ you" money. Rich enough to say "f___ you to pretty much anyone and have the weight to get away with it.

Occhi

I have no stake in Rockefeller being the richest man in history. If Niall Ferguson has an inflation index and wealth figures that lead him to that conclusion, I'd trust him sooner than Forbes, or wherever the heck the wiki list is from.

However, the whole thing is an edifice constructed on quicksand, due to the fundamental impossibility of finding the "right" solution to the index problem. Depending on how you estimate wealth, and how you move it across time, I'm sure there are hundreds of people who might be considered "richest". Even this is to ignore the inherent absurdity of comparing wealth across ages. That I am typing this right now and posting it here means that, in some relatively impressive ways, I am richer than either the Rockefellers or the Rothschilds of the past.

On the other hand, I can't hire Careme to do my banquets.

-Jester

Afterthought: Which Baron de Rothschild?

[kandrathe]

No. Some people are involved, the majority are apathetic. That's why most people who vote (and that is already a relatively small portion of the whole population) vote the straight party ticket -- they don't give a damn, they can't be bothered to actually think. Your proposal would hardly change that.

I heard of a quote recently that is appropriate here, from one of my heroes, Thomas Jefferson who said (amongst other great things), “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”

Baaaa!

[Jester]

I heard of a quote recently that is appropriate here, from one of my heroes, Thomas Jefferson who said (amongst other great things), “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”

Baaaa!

... preceded immediately by the line "Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them."

Also seemed somewhat apropos.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

I have no stake in Rockefeller being the richest man in history. If Niall Ferguson has an inflation index and wealth figures that lead him to that conclusion, I'd trust him sooner than Forbes, or wherever the heck the wiki list is from.

Ferguon had access to insider Rothschild family papers, to about the end of WW I, and is a pretty astute historian and economics understanding scholar.

However, the whole thing is an edifice constructed on quicksand, due to the fundamental impossibility of finding the "right" solution to the index problem.

I agree. The comparisons are, of course, only of academic/cocktail party level of interst, as "who is the richest now" is a far more useful tid bit given the influence of money in politics the world over.

That I am typing this right now and posting it here means that, in some relatively impressive ways, I am richer than either the Rockefellers or the Rothschilds of the past.

Can you loan me a fiver? I could use a few pints of Guinness, Mister Moneybags!:D

Afterthought: Which Baron de Rothschild?

The one in London, grandson of Mayer Amschel, (who was the original patriarch of the Rothschild family of brilliant international financiers.)

Occhi

[Jester]

Ferguon had access to insider Rothschild family papers, to about the end of WW I, and is a pretty astute historian and economics understanding scholar.

And he just got himself a post at a pretty decent school, too.

The one in London, grandson of Mayer Amschel, (who was the original patriarch of the Rothschild family of brilliant international financiers.)

Nathan? He'd be a great-grandson, not a grandson. He does seem the most likely candidate, being the first Baron. Like all the Rothschilds, though, there is the problem of separating out family wealth from personal wealth.

Cheers. :D

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

"Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them."

A worthwhile sentiment that, unfortunately, requires a functional educational system before it can become reality.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

A worthwhile sentiment that, unfortunately, requires a functional educational system before it can become reality.

Then we'd need non-apathetic parents... who happen to be the same people as the apathetic voters. What would Social Darwinism tell us is the eventual outcome of a species that is caged and fed?

[Occhidiangela]

And he just got himself a post at a pretty decent school, too.
Nathan? He'd be a great-grandson, not a grandson. He does seem the most likely candidate, being the first Baron. Like all the Rothschilds, though, there is the problem of separating out family wealth from personal wealth.

Cheers. :D

-Jester

AH, yes, sorry, great grandson. Should have cracked the book to make sure on that one. As to family/personal, no, not in the least. Part of what made that family so uniquely successful was the depth family wealth gave them: if Vienna was down, London tided them over. If Frankfurt was down, Paris tided them over, and so on, while other banks/finance houses rose and fell with boom and bust cycles.

Some things don't change, as I see it. The boom and bust, and the latest bust, are still with us, with this bust having been born in America from multiple fathers. Won't wander off to that topic, too many opinions on that already.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Then we'd need non-apathetic parents... who happen to be the same people as the apathetic voters. What would Social Darwinism tell us is the eventual outcome of a species that is caged and fed?

It stops breeding?

Hmmm, no, the humans don't seem to have that problem.:P