Your essay is full of generalities, half truths and down right misinformation. You craft words to minimize advancement and preach doom and gloom.
I didn’t know that my homework assignment required that I give a detailed analysis and bibliography? First off, though, let me apologize for ignoring your posts. I at times ignore posters who are little more than bothersome ankle-biters, but you went to a lot of trouble to respond and I appreciate that.
You state that "some" aspects of our lives are better, and "some" aspects of science have been transferred to everyday life. You should substitute the word "major" for "some" in those statements. That would more accurately capture reality.Okay, sure, whatever.
You talk about the problems during the Nixon era, yet you fail to notice that the problems of inflation and high gas prices have disappeared since then.No, those problems haven’t disappeared entirely, they have only transformed into other less recognizable manifestations. Instead of consumer price inflation, which is the typical measure of monetary excess, there is real estate and equity price inflation. Most people don’t really think of rising stock prices in terms of inflation, but that’s exactly what it is. It is not uncommon for shares of companies to be inflated 100 times over projected earnings. Of course this is justified in numerous ways, but the mechanics are the same: A dollar, or whatever, buys less whether it’s a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas or a share of a company. And, too, when the price of a home doubles and triples in the space of a few years that is not merely appreciation. It is also a form of inflation, much more potentially destructive as well, because in the eventual decline of real estate values the banks go under. That’s what’s happening in Japan right now. That’s why their banking system is being crushed under a trillion dollars of unpayable debt built up during the inflating of the real estate bubble.
Here's some facts for ya
> http://specials.ft.com/ln/ftsurveys/industry/ind447a.htm
You state that our manufacturing is "rotted" and we can not produce our own goods. Please provide facts here. You are clearly wrong.You have got to be kidding, right? Go to any department store and look at any item in the store and find out where it was made. It is nearly impossible to find something that has been made in America. The vast majority of consumer items come from China. It is well known, for example, that the domestic steel industry in the US is in a huge crisis.
>> http://www.uswa.org/sra/ Even cars that come out of Detroit are put together with parts and labor that have been out-sourced to all over the globe. Presently the U.S. runs a trade deficit of over one billion dollars per day. That is a fact. >> http://www.newamerica.net/articles/article.cfm?pubID=332&T2=Article
>> http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/03/mann.htm
You state that financial institution's primary source of income is from currency trading. I don't believe that. Please show me the percent of revenue from major sources for financial institutions.As Jesus might say, Stop being unbelieving, but become believing. Believe it: http://www.forexcapital.com/introfx.htm
>> http://www.pierre.ndirect.co.uk/currency.htm
>> http://www.bis.org/publ/rpfx01.htm
You say that the development of the PC was a result of government spending on the space program. This simply is not true. Please show me the evidence as to the origin of R&D financing for computer technology.That’s not a problem. Read the last two paragraphs of this short article:
>> http://www.allsands.com/Science/spaceexploratio_vfv_gn.htm
This piece by LaRouche situates the whole concept of Government led science driver projects in historical context;
>> http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1996/space_policy.html
Again, you state that the physical economy has been in decline for 30+ years. Give me facts. I have given you hundreds of facts that are in direct opposition to your statement, yet, you continue to make it.Huh? Hundreds of facts? Am I missing something? First off, do you understand what I mean by physical economy? We are not here referring to money. Get that out of your head. The physical economy is the measure of what it takes to support a growing population. That includes everything from quality schools with moderate sized classrooms with teachers capable of actually imparting an education. It includes the entire health care industry and food production chain from farm to market. The physical economy is entirely dependent upon the infrastructure, such as roads, dams, bridges, power generation facilities and the transmission grid, water purification, and a host of other essentials that make a system work. The United States at one time led the world in developing that sort of physical infrastructure. The railroads and interstate system are the bedrock of the nation. But, it is easily established by verifiable facts that the infrastructure on the nation has been neglected for many years. That’s largely due to distortions in the financial system that focuses on short-term profits while the physical economy is left to rot. As a recent example, because of the California energy crisis, the U.S. government admitted that there was the need for over 1,000 new electric generation plants. >> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june01/energy_6-5.html
You have to ask yourself, how did a situation like that develop?
Here’s another link to the official report put out by engineers accessing the condition of America’s overall infrastructure. >> http://www.asce.org/reportcard/index.cfm?reaction=news&page=1
Finally, stop writing like a political speech writer and start writing with some demonstration of an analysis and synthesis of facts.You have exhibited an appaling ignorance of some very basic facts. Why should I now take orders from you as to my writing style?
You have read one person's analysis and absorbed it well. You have never taken the time to look at facts behind the analysis, which I have attempted to do for you.I read all sorts of stuff. I think you are delusional, but go ahead.
Now, the theorist that you idolize wrote an article about forecasting, kinda sorta. What he actually wrote was a model of economic events, that I have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to be wrong.You must be joking, right? Please explain how you “demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt” that LaRouche is wrong. I have re-read what you wrote and there’s nothing there that even comes close to addressing anything relevant. I challenge you to go back to whatever article LaRouche wrote that you are referring to, and go through and actually debunk his ideas that you claim you did. I would be interested in reading it.
So, let me describe for you several methods of forecasting, which your hero either does not understand or simply ignores.Oh puhleeze. Give me a break.
Least Squares Fit: This works when data forms a linear function and one can extrapolate into the future from that linear function. Exponential Models: This works well in the long run for productivity and stock market increases. The exponent for productivity is +1.02 for the last 35 years, not -1.02 as LaRouch hypothesized. This means that productivity doubled in 30 years. It was not cut in half. The exponent for the stock market is 1.12. Cyclical Models: If one assumes a linear model during good times, one assumes that they will continue forever. If one assumes a linear model during bad times, one comes to believe that everyone will die of starvation. Now, the reality is that most factors cycle. Things vary from good to bad. As a society, we never end up in utopia and we don't end up in total devastastion either. I think this is the most fundemental concept that you do not grasp. Well, You Know, I think you have potential. You are a bright young man and you have confictions. Those are good characteristics. I hope I have broadened you horizens.Okay. Whatever. Was that it? Are you seriously trying to pass that off as something insightful into economic theory?
Another thing we need to discuss is the Bretton Woods agreement.Okey dokey. Let’s discuss the Bretton Woods agreement.
First of all, you give too much credit to Roosevelt and to much blame to Nixon. The fact is that the agreement was hammered out with representatives from 44 countries, from July 1 to July 22, 1944.Okay, that sounds about right.
The fact is that the system worked up until 1971. At that time there was a system failure. That is, the system was about to collapse. A temporary fix was put in place that worked for a year or two and then a better solution was found.Yes, I believe the British Sterling got into a bit of trouble. Here’s what the Socialist think. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/aug2001/bw-a16.shtml
You Know, much of the Bretton Woods system is still in place. What aspect of it that has been changed would you like to see restored, and why?You are a bit confused. The fact is, I don’t care one way or the other. I have no interest in seeing the system reformed or in sustaining this system one day longer than it is destined to collapse. I am just interested in the history, development, and demise of the Anglo-American dual world power and the system it oversees. But, basically what the collapse of the Bretton Woods system did was usher in the floating exchange system of globalization. Whereas, the focus was taken off of physical economy and channeled into non-productive services and a wide array of inventive speculative schemes that have come to dominate the system. The floating exchange rate though is the heart of what many increasingly recognize to be today’s global-casino financial system. But you don’t believe in currency swaps and derivatives and all that. LOL
Also, your hero, LaRouch is long on problems and short on solutions. After reading much of his material, I could only find two solutions. Set up tarrifs and freeze the value of currency. I think these are stupid ideas in today's economy. Perhaps, I am missing something. Perhaps you can explain LaRouch's solutions to today's economic problems.You missed quite a bit I would say. In a nut shell: LaRouche’s proposals are two-fold. First: Since the system is bankrupt, there must be an earthwide chapter 11 style Bankruptcy procedure. The fact that the system is bankrupt is evident by this fact: There are some estimated 400 trillion dollars of debt dependent on a mere 40 trillion dollars of ability to service the debt. Secondly, his proposal for a New Bretton Woods is not limited to just bringing the speculative excesses under regulation. http://www.cecaust.com.au/nbw/paper3/reg_org.html His main idea is for the development of the largest landmass and population centers of the world in Asia. His Land bridge ideas for high- speed maglev corridors of development are actually being implemented already. It is the same basic means that Roosevelt used to bring the U.S. out of the Great Depression by launching great infrastructure projects. For example the TVA projects. http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2001/011027jbt_new_ldbge.html
I asked you to provide facts to back up your assertions, which have not done, nor do I think you will. You stated, for example, that it was government funding that was spent to miniturize computers for the space program and that is what lead to the personal computer. I said that, that is simply not true. Since you will not spend the time to find out the facts, I will give them to you.The link I provided further up the page proves my point that the PC was developed as a spin-off of the great space science-driver project. But, the government does not necessarily have to directly fund a research project. They simply put forth an idea or a program, or a vision if you will, and allow companies to harness the human potential to fill the need. They also of course issue contracts to companies for various services and some of that funding will eventually find its way in to R&D.
The concept of the integrated circuit was conceived in 1952 by G.W. Dummer at Britain's Radar Establisment. In 1958, Jack Kilby at Texas Instruments and Robert Noyce at Fairchild both indepently built the first integrated circuit. After this research and developement was done in a corporate environment, the first application was in Air Force computers and in the Minute Man Missle. The important fact here is that private enterprise came up with the technology, not government sponsored reseach. That is not how the government works. The government requests applications, once techology has been developed. This is also true of the transister which was invented at Bell Labs in 1948 by Bardean, Shockly and Brattain.The government supports development in many ways other than direct funding for research. The most obvious is that the government maintains an education system that turns out engineers and scientist. Secondly, they provide the stimulus and environment whereby companies are encouraged to devote a certain portion of their profits into research and development. Or, as has been the trend, they can throttle human potential and squander their most important resources. I merely used the Space Program as an example because it is the most dramatic demonstration of how it can work when the government acts to unharness the full industrial might of a nation and the creative potential of the human mind. / You Know