February 13, 2019

Jimmy Carter and NOT John Paul II saved Poland from invasion. (According to a former US intelligence analyst & declassified info.)


On May 1, 2011, an act of cronyism was used in canonization process.  John
Paul II was beatified, and for the first time in church history a pope beatified
his immediate successor.  This amounted to the pope beatifying his former
boss.  This amounted to conflict of Interest.  None the less, the beatification
was construed to have been a diversionary tactic, intended to deflect attention
and away from John Paul II's sins of accessory in the long-term sex abuse out-
rage of the Vatican II Church.  It came to be discovered that John Paul II was
very much current on the topic, fully aware of the sex abuse epidemic.

If he weren't beatified, it would perhaps arouse the suspicions of law enforce-
ment authorities as to John Paul's culpability ... and therefore the cupability of
John Paul's employees, such as Ratzinger, Bertone, and Sodano.

Concerning John Paul, Benedict XVI should have recused himself from the
case and left the decision to approve or deny beatification to a successor, sole-
ly on the grounds of conflict of interest and cronyism.   Before approving the
beatification, the Vatican should have interviewed at least two dozen sex abuse
victims and three dozen retaliation victims.  Even as recently as April 30, 2012,
a witness to modern church corruption feared coming forth, and this individual
was a nun.

Now that the canonization process for John Paul is complete, will he be made
the patron saint of altar boys or the priests who molested them?  He did far
more for the molesters than the molested.

The insult of the beatification would result in 20,000 pages of documentary evi-
dence and an official petition being filed at the Hague's international criminal
court, during the same year.  In fact, this filing occurred on April 11, weeks be-
fore the scheduled beatification.  It meant nothing to the modern Vatican.  In
fact, according to Ireland's Prime Minister your pain means nothing to the nar-
cissists who hijacked the Vatican.  Moreover, during the same year when John
Paul was beatified, Ireland's prime minister sent a mandate to the Vatican, on
account of the crimes of clergy members in Ireland which were repeatedly ig-
nored by John Paul II.

Those who were the principle accomplices of the crimes of the modern church
are still in power at the very Vatican where they engaged in the crimes.  None
the less, the praise of John Paul constituted teenie bopper idolatry.  He was
credited with having crushed Communism, despite the fact that Communist
China now owns over $1.4 trillion worth of America's debt, and despite the
fact that the same Maoist dictatorship became an oppressive economic world
power during John Paul's reign.  The present regimes of China, Cuba, Vietnam,
North Korea, and Laos show that over a billion people are still locked in Com-
munist tyranny.

Add to this all of the other sweatshop nations which equally constitute dictator-
ships which rob people of their civil rights.  Don't forget the military junta na-
tions, such as Burma (Myanmar), and nations in chaos.  Plus, keep in mind
that many dictatorships falsely title themselves the people's republic of this,
that, and the other thing.  In addition, the Russian election of 2011 resulted
in the Communist Party taking possession of 92 seats in the Duma (Russian

John Paul did little more than make vain stage appearances and curtain calls.
He succeeded in crushing the spirits of devout Catholics more effectively than
Soviet tanks crushed the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the Czech Revolu-
tion of 1968.

Concerning John Paul II, the bottom line is that he did not make his world a better
place as did Saint Patrick in Ireland and St. Francis in Assisi Italy.  Yet, in the pre-
dictable Orwellian con game, we were being told for years, was that the world was
now a better place.  It was a far worse place.  The economic crisis of 2008 and all
that was uncovered during it proved otherwise.  The wave of terrorism since 2001
also prove otherwise, and economic conditions which resulted in the worldwide
OWS Movement proved the same.  Yet, John Paul was praised as a one-man lib-
erator of Poland.  In as much, the truth concerning Poland needs to be made known,
simply to take people out of their hypnotic trance, concerning the media marketing
campaign of John Paul II:

Jimmy Carter is the one who Saved Poland from Invasion

It was Jimmy Carter who ordered the tactic that prevented Poland from being invaded
by Russian armored units, and it was the citizens of Moscow, along with Russian mili-
tary personnel, in their refusal to fire on their own Russian people, who brought Soviet
satellite statesmanship to an end.  Proof of this exists in what happened the very year
Carter left office.

For those unfamiliar, Russia almost rolled into Poland in 1979 and 1980, but were
deterred by one simple Jimmy Carter tactic.  Carter then left office in 1981.

Reagan's first year in office

Jaruzelski suddenly declared martial law, in December of 1981.  This shows that he
saw Reagan as enough of a bumbler and a paper tiger that he would test Reagan.
Therefore, it was former military officer James Earl Carter who was the one hold-
ing the Communists at bay. 

The Source for the Following:

The confirmation source of the following information is a former Washington D.C.
intelligence analyst.  For the record, nothing below is classified.


In 1968, the Soviets were already halfway into Czechoslovakia before anyone knew
they invaded.   Therefore, the Soviet crackdown on Czechoslovakia was guaranteed.
However, during the John Paul years, American technology kept the West current on
Soviet troop movement.   This included the movement of Soviet armored and infantry
divisions during the near-invasion of Poland.

The Polish Crisis During the Carter Years

Being that American technology had Russia's number, President James Earl Carter
kept declassifying intelligence on current Russia troop movements and released it to
the public.  Jimmy was telling the Russians that NATO knew where they were in re-
lation to Poland's topography.  The Russians, in turn, knew that they didn't have the
benefit of stealth, as they were forced to entertain the possibility that NATO would
be their welcoming party, if they decided to roll into Poland.  It's that simple.

There is another logical reason for Russia to have declined to invade Poland.  Russia
was already in Afghanistan, as of Christmas season 1979.  It had enough on its plate.
In as much, there was no type of religious conversion going on with the Soviets in the
Year 1980.  Their consciences weren't being enlightened and their hearts weren't be-
ing moved.  They would have invaded Poland if they knew they could get away with
doing so.  Jimmy Carter made sure that they wouldn't risk invading Poland.  Thus, no
speech of John Paul had any effect on the Russians. 

The Following is Standard History:

The Iran hostage crisis was in progress, and Russia was waiting to see if it would have
an excuse to roll into Iran.  If America rolled in, Russia would have followed.  So, do
not be deceived into thinking that the Russians would have cowered so close to their
own terrain.

For those not taught well in school, know this:  Russia's greatest quest was long since
understood by Western analysts to be the acquisition of a warm weather port.  Invad-
ing Iran would have given the Russians the opportunity to achieve that goal.  Invading
Poland wouldn't have given them any warm water port.  Therefore, the Russians elect-
ed to forgo Poland out of logistics ... not by moral conversion.  Oil-producing Iran was
more valuable than non-petroleum Poland.  After all, Russia still had a hold on White
Russia, aka Belarus.  Therefore, Poland was expendable.

                                The Way Jimmy Carter Really Was

The following anecdote about Carter came via the Pentagon:  Shortly before Jimmy
was to be sworn-in, he was being given a detailed tour of the Department of Defense.
There came the point when he was being told that a helicopter would always be on a
pad, ready to take him to command headquarters within 15 minutes, in the event of a
military emergency.  Jimmy asked, "Is this true?"  His tour guide: "Yes sir.  Within 
15 minutes."  Jimmy then looked at his wrist watch and said, "Okay.  Go!"  "Sir?"
While looking at his wrist watch Jimmy once again said, "Go!"  He wanted to test the
procedure on the spot.  Such was former navy officer Jimmy Carter.

Incidentally, Jimmy Carter was the first military officer in history to head the clean-
up of a nuclear power plant leak.  Chernobyl wasn't the first one in history and Three
Mile Island wasn't the first nuclear crisis in the Western Hemisphere  The Chalk River
Plant in Canada was.  It occurred on December 12, 1952.  Twenty-seven years later,
Jimmy saved Poland from its pending crisis.  Who gives him the credit for having done
so?  This is ingratitude for you.

February 12, 2019

The U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause and the actual dynamics between Church & State

      If there were absolute separation of Church and State in America, 
      there would have never been chapels on United States military bases.
      In light of this, consider the following commonly encountered scenarios.

1]  The police officer hired by the State directs traffic solely for the benefit of parish-
      ioners leaving a Sunday church service.  If there were the absolute separation of
      Church and State, there would be

              no police officers directing church traffic anywhere in America, and there
              would be chaos on State roads on Sundays, until the churches themselves
              provided traffic police, thereby taking over State functions.

2]  The detective hired by the state investigates the allegations of clergy abuse com-
      mitted upon parishioners.  If there were absolute separation of Church and State
      in America, the molestation of altar boys would have gone unchecked and have
      become an unstoppable pandemic.

3]  In 1844, Philadelphia-area Protestants, in their paranoiac hatred of a pope they
     never met, torched a Catholic Church.  In fact, they literally fired a canon at it.
     In response, soldiers employed by State rallied to the protection of  Catholics
     who, at the time, were hated with seething ferocity by certain Protestant sects.
     If there were the absolute separation of Church and State, there would have
     been either a massacre in Philadelphia or the start of a literal civil war there.

     The Conclusion is that the First Amendment Establishment Clause requires the
     State to make sure that its citizens are able to freely practice religion. 
     In the alternate:

1] Catholic, Quaker, and Episcopalian schools fulfilled the job of the State in edu-
     cating students in non-religion subjects such as mathematics, science, history,
     art, and literature.  This means that thereare religious institutions functioning
     as the State five days a week.  After all, the State enacted mandatory school
     laws, and religious institutions fulfilled said laws by educating many youth
     above and beyond the topic of religion.

                                                      Added note:

            When a private entity acts as the government, in being the surrogate
             of said government, it's known as  "acting under the color of law."
             You can sue the federal government for a civil rights violations com-
              mitted by a private institution acting under the color of law.

2] Catholic and Protestant charities of varying sort fulfill the job of the State in going
     to the aid of hurricane victims, even to the point of receiving federal dollars in the
     process.  In fact, the Catholic Church, for years, received taxpayer dollars through
     social service government contracts.  In this capacity, churches have acted under
     the color of law.  Churches have become the surrogate of the government.

3] Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant medical facilities act under the color of law each
     time their facilities treat a patient sponsored by the medicaid program.

4] Catholic, Jewish, Moslem, Protestant, Hindu, Wicca, etc, chaplains are hired by
     the U.S. government, to care for the spiritual well-being of U.S. military person-
     nel.  They are not hired to establish any one religion.  Rather, they are paid to se-
     cure the religious rights of the military personnel who need chaplains, in order
     for their religious rights to be something real to them.

     During WWII, there were priests at the war fronts giving last rites to mortally
     wounded American soldiers and to anyone else caught in the line fire.  The gov-
     ernment of the United States funded the priests and the chaplains behind the
     front line, as well as the military chaplains in the States.  These chaplains
     were given military ranking.  They were a part of the government.
    Other observations involving the relationship between Church and State:

1] The television broadcast of Midnight Mass somewhere on Earth is governed by
     the FFC in America.  If there were the absolute separation of Church and State,
     the church would have to intrude on frequencies designated by the government,
     in order to broadcast to humanity.

2] The private jet which flew John Paul II and Benedict XVI throughout portions of
    America flew solely under the law of the FAA.  If there were the absolute separa-
    tion of Church and State, the jet carrying a pope would have crashed into another
    jet liner eventually, or else such a jet would have created aerial havoc.

3] The priests and nuns made homeless by a hurricane have the right to seek help
     from FEMA.  If there were the absolute separation of Church and State, then
     priests and nuns would freeze to death during blizzards, drown during floods,
     and remain without shelter after tornadoes. 

In addition:

It is a well known practice to begin a congressional session with a chaplain praying
before the session.  If there were the absolute separation of Church and State, then
no prayer of any kind would be heard in a congressional chamber.  It's simply that
the religions take turns in delivering the opening prayer in American congressional
chambers, because there is no established religion in America.

The Federal Judiciary Conclusion:  The phrase "Separation of Church and State"
is a misnomer.  Mention of it does NOT appear anywhere in the United States Con-
stitution.  Rather, the United States Bill of Rights has the Establishment Clause
which forbids the federal government or any State to establish an official state re-
ligion.  The same clause protects a citizen from having his religion outlawed, un-
less the religion involves criminal activity.

The First Amendment Establishment Clause guarantees that NO person will have
to support or adhere to a religion to which he does NOT want to belong.  It also
guarantees that a person willing to adhere to a specific religion will not be re-
quired by the government to violate his conscience in matters of faith & morals,
provided that the matter of conscience is in the religion's official doctrine. 

One more thing:

If the practice of a religion involves doing something illegal, then the religion is not
permitted to practice it.  The example classically used in federal court was the practice
of bigamy.  If a religion allows bigamy, members of that religion are not permitted to
practice bigamy in the United States.

In the inverse, if an activity mandated by the State is NOT permitted by a person's
religion, then the individual has the right to not be a part of the activity declared
sinful in his religion.  The most obvious example is war and the Quakers. 

In conclusion:

The much controverted United States First Amendment clause is NOT referred to as
the Separation of Church and State Clause, being that there is no absolute separation
of Church and State.  The operative phrase is the Establishment ClauseThis means
that you do not have to join a religion that you don't want to join.  This also means
that you can't force someone to stop practicing his/hers.

February 8, 2019

Bush Economics WAS Reaganomics, resulting in the worst monetary crisis since the Great Depression

  To start, you need to understand that George Bush Economics WAS Reaganomics,
  and under Bush's perpetuation of Reaganomics, the United States went through its
  worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  The Romney 2012 thesis state-
  ment was nothing other than Bush Tax Cut Economics 101.
Now, the unemployment rate skyrocketed to 10.8% under Ronald Reagan.  Yet, his
postmortem propaganda machine keeps talking of a Reagan recovery.  News flash:
Reagan tripled the national debt.  The National Debt Ceiling was elevated 18 times
under Reagan.  There was NO Reaganomics-style recovery.  There was the interven-
tion of democrat Tip O'Neill and republican Howard Baker.  Contrary to the conser-
vative assertion, Reagan needed to abandon Reaganomics at mid-stream.   He spent
his way out of the 10.8% unemployment rate, even in increasing the size of the feder-
al government. 

The Leaves on the Reagan Money Tree Were Hand Grenades

No money was being made by America in any aspect of Reagan's exorbitant mili-
tary spending sprees.  This is because all military spending yields negative returns
on investment.  In fact, in your first week of economics courses, you learn that mil-
itary spending is a leak from the circular flow of money.  During Reagan's term, the
national debt kept rising.  Someone else in the future would have to pay for the so-
called recovery.  Reagan was the originator of the Ponzi Scheme.  The two income
family and the latch-key kid was his legacy, also.  In fact, in 1985, the United States
become the top debtor nation on earth, even though it was the #1 creditor nation the
day Reagan took office.

Despite Reagan's attempt to salvage the nation that he was destroying,  the average
American's purchasing power dropped, apartment rental prices elevated,  the price
of houses rose, the wage rates of skilled tradesmen dropped outside of any federal
Davis/Bacon contract, and the two-income family became the norm, in order for a
family to afford during the Reagan years what a one-income family easily afforded
before Reagan took the oath of office.  Thus came the latch key kid ... the neglect-
ed child, thanks to the Reagan.

Throughout this time, the Fed was tightening the money supply, in order to curtail
inflation.  Letting the rich horde money was presented as Reagan's economic stim-
ulus package.  Two and a half years into his first term came the 10.8% unemploy-
ment rate.  His stimulus package backfired.  Now, the Bush tax cut resulted in the
2004 federal revenue being the lowest since 1950, when measured as a percentage
of the economy.  Then came the disaster of 2008.  The Bush tax cut was backfiring,
yet nothing was done to remedy the oncoming crisis.  Republicans have a way of
ignoring indicators.

        Reagan Increased Taxes, to Compensate for his Original Tax Cut

Reaganomics failed so hideously that Reagan and Congress had to keep raising taxes,
while deleting a pivotal COBRA tax deduction.  Reagan still couldn't get the nation's
head above water.  A case in fact was that the former steel capitol of the world went
bust under Reagan.  The steel mills throughout Pittsburgh closed.  Reagan made the
United States weaker.  Ironically, during the Reagan years, which were said to be the
years of fiscal responsibility, the salaries of teachers rose.  There was no curtailing of
local government spending in that department.  Thus came the domino effect of Rea-
ganomics, in as far as concerned compensating for it. 

      Creating Jobs through Taxpayer Money Is Not Economic Recovery

Do you know one of the techniques that a politician uses to create jobs?  ANS:  Gov-
ernment and Military Spending.  It's the act of taking taxpayer money and throwing it
in programs that give the temporary appearance of national recovery.  This included
Reagan's elevated military spending.  It quickly got to the point, under Reagan, where
young adults were unable to find jobs.  So, many joined the armed forces, solely for
the sake of economic survival.  This resulted in the not-so-willful enlistees being tak-
en off the unemployment stats.  It was enlistment by duress.  In addition, bringing
back millions of lesser-paying jobs to the private sector does NOT constitute eco-
nomic recovery, especially when the money supply is being tightened, in order to
reduce inflation.

Lowering the Tax Rates of the Rich Resulted in Them Paying a Higher Share 

Now, the Reaganite theory is that lowering taxes will allow the rich to retain more
money for investment and job creation.  Here is the paradox:   In 1979, the top 1%
of all income earners paid an 18.3% share of the federal government's income tax
revenue.  By the Year 2006, the top 1% were paying a share of 39.1%, and this was
during the Bush tax cut years.  Let us remember that the Bush tax cut is of the same
order as the Reagan cuts.  The bottom line is that lowering the income tax rates of the
rich didn't free-up any appreciable investment dollars.  Economics is more involved
than the tax rates of the rich.

     Empowering the Very Communism He Was Said to Have Conquered

In 1986, Reagan opened the door to lopsided trading with a Maoist Dictatorship who
now owns over a trillion dollars worth of the U.S. Treasury Bonds and who also took
away millions of American jobs.  Reagan set into motion the selling-out of America to
the Atheist Communist Chinese Dictatorship, in the name of flag-waving, God-fearing
democracy ... Mr. Astrology did this.  The Hollywood Commando didn't defeat Com-
munism.  He arranged for Communism to defeat America.  He was no conqueror.  He
was a cowardly spendthrift chicken hawk, acting tough with the blood and money of

                  The Top Consideration for Today, Economically Speaking

Today, what has to be taken into account is that the post-war baby boom generation
is at or near retirement age.  This makes Reaganomics entirely obsolete, especially
if it involves tightening the money supply at the Federal Reserve level.  Baby boom
Americans expect to live off of interest-bearing instruments.  Well, in order to create
wealth, you have create something of value.  Grow something.  Manufacture some-
thing.  Weave something.   Mine something.   Paint something.  Write something.
Record something.  Gather something.  Pull a rabbit out of a hat, if need be.  Wealth
is NEVER created by shifting around the same units of paper money, bonds, com-
mercial paper that have been shifted in musical chairs games. 

The value of any currency ends up shifting its axis in any musical chairs game.  This
is the foundation of any unstable economy.  In fact, failed debenture bonds accompa-
nied the Great Depression.  (Debenture means that no material wealth backs-up the
issued bond.)  In as much, taking the manufacturing base out of America sabotaged
the baby boomers' retirement years.  In 2008, pensions were already evaporating.

Reagan gave the incentive for corporations to no longer manufacture in United States
territory.  Gingrich took the baton and ran the NAFTA route.  He might as well have
pushed the average American off a cliff.  It would have been no different.  This sui-
cide of America was done in the name of Reaganomics.

The goal of Reaganomic propaganda is to con you into thinking that you must let the
rich get richer and free the rich of any regulation which will hold them accountable
for destroying America's environment and pensions.  Yet, the rich already became
outrageously rich, while unemployment and gasoline prices rose.  This shows that
making the rich richer will only make you poorer.  They failed to create the needed
jobs.  After all, how many jobs are required to pass around a derivative written on
paper and in entered into a computer account?

It's demand and not the rich which creates jobs.  It's shoppers and NOT the wealthy
who create employment.  Very simply, if there is no one to buy the product, there
will be no employees hired to sell the product ... or even manufacture it.  The praise
of the Hollywood Commando Ronald Reagan is a con game, designed to let greed-
stricken Republicans run wild with the money supply, from overseas bank account
to shining overseas bank account.

The goals of Reagan Propagandists are to 1} prevent livable-wage laws from pre-
vailing,  2} to have no environmental protection laws, and  3} to be called to zero
legal accountability for their injustices, all the while possessing overseas tax hav-
ens.  Such a thing is known as deregulation.

The lack of common sense in the electorate is their strength.  The misinformation
of the electorate is their power.  An electorate who doesn't think and who only falls
for campaign bumper sticker slogans is their free ride  . . .  these leeches of sweat-
shop workers throughout the world.  In all of their bully pulpit praising of Reagan,
they have one fatal error that entirely negates their praise of the chicken hawk's
style of economics.  That is this:

George Bush Economics WAS Reaganomics, and it resulted in the worst economic
crisis since the Great Depression.  Therefore, Reaganomics already took America
to the brink of destruction, and it will do so again if it's made into the unchecked
law of the land.  In his second term, Reagan had to abandon Reaganomics.  Keep
that in mind.

February 7, 2019

Intro: Selling Short, Put & Call Options, Futures Derivatives

This covers a very brief and rudimentary review of the following:
1) Selling Short,  
     2) Put and Call Options,
          3) Oil Speculation in futures derivatives. 

Selling Short

In brief, the terminology refers to a broker leading you a block of stock of which
you are short and don't yet own.  The full amount of stock that you borrow is im-
mediately sold by you.  Yet, you intentionally remain in debt to the broker.  You
pay the broker for the stock later, at a designated time.  You hope that, by that
time, you will have to pay for the borrowed stock at a lower price.  One sells
short when he/she is gambling on the price of the stock to go down.

Selling short consists in:

1} literally borrowing a block of stock from a broker and immediately selling it
     to someone else,
2} followed by buying an equal amount of stock at a later time, at a different price,
3} thereby paying the broker.

This means that:

1} if the price of the stock goes down, you re-purchased it at a price cheaper than
     the price by which you previously borrowed it and then immediately sold it. 
     You have made a profit.

2} if the price of the stock goes up, you end up losing money, because you have
     to pay for the block of stock that you owe at a higher price.

Example:  You borrow 1,000 shares of Widgetville Inc. which cost $100 per
share.  You immediately sell that block of stock at $100 per share, for a price
of $100,000.  Thus, you have $100,000 on hand, to buy an equal amount of the
same stock later.  Then, when it comes time to buy an equal amount of Widget-
ville stock, it's price has already dropped to $90 per share.  This means that you
buy the 1,000 shares of stock for $90,000 and keep $10,000 for yourself.

Of course, you give the 1,000 shares of Widgetville to the stock broker who
originally lent you 1,000 shares of it.

The previous example in review:  1,000 shares of Widgetville borrowed ... You
immediately sold it at $100 per share for $100,000 ... 1,000 shares are purchased
by you later at $90 per share ... You paid $90,000 for the 1,000 share ... You keep
$10,000 for yourself, minus any fee and applicable dividend reimbursement.  The
1,000 shares of Widgetville Inc. are given to the broker who originally lent you
the 1,000 shares of it in the first place.

Remember If the stock price rises, you lose money.  For example, if the price
was hypothetically $110 at the time you purchased the new set of shares that
were to be given to the broker whom you owe 1,000 shares, you had to pay
$110,000.  You lost a hypothetical $10,000.

Until 2007, investors were forbidden to sell short, unless the price were above
the present stock price, or unless the previous stock price was lower than the
present price.  This was the uptick rule.  You could only sell after the price in-
creased, or you increased the price yourself, thereby permitting you to sell.

Calling the Short

Note that the broker may instantly require you to cover the price of the stock
you  borrowed.  It is solely done at his/her discretion.

Put and Call Options

Concerning a Put Option, it's a contract which grants the contractee the option
to sell a block of 100 shares of stock at a specific price, if the contractee elects
to do so.  The price is known as the Strike Price.   A Call Option consists in
having the option to buy a 100 shares of stock at the designated Strike Price. 

Oil Futures Derivatives

Oil Speculation, in the form of oil futures derivatives, is what artificially caused
the price of oil to skyrocket in 2008.  During this time, FoxNews had guests go
on air, stating the wrong reasons why the price of gasoline skyrocketed. 

The news show guests continued to state that supply and demand market forces
caused the sudden rise.  The invalidating feature of the FoxNews claim is that,
in the Year 2006, the oil supply was at an eight year high.  Yet, the price of oil
started its ascent into economic havoc.  The price should have dropped.  Thus,
FoxNews perpetuated a lie until a Senate hearing uncovered the true cause of
the price hike.

Oil futures consist in making a binding pledge to buy oil at a specified price at
a specific future date.  The 2008 crisis consisted in investors not looking to buy
oil, but to merely buy oil futures.  This is referred to as paper oil   This meant
that significant amounts of oil needed to be reserved for investors who had no
intention to use the oil.  This was the delivery aspect of futures derivatives.

This meant that oil was going to be kept away from oil consumers, in order to
honor the contractual obligation of the futures contracts.  As a result, a reduc-
tion in the oil supply was being artificially induced.  This, in effect, was the
hording of oil.   It was a game of keep-away from the oil consumer.   It was
the ploy of reducing supply, artificially.   The barrels of oil attached to spec-
ulator futures contracts were all dressed up with nowhere to go.  They were
the collectors' dolls never taken out of the box.

Deregulation, and NOT regulation, caused the price of oil to skyrocket.  In fact,
the Enron Loophole was basically the oil speculators' reporting exemption.     



Incidentally, Texas Senator Phil Gramm's late night Enron Loophole simply
made it that oil futures contracts didn't have to be monitored by the CFTC
(Commodities Future Trading Commission.)  Thus, no one could tell if prices
were being manipulated, until it was too late.  As a result, the price of oil rose
to $137.11 in July 2008, and later to $147.27 a barrel.  Gasoline reached $4.09
a gallon.  Even in April 2011, the price of a barrel of oil was $113.93 or so.

Keep in mind that it was the deregulated speculators who caused oil prices to

February 5, 2019

Bill Clinton was the one who had fiscal surpluses. Reagan never did.

  Concerning the National Debt in Relation to Gross Domestic Product

      To Whom it May Concern:

1}  The national debt was NOT reduced to zero during the Clinton Administration.
      Rather, it rose approximately $1.6 trillion, from $4.1 trillion to $5.7 trillion.  In
      as much, Clinton did NOT erase the national debt, as certain people claimed.

2} Nor did the national debt decrease during the Clinton Years.  Instead, the rate
     of increase slowed-down as the Clinton years progressed.  What is significant
     about the national debt during the Clinton years is this:

Firstly, Clinton enjoyed budget surpluses from three out of his eight  in office,
and ...

The National Debt, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, dropped by 9%
during Clinton's last term.   It went from 65.4% of GDP to 56.4% of GDP.  If
Clinton didn't acquiesce to NAFTA, things would have been much better than
what resulted during his administration.  He sabotaged his own administration
and all of America, for the years to come.  None the less, Clinton did produce
a surplus in terms of the yearly (fiscal) budgets for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and
2000.  The numbers respectively are $69, $77, and $46 billion, if you use the
accrual accounting method is coming to the conclusion.

The accrual method simply records expenses at the time the charge/debt occurs,
as opposed to when the expense is paid.   In accounting a charge/debt is known
as an account payable.  It's regarded as a liability ... a subtraction from wealth of
the company accruing the charge.

Recent Presidencies

In recent presidencies, the Carter administration started with a national debt that
was 35% of GDP and it ended at 32.5%.  Under Reagan, it went from Carter's
32.5% to 53.1%.   Thus comes more evidence that Reagan was NOT the model
of fiscal responsibility that Fox News and the Republican Party make him out to
be.  After all, the national debt ceiling limit was elevated 18 times under Reagan.

Under George Bush I, the national debt's percentage of GDP elevated from 53.1%
to 66.1%.   Under Bush II, it went from Clinton's 56.4% to 84.2%. 

The Post WWII & Vietnam War Presidencies

At the start of 1945, the national debt was 117% of GDP.   The war was still rag-
ing.   Then, in 1949, the national debt was reduced to 93% of GDP.   In 1953, it
was reduced to 71.4%.   Under Ike, it went from 71.4% to 55.2%.  Then, under
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter it went from 55.2% to 35.8%.  Thus,
Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes were responsible for significantly ele-
vating the national debt in relation to the GDP.   Under them collectively, the na-
tional debt rose 61.4 percentage points.  This illustrates that the Republican Party
is not the party of fiscal responsibility.  It's campaign platform has been a lie.

Obama walked aboard a sinking ship.  American economic history from 1945 to
1980 shows that there is hope.  However, if the Trade Balance Deficit doesn't end
now, then it will soon be over for the entity once known as the United States gov-
ernment, even if it decides to become Argentina the Second.  Keep in mind that,
during the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, the manufacturing base was in America, and
not in overseas sweatshops.   NAFTA, CAFTA, and any other pending AFTA
must be repealed immediately.   Foreign trade in itself is NOT the problem.  The
problem is trading with a protectionist dictatorship whose workers cannot afford
to buy American products in the same degree that Americans can afford to buy
the products of the protectionist dictatorship.   There must be fair exchange be-
tween trading nations.


The U.S. National Debt

To start, Concerning the Debt-to-GDP Ratio, the United States' National Debt
reach 99.25% of United States' Gross Domestic Product in 2011.


Under Jimmy Carter, the debt went to $1 trillion.
Under Ronald Reagan, it was tripled to $3 trillion.
Under George Bush Sr, it crawled to $4.18 trillion.
Under Bill NAFTA Clinton, it went to $5.72 trillion.
Under George Bush Jr, it skyrocketed to $10.62 trillion.
As of October 2014, under Barack Obama, it's $17.8 trillion.


As he dissolved the FCC Fairness Doctrine, Reagan sought to destroy equality in American communications.

America is not to operate according to Lies, Injustice, and the Nazi Way.
Reagan put the US on that path, while waving the national  flag in front of your face.
This doctrine was part of the American Way, after gerrymandering was curbed and until
Reagan became president.  Implementing this doctrine is how to neutralize the propagan-
da being disseminated by the Koch Brothers (heirs of a massive fortune).  Their needs to
be a check and balance on all of the lying propaganda being tossed about by the right wing
and left wing and fear-mongering conspiracy theorists.  It has gotten ridiculous, as of re-
cent.  This included the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq fraud.

Implementing this doctrine can level the playing field that was hideously skewed on ac-
count of the Citizens' United case.

This doctrine is how to stop in his tracks the Marco Rubio who was allowed to lie on
the Fox Network, in telling America that he was against the shutdown, after it failed.

The same doctrine could have shut down Betsy McCaughey's "Death Panel" myth of
1994 that was resumed by Sarah Palin after her loss in the 2008 election, by which the
American electorate let her know that it does NOT want someone as dim-witted and
dishonest as her anywhere near the White House, except for taking tours of it.

The same doctrine would quickly let people know that the "substantive law" (minus
titles and subtitles) in the Affordable Care Act is shorter than Harry Potter and the
Order of the Phoenix

As recently as October 2013, the Red State question was asked

On national television, someone  asked why the poor of the red states vote against their
interests, thereby sabotaging their chance at the American dream.  An answer wasn't
given.  However, words of clear wisdom were spoken, in response.  None the less, the
reason why the working poor and other poor give their vote to those who keep them in
poverty goes as follows:

The undereducated who simply didn't have the money or time or giftedness to attend
college are told that, if the rich don't get richer, the working poor will lose their jobs,
along with their shopping plazas.  These poor individuals don't understand the concept
of Stock Ownership and Corporate Bond Distribution.  They don't understand that any
one corporation is owned by hundreds or thousands of people.  If the FFC Fairness Doc-
trine existed, counterpoint could be spoken on those right wingair waves that suppress
uninterrupted speech and unridiculed speech.  The cultic Koolaid culture of FoxNews
would be as neutralized as caustic acid.

In the 1970s, it was a nightly thing to see Americans exchange point/counterpoint on
even local television stations.  The time reserved for airing the pro and cons of a pre-
vailing issue was usually shortly before prime time and shortly after the 11 O'clock
news.  Depending on the station, such a thing was even aired close to signing-off time.
However, the last thing aired each night was the sermonette.  In the 1970s, television
stations were not 24 hour operations.

The practice of airing point/counterpoint was actually started in 1949.  Known as the
Fairness Doctrine, it was a regulation of the Federal Communications Commission.
Its purpose was to prevent the Big Four networks from holding a monopoly on pub-
lic opinion.

Keep in mind that the year prior was the publication of George Orwell's  1984.  The
Nuremberg trials began the year prior also, and it highlighted the intense repression
of freedom of speech.  Soviet Russia had invaded Czechoslovakia in 1948, and it be-
gan its blockade of West Berlin in the same year.  In 1949, Mao's communist revolu-
tion would reach fruition in October.  So, the U.S. Congress saw that, throughout the
world, freedom remained in jeopardy, despite the destruction of Hitler, Mussolini,
and Tojo in World War II.  Incidentally, in 1949, the Big Four networks were ABC,
CBS, NBC, and DuMont.

Now, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcast licensees to cover issues of public im-
portance and to do so in a fair manner.   Twenty years later, in 1969, Red Lion Broad-
casting sued the FCC, because of being mandated to give equal time to a gentleman
whose reputation was severely attacked on a Red Lion station.  Red Lion refused to
give equal time to the man defamed, and the case found its way to the United States
Supreme Court.

The ruling of the court was that the FCC had the legal right to require the Fairness
Doctrine to be observed by Red Lion Broadcasting, for the sake of the civil rights
of the viewers.  Radio listeners and TV viewers have the right to hear both sides of
a controversial topic.   In addition, the court noted that there were not very many
broadcast stations at the time.   This meant that the FCC had the duty to prevent
the airwaves from being monopolized.

The Fairness Doctrine was seen as essential for the sake of the viewers.   So, there
was America in the 1960s and 1970s, openly exchanging a balance of opinions on
air, on a nightly basis.  Then came the Ronald Reagan presidency.   In 1987, after a
4-0 vote, the Federal Communications Commission repealed the Fairness Doctrine.

This was anticipated.  So, the U.S. Congress passed the Fairness in Broadcasting
Act, two months prior to the FCC's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.  It was all for
naught.  Reagan vetoed it.  He tossed out the door a post-war American institution.

It is neither propaganda nor hype to claim that Reagan despised equality and fair-
ness.  After all, he was living comfortably in Hollywood, while men were dying
and risking their lives by the thousand, all the while not living a comfortable life.
That was not fair.  See:  (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. [1987]).

The importance of the Fairness Doctrine is that a person needs to hear the pros and
the cons of a topic in one sitting, due to the frailty of human memory ... in order to
prevent confusion of mind.  More importantly, the observance of this regulation pre-
vented the complete polarization of America. Today, America is extremely polarized,
in an Us vs Them scenario.  It has gotten to the point, where there has been the emer-
gence of neo-confederatism and talk of a second American civil war.

Ronald Reagan was the president of division.  George WMD Bush adhered to Rea-
ganomics unto the end, bringing to America the greatest economic crisis since the
Great Depression.  Its aftermath is still smouldering.  Occupy Wall Street proved
this to be the case.  Today, due to the policies of Reaganism, America is a house
divided.  A house divided will fall.

February 4, 2019

Reagan: Hollywood Commando with a 1932 bookkeeper's aptitude.

Humanity needs much more than a trickle of the money supply.
Ronald Reagan was nothing more than a Class B actor and a ticker-tape sports an-
nouncer.  He was neither a scholar nor a decorated combat veteran.  In fact, he only
graduated with a C average in 1932, from Eureka College.  He majored in Sociolo-
gy and Economics, beginning in 1928.  This means that he began his college studies
during the Roaring 20's, when it looks as if prosperity has going to continue into the
1930's.  Then came the Great Depression, when no one was wise enough to know
that it was en route to America.  Thus, Reagan studies during the years when no one
had the answer to the cause of America's worst economic crisis.

Accounting courses during that era was little more than bookkeeping classs, whereas
during the Space Age, ratios, the delineation of costs, formulas, marginal utility curves
comprised accounting.  Incidentally, if you majored in Econ, you were required to pass
a couple accounting courses.  In as much, America and California elected to executive
posts a man who had the economic prowess of a bookkeeper ... literally.

                              The General Scorecard on Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan is the president who I] tripled the national debt, II] saw the national
unemployment rate rocket to 10.8% after having signed the first of two major income
tax rate decreases for the wealthiest Americans,  III] was granted 18 national debt ceil-
ing increases by the US Congress,  IV] signed into law various types of tax increases,
including an elimination of a major COBRA tax deduction.   V] froze the minimum
wage throughout his entire presidency.
VI} Reagan caused the creation of the two-income family and the lonely phenomenon
of the latch key kid, due to the financial burden that Reagan let be imposed upon any-
one not counted among the rich.  VII] Plus, he funneled weapons to Iran & Nicaragua, 
VIII} set the Savings & Loan Crisis into motion by eliminating a major tax deduction
upon which real estate investors depended,  IX] opened the door to the Maoist sweat-
shop dictatorship in 1986, only for it, to end up owning over a trillion dollars worth of
U.S. Treasury bonds by the Year 2011.

X] In addition, Reagan signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act
of  1982 —TEFRA—the largest tax increase in the history of the United States, when
combined with 1984 legislation, which was designed  to raise $214.1 billion through-
out a 5 year period, reminiscent, in a way, of one of Stalin's Five Year Plans. 

XI] Year prior, Reagan signed into California law (as governor) the largest tax increase
in the history of any American state, up to that  time.  XII] As president, Reagan froze
the minimum wage throughout his entire presidency.
XIII] Reagan, in the spirit of his generation's racism, vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-
Apartheid ActXIV] In the spirit of Frick, Carnegie, and the union busters of America,
he let the Pittsburgh steel industry go into nonexistence, despite the fact that it was the
Steel Capitol of the World the day Reagan took office.  XV]  Reagan simultaneously in-
creased the size of the federal government, even though he promised to reduce it, in ele-
vating the number of legislative and executive branch federal employees from 2,860,000
in 1981 to 3,113,000 in 1988.  XVI] Under Ronald Reagan, there actually was a decline
in government revenue as a ratio of national income, compared to Jimmy Carter's final
year in office. 
XVII] One of the most poignant hypocrisies of Reagan was that he declined to defend
the right of Christians to not be required to desecrate their time-honored Sabbath with
performing unnecessary work under penalty of being fired or not hired, despite the fact
that Reagan presented to the Christian world as the pope of the "Moral Majority."
XVIII] In 1985, for the first time since 1914, the United States became a debtor na-
tion.  In fact, it became the top debtor nation in the world, despite the fact that, when
Reagan enter office in 1981, the United States was the top creditor nation on earth.
XIX] Vetoed the Fairness in Broadcasting Act.




XIX] Under Reagan, from 1981 to 1983, the number of Americans living below the
poverty line went from 31,822,000 to 35,303,000.   As Reagan left office, there would
be more people living below the poverty line in America than when he entered office.
However, he was hailed as having taken millions out of poverty, when the fact is that
he was the one who originally lodged them there, after his 1981 income tax cut to the
rich ... and the income tax deduct was to the rich only.


XX]  Under Reagan, on October 19, 1987, the Stock Markets in America and else-
where crashed, having lost 22.6% of its value in one day.  It was called Black Mon-
day at the time.  The event was officially identified as the Stock Market Crash, by
the Federal Reserve Board and it is involved both the Dow and the S&P 500 index,
as well as the futures market and options market.

This worldwide historic event proves that the right wing conservative Republicans
lied each time in claiming that there was a recovery under Reagan.  Keep in mind
that there was also a Savings & Loan Crisis which began under Reagan's watch.

Black Monday: 25th anniversary of 1987 stock market crash; ABCNews, 2012


Reagan's Leadership, Too, Was Questioned After 1987 Stock Market Drop;
NPR News, 2011


A Brief History of the 1987 Stock Market Crash with a Discussion of the Federal
Reserve Response;  issued by the Federal Reserve Board, 2006


Concerning what was called the Reagan Recovery, the University of Virginia's Miller
Center reported how it was dispersed.  The rise in personal income did NOT benefit
Americans equally.  The report was that the income of the rich rose 9%, the income
of the middle class rose only 1%, and the income of African Americans decreased
8% ... so said the Miller Ctr of the Univ of VA.  The Reagan Recovery was merely
the phenomenon of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. 

   One study revealed that while annual income for American families grew 
   by 3.5 percent during Reagan's first term, middle-class families saw only 
   a 1-percent gain, compared to affluent Americans (those in the top quin-
   tile of the income bracket) who saw their incomes rise by 9 percent.  

   In contrast, American families with incomes in the bottom quintile saw 
   their average incomes decline by 8 percent; black families and house-
   holds headed by women were particularly hard hit by declining incomes.  
  Finally, child poverty increased to levels exceeding those of the mid-1960s. 
  Miller Center, Univ of Virginia, Charlottesville.

The list of grievances go on and on, including the fact that 138 members of Reagan's
administration were officially investigated, some of whom were indicted, some of
whom were convicted, included those who were pardoned.  In fact, in having placed
James Watts as the head of the Department of the Interior, Reagan assigned a fox to
guard a chicken coup. 

Reagan's Economic Priority

Reagan's economic priority was that of erasing Taxflation.  This is the phenomenon
of inflation eventually resulting in a higher salary, and therefore, a higher income
bracket which erases some of the increased income through tax liability.  It's also
referred to a 'tax creep,' as in creeping up the tax brackets.  Of course, Reagan's
folly was in disregarding tax deductions, tax credits, and tax incentives which
can erase a person's income tax liability in part or whole.

None the less, in order to prevent taxflation, Reagan lobbied Congress to limit the
income tax brackets to two of them ... one at 28% and one at 15%.  The next prior-
ity was that of decreasing inflation which occurred through low interest rates.  The
book-keeping on the inflation rate was changed by changing the computation of the
Consumer Price Index.  This change made the inflation look like it was steadily
dropping at an impressive rate.  The former way of computing the CPI made in-
flation rates look erratic.  The former way counted home rental prices, but not
home mortgaging, being that a mortgage is a fixed contract that doesn't change
every quarter.

None the less, under Reagan, the price of gasoline decreased throughout his entire
presidency, when measuring year-by-year and not month-by-month.   Of course, they
price was previously far to high and OPEC was retaliating against the Ford and Cart-
er administrations, severely.  However, even though the price of gasoline fell during
the Reagan years, the purchasing power of the individual American citizen decreased
during the same Reagan years, thereby causing the same effect as inflation. 

Plus, Reagan agreed to items in congressional bills that are considered as
anathema by today's Republican propagandists

This part of Reagan's scorecard is significant in that it shows today's right wing con-
servative Republican mouthpiece to be a complete, and not even partial liar:

To start, in 1975, Democratic senator Russel Long, of Louisiana, succeeded in hav-
ing the Earned Income Tax Credit enacted into law.  In was a law fading away, in
terms of impact.  Then, Reagan agreed to have it expanded in the 1986 tax reform
bill.  Yes, the EITC condemned by the party of greed and sweatshop profiteering
found new life in the Reagan years.

In addition, Reagan signed into law the highest corporate tax increase in American
history.  Corporate tax loopholes were closed to the tune of $300 billion 1980 dollars,
while corporate tax liabilities were raised by $120 billion 1980 dollar, for a five year
period.  Thus, Reagan saw to the lowered of the tax rates of the individual wealthy.
This means that Reagan lowered his own tax rate.  Reagan showed that he didn't
care about America ... only his re-election campaign funds and his own bank ac-
counts.  In attacking inflation as he did, he showed that he merely wanted to make
sure that the money he had sitting in financial accounts wouldn't dwindle in value. 

Let's do the Apocalypso

If the aforementioned bibliographical references aren't enough for you, the follow-
ing provides firsthand, close-up, expert assessment of Reaganomics, being that it
was written by Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman.  David spoke of the
Reagan Reformation as the Deformation.  Needless to say, he resigned from the Rea-
gan administration.  His main reason was that Reagan was lying to himself, in insist-
ing to adhere to his unfounded Reaganomic beliefs which were deceptively camou-
flaged behind Milton Friedman's Supply Side doctrine.   Therefore, Mr. Stockman's
2010 New York Times op-ed (opposing editorial) is titled Four Deformations of the 
Apocalypse.  The title is a play on the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.


To fill in the empty spaces that an op-ed, in its short length creates, the following is
1988 article is in order, and it's brought to you by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

This is important to note, because Rand Paul, the eye doctor who is NOT a scholar
in economics is heralded as a follower of the Austrian School of Economics, as if
he found a new and improved way to deal with an economy.  It's that the Austrian
school omits from its books measurements presented as essential elements of stan-
dardized economic science.

The point to mentioning this is that Rand is now presented as a Reaganomics guru
in the name of the Austrian school of economics.  Yet, that school sponsored the
full scale condemnation of Ronald Reagan's legacy.  Rand Paul's propagandists
state that Rand studied Austrian economics.  But where?  He was an eye doctor.
So, where were the Austrian Economics course held?

Anyway, the Ludwig von Mises article about Reagan, written at the end of Reagan's
presidency is titled, The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan.


February 3, 2019

The Obsolete Nature of Austrian Economics: Otto von Bismark Economics. Rand Paul's Illusion.

Applying Austrian Economics in the States would rust out America.
Let's address the obsolete nature of Austrian Economics, being that Rand Paul
followers herald it as the newest and latest thing that will save humanity.

Of course, Rand Paul is one sick joke, from A to Z.  Firstly, he advocated abolish-
ing the Americans with Disabilities Act, in the spirit of an Adolph Hitler who could
only think of sterilizing Germany's mentally disabled, followed by exterminating
its physically disabled.  Rand Paul also hadt on his payroll the "Southern Avenger"
and neo-successionist John Hunter who wrote, John Wilkes Booth Was Right.

Plus, plus, plus, Rand doesn't know economics in the least.  And concenring the
20something-year-olds who follow his dad and him, they're the religious fanatics
of greed, thinking that economic anarchy, aka deregulation, will actually make
them insanely wealthy.  They don't realize that deregulation caused the George
Bush Economic Crisis and that a Rand Paul or Ron Paul presidency will econom-
ically destroy America for all time, guaranteed.

Incidentally, if you'rer smirking at the above-statement, you can write to me about
your smirking if and only if  you had your 100% test score in Ivy League account-
ing testing and were inducted into anyhting similar to the Phi Sigma Iota honors
fraternity.  I can't waster my time on arrogant idiots who can't even draw and X
on a sheet of Cartesian paper.  There are basic rules in automechanics, in order
to get an engine to operate.  The same goes with Economics.  These Rand Paul
types are complete illusionists, giving you the carrot and the stick game which
will leave you on the outside, cold and abandoned.  After all, Ron Paul Econom-
ics is nothing more than Dog-eat-Dog-Wild-West-Economics, wheere workers
will be used, abused, and discarded.  And the Ron Paul followers want to be the
abusers.  Let's review the great Rand Paul Illusion called Austrian Economics:

For the record, Austrian Economics is simply Marginalism, and it was founded in

1871, under the influence of Otto von Bismark.  It's nothing more than an offshoot
of Adam's Smith Superlative Advantage treatise which was blown out of the water
decades later by David Ricardi's Comparative Advantage thesis.  Thus,  Austrian
Econ is older than Keynesian Economics, JFK's economics policies, and Theory Z
which was widely popular in the 1980s.  Anyone who follows Austrian Economics
is the backwards one.

The bottom line is this:  Someone should remind Rand Paul that this is 21st Century
America and that we really didn't appreciate politicians such as he who turned the
United States back into a Frick/Carnegie Oligarchy.

Now, the greatest year of revolution in Europe, for the 19th Century, came in 1870.

And why?  ANS:  Because the Vatican, at Vatican Council I, defined an infallible
church doctrine known as Papal Infallibility, and the northern countries freaked.
Even France.  They did NOT want there to be any moral authority in Europe who
would check and balance their lawmaking decisions.  Thus, Otto von Bismark and
confreres wanted to have established theories that accentuated individualism.  Thus,
Austrian Economics was meant to fit into an already existent prejudice.  It was not
a mathematical discovery.  

Furthermore, if Austrian Economics is the answer to life, then there would not have

been the economics disasters that Europe saw in the 20th Century.  Thus, Austrian
Economics is a proven failure.  There was a time in the 20th Century when you lit-
erally had to take a wheel barrow full of cash to the bakery to buy a couple loaves
of bread.  This gave rise to Hitler.  

There's more.  Just keep in mind that neither Ron Paul nor Rand Paul were econom-

ics students.  Rand is so vicious that he proposed the repeal of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Let's Review Economics:

In Econ, the first steps are 1} the circular flow of money and 2} the marginal utility

curve which is simply a visual way to show what price a potential customer is will-
ing to pay for one product, and then what he's willing to pay for two of the same
products, and for three ... so on and so forth. 

To start, I'll call Austrian Economics AEcon for short.  At least for now.  

When you're dealing with Austrian Econ, you're dealing with focus on the marginal

utility curve out of the starting gate.  That's the center of AEcon.  Now, AEcon states
that price is more properly determined autonomously by the individual's personal pre-
ference for a product and not by the state.  This is where AEcon lacks an essential
variable its in general equation.  There is a major determinant in what a person is
willing to pay that has nothing to do with personal preference in how he/she values
something.  And that one thing is:

The person's income, ... in relation to something known as the marginal propensity to

consume (the amount of income that the person spends as opposed to saves) and the
person's sum total of liquid savings (the amount of savings he can immediately spend.)  

Very simply, a poor person has a different valuation system  than does a rich person.

This is why price determination is never subjective.  It has its constraints, because the
consumer has the constraint of a limited money supply.

In addition, another determinant in a person's willingness to pay a certain price for a

product is none other than ... the price of the competition's similar products.  But, this
involves the supply curve ... not marginal utility curve ... not the demand curve.

The other factor in price determination is substitute products.  An example is:  A sub-

stitute for vegetables would be bread or fruit.   The price of the substitute products has
 caused a phenomenon, in times of economic crisis, where the increase in a product's
price doesn't result in a decrease in demand, but rather an increased demand for the
higher priced edition of the same one product.  This occurs simply because the price
of the substitute products, such as steak and fruit, have also risen at the same time.

This shows that price determination is never subjective and never autonomous.

Prices are a dominoes effect.  Thus, the marginal individualism of Austrian Eco-
nomics is invalid.

Now, the difference between Austrian econ price determination and the Keynesian

model thereof is that the Keynesian model deals with the aggregate sum of humanity;
a total society, not merely one individual's personal preference.  The Keynesian model
simply determines how many people can afford to buy the product at such-and-such a
price and how many cannot afford to buy it at that same price.

The very first determinant of the price of product is the cost of the good, in terms of

manufacturing, transporting, warehousing, and insuring.  The cost of the good is the
"benchmark" . . . the index constraint.  You cannot set a price lower than cost of goods
sold divided by the quantity being sold.

Now, original economics was called mercantilism, and in those days, the determinant

of the price was labor costs and a fair markup.  That's the foundation stone.  That part
is not subjective in the least.

Here goes a vague conclusion:  

AEcon attempts to apply micro-economic math to macro-economic models.

Now, I have a lot of explanations of economic functions and phenomenon at 

"Humanity at the 11th Hour."  It's found at:


I wrote those articles so that people will understand the basic motions of economics

which, according to my definition, is the Science of the Flow of Money.