How right you so often are.
We should stop the drug war overnight - or we say, between tea and breakfast.
Decriminalize all drugs. Allow them to be sold at any pharmacy.
This would take the profit out of drugs. It would no longer be worthwhile to seduce children and adults into the habit. Those who have it would no longer suffer the underdose/overdose syndrome. once it's no longer a felony, those who are hooked would be more available so remedial work could be done.
We would also stop chasing around the jungles of Columbia harming the One-Winged Nuthatch.
Harry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray wrote:
It is an interesting thing to find out how much capital for the current world is based upon former deals with Nazis, or being the Drug Lords that conquered China and made addicts of millions to open the market for tea. So the Iraqi oil is the future capital for the work in the 21st century. Of course we don't like the current drug Lords very much and so have to kill and make destitute with Chemical warfare the peoples living in the Rain Forest. If the 1491 article that I posted on the list earlier from the Atlantic Magazine is true then we are destroying the last great Garden of the pre-Columbian builders because we can't control our own addictions. Baghdad is next. That Judeo-Christian Ideal is amazing. Makes you understand burning the Alexandrian Library.
Today I'm watching the current dance around tax structures and Dividends, which we didn't discuss when I posted the Cramer article earlier, but George Bush listened to and proposed yesterday. And furthermore, reading the NYTimes article this morning, how the States are going to be ravaged even further by the Dividend deal because it will stop their taxes on Dividends tied to the Federal Government and the rise in purchasing tax exempt dividends will make Municipal Bonds raise their rates to compete which makes less money for State programs. All for Capitalism. And for the people who "pay most of the Taxes."
Actually since most of that money is earned and taxed already those complainants could avoid taxes all together if they would just say no to investing. In that case the only taxes they would pay would be the same as anyone else and less than the workers who are still paying income tax. They would only be consumers. If you only have wealth but no "Income" then you have only sales and property taxes.
The same sort of deal that they have with the French where the Socialists have maintained a lovely retreat for the super wealthy with a terrific job market in culture and fine things (compared to the US) and a good standard of living for the average Frenchman making them comfortable around the super rich and not like the immigrant servants here who wash their dirty linen.
Its interesting how the propaganda here says that Socialism is the old Communist tyranny that had to create the perfect human to exist while France knows better and speaks of Liberty, Equality and the Fraternal order of all French people. Even the English run to the South of France once they get money. Who wouldn't rather live there even though their "Tongues hath become their enemies."
From the CIA Factbook:
The Socialist-led government.... remains committed to a capitalism in which they maintain social equity by means of laws, tax policies, and social spending that reduce income disparity and the impact of free markets on public health and welfare.
What other Socialist countries are there that succeed over what is happening here as far as attracting the Super Wealthy? Here in the US no one wants to immigrate to Oklahoma or South Dakota and Wyoming has so few people that they have more Senators than Congressmen. Yes I know, but Houston is only for the "on the way" with the exception of the fundamentalists wealthy who love rattlesnakes. By and large the Super wealthy here prefer the Northeast, Florida, and Palm Springs in California. None of these places, with the exception of Florida, are bastions of classical or even neo Classical Liberal thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REH
----- Original Message -----
From: <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 8:59 AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] My second hypothesis
> You know, when you look at it, oil is not a bad reason to wage war. After
> all the industialized economies are addicted to oil and in so many ways we
> have created oil dependent consumer needs as well (witness, SUVs). It
> seems hypocritical for all the Pogos (we have seen the enemy and it is us)
> in the world to consume oil on the one hand and then complain about invading
> another country in order to maintain the oil supplies.
>
> May be able to maintain an air of righteous indignation, but that won't go
> far when oil prices spike and the economy tanks. What might be bothering
> people is that the move in Iraq, if oil really is the key, reveals just what
> our economies are all about. And this is making people feel uncomfortable.
>
> Faustian bargains and all that.
>
> arthur
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002
