Think about the financial differences between the following two hypothetical options, and how each option, would tend to affect frugality in government:
We build in a slow but persistent way canals. The Canals are covered with ETFE. The free enterprise tugs travel on salt water but the canals are so constructed as to naturally lead to massive desalination, and the collection of the fresh water, and so there are trees and agriculture on each side of the canals, with plenty of land set aside for nature corridors. In this scenario we even help nature along with desalinated water brought under the ground in black pvc pipes that trickle the water out, just low enough, not to dry out right away.
We also put in the optical fibres everywhere and charge those information canals out to the private sector. And we do this all coming out of a surplus budget.
We let the financial sharks handle everything. Run big deficits. The banksters put us in massive debt to the communists. We sell off all our natural and strategic assets. The politicians go on a splurge of vote-buying. And we persistently call option 2 “the market”.
You see I think there may be an option 3. But its a complicated thing and one that will have to wait. While we are waiting option 1 is far more compatible with freedom. Far more in line with economy-in-government, liberty, fairness, equality before the law, national sovereignty, and so forth.
You build slowly and persistently so the costs don’t blow out. You don’t borrow to build or the costs will blow out. But option (a) is about improving ones financial position and building serious net wealth.
Option (b) is a changeling-hobgoblins reptilian-banksters version of the market. Option (b) has got nothing to do with any sort of sanity in finance, or any sort of capitalism, properly considered.
If we let everything go ahead under the mentality of the fractional reservists we are just watering a garden with Paulson-like triffids, that will rise up and scuttle our country in a time of great crisis, like the banking criminals did in the US. We aren’t as far along as they were. After all our central bank is publicly owned. Whereas the Americans had a central bank based on “public private partnership.” (I hope all of your were made properly nauseous by that horrid phrase.)
One thing we know for sure is we have to separate corporations from government. Or else the two parties become a Siamese twin and start poisoning the body, of each one to the other. They corrupt everything even down to each-others language. The people wind up being corrupted by their Orwellian language, and so the people cannot think straight any more.
I cannot go in for this idea of emissions trading and I want to turn some of you lefties around on this matter. Cards on the table; I have a different interpretation of the science.
My main concern is the following: I wouldn’t want to let one unnecessary 20c coin be put in the hand of blood-sucking fractional reserve vampires. We can wean off big government later. What we need is to bring the number of thieves down from two (2) to one (1)-only.
First step I say is we cut out the Paulsons of this world. We cut out all these scam-artists with their lying rating agencies, and their numbers rackets. Their “credit default swaps” and their “financial derivatives.” More correctly described by Celente as “scams schemes and ripoffs”. I’m not even saying make these practices illegal. Thats not the emphasis. The emphasis is that they don’t get invited to the party. They don’t even get the crumbs which fall from the table.
So I’m just here to try and get some of you to review some of your basic understandings about what does and does not constitute financial-soundness and sophistication. I guess I’ll stay satisfied arguing about the science elsewhere. These “people” these bankers, the Paulsons of the world, we do not need them. Simple pride suggests we systematically cut them off at the knees, at every possible turn and cut them out of any process in any way we can.