Tuesday, July 31, 2018

God asks His Probationary birthright; where grace stands deadlined and futures look to be negatively tether'd: do you really know what your doing and if so then how can you remain so ignorant about a bad deal?

Where God see's assive flows of Fox, Friends,  
https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/ds and hosts of others that promote fake is truest road to that makes America Great Again, he asks; Where history compasses negative repercussions then why would any integral statesmen refuse to do their ethical homework - saves nation?

Before the 1914 war, the great economic potential of the U.S. was suppressed by its ineffective political system, dysfunctional financial system, and uniquely violent racial and labor conflicts. 

It's simple English primarily consists of America was a byword for urban graft, mismanagement and greed-fueled politics, as much as for growth, production, and profit.


The map highlights a number of global patterns, notably the importance of oil exports to many economies. 

Dark blue shading represents countries where oil is the biggest export and shows the importance of oil not just in the Middle East, but across Asia and Africa and South America.



Other commodities, including precious metals and minerals, also play a significant role in the global economy. Across much of Asia and Africa, large numbers of countries shaded in red and orange indicate the importance of exports such as gold, iron ore, and coal to these nations. Interestingly, and perhaps unexpectedly, India’s biggest export is precious stones.
Conversely, European exports are focused on machinery and transportation.
Electronics dominate in both China and the USA, while food and drink and textiles top the bill in a number of countries.

Since 1971, U.S. citizens have been able to utilize Federal Reserve Notes as the only form of money that for the first time had no currency with any gold or silver backing. This is where you get the saying that U.S. dollars are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. Government.
Today we celebrate, or, actually, mourn the  anniversary of President Richard Nixon's taking America, and the world, off the gold standard, making many promises that were promptly broken. 

For instance, President Nixon promised that the dollar would retain its full value.
Fiat money is regulated by the government through the Federal Reserve. Fiat money has nothing to back it but debt. Our money used to be backed by gold and silver. That changed with Nixon aka the Nixon Shock, back in 1971.
The Nixon shock was a series of economic measures undertaken by United States President Richard Nixon in 1971, the most significant of which was the unilateral cancellation of the direct international convertibility of the United States dollar to gold.

Every other World War I belligerent had quit the gold standard at the beginning of the war. 
As part of their war finance, they accepted that their currency would depreciate against gold. 
The currencies of the losers depreciated much more than the winners; among the winners, the currency of Italy depreciated more than that of France, and France more than that of Britain. Yet even the mighty pound lost almost one-fourth of its value against gold. At the end of the conflict, every national government had to decide whether to return to the gold standard and, if so, at what rate.

The American depression of 1920 made that decision all the more difficult. 
The war had vaulted the United States to a new status as the world’s leading creditor, the world’s largest owner of gold, and, by extension, the effective custodian of the international gold standard. When the U.S. opted for massive deflation, it thrust upon every country that wished to return to the gold standard (and what respectable country would not?) an agonizing dilemma. Return to gold at 1913 values, and you would have to match U.S. deflation with an even steeper deflation of your own, accepting increased unemployment along the way. Alternatively, you could re-peg your currency to gold at a diminished rate. But that amounted to an admission that your money had permanently lost value—and that your own people, who had trusted their government with loans in local money, would receive a weaker return on their bonds than American creditors who had lent in dollars.
Britain chose the former course; pretty much everybody else chose the latter.
The consequences of these choices fill much of the second half of The Deluge. For Europeans, they were uniformly grim, and worse. But one important effect ultimately rebounded on Americans. America’s determination to restore a dollar “as good as gold” not only imposed terrible hardship on war-ravaged Europe, it also threatened to flood American markets with low-cost European imports. The flip side of the Lost Generation enjoying cheap European travel with their strong dollars was German steelmakers and shipyards under pricing their American competitors with weak marks.
Such a situation also prevailed after World War II, when the U.S. acquiesced in the undervaluation of the Deutsche mark and yen to aid German and Japanese recovery. But American leaders of the 1920s weren’t willing to accept this outcome. In 1921 and 1923, they raised tariffs, terminating a brief experiment with freer trade undertaken after the election of 1912. The world owed the United States billions of dollars, but the world was going to have to find another way of earning that money than selling goods to the United States.
That way was found: more debt, especially more German debt. The 1923 hyper-inflation that wiped out Germany’s savers also tidied up the country’s balance sheet. Post-inflation Germany looked like a very creditworthy borrower. Between 1924 and 1930, world financial flows could be simplified into a daisy chain of debt. Germans borrowed from Americans, and used the proceeds to pay reparations to the Belgians and French. The French and Belgians, in turn, repaid war debts to the British and Americans. The British then used their French and Italian debt payments to repay the United States, who set the whole crazy contraption in motion again. Everybody could see the system was crazy. Only the United States could fix it. It never did.
Peter Heather, the great British historian of Late Antiquity, explains human catastrophes with a saying of his father’s, a mining engineer: “If man accumulates enough combustible material, God will provide the spark.” So it happened in 1929. The Deluge that had inundated the rest of the developed world roared back upon the United States.
The Great Depression overturned parliamentary governments throughout Europe and the Americas. Yet the dictatorships that replaced them were not, as Tooze emphasizes in The Wages of Destruction, reactionary absolutisms of the kind re-established in Europe after Napoleon. These dictators aspired to be modernizers, and none more so than Adolf Hitler.
“The United States has the Earth, and Germany wants it.” Thus might Hitler’s war aims have been summed up by a latter-day Woodrow Wilson. From the start, the United States was Hitler’s ultimate target. “In seeking to explain the urgency of Hitler’s aggression, historians have underestimated his acute awareness of the threat posed to Germany, along with the rest of the European powers, by the emergence of the United States as the dominant global superpower,” Tooze writes. “The originality of National Socialism was that, rather than meekly accepting a place for Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English-speaking countries, Hitler sought to mobilize the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this order.” Of course, Hitler was not engaged in rational calculation. He could not accept subordination to the United States because, according to his lurid paranoia, “this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death.” He dreamed of conquering Poland, Ukraine, and Russia as a means of gaining the resources to match those of the United States. The vast landscape in between Berlin and Moscow would become Germany’s equivalent of the American west, filled with German homesteaders living comfortably on land and labor appropriated from conquered peoples—a nightmare parody of the American experience with which to challenge American power.
Could this vision have ever been realized? Tooze argues in The Wages of Destruction that Germany had already missed its chance. “In 1870, at the time of German national unification, the population of the United States and Germany was roughly equal and the total output of America, despite its enormous abundance of land and resources, was only one-third larger than that of Germany,” he writes. “Just before the outbreak of World War I the American economy had expanded to roughly twice the size of that of Imperial Germany. By 1943, before the aerial bombardment had hit top gear, total American output was almost four times that of the Third Reich.”
Germany was a weaker and poorer country in 1939 than it had been in 1914. Compared with Britain, let alone the United States, it lacked the basic elements of modernity: There were just 486,000 automobiles in Germany in 1932, and one-quarter of all Germans still worked as farmers as of 1925. Yet this backward land, with an income per capita comparable to contemporary “South Africa, Iran and Tunisia,” wagered on a second world war even more audacious than the first.
The reckless desperation of Hitler’s war provides context for the horrific crimes of his regime. Hitler’s empire could not feed itself, so his invasion plan for the Soviet Union contemplated the death by starvation of 20 to 30 million Soviet urban dwellers after the invaders stole all foodstuffs for their own use. Germany lacked workers, so it plundered the labor of its conquered peoples. By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today’s liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born). On paper, the Nazi empire of 1942 represented a substantial economic bloc. But pillage and slavery are not workable bases for an industrial economy. Under German rule, the output of conquered Europe collapsed. The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy.
Tooze’s story ends where our modern era starts: with the advent of a new European order—liberal, democratic, and under American protection. Yet nothing lasts forever. The foundation of this order was America’s rise to unique economic predominance a century ago. That predominance is now coming to an end as China does what the Soviet Union and Imperial Germany never could: rise toward economic parity with the United States. That parity has not, in fact, yet arrived, and the most realistic measures suggest that the moment of parity won’t arrive until the later 2020's. Perhaps some unforeseen disruption in the Chinese economy—or some unexpected acceleration of American prosperity—will postpone the moment even further. But it is coming, and when it does, the fundamental basis of world-power politics over the past 100 years will have been removed. Just how big and dangerous a change that will be is the deepest theme of Adam Tooze's profound and brilliant grand narrative.










Thursday, July 26, 2018

Can the initial concepts behind famed movie Planes,Trains and Automobiles be effectively utilized under God in which best sum's up 2018's total mid-term woe's in points to be majority voter remembered over Fox news bias commentary reflect the spirit in nation that sleeps as hungry Spiritual Eye of faith's Tiger awaits to pounce in God's faith - We Trust? I guess both nation and world will find out what reality will become as it escalates into what never to do nor be!

What did and didn’t make it into the final GOP tax bill?

The real reason Donald Trump is so rich.

Trump’s false claim he built his empire with a ‘small loan’ from his father.

Donald Trump is raking in big bucks from emoluments foreign and domestic.


Trump Organization: Corporate Rap Sheet.

Why is false prides GOP congress afraid to mid-term pursue in demand of Mr.Trump to release his tax returns while Twain's question with nothing to hide then what's the Giuliani worry?

Donald Trump's Many, Many Business Dealings in 1 Map.

Why Donald Trump’s Trade War Will Fail Despite the president’s assurances, trade wars are bad—and impossible to win.

The Holy Spirit "Pities the Fools" that continue to buy into Trumps fakes are Americas majority.







Monday, July 23, 2018

Will 2018's mid-term historically arrow mark as twas the season of the pipe dream for the Voodoo Short - Seller?

It’s intriguing to think that the average America has actually reported that it realistically feels better particularly about corporate sectors, and that the general consensus stands in agreement among consumers. 

Media redundantly says people feel good about the economy yet a vast majority of average John Q. Public family units exist that apparently don’t have any money at the end of every month to keep spending?

Does current GOP recognize that the strong family unit traditionally was always the backbone of any successful economy and have any seen the political minefields they have layered for themselves that message: We Don't or ever Cared?

You be the judge as we examine a couple of the "case in point" worth remembering before casting any vote. 


We’re already 8 years into economic expansion, where economists generally say that the modern U.S. economy has never gone more than 10 years without a recession. 
So as far as recoveries go we are well into it where People have already bought their cars, remodeled their houses and done a lot of things that one does in any economic recovery along with incremental spending [spending based on increased disposable income] will be harder and harder to come by as time goes on yet sooner than thought.
Next lets add how Americans are getting unexpectedly higher copay and deductible expenses where about 50 percent received health care through employers must shoulder more and more of the health care obligation themselves, as something a lot of families haven’t or could have ever budgeted equals either way people who have even less money to spend even if their income isn’t shrinking and government pays about half the top line for U.S. health care companies in the form of reimbursement the politic indeed matters.

Relative change and difference.
In any quantitative science, the terms relative change and relative difference are used to compare two quantities while taking into account the "sizes" of the things being compared. The comparison is expressed as a ratio and is a unitless number. By multiplying these ratios by 100 they can be expressed as percentages so the terms percentage changepercent(age) difference, or relative percentage difference are also commonly used. The distinction between "change" and "difference" depends on whether or not one of the quantities being compared is considered a standard or reference or starting value. When this occurs, the term relative change (with respect to the reference value) is used and otherwise the term relative difference is preferred. Relative difference is often used as a quantitative indicator of quality assurance and quality control for repeated measurements where the outcomes are expected to be the same. A special case of percent change (relative change expressed as a percentage) called percent error occurs in measuring situations where the reference value is the accepted or actual value (perhaps theoretically determined) and the value being compared to it is experimentally determined (by measurement).




Bottom line? Be skeptical about apparent changes, and avoid making an immediate forecast—or at least don’t take any one forecast too seriously. The incoming future will wash up plenty more indicators on your beach, sooner than you think.• • •

One must look for the turns, (Trump Organization: Corporate Rap Sheet) not the straightaways, and thus one must peer far enough into the past to identify the patterns that mark the future and the potentials of becoming Twain'd in the process.








Thursday, July 19, 2018

“There is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America.”

“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well, I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: man’s old, old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”

Would-be heirs of Reagan should take note: He wasn’t just trying to speak to the base. He was trying to expand the base through persuasion of independents and, later, disaffected Democrats.




Reagan also understood that narrative can be more effective than abstractions or slogans alone.“Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, ‘We don’t know how lucky we are.’ And the Cuban stopped and said: ‘How lucky you are? 

I had someplace to escape to.’ And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”




Jesus preached democracy. He didn’t call it “democracy,” just called it doing God’s will. 
Take the definition of democracy and the social values Jesus taught and modeled and you would then have a difficult time telling the difference between them. 

Question is, why do those known for their religious right work so hard to undermine democracy . . . all while claiming to follow Jesus and support democracy and the constitution?

The standard dictionary definition of democracy - “A government of the people; esp: rule by the majority. A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation. The absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinction or privileges.” In short, the ideal of democracy includes power residing in the people (no rulers or leaders as such – “leaders” merely represent/stand in for the people), the absence of special privilege or preeminence for anyone (no one can claim a status above any other), and by extension, egalitarianism (everyone is equal in society).

Jesus did not come to establish a political order, but throughout his ministry he did preach and model social behavior for his followers and urged that they live according to a new set of principles very different from the existing social order. It’s this new social order that looks remarkably like the democratic ideal.

Again and again in the Gospels, Jesus rejects the idea of rulers or leaders with power over others since all are “brothers and sisters.” He tells his followers, “Do not be called Rabbi . . . And do not be called leaders, since you have only one leader, the Messiah.” Yet he defines his own leadership as that of a servant: “I am among you as one who serves.” And again, “The son of man came not to be served, but to serve.” When his disciples argue among themselves about who is preeminent, Jesus chastises them, urging them to be like children, “for the least among all of you is the greatest.” As in a true democracy, “leaders” exist to serve the people.

Similarly, Jesus completely rejects patriarchy, the prevailing social order of his day, and a system which confers a dominant, superior role on men. “Call no one on earth your father, for you have one Father – the one in heaven.” Throughout his ministry, in a stark repudiation of hierarchy, he urged his followers to create a new order in which everyone is like a child: “Unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Indeed, Jesus turns tradition on its head. Instead of children looking to their fathers as models, fathers (and all adults) must accept children as their ideal of behavior. 

Needless to say, a childlike patriarch is an oxymoron.




Jesus explicitly laid out the process by which the community is to govern itself and deal with differences and disputes. He uses the example of a community member who commits a wrong against another. The aggrieved member, he says, should meet with the offending party and point out the fault. If the offender agrees, that ends the matter.

If not, witnesses/evidence should be brought before the offender, who is given a second chance to make things right. If that doesn’t happen, the grievance is brought to the community which decides, giving the offender another chance to set the matter right. If the offender still refuses, he or she is ostracized by the community. 

Clearly, for Jesus, final authority rests with the community, not with any individual. The process could not be more democratic. 

The American Constitution, of course, goes beyond the definition of democracy and here, too, Jesus confers. The constitution rejects a theocracy and insists on separation of church and state. In telling his followers to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s,” Jesus makes clear that religion and state are separate and both should be respected.

The constitution’s preamble makes clear the purpose of government: to promote the general welfare, form a more perfect Union, insure justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and liberty for all. All purposes are community oriented. Here, too, Jesus is on board as he redefines the family as the community in which all are equal brothers and sisters who care for each other.

Taxation enables a democracy to function and thrive. Again, Jesus accepts the right of taxation. We have the interesting example in the Gospels of Jesus himself paying taxes even though it requires a miracle to procure the coin from the mouth of a fish to pay the tax collector.

And just as plutocracy, the power of the wealthy, is anathema to a democracy, Jesus again and again rejects wealth as incompatible with his new order.

So where does current GOP right through administration stand in democracy? 

We have heard their loud and repeated protestations that the constitution is or was their guide. 
Yet the closer look redundantly reveals a true emptiness in their alleged loyalty to the constitution with truths that are not of God by the representative democracy it sustains.



And just as plutocracy, the power of the wealthy, is anathema to a democracy, Jesus again and again rejects wealth as incompatible with his new order.

HYPOCRISY poses a serious threat to democracy on numerous grounds especially when it pushes  agendas composed of fabricated values bearing no relationship to what Jesus actually taught.

This type of nuclear family version of what the nuclear family should look like can only Smell Test the entails of the patriarchy that Simple English the acceptance of a hierarchy with the patriarch/father is its head. 

He is preeminent; his will is law; he dominates all members of the family as the sole authority to which they are subordinate.



There are perhaps four speeches in American history that so electrified the public that they propelled their orators to the front rank of politics overnight: Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper Union Address of 1860, William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech at the 1896 Democratic convention, Barack Obama’s keynote address to the 2004 Democratic convention and Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech 50 years ago.

Although most Americans were familiar with Reagan from his movies, this was the first many had glimpsed of his politics. The Reagan whom Americans saw on the night of Oct. 27, 1964, was not the avuncular, optimistic Reagan of his film roles, or of his subsequent political career that emphasized “morning in America” and the “shining city on a hill,” but a comparatively angry and serious Reagan, serving up partisan red meat.
“Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government,” he declared, “and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.”
In conclusion under current administrations continuity explodes Reagan was “too moderate” for today’s GOP and frustrated Republicans can’t measure up to the Gipper’s standard as a “great communicator.”
In practical politics, this would include lacks in the need for key leaders to lay out serious and compelling cases for the choosing under God.


Political egalitarianism is where members of a society are of equal standing in terms of political power or influence. It is a founding principle of various forms of democracy. It was an idea which was supported by Thomas Jefferson. It is a concept similar to moral reciprocity and legal equality.