And here are his actual powers unbder our two-halves of one party state;
Sets the agenda
Threatens to veto unless his masters are appeased
Threatens to expose congress for the dogs they are
Controls the FCC
Controls the mainstream print media, and the "alternative" conservative media
Prevents revolution by offering weak alternatives to Congressional socialist programs.
Appoints Supreme Court and Appellate judges.
To me, it sounds like he has more than enough power to do whatever the hell he wants, including invading a powerless, supine Arab dictatorship (Iraq) at the request of his betters in the oil industry.
I have to disagree on the president - true the congress is supposed to declare war, but they have abdicated their duty and given the power to the executive in clear violation of the Constitution. Why? To preserve their re-electability. They can't steal everything they lust for in a single term in office, so they need to appease the president so he will look favorably upon the pork-barrel spending they use to get re-elected. The net result is that the president (and his minions, or masters) has close to absolute power to do anything he wants, as long as he can get re-elected!
You couldn't be more wrong. When it comes to failing to keep a Republic, there is NO difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
Lincoln, a Republican, destroyed the republic, and substituted "Democracy", meaning majority rule, which really is rule by special interests (see rational apathy and public choice). He jailed all opponents who spoke out against him,suspended the Constitution, deported a senator (twice), and violated every tenet of the brand-new Geneva Conventions by killing and plundering civilians as well as soldiers on his way through the South. His successors continued this successful strategy with the Plains Indians. In both cases, the principle beneficiaries were railroads, shipping companies, and Northern manufacturers. Least helped were the southerners, and the former slaves themselves, who never received the grants of land and money they were promised.
A brief respite occurred under Grover Cleveland (a Democrat) who was probably the last president who understood what the Constitution said. He vetoed everything that wasn't clearly authorized by the constitution.
Teddy Roosevelt (Republican)led us into the Spanish-American War, and turned the basic character of our nation from a democracy to an empire. Wilson (Democrat) extended the empire and entrenched the military-industrial complex fully within the government. He also created the conditions for the rise of Hitler and the fall of the Chinese nationalists. Hoover (Republican) destroyed trade, followed by Roosevelt (Democrat) who destroyed capitalism and replaced it with state-managed capitalistic socialism. Truman is a war criminal, the only person ever to use nuclear weapons in conflict (against civilians). Eisenhower and Kennedy got us into useless wars. Nixon controlled wages and prices, and introduced huge amounts of regulation (EPA, OSHA). Carter deregulated (partially) a couple of industries, while Reagan eliminated gas price controls but doubled the size of government and developed our republic's habit of interfering in things not our business. Clinton killed thousands in Iraq through sanctions, which Madeline Albright said was "worth it". He repeated this performance in Bosnia and Kosovo. He also destroyed the economy by prosecuting Microsoft and leaving Alan Greenspan in charge of the Fed. His attorney general was also the first federal officer to stage a military assault on US citizens since Lincoln.
And finally Bush and Co. , elected, like Clinton, without a majority, are busy dismantling the last vestiges of our Republican liberty, while killing tens of thousands. And so on. It matters very little which of the two parties is in office - both have an abysmal record of killing and stealing in the name of "democracy" (note, not "republic").
The Republic bequeathed to us by the founders is long gone. Get over it already.
The Austrians believe that the business cycle is caused primarily by fractional reserve banking, period. Until this is refuted, by neoclassical economists or anyone else, there isn't much theory to discuss.
More importantly, the Austrian School is the only branch of economic study that admits that human action makes economies inherently unpredictable. People as individuals or in groups simply are not consistently rational in their economic thinking or actions. Therefore models will only ever be useful in explaining what has happened in the past, and will always be insufficient to explain what will happen in the future.
Austrian School Economics Articles and Discussion;
http://www.mises.org/
Austrian and Libertarian Political and Economic Articles:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
You have a point about the relative freedom of movement of capital versus the relative lack of freedom of movement of labor. Both should be totally free to flow wherever they peacefully may. That would result in the highest utility for all. The current system's constraints inhibit equal benefits across the economies involved.
But aren't anti-globalists against workers moving across borders, i.e.; millions of Mexicans crossing into the US to work? And how can one say this doesn't happen now, immigration policy to the contrary?
As someone who has actually worked internationally (in a Caribbean country), I find the assumption that globalization of labor (outsourcing or offshoring) works only in one direction (jobs flow to lower-cost economies) to be ridiculous.
In my case, I worked with thousands of highly-skilled, highly-paid US workers for several years in that country to complete a large project worth billions of dollars, the larger portion of which flowed directly back into the US economy. This is far from a unique situation.
If you looked at the total number of wage dollars in the labor trade, you would likely find that the number of wage dollars flowing into the US economy (through professionals and technical experts from here working abroad) is probably, if anything, higher than the number of wage dollars flowing offshore to Indian call centers and the like.
Until someone does an honest accounting of all of the flows of value in and out of the economy, one cannot say that outsourcing or offshoring are even the least bit bad on balance for the economy, unless one is a demagogic politician playing on the ignorance and fear of American workers.
To view this discussion from an Austrian School perspective;
http://www.mises.org/http://www.libertyguys.org/
Slashdot Mirror
And here are his actual powers unbder our two-halves of one party state; Sets the agenda Threatens to veto unless his masters are appeased Threatens to expose congress for the dogs they are Controls the FCC Controls the mainstream print media, and the "alternative" conservative media Prevents revolution by offering weak alternatives to Congressional socialist programs. Appoints Supreme Court and Appellate judges. To me, it sounds like he has more than enough power to do whatever the hell he wants, including invading a powerless, supine Arab dictatorship (Iraq) at the request of his betters in the oil industry.
I have to disagree on the president - true the congress is supposed to declare war, but they have abdicated their duty and given the power to the executive in clear violation of the Constitution. Why? To preserve their re-electability. They can't steal everything they lust for in a single term in office, so they need to appease the president so he will look favorably upon the pork-barrel spending they use to get re-elected. The net result is that the president (and his minions, or masters) has close to absolute power to do anything he wants, as long as he can get re-elected!
You couldn't be more wrong. When it comes to failing to keep a Republic, there is NO difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Lincoln, a Republican, destroyed the republic, and substituted "Democracy", meaning majority rule, which really is rule by special interests (see rational apathy and public choice). He jailed all opponents who spoke out against him,suspended the Constitution, deported a senator (twice), and violated every tenet of the brand-new Geneva Conventions by killing and plundering civilians as well as soldiers on his way through the South. His successors continued this successful strategy with the Plains Indians. In both cases, the principle beneficiaries were railroads, shipping companies, and Northern manufacturers. Least helped were the southerners, and the former slaves themselves, who never received the grants of land and money they were promised. A brief respite occurred under Grover Cleveland (a Democrat) who was probably the last president who understood what the Constitution said. He vetoed everything that wasn't clearly authorized by the constitution. Teddy Roosevelt (Republican)led us into the Spanish-American War, and turned the basic character of our nation from a democracy to an empire. Wilson (Democrat) extended the empire and entrenched the military-industrial complex fully within the government. He also created the conditions for the rise of Hitler and the fall of the Chinese nationalists. Hoover (Republican) destroyed trade, followed by Roosevelt (Democrat) who destroyed capitalism and replaced it with state-managed capitalistic socialism. Truman is a war criminal, the only person ever to use nuclear weapons in conflict (against civilians). Eisenhower and Kennedy got us into useless wars. Nixon controlled wages and prices, and introduced huge amounts of regulation (EPA, OSHA). Carter deregulated (partially) a couple of industries, while Reagan eliminated gas price controls but doubled the size of government and developed our republic's habit of interfering in things not our business. Clinton killed thousands in Iraq through sanctions, which Madeline Albright said was "worth it". He repeated this performance in Bosnia and Kosovo. He also destroyed the economy by prosecuting Microsoft and leaving Alan Greenspan in charge of the Fed. His attorney general was also the first federal officer to stage a military assault on US citizens since Lincoln. And finally Bush and Co. , elected, like Clinton, without a majority, are busy dismantling the last vestiges of our Republican liberty, while killing tens of thousands. And so on. It matters very little which of the two parties is in office - both have an abysmal record of killing and stealing in the name of "democracy" (note, not "republic"). The Republic bequeathed to us by the founders is long gone. Get over it already.
The Austrians believe that the business cycle is caused primarily by fractional reserve banking, period. Until this is refuted, by neoclassical economists or anyone else, there isn't much theory to discuss. More importantly, the Austrian School is the only branch of economic study that admits that human action makes economies inherently unpredictable. People as individuals or in groups simply are not consistently rational in their economic thinking or actions. Therefore models will only ever be useful in explaining what has happened in the past, and will always be insufficient to explain what will happen in the future. Austrian School Economics Articles and Discussion; http://www.mises.org/ Austrian and Libertarian Political and Economic Articles: http://www.lewrockwell.com/
You have a point about the relative freedom of movement of capital versus the relative lack of freedom of movement of labor. Both should be totally free to flow wherever they peacefully may. That would result in the highest utility for all. The current system's constraints inhibit equal benefits across the economies involved. But aren't anti-globalists against workers moving across borders, i.e.; millions of Mexicans crossing into the US to work? And how can one say this doesn't happen now, immigration policy to the contrary? As someone who has actually worked internationally (in a Caribbean country), I find the assumption that globalization of labor (outsourcing or offshoring) works only in one direction (jobs flow to lower-cost economies) to be ridiculous. In my case, I worked with thousands of highly-skilled, highly-paid US workers for several years in that country to complete a large project worth billions of dollars, the larger portion of which flowed directly back into the US economy. This is far from a unique situation. If you looked at the total number of wage dollars in the labor trade, you would likely find that the number of wage dollars flowing into the US economy (through professionals and technical experts from here working abroad) is probably, if anything, higher than the number of wage dollars flowing offshore to Indian call centers and the like. Until someone does an honest accounting of all of the flows of value in and out of the economy, one cannot say that outsourcing or offshoring are even the least bit bad on balance for the economy, unless one is a demagogic politician playing on the ignorance and fear of American workers. To view this discussion from an Austrian School perspective; http://www.mises.org/ http://www.libertyguys.org/