I came up with an idea that IMF acting like a credit card or line of credit to 3rd world countries is hampering their ability to build wealth.
As Dave puts it... as long as you are owing money to someone else, living beyond your means, doing the "90 days same as cash" etc you'll never get ahead. You see he proffers and I think he is right..... if you carry a balance... just a little over every month you will eventually be owing a chunk of interest... that interest is no going to your pocket but, theirs. Thus slowly you erode your opportunity for wealth.
So if the 3rd world countries would pay as they go..... kept to their budget they'd build wealth. So instead of getting money from the IMF (in our case it would be the local lending institute) it actually saved up for projects it would come out ahead. Think if they are borrowing 25 billion at 5% for some dam project. You might think the amount is small and the interest spread out over 30 years would be low. However, they could save the interest payments if they took just a couple of years to save up the 25 billion. In most cases the total amount of payments will be about double the amount borrowed. So depending a little up front sacrifice will bring long term advantages.
For this example on this 25 billion dollar loan there would be payments of about 1.34 billion monthly over the 30 years. So in reality they would need to wait about 2 or 3 years and would have the total they need for the project. Granted the payments are based on the fact they have a certain amount of upfront money in say the neighborhood of 5 billion. so they likely need about 30 billion total for the project. So three years would do it to save if the 1.34 billion payment amount were used.
Think of that 3 years of waiting to basically save 20-30 billion. They would by waiting have two projects in less time then it would have been to pay off the first one by taking the loan.
If countries would us this method they could have some real GDP growth, as they potentially would have double the money in the long haul.
So there is my 2¢ worth of thoughts.
Applying the total money makeover could do wonders not only for average household in the USA, but, those in other countries and for the governments of those countries.
I guess when we start to talk about government we need to define a few of the more common version of government.
This will work like many of the discussion I had with the Cub Scout about types of government when helping them understand what it means to "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC to which it stands". Most did not know what a republic is. Many adults may not know what a republic is.
So there we start.
A Republic referrers to a form of government where things are in general public. This means offices are not inherited, and things are in general out in the open. Viewable by the masses in one form or another.
Then you have a Monarchy. This is a simple form that has as it's head a single person who passes their office down hierarchically. The the person that held the position in times immortal my have gotten selected due to some act of valor, heroism, skill etc. Over time due to it being hereditary the competence of the person may be in question.
Then you have your forms of Dictatorships. These are situations were one or just a couple people are in charge (like a monarchy) and maintain that position by force in most cases. The populous in no way had a say in who these people that run things are. That is what acts of force are so commonly used. People disappear when they appose those in charge. Not a good system to be under.
Then there are the Theocracies. They basically have leadership based on religious elements. Again in this system the church and state are near identical. What the church says the state or government promotes. If the church says it is wrong to kiss and show signs of affection in public then the government in short order will pass a law making that illegal. There are mixed feelings on this government style. Some good, some bad.
Then there is Communism where the government dictates how things are to be. They control production, schooling, recreation and the like. They basically treat you like a child; believe you don't know what is best for you. They also like to make thing equal for everyone. This is generally not a very good method, hard to implement. Lots of problems arise and life is not good.
Then the granddaddy of them all Democracy. There are various levels of democracy. Pure democracy requires that every little change be voted on by the populous as a whole. Can you imagine needing to get 300 million people to vote every time we decide to send aid to some foreign country or have a new ambassador to Brazil. Nothing would get done very quickly.
That is why usually you see a representative form of democracy. This is where the populous votes on the people that want to represent them. Those people then become the ones that work out aid bills, ambassadors, regulation on immigration and the like. We don't have to get bogged down in the details. We also are not voting hundreds of time each year on every little thing.
You still have to pay attention to what the representative is doing. If he is voting for things you don't like then you have to vote for some one else the next time you have a chance.
This is generally considered the best form of government.
It is what the United States and most Western European countries us. Lots of central and south American countries use this as well, though it has not always been so.
Lastly, you have Anarchy where there is no form of government. In reality this does not last long as you will find people coalescing around certain ideas of picking someone as there leader.
Each and everyone one of these forms of government has its drawbacks. The question then become which of these will best serve your own interests?
If your the king your likely to do fine in a monarchy. Not so well if your the little man. Do something the local king does not like and you might just end up in prison. Or have your head cut off.
The laws, taxes etc under this system are determined by the king. If he decides to build some huge palace he might raise taxes. What benefit does this have to anyone outside the person(s) that will reside in the palace? None really so it is potentially a very selfish form of government. Mosiah 29:16 "Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you".
Dictatorships are also selfish. One or a couple of people decide what the heck is going on. If they don't like what you are saying about them, or what you have been doing - you disappear. Force and fear keeps them in control. This is no in the interest of the people. Select groups of people benefit, though the majority suffer.
I've never heard of a righteous dictatorship.
Communism also is a special animal. The ideal that everyone is equal. That everyone is part of owner of everything seems like a great idea. If production is great all benefit, if production is bad all suffer. However, since all is "classless" who do you blame?
This method failed over time in Russia and is not in anyway close to its pure form in China. In reality this system of government is as much economic as political.
Not much of this is in your self interest. Not much of this is to your benefit. And in some respects it maybe detrimental.
One reason this system does not work so well is that force is again included. You don't have those that are well off give freely of their goods to help the destitute. You have no one well off technically so, wealth is automatically redistributed.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints early on had a United Order which some would claim is basically communism. it is clearly not since people freely entered the order and chose to use their wealth to benefit of all - United Order
An organization through which the Saints in the early days of the
restored Church sought to live the law of consecration. Individuals
shared property, goods, and profits, receiving these things according to
their wants and needs (D&C 51:3; 78:1–15; 104).
One of the problems with communism is that eventually, little motivation exists to improve things. Production does not meet reality and shortages, and other problems arise.
So some form of democratic government with a free market type system is the best. Still there are flaws but, generally this will be the system that creates the greatest wealth, helps the greatest number of people and causes general prosperity.
It's now a system that takes from the rich to help the poor or the like. It's people being able to start up companies with minimal government interferance. It's people free do as they will.
Granted we have to have some minimum standard right?
Some would argue that we do not. That we will self regulate if need be.... that eventually the gross polutors will go away. Some of that may be true. But, we always act in our own self interest.
And that is why we must ask.... Is the government working in our best interest?
It's a good question when it comes to a representative democracy.
We have people representing us but, do we have the time to find out what they are voting for?
In the end your vote may statistically mean next to nothing. Especially, given the amount of time needed to properly understand candidates and their positions. Being thus, we end up with a lot of poorly qualified people in all kinds of elected positions.
That goodness there are term limited. We just keep rotating in the less then qualified. Some times a good one come along and things get done for the betterment of all in the community. To often it is for the good of the few.
This has been true over the years. For some time the business/factory owners had the full support of people and government when unionizing was underway. Then years later the tables were turned. The workers organizing were backed.
So things do switch around. You have person in government that may help out the farm lobby, basically causing them more wealth at the expense of someone else which in most cases are the city folks
David Freidman talking on government and economics
I just got done reading an article from the BBC on how the government of Britain is proposing to handle the whole gay marriage situation. Here is listing of the 4 main things the government want to enshrine in legislation.
"In her statement, Mrs Miller promised a "quadruple lock" to protect religious freedom, involving:
No religious organisation or individual minister being
compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their
premises
Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their
ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's
governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination
claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual
ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple
The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for
the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples
and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply
Once you read the whole article you will notice that this a rather ingenious way of handling things. They want to make sure that some of the problems that have surfaced in the United States are not problems in Britain. Essentially, so many states including California have pasted legislation to ban gay marriage. They don't want to be forced to do anything, especially, gay marriage with which they don't believe.
One oft sighted example is what has or is happening in Canada. There several churches and recreational facilities have been sued due to the fact they won't lease/rent their location to someone having a gay marriage.
So in Britain they are making it so that no one can sue if a specific religion or organization wants nothing to do with gay marriage. They also want to make it so that those that want to can go full head into the mud can be happy about it.
This keeps religious leadership from having to compromise their principles, and be forced into something they wish no part of.
One major issues that is coming to light in the states is what to do about gay married couples that move out of a state to one that does not recognize their situation. As of right now the majority of states have written into their constitution something against gay marriage. So those that leave Massachusetts and head to one of those 32 states would be plumb out of luck. I guess that is one issue the Supreme Court will have to resolve. They could just push it to the side and leave it alone giving each state their autonomy.
One of the complications of the Prop. 8 situation in California is that the pro-gay group went to a federal judge to get around what was a state issue. This forced the hand to have the supreme court get involved. Is this a state's issue or a federal issue? This could end up being like the whole Slaves issue back 150 years ago. I don't think it would come down to a civil war. We have to many passive people in the country now and really the gays make up say 10-15% of the population max. Would the wishy washy people that passively support gays and their right to marry take up arms to defend them? I don't think so. They'd rather watch some gay on TV and feel good about it. So the more hard core Christians and religious people will win out the day with this. Unfortunately, things can get foisted on us if we are not careful.
So hopefully, the supreme court can do the right thing and see the light provided by the British Government. And especially not follow the example that is being set in Canada.
The majority has to take the higher hand there and firmly put down their foot. And Poo huh to those that cry discrimination. Don't force your point of view on me and I'll not force mine on you.
I have recently been turned onto some old PBS based presentations by economist Milton Friedman.
Turns out he is one of the most respected under recognized economist of the mid to late 20th century. His presentations on PBS aired in the early 80's.
He really advocates for a more limited government and more free market. Especially, he argues that we need to do it and not wait or try to make the rest of the world go along. He thinks it will benefit us more even if there is unfair competition out there in the world.
His PBS series of ten(10) video segments and debate are very provocative. He purports to not have all the ideas but, uses examples around the world where his ideas of limited government are helping to create a better of citizenry and also sights examples where the reverse is true. He's very good to not make it exclusively about the United States. As we have become more global and interconnected many of his ideas and principals have become more poignant, prudent and relevant.
I'm going to include a link to all 10 episodes. Each one is a good hour long so it is a lot of heavy viewing. He covers topics like schools, free markets, dealing with poverty, consumer regulation, and much much more.
Free to Choose: Part 1: Power of the Market
Free to Choose: Part 2: Tyranny of Control
Free to Choose: Part 3: Anatomy of a Crisis
Free to Choose: Part 4: From Cradle to Grave
Free to Choose: Part 5: Created Equal
Free to Choose: Part 6: What's Wrong with our Schools
Free to Choose: Part 7: Who Protects the Consumer
Free to Choose: Part 8: Who Protects the Worker
Free to Choose: Part 9: How to Cure Inflation
Free to Choose: Part 10: How to Stay Free
Well you may think that some of these topics or elements of discussion are dated. True they seem to be as things have changed. Interstate commerce restrictions seem to have been lifted. Some changes have been made to welfare and the FDA seems to have improved their approval process for drugs. At least more seem to be getting out into the market though it still can take years of testing. However, due to some of things that have been brought up in these discussions may well have help win the election. In light of the points and topics brought up here you might want to rethink Mitt Romney's 47% comment.
He's clearly a libertarian at heart. And a laissez-faire kind of guy.
The ever difficult task is to find that proper balance of Government intervention and the free market. To find the proper blend of hands off economics and general protections we expect to have in society.
I'd say that Mitt Romney was more of a Friedman economics guy then Obama, and clearly we would have likely been better off if he had been elected. Only time and hindsight will tell...........
Just as it will with the whole Gay marriage debate!
So watch the videos if you have not already and become enlightened. It might not make you change your mind completely but it could help you to see things from more then one side.
I like to take few moments and comment on religious freedom and the advantages that a religious society have.
Religion in society provides us with a basis or background from which we can judge our own action. I know you will say that in as much as we have the 10 commandments many in the government doe not follow them. Rightfully so, you can claim that. But, it does provide a standard by which we can judge ourselves.
There are quite a few times that we see from the Book of Mormon how the society (Nephites) here in the Americas deteriorated as the people in general dwindled in unbelief. Their turning away from the Gospel and falling into wickedness eventually lead to their down fall. The other part of society (i.e the enemy or Lamanites) came in and via war, bloodshed and contention wiped them out.
As the people relied on their own strength and did not recognize the hand of God in their lives they began to fail and fall. They entered into a phase in the circular cycle. This cycle goes from 1. humbling ones self and recognizing God in our lives, 2. being blessed and prospering, 3. becoming prideful, etc, and finally 4. being humbled by the Lord.
So can we see that as we turn away from our religious roots we begin to rely more on "the arm of the flesh" and begin to become a loathsome and abominable people.
But, what then does this have to do with religious freedom?
When we begin to persecute those of other faiths be they Christian or not we begin to suppress religion in general. When religion in general is no longer tolerated we begin to lose our way and enter in the pride portion of the cycle. Thus some that would say that we must be tolerant of all and thus we can not have anything that appears religious in any shape or form associated with government are actually promoting the opposite.
At that point they are basically denying the existence of a supreme being. This is thus very dangerous. But, at the same time we have to be careful that we are not promoting one religion over another.
I love the fact that at many town and city council meetings they have a prayer at the begin of the meeting. Usually, a pastor or other leader of a local church is called in to over this prayer. Every time it is rotated around to someone new. Thus no on religion, denomination or faith is promoted over another. But, in some instances this is being pushed aside.
We are setting aside our standards, changing our moral compass. All in the claim that we must be more inclusive and/or tolerant of those around us. But, in the end we are denying our maker and moving away from our foundation of faith.
Will societies ills be fixed over night as we promote religion in any of it's forms? No, it will not but, take communities where there is lack of a family unit, morals are lacks or no existent, and honest is a thing rarely seen. Imagine how much better this community would be if there were people striving to live a moral life, uphold the family unit, and be honest and neighborly to one another. This surely would improve life in the neighborhood.
Sometimes they state that you can take the people out of the ghetto but, not the ghetto out of the people. Imagine if you took the ghetto out of the people.... Religion can provide the basis for which to do this. So we have to adamantly promote religion in all its forms.
Since it is easy to see that spiritual, no less the physical benefits of religion in our society. So thank the next person you see for being religiously involved and for standing up for their faith and religious rights. Let us stand bold such that our little ones will not think we are those that "Do not believe in Jesus" - or basically lack any religious orientation.
We definitely do not want to end up like Nazi Germany or the fall of the Nephite Civilization as recounted by Mormon to his son Moroni-
7 And now I write somewhat concerning the sufferings of this people. For according to the knowledge which I have received from Amoron, behold, the Lamanites have many prisoners, which they took from the tower of Sherrizah; and there were men, women, and children.
8 And the husbands and fathers of those women and children they have slain; and they feed the women upon the aflesh of their husbands, and the children upon the flesh of their fathers; and no water, save a little, do they give unto them.
9 And notwithstanding this great aabomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after bdepriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is cchastity and dvirtue—
10 And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most acruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery.
11 O my beloved son, how can a people like this, that are without civilization—
12 (And only a few years have passed away, and they were a civil and a delightsome people)
13 But O my son, how can a people like this, whose adelight is in so much abomination—
14 How can we expect that God will astay his hand in judgment against us?
Well it looks like Mitt Romney has won the Iowa Caucuses. And that bring back up the question of - will the evangelical Christians, so heavily touted in the Republican party, accept as their candidate a Mormon?
As was discussed earlier in another post - Are Mormons Christian? the issues of acceptability will most likely play into a final decision by a large but indeterminate block of voters. Not to mention if he goes up against Obama will the larger population have as big a problem with the religion of the candidate as they supposedly have in the primaries?
Ultimately, I don't think that the religion of a candidate should have much bearing on their ability to lead. I do get that it's nice to know a candidate would turn to GOD for help if he feels overwhelmed. I can also see the flip side where they are worried one would turn to GOD for every little thing, or their local ecclesiastical leader.
So unless they claim to be some kind of devil worshiping, human sacrificing type of person it really should not matter. Though would it be a problem if the candidate claims to be atheist or that he believes in Tree worship? If one goes at least by the 10 Commandments found in the old testament and other scriptures of other religions, or some similar tenants then they should be OK. But, I guess to some a few of the difference among religious sects is enough to turn them off.
Is it enough that a candidate not be Christian to be turned off? That makes for an interesting situation when we get our First Hindu, Muslim or how about an Asian Buddhist candidate with serious potential.
As you'll notice most if not all of these so called "differences" would have any bearing on the ability of one to lead. I'd take in account the honesty, integrity, and voting record of a person. Now some of the weaselly candidates will do what is called a flip-flop in regards to an issue, since they might claim it was good at the time or that it is appropriate for just the state they represented.
Remember that there are times that the information available in hind sight lead someone to head in a certain direction they might not have later if the whole "truth" was known.
But, again does it matter that there is a difference of opinion on whether God the Father has a body and the ability of the person to lead?
This also brings up some sordid questions regarding the primary system used by the parties. Do they bring to the top the extreme left and/or right wing types as candidates try and cater to the "Party Base"? Republicans are always trying to look more "conservative" then the next in primary season. Then they go the other direction and try to making themselves look more "moderate" when it comes to the general election. How in the heck can they really do this? I think many talk of the topics the "base" wants to hear and then in the general election they hope to heck to not have to deal with it or bring it back up. Does not always work that way.
Most people will accept the fact that when the founding Fathers of the United States of America put out the Bill of Rights and other declarations leading to the culmination of the Constitution it was one of the most extraordinary events regarding rights and government that had occurred up until that time. Why would that be? Up until that time in history the general form of government reigning throughout Europe and many other parts of the world was the Monarchy. If the Monarch was evil the people suffered from over taxation, and other depravities of rights. If the Monarch was just there was general prosperity and the people felt happy and satisfied. Not much middle ground.
So why would one say that the Celts had an advanced form of governance? Why would one say that their format was quasi-democratic and in many instances lead to the lessening of being stuck with an incompetent or evil leader. We know very well that the Celts of the British Isles had many a king. Just look to Scotland as one example. We also know that in some instances due to issues with heirs general civil war broke out due to multiple claimants to the thrown.
The Celts had a general system that allowed for almost nonhereditary succession to the kingship.
From Helen Litton's "The Celts An Illustrated History we find the following:
"The King was not necessarily the son of the previous king, but could be a member of his extended family. The King could be chosen from any of the descendants of a common great-grandfather. Once you no longer had a grandparent or great-grandparent who had been king, you would no longer have any right to succeed. Succession seems to have been matter of the strongest of the available candidates exerting his right by demonstrating his strength, possibly with the agreement of the previous king on his deathbed." pg 91
One such explanation comes from W.A. Cummins in his book entitled : "The Ages of the Picts". He has a chapter on The Female Royal Line. "The Picts, unlike the English or the Britons, chose their kings from the female line..... Apart from importance of the female royal line, Bede's also suggests that the Picts (or more probably the kings of the various Pictish tribes) had some control over the choice of the overlord, the King of the Picts. Was this the secret of their success?" pg 32
So we see a quasi-democratic system. A general body of people had a say in the final determination of the High King or Local Tuath king. In as much as per the custom only a select number of people were eligible for the position of King. Keeping it from being totally hereditary lessened the chance of being stuck with a weak or less then desirable king. Sounds like some of the benefits endorsed by the constitutional system.
W.A. Cummins further elaborates on the benefits of this type of system.
"1. The system posed no threat to the sovereignty of the tribes that joined the scheme, nor did it give any long-term benefit to the family or tribe of the ruling king.
2. The age range of the candidates for the kingship would be considerable, probably as much as 30 to 40 years. Thus there was never the slightest need to need to choose a boy who was to young for the responsibility or a man who was to old and infirm to lead the nation effectively.
3. The number of candidates ensure that the kingdom need never be saddled with a king who was physically disabled or mentally unsound.
4. Unlike a modern election to choose a president or prime minister, the candidates for the Pictish kingship would be recognized as such from birth and would be well known before the old king died"
Many of the advantages are similar to that of the elector system. Not saddled with a bad candidate, large number of people to select from etc. Granted not all systems are perfect.
What is interesting to note is that the Pictish system of selecting from the female line seems to have been over powered by the influence of the English system on the eventual merged greater Scottish community that came from the Picts and the Dalraidians.
And it just came to mind that the Vikings had a system of governance that included the Thing.
Another quasi-democratic institution that will need to be further discussed in another post.
by Dave Ramsey recently. It sure has been an eye opener in a variety of areas.
