(no subject)
I have been corresponding with some friends as of late.
This article about fire damage and social justice came up.
If you're interested,
I’m going to tie this to my earlier arguments about limited resources* (earlier arguments below).
The US can afford to ‘manage’ forests. It can also afford to stop interfering with the way forests actually act to naturally suppress fires and implement better logging practices to avoid this. In the book I’ve been reading, Collapse (by Jared Diamond, a pro-business environmentalist like me), he goes on and on to tell the tales of blunders perpetuated by ‘managing’ the forests. When forests are ‘managed’, they require energy, effort, money, etc.
Our government, though, has prioritized the ‘War on Terror’ over our educations, our safety, and yes, our forestry management systems.
I love this quote:
“Rural, low-income households are often located far from help. A breadwinner working two jobs probably doesn't have time to get to volunteer fire training or clear brush, never mind apply for a brush-clearing grant.”
I think this poor-without-time-to-X theme is hopefully going to start to catch on, because, well, it is true. As the rich get richer, fewer of us have time to serve our communities. And when the rich get richer, that inflates housing prices, which raises property taxes for all of us. If you don’t want to move or sell your place to the next highest bidder and move further away from your established community, that hurts you.
Some people can’t afford to do this stuff on their own. But the Republican rhetoric and governance promotes that we all go it alone. That the miniscule tax reductions of 1.5% are going to help everyone. What they fail to see, from their ivory towers, is that, while 1.5% of 10M$ is a lot of money, 1.5% of 20K$ isn’t. And the savings for each individual of that 1.5% doesn’t amount to the services that that citizen would have to pay for piece-meal, such as this case, such as education, such as driving on roads, such as urban planning, etc. etc.
Our limited resources in America stem from poor management of funds and poor choices made by those in control of those funds.
As an example: “Last year, the NFP provided $58 million, and has doled out $445 million since its inception. But there is no mechanism to track whether the funding is going to the people most in need of support.”
Republican strategy for getting rid of mismanaged funds is to not fix the problem, but eliminate the program. That hardly works. It usually makes things either worse or more severe. Examples: healthcare: with no coverage, people wait until things escalate, which leads to the emergency room, which is more expensive than preventative care. This is a theme across nations, borders, and governments though: incentives for forethought are not there - governments tend to be more reactive than proactive.
Republican strategies for privitisation of resources do not solve the incentive issues, either. Halliburton is not efficient, nor are many large companies. Large companies can afford waste, and they do. Large companies tend to have structural issues where the workloads are so large, that the individual contributes such a small amount, they don’t have a big picture mentality, thereby not being as efficient as they could. Large companies also have layers and layers of management not necessary by smaller companies, which is a drain on resources. Government, such as schools, suffer from these same issues: issues of scale.
-------
*earlier argument thread here:
-------
From: Amoree
Subject: OUTRAGE!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5233704.stm
---My response---
As a lover of most things Chinese, this is one of the least problems that China has. China has lots of issues with human rights, environmental degradation (making starvation and water poisoning a reality not only for animals, but for people) and a slew of other things. The fact that they’re doing something about the rabies problem, actually, surprises me.
Life is looked at very differently in Asia. It isn’t valued like it is here. People ride motorcycles without helmets, they are shot by their governments in riots, they smoke, etc. etc. Life is fully abundant in China, and the notion of something like the pro-life movement in Asia would be absolutely ridiculous. That is not really our place to judge. Even though we may think of things as wrong, it is the way they do things. And we need to respect that. Only by setting a good example will you be able to change things (which I think you do, Amoree, and I think Lisa’s a terrible, horrible person who eats kittens [wink, kidding!]). And change only happens if they’re looking for it.
The fact that the Chinese are clubbing dogs in front of their owners has much less of an emotional impact there than it does here. In Thailand, no one owned pets, they just ran around in the streets on their own. No loving home, nothing like that. It is alien to Asians to revere life like we do, in general.
-Cedric Justice
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lisa
> Subject: RE: OUTRAGE!!!
>
> hmmm . . . so, why are they not killing chickens/birds, since that's
> what's spreading the Avian Flu?? Rabies can be cured in a person if they
> get the correct treatment, but that doesn't seem to be the case in China.
> I like my kittens barbecued with spicy sauce! yummy! :-P
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Justice, Cedric
To: lisa
You think they didn't kill thousands of chickens during the outbreak? Oh, they totally did! If there was one bird amongst many, they killed the lot of them.
China suffers from lots of things; limited resources is number one. We can all probably relate to limited resources precluding us from making the best decisions. China has that issue as well: they only have so many resources to throw at so many fires. When it comes down to it, puppies don't rate as compared to making sure that over a billion people have economic opportunity, health, etc.
-Cedric Justice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lisa
>
> http://www.aapn.org/peixian.html *warning the pictures are really
> graphic
>
> Oh, yeah, the Chinese eat dogs too . . . and cats!
Regarding eating dog:
The pictures I say were not gruesome. They looked like any other slaughtering organisation. When it comes down to it, I found plenty of worse things, things I couldn't even watch, online when it came to slaughter (namely a PETA video of a Kosher slaughterhouse... it was horrible).
M and I both have a philosophy when it comes to eating meat: if you can't kill it yourself, then you shouldn't be eating it. (She won't eat chicken or deer, I will if the time comes that I have to. I find deer gorgeous creatures and would be honoured to eat them.) When it comes down to it, people are omnivores. There is little you can do, due to our flawed psychology and resulting disconnects, to educate people or make them 'get' that the meat they are eating was alive at some point: conscious. A lot of times, though, people simply don't care. They don't have a connection with animals. Some quotes I liked:
"At this point I must declare my personal view that eating dogs is wrong. But no more wrong than eating pigs, rabbits and cows. I understand of course the arguments concerning why it is good to eat pigs and not dogs but these arguments are tenuous and, anyway, are impossible to get over to someone who has been brought up in a tradition of dog eating. I do not think we can ever convince someone to stop eating dog meat if we ourselves continue to eat pig meat [(my comment) or any other meat in my opinion].
... Traditionally, small farmers keep a few dogs as watch dogs. These dogs breed naturally and there are always a few puppies more than is required for replacement purposes. A middle man comes round the farms from time to time, buys the puppies when they are nearly full grown... and sells them to restaurants. The restaurants keep them in cages until a customer picks out a dog he would like to eat. The dog then has his head smashed in and/or his throat cut and is cooked on the spot. Not pleasant but not as bad as what is happening now. [actually, that is sustainability of species. Many times, dogs over-breed, and without natural predators, many starve to death. I'd rather an animal be killed by another animal and eaten than starve to death, be it human, bear, mountain lion. That is the natural way that energy changes shape and morphs through time.]
... With GATT and WTO, the Americans and Europeans now have nothing to stop them from selling modern factory farming ideas and the equipment to go with them. Any hindrance to their activities is seen as a breach of international trading agreements. [free trade, my friends!]"
For the record, I am not a moral relativist. But when it comes to grey areas, I accept that they are grey areas and respect others' opinions on those matters. Meat is meat, in my opinion. It is protein that we are designed to eat, and it is our choice (or not) to be humanitarian and compassionate to all beings and not eat meat. It also our choice to maim and kill everything in our path and waste what is 'ours' (the mainstream Christian way, in my opinion: "The Lord gave us dominion"). While it is our choice to do all of those things, I don't think it is our /right/, as the latter path leads to the destruction of others' ways of being. And, while I don't respect everyone's path, I do respect the right for them to choose and live what path they choose, even if they don't actually choose it (but it is chosen for them by their parents, friends, society or fellow cult-members).
Damn, I *am* a Buddhist, aren't I?
-Cedric Justice
---
From: Amoree
Even so, cultural differences aside, the clubbing/culling of 50,000 dogs to prevent an outbreak of of rabies is, at best, LAZY! All of the effort, $$, and manpower could've and should've been put towards vaccinations prior to infection. 50,000 canine lives to 3 human lives is a disgustingly unfair ratio. And, sorry, but it IS my right to judge! "It is the way they do things" is a weak explanation. It is the equivalent of saying the Nazi's culling of millions of Jews to save the economy was just "the way they do things". I and my heart are going to boycott all things Chinese. A hit to the pocketbook will make people look for change. akl
*previous to that
----
To: Amoree, lisa
First off:
I totally agree with both of you. While I am playing devil’s advocate, sort of, I’m trying to explain to you the reality of the situations at hand.
Lazy? Yes! Entirely. Vaccinations? That’s a ‘should’. There are tons of things all of us ‘should’ be doing with our money, for our health, for our sanity. Most people should sleep more. Most people should floss more. Everyone shouldn’t smoke.
There are then those things that some people think others ‘should’. Pat Robertson thinks I should pray to Jesus Christ Our Holy Lord and Saviour every day. The Bush Administration should get out of Iraq, in my opinion. But in those instances, sh(t ain’t like that.
People of different races, cultures, and religions value different things. While you may value an animal’s life as of equal value to a human’s, others may feel that 50,000 canine lives sacrificed for one human life is more than fair. Most people do not value animal’s lives: thus the ubiquitous eating of meat. Thousands of cows die for most Americans’ eating habits: eating habits that they ‘should’n’t do because it is killing them with heart attacks. These people ‘should’ also walk to work, stop eating Cheetos, etc. etc. But who am I to tell them to do that? Even if it is in their own best interest?
Same goes for the Chinese. Who are we to tell them how to use their resources? Should they reprioritize their money toward solving a rabies epidemic for dogs they don’t actually care about, or should they reforest areas to avoid salinization of their soils, to prevent soil erosion, to prevent dust storms, and to prevent pollution of their rivers? Should they eradicate bird flu with research and a vaccination technique, or should they do a human health campaign to stop smoking or AIDS? Should they research a way to remove pesticides from the land so that dead zones won’t persist off their coasts, damaging their fishing resources (animals killed in consumption for humans, or animals killed indirectly for vegetable consumption: your choice!)?
Speaking of Nazis, there’s no need for an apostrophe there.
Regarding a boycott of Chinese things, good luck: you don’t have the money for it. Corporations have made that decision for you. You will have to stop consuming electronics, clothing, cat-toys, souvenirs, glass, steel, etc. etc. etc. Everything, and I do mean everything we buy that is assembled is made in China. You see, you don’t GET to protest. Just by being a part of this system, you’re guilty by association.
Sucks, doesn’t it?
Now you understand, maybe, why I often times don’t want to live here. Just by living as an American, our choices are hampered by the services and products we use/need.
I think your heart is in the right place. I really do. I’m just trying to explain to you the realities that I have learned, figured out, and realized in my couple of years of International Management school. Business realities and the capitalist ways (of which you are intimately a part of by the nature of your work) make this a ‘reality’. It doesn’t need to be this way. But if we choose capitalism over environment, social, and life capital, these are the unfortunate results. 50,000 dead dogs, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, children included, billions of dead cows, etc. etc.
Talk to anyone you work with at AG Edwards and see if they connect the dots. I doubt they do. All the stuff you send me on their ‘reports on X or Y’ are the most amoral, atrocious things I read. I quote from the last thing you sent me:
“Ramifications
The major threat to the financial markets from
fourth-generation wars is the temptation of
isolationism. American history is littered with
examples of withdrawal from the world only to see
larger problems develop later. Deglobalization will
tend to bring higher inflation by denying the
economy of lower-priced goods and by weakening
pressure on companies to become more productive [destroy, exploit, plunder for cheaper].
And it will undermine foreign nations’ ability to
develop in a market-friendly way [read in a way that America can take advantage of their cheap labour].
The next two elections will be critical to the direction
of American involvement in the war against the
jihadists, who are currently using fourth-generation
war tactics. If the political landscape becomes
isolationist, bringing rigid troop withdrawal schedules
and the abandonment of friendly governments in the
Middle East [where is that???], then we will likely find our financial
markets preparing for higher inflation [for the rich. Currently, inflation is high for the rest of us, but hey’re just talking capital markets]. This will tend
to support real asset markets (commodities, gold, real
estate) and weaken the traditional financial markets [in other words, invest in commodities if war is still oing on. Hrm, who supports the war? Might they have investments in commodities? I just watched Syriana this eekend… follow the money].
On the other hand, continued efforts to contain
al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and others will enable
the West to benefit from globalization and be
supportive of financial markets [because those parties fight against exploitation of their people by others nvading their lands].
For now we assume continued involvement, but as the
above analysis suggests, success in fighting fourth generation
wars will require time and some important
costs [costs that you and I are bearing in our increased tax burden, while the ‘capitalists’ and rich are etting taxes cut on capital gains].
We should exercise caution in comparing the
current period to the 1990s. Though that decade was
a great period for financial markets, it was based on a
false premise, a belief in a peace dividend. Instead, we
should compare current financial markets to those in
the Cold War period.[stay scared, stay conservative]"
Hearts to you both, and I respect you both enormously,
-Cedric Justice
Spell check tells me there are things wrong. I don't have time to go through it, though. Minuscule was misspelled, apparently.
This article about fire damage and social justice came up.
If you're interested,
I’m going to tie this to my earlier arguments about limited resources* (earlier arguments below).
The US can afford to ‘manage’ forests. It can also afford to stop interfering with the way forests actually act to naturally suppress fires and implement better logging practices to avoid this. In the book I’ve been reading, Collapse (by Jared Diamond, a pro-business environmentalist like me), he goes on and on to tell the tales of blunders perpetuated by ‘managing’ the forests. When forests are ‘managed’, they require energy, effort, money, etc.
Our government, though, has prioritized the ‘War on Terror’ over our educations, our safety, and yes, our forestry management systems.
I love this quote:
“Rural, low-income households are often located far from help. A breadwinner working two jobs probably doesn't have time to get to volunteer fire training or clear brush, never mind apply for a brush-clearing grant.”
I think this poor-without-time-to-X theme is hopefully going to start to catch on, because, well, it is true. As the rich get richer, fewer of us have time to serve our communities. And when the rich get richer, that inflates housing prices, which raises property taxes for all of us. If you don’t want to move or sell your place to the next highest bidder and move further away from your established community, that hurts you.
Some people can’t afford to do this stuff on their own. But the Republican rhetoric and governance promotes that we all go it alone. That the miniscule tax reductions of 1.5% are going to help everyone. What they fail to see, from their ivory towers, is that, while 1.5% of 10M$ is a lot of money, 1.5% of 20K$ isn’t. And the savings for each individual of that 1.5% doesn’t amount to the services that that citizen would have to pay for piece-meal, such as this case, such as education, such as driving on roads, such as urban planning, etc. etc.
Our limited resources in America stem from poor management of funds and poor choices made by those in control of those funds.
As an example: “Last year, the NFP provided $58 million, and has doled out $445 million since its inception. But there is no mechanism to track whether the funding is going to the people most in need of support.”
Republican strategy for getting rid of mismanaged funds is to not fix the problem, but eliminate the program. That hardly works. It usually makes things either worse or more severe. Examples: healthcare: with no coverage, people wait until things escalate, which leads to the emergency room, which is more expensive than preventative care. This is a theme across nations, borders, and governments though: incentives for forethought are not there - governments tend to be more reactive than proactive.
Republican strategies for privitisation of resources do not solve the incentive issues, either. Halliburton is not efficient, nor are many large companies. Large companies can afford waste, and they do. Large companies tend to have structural issues where the workloads are so large, that the individual contributes such a small amount, they don’t have a big picture mentality, thereby not being as efficient as they could. Large companies also have layers and layers of management not necessary by smaller companies, which is a drain on resources. Government, such as schools, suffer from these same issues: issues of scale.
-------
*earlier argument thread here:
-------
From: Amoree
Subject: OUTRAGE!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5233704.stm
---My response---
As a lover of most things Chinese, this is one of the least problems that China has. China has lots of issues with human rights, environmental degradation (making starvation and water poisoning a reality not only for animals, but for people) and a slew of other things. The fact that they’re doing something about the rabies problem, actually, surprises me.
Life is looked at very differently in Asia. It isn’t valued like it is here. People ride motorcycles without helmets, they are shot by their governments in riots, they smoke, etc. etc. Life is fully abundant in China, and the notion of something like the pro-life movement in Asia would be absolutely ridiculous. That is not really our place to judge. Even though we may think of things as wrong, it is the way they do things. And we need to respect that. Only by setting a good example will you be able to change things (which I think you do, Amoree, and I think Lisa’s a terrible, horrible person who eats kittens [wink, kidding!]). And change only happens if they’re looking for it.
The fact that the Chinese are clubbing dogs in front of their owners has much less of an emotional impact there than it does here. In Thailand, no one owned pets, they just ran around in the streets on their own. No loving home, nothing like that. It is alien to Asians to revere life like we do, in general.
-Cedric Justice
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lisa
> Subject: RE: OUTRAGE!!!
>
> hmmm . . . so, why are they not killing chickens/birds, since that's
> what's spreading the Avian Flu?? Rabies can be cured in a person if they
> get the correct treatment, but that doesn't seem to be the case in China.
> I like my kittens barbecued with spicy sauce! yummy! :-P
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Justice, Cedric
To: lisa
You think they didn't kill thousands of chickens during the outbreak? Oh, they totally did! If there was one bird amongst many, they killed the lot of them.
China suffers from lots of things; limited resources is number one. We can all probably relate to limited resources precluding us from making the best decisions. China has that issue as well: they only have so many resources to throw at so many fires. When it comes down to it, puppies don't rate as compared to making sure that over a billion people have economic opportunity, health, etc.
-Cedric Justice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lisa
>
> http://www.aapn.org/peixian.html *warning the pictures are really
> graphic
>
> Oh, yeah, the Chinese eat dogs too . . . and cats!
Regarding eating dog:
The pictures I say were not gruesome. They looked like any other slaughtering organisation. When it comes down to it, I found plenty of worse things, things I couldn't even watch, online when it came to slaughter (namely a PETA video of a Kosher slaughterhouse... it was horrible).
M and I both have a philosophy when it comes to eating meat: if you can't kill it yourself, then you shouldn't be eating it. (She won't eat chicken or deer, I will if the time comes that I have to. I find deer gorgeous creatures and would be honoured to eat them.) When it comes down to it, people are omnivores. There is little you can do, due to our flawed psychology and resulting disconnects, to educate people or make them 'get' that the meat they are eating was alive at some point: conscious. A lot of times, though, people simply don't care. They don't have a connection with animals. Some quotes I liked:
"At this point I must declare my personal view that eating dogs is wrong. But no more wrong than eating pigs, rabbits and cows. I understand of course the arguments concerning why it is good to eat pigs and not dogs but these arguments are tenuous and, anyway, are impossible to get over to someone who has been brought up in a tradition of dog eating. I do not think we can ever convince someone to stop eating dog meat if we ourselves continue to eat pig meat [(my comment) or any other meat in my opinion].
... Traditionally, small farmers keep a few dogs as watch dogs. These dogs breed naturally and there are always a few puppies more than is required for replacement purposes. A middle man comes round the farms from time to time, buys the puppies when they are nearly full grown... and sells them to restaurants. The restaurants keep them in cages until a customer picks out a dog he would like to eat. The dog then has his head smashed in and/or his throat cut and is cooked on the spot. Not pleasant but not as bad as what is happening now. [actually, that is sustainability of species. Many times, dogs over-breed, and without natural predators, many starve to death. I'd rather an animal be killed by another animal and eaten than starve to death, be it human, bear, mountain lion. That is the natural way that energy changes shape and morphs through time.]
... With GATT and WTO, the Americans and Europeans now have nothing to stop them from selling modern factory farming ideas and the equipment to go with them. Any hindrance to their activities is seen as a breach of international trading agreements. [free trade, my friends!]"
For the record, I am not a moral relativist. But when it comes to grey areas, I accept that they are grey areas and respect others' opinions on those matters. Meat is meat, in my opinion. It is protein that we are designed to eat, and it is our choice (or not) to be humanitarian and compassionate to all beings and not eat meat. It also our choice to maim and kill everything in our path and waste what is 'ours' (the mainstream Christian way, in my opinion: "The Lord gave us dominion"). While it is our choice to do all of those things, I don't think it is our /right/, as the latter path leads to the destruction of others' ways of being. And, while I don't respect everyone's path, I do respect the right for them to choose and live what path they choose, even if they don't actually choose it (but it is chosen for them by their parents, friends, society or fellow cult-members).
Damn, I *am* a Buddhist, aren't I?
-Cedric Justice
---
From: Amoree
Even so, cultural differences aside, the clubbing/culling of 50,000 dogs to prevent an outbreak of of rabies is, at best, LAZY! All of the effort, $$, and manpower could've and should've been put towards vaccinations prior to infection. 50,000 canine lives to 3 human lives is a disgustingly unfair ratio. And, sorry, but it IS my right to judge! "It is the way they do things" is a weak explanation. It is the equivalent of saying the Nazi's culling of millions of Jews to save the economy was just "the way they do things". I and my heart are going to boycott all things Chinese. A hit to the pocketbook will make people look for change. akl
*previous to that
----
To: Amoree, lisa
First off:
I totally agree with both of you. While I am playing devil’s advocate, sort of, I’m trying to explain to you the reality of the situations at hand.
Lazy? Yes! Entirely. Vaccinations? That’s a ‘should’. There are tons of things all of us ‘should’ be doing with our money, for our health, for our sanity. Most people should sleep more. Most people should floss more. Everyone shouldn’t smoke.
There are then those things that some people think others ‘should’. Pat Robertson thinks I should pray to Jesus Christ Our Holy Lord and Saviour every day. The Bush Administration should get out of Iraq, in my opinion. But in those instances, sh(t ain’t like that.
People of different races, cultures, and religions value different things. While you may value an animal’s life as of equal value to a human’s, others may feel that 50,000 canine lives sacrificed for one human life is more than fair. Most people do not value animal’s lives: thus the ubiquitous eating of meat. Thousands of cows die for most Americans’ eating habits: eating habits that they ‘should’n’t do because it is killing them with heart attacks. These people ‘should’ also walk to work, stop eating Cheetos, etc. etc. But who am I to tell them to do that? Even if it is in their own best interest?
Same goes for the Chinese. Who are we to tell them how to use their resources? Should they reprioritize their money toward solving a rabies epidemic for dogs they don’t actually care about, or should they reforest areas to avoid salinization of their soils, to prevent soil erosion, to prevent dust storms, and to prevent pollution of their rivers? Should they eradicate bird flu with research and a vaccination technique, or should they do a human health campaign to stop smoking or AIDS? Should they research a way to remove pesticides from the land so that dead zones won’t persist off their coasts, damaging their fishing resources (animals killed in consumption for humans, or animals killed indirectly for vegetable consumption: your choice!)?
Speaking of Nazis, there’s no need for an apostrophe there.
Regarding a boycott of Chinese things, good luck: you don’t have the money for it. Corporations have made that decision for you. You will have to stop consuming electronics, clothing, cat-toys, souvenirs, glass, steel, etc. etc. etc. Everything, and I do mean everything we buy that is assembled is made in China. You see, you don’t GET to protest. Just by being a part of this system, you’re guilty by association.
Sucks, doesn’t it?
Now you understand, maybe, why I often times don’t want to live here. Just by living as an American, our choices are hampered by the services and products we use/need.
I think your heart is in the right place. I really do. I’m just trying to explain to you the realities that I have learned, figured out, and realized in my couple of years of International Management school. Business realities and the capitalist ways (of which you are intimately a part of by the nature of your work) make this a ‘reality’. It doesn’t need to be this way. But if we choose capitalism over environment, social, and life capital, these are the unfortunate results. 50,000 dead dogs, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, children included, billions of dead cows, etc. etc.
Talk to anyone you work with at AG Edwards and see if they connect the dots. I doubt they do. All the stuff you send me on their ‘reports on X or Y’ are the most amoral, atrocious things I read. I quote from the last thing you sent me:
“Ramifications
The major threat to the financial markets from
fourth-generation wars is the temptation of
isolationism. American history is littered with
examples of withdrawal from the world only to see
larger problems develop later. Deglobalization will
tend to bring higher inflation by denying the
economy of lower-priced goods and by weakening
pressure on companies to become more productive [destroy, exploit, plunder for cheaper].
And it will undermine foreign nations’ ability to
develop in a market-friendly way [read in a way that America can take advantage of their cheap labour].
The next two elections will be critical to the direction
of American involvement in the war against the
jihadists, who are currently using fourth-generation
war tactics. If the political landscape becomes
isolationist, bringing rigid troop withdrawal schedules
and the abandonment of friendly governments in the
Middle East [where is that???], then we will likely find our financial
markets preparing for higher inflation [for the rich. Currently, inflation is high for the rest of us, but hey’re just talking capital markets]. This will tend
to support real asset markets (commodities, gold, real
estate) and weaken the traditional financial markets [in other words, invest in commodities if war is still oing on. Hrm, who supports the war? Might they have investments in commodities? I just watched Syriana this eekend… follow the money].
On the other hand, continued efforts to contain
al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and others will enable
the West to benefit from globalization and be
supportive of financial markets [because those parties fight against exploitation of their people by others nvading their lands].
For now we assume continued involvement, but as the
above analysis suggests, success in fighting fourth generation
wars will require time and some important
costs [costs that you and I are bearing in our increased tax burden, while the ‘capitalists’ and rich are etting taxes cut on capital gains].
We should exercise caution in comparing the
current period to the 1990s. Though that decade was
a great period for financial markets, it was based on a
false premise, a belief in a peace dividend. Instead, we
should compare current financial markets to those in
the Cold War period.[stay scared, stay conservative]"
Hearts to you both, and I respect you both enormously,
-Cedric Justice
Spell check tells me there are things wrong. I don't have time to go through it, though. Minuscule was misspelled, apparently.