Refusal Of Obedience

Refusal Of Obedience

Economy LevelsChina’s foreign currency re-serves – currently around $3.2trn – are the source of many misunderstandings.

One mistaken belief is that they ultimately give Beijing the up-per hand in trade disputes, be-cause they have a nuclear option: they can stop funding America’s borrowings and cause a US debt crisis. Another view is that FX re-serves form as a kind of savings account, which can be dipped into to fund emergency spending if needed, without any side-effects.

Neither idea reflects what the re-serves really are. The bulk are held in US dollars. So if China wanted to invest the proceeds in non-US assets, or to spend them, it would need to sell down these dollar-denominated holdings first.

However, China’s holdings are so large that selling a significant amount would shake the market. It would immediately depress the price of the US dollar assets it sold, while pushing up the price of any non-US dollar assets it buys even more (since there’s no other currency with asset mar-kets deep and liquid enough to absorb all these extra savings).large losses on the rest of its holdings.

“Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

The Economy Growth

The best road to progress is freedom

In ignoring both his Oath of Of-fice and the “Faithfully Execute” clause of the Constitution, the President, over the last several decades, has imposed great injury upon the People as their Rights to property, peace, security, a sound economy, and the Sovereignty of the nation have been eroded by an unchecked flow of illegal immigrants across our borders.

Not so amazingly, our problems are not due to a lack of protections in the law. Numerous statutes al-ready control and mandate severe restrictions on Immigration and provide substantial civil and crim-inal penalties for assisting, em-ploying or harboring illegal aliens.

Federal law currently makes it a federal felony to assist, transport, shelter or help find employment for any person reasonably determined to be in the country illegally. It is also a federal felony to employ or encourage or assist the residency or employment of any illegal alien. Despite these unambiguous re-quirements of the law -- virtually all punishable as FELONIES, the flow of illegal aliens across our borders continues unchecked. Many estimates argue that as many as 20 MILLION illegal al-iens currently reside within the territory of the United States.

“All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.”- Winston Churchill

“You lose nothing when fighting for a cause ... In my mind the losers are those who don’t have a cause they care about.”

Muhammad Ali

Minimum or maximum wage?

A maximum liquid wealth policy re-stricts the amount of liquid wealth an individual is permitted to maintain, while giving them unrestricted access to non-liquid assets. That is to say, an individual may earn as much as they like during a given time period, but all earnings must be re-invested (spent) within an equivalent time period;

This policy is only arguably a valid maximum wage implementation, as it does not actually restrict the wages a person is allowed to maintain, but only restricts the amount of actual currency they are allowed to hold at any given time. Proponents of the policy argue that it enforces the ideals of a maximum wage without restrict-ing actual capital growth or economic incentive.

IIn 1942, during World War II, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a maximum income of $25,000 during the war:[7][8]At the same time, while the num-ber of individual Americans affected is small, discrepancies between low personal incomes and very high per-sonal incomes should be lessened; and I therefore believe that in time .

Of this grave national danger, when all excess income should go to win the war, no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year. It is indefensible that those who enjoy large incomes from State and local securities should be immune at war. Interest on such securities. should be subject at least to surtaxes.