Theodore Schultz macroeconomics as modern/future economics

Step TWO in understanding economics -- as it was and as it evolved.

The initial stage of modern society began with the first farmer -- one individual who could produce enough for themselves and ten others.  The number ten was the ideal based on the idea that an individual male would marry and, on average, have as many as nine children.  Since reproduction is a process which constricts the minimum time between children to roughly 16 months, to produce nine children would require a minimum of 138 months from the initial conception of the first child until the birth of the ninth -- so assume 12-years.

Twelve years is puberty and early cultural adulthood -- the Romeo and Juliet age of romance and marriage which remains the age of consent in many cultures.  It would, therefore, be the age when a female would be married off, or a male would be expected to be productive enough to be self-sustaining.  The adulthood ceremony -- in Hebrew the Bar Mitzvah -- is age 13, and so falls before the birth of the tenth child would be born.

Now we introduce Government -- that is, a leadership which is a coordinator of activities of importance to the community, tribe, clan, or other groups of individuals who identify as an extended family, or mutually dependent social unit.

Military groups began as thieves -- nomadic bands of individuals who had no basis for production of crops, or fixed territorial claims for hunting.  These groups would raid tribal groups, steal their production or goods, possibly -- as in the Exodus story -- kill all the men, and take all the women of reproductive age as mates.  Or, as military, would simply kill, rob and rape then leave the territory and seek out a new target for their aggression.

This form of a tribal military organization was then responded to by the formation of a defense force which would then become a different form of territorial-thief whose goal was the expansion of borders.

There is a common need to [protect and nurture one's own.   This is the basis of charity and is also a role of Government.  Individuals can assist individuals on a relatively random basis.  But to ensure that all individuals who are in need are cared for requires a system created expressly for that purpose -- this is either the "religious leader" or the government -- both might effectively be the same. 

Ultimately, one tenth of all production was needed to ensure that there were ample funds for defense and charity.  Charity being the proper maintenance of the elderly, sick, orphaned, or injured.  By its nature, a government is a service and so  is effectively more productive -- if conducted without discrimination or arbitrary restrictions on  who can benefit from their services.  Each level of restriction introduces levels of inefficiency which then reduce the ability to respond to need and raise the cost of any response.

As we move away from farms into factories and then on to service economies, the age of independence and productivity increases.  Where a 13-year-old could, without question, farm or handle sheep and cattle, without the need for education,  as employment required education the age of independence increased.

At the dawn of the industrial age, there was a transition based on apprenticeship -- and that allowed for child labor and only minimal education.   But that soon changed and child labor gave way to extended education -- six years of education yielded to the need for 12 years.  Now the twelve has become 16-years and is moving in the direction of 18-20 years.  The age of independence is rising -- though not as rapidly as the  number of years of education.  Human Physiology is such that it demands reproduction between 18 and 45, with the ideal age for a woman to have her first child being prior to age 30.  Therefore there is a growing overlap between female education and childbearing.  There is also a graying area in the definition of productivity.   As efficiencies increase, unemployment will become a problem, unless the definition of a workweek is changed and fewer hours yield the same pay. 

But, we'll get to that.

For now,  take a look at the Federal Budget -- MILITARY as THIEVES ... 57% of the Budget.  Ike Eisenhower warned of the Military Industrial Complex and the damage it would do.
Why does America spend more than half its budget on the ability to kill people?
Why does it spend more than the next 5 to 7 Nations combined?
Why has it bgun a conflict that has lasted since 9/11, and killed tens of thousands wiothout achieving anything?
Could it be the goal is to destroy the American economy?  

  

Divine Microeconomics -- or economics explains Homosexuals

While Evangelicals and Conservative enjoy demonstrating their gross ignorance, bigotry, and outright stupidity, it is not necessary for those who want to understand to do so.  As much as the ignorant might protest the idea, the Bible is  a guide to economics [as well as Health, Social Wellbeing, and the basics of creation].

The Economics of a Pastoral Community divided labor into two classic Hunter-gatherer groups: Male and Female.  The men travel and hunt, the women care for the home and gather that which propagates and grows naturally.  Anyone who does a search will find that there are a lot of verses on debt forgiveness and the various obligations of creditors and debtors.  But to understand their roles, we need to first understand the role of Homosexuality in mammals -- specifically in human economic culture.

Consider this simple illustration.  If we have a Biblical era field, it produces a specific amount of food based upon the labor of an individual.  The more individuals farming, the more land can be farmed, and the more product produced.  A certain amount of all production MUST go to meet the personal needs of those farming; if they have families, the family needs must also be met. 

By definition, homosexual males do not reproduce, and so have no families.  If the mate with another male, BOTH males work the fields and so meet their own needs while doubling the surplus.  If you have workers, servants or slaves, once again the surplus produced increases -- providing the fields are productive enough to cover the number of workers; that means there is a balance between the size of the field and the idea number of worker.  Single males -- gay or straight -- put the least burden on the product produced and, therefore, create the most surplus.  This we see in the chart, which assumes one individual produces eleven units, consuming one, and yielding ten units of surplus for sale or to be distributed to those engaged in other activities.  

The role of the homosexual (or single individual) is to produce the surplus units necessary to enable others to fulfill their role -- invent means to enhance society, hunt for food, or defend those who hunt and gather.

When we deal with a female, a lesbian, their only role is to reproduce or care for children.  A bisexual woman would be bisexual to allow  her to engage in reproduction, while still engaging in the gender or sexual role she was designed for.  In a harem, the lesbian serves a multitude of  very necessary purposes -- with the added advantage that she need not be serviced by the male unless she wishes to reproduce, or is needed for reproduction.

If we think about male bisexuality -- first promiscuous behavior risks the spread of disease between males and then their bisexuality spreads it to a female, who could spread it to a child.  Thinking through all the ramifications the risk of female-to-female is minor when compared to the benefits derived within a harem -- where one male if infected, would spread the disease to all his wives.

But we need to deal with the economics of a heterosexual couple, and for that, we can loot to the next illustration.

Once again, we assume eleven units of production for every for each male.  In this case, a married male with the historically traditional family of a wife and six  surviving children.  The surplus is meager -- one unit.  If the couple has only four children, they are three times as wealthy; if they have only two surviving -- which is the number needed to replace themselves and keep the population at a constant level -- they are seven times as wealthy as they were with six children, and will two units wealthier when their children leave home and start their own productive units. 

  

It doesn't matter if we are discussing farm output, manufactured commodities, or services -- there is an established productivity and it must conform to the demand or go to waste.   If the produce from a farm has no market, it would pay the farmer to have slaves or servants sufficient to consume the surplus.  It is only when there is a product demand that the balance between slave/servants and their productivity must be addressed.  As society moved toward a service driven, or industrialized, economy, the logic (economic value) of slavery vanished.

Actually, to say that "the logic (economic value) of slavery vanished" could be, and should be, deemed inaccurate.  The logic of agricultural slavery vanished but was reintroduced (in a modified form) in the commercial and manufacturing segment of the economy.  This was then  augmented by enhanced farm productivity -- in the Bible, we see it as the commandment to leave the fields fallow every 7-years -- allowing them to recharge and keep or sustain their productivity.  The addition of irrigation, and various changes in design, as well as crop rotation, further augmented productivity.  But it wasn't until the 20th-century that America developed the ability to produce four times the 19th-century yield per acre, and this allowed fields to be "warehoused" for future use -- or the least productive fields top be converted to other, more modern and more practical use.

This brings us to the issue of Aggregate Demand [AD] which is defined as " the total demand for final goods and services in an economy at a given time.  It specifies the amounts of goods and services that will be purchased at all possible price levels."   In our illustration, it becomes the balance point in the sale of output as defined between production and waste.  In a Laffer Curve presentation, it defines the point in taxation where investment gains are offset by taxes to the point where the risk of investment losses makes investment illogical and people simply spend their surplus capital of luxury items (as opposed to making  further investments whose returns, risks & taxation, would yield nothing).  

In modern society, can be revealed, in macroeconomic terms, by five statements describing actions which have the seemingly illogical effect of boosting AD:

1. Artificial attempts to force wages higher will boost employment.

2. Extended unemployment benefits—paying people not to work—creates more employment.

3. Proper government spending creates situations which reduce the budget deficit by facilitating growth.  

{ NOTE: some idiots assert a Keynesian model which allegedly argues that this is  impossible.  But the fact is, building Roads, Schools -- providing a first-rate education to all individuals -- police and fire protection, and to some degree rational levels of military spending , are government expenditures which the idiots make it a point to disregard in their arguments.  But without these services, and a degree of government oversight, economic growth is impossible.}

4. Aggregate Demand stimulates higher productivity.

{NOTE:   The Keynesian model, holds that it is employment, not productivity, which is enhanced by AD.  However, the farm model used above, and favored by Nobel Laurate economist Theodore Schultz, shows that first employment will increase to maximize existing productive potential, and then, for future growth, productivity will be increased -- hence Americ's farms producing four times as much per acre with an even greater reduction in farm labor employment.  The former farm labor component of the economy shifting to manufacturing and now to service sectors.}

5. Fiscal stimulus does not boost AD, rather it diverts capital to otherwise economically non-productive pursuits.  However, we have the problem of the Keynesian approach in which increased government consumption, transfers or reduced taxation increases the rate of growth of public debt without sufficient economic growth to produce a zero-sum return.

If the fiscal stimulus produces a road, or public transportation service that is necessary to render existing travel more efficient, such a stimulus serves a productivity benefit.  If the stimulus promotes higher efficiency or economic savings withing as necessary industry, it might be deemed worthwhile -- an example would be the use of wind and solar energy to augment additional needs which cannot be met by hydroelectric capacity, or which would allow production of electric closer to the point of use, and therefore eliminate wasteful transmission lines.

In all cases of fiscal stimulus, there MUST BE a provision for economic recovery of the stimulus funds directly from the stimulation investment.  That is, government MUST treat the stimulus as an investment with a clear return -- represented by some form of "mortgage" or economic participation in profit sharing which transcends any projected future tax revenues.

      

TRUMP's Tax Returns are a Terrorist weapon against America...

There is a neat media game -- probably orchestrated by THE DONALD -- asking "Why Trump Must Show His Taxes” (Op-Ed, Aug. 15)

As I pointed out some time ago, and one person pointed out in the comments

There isn't anything in the TAX returns revealed over the past 40-years which provided probative evidence about the Candidate's ability to do the POTUS job.

HOWEVER, in the case of THE DONALD -- the only actual international businessman to run for the office -- the tax returns would reveal his business associates or the firms who pay him a franchise fee.

GEE idiots will yell that is what they want.

But that reality has no relevance -- it's just more distracting nonsense and a variation on Hillary's emails.

What the Returns WILL reveal is the names of business associates and the foreign firms who hold franchise interests.

YIKES! The IDIOTS will scream, he just contradicted himself. But not really --- the first was an irrelevant revelation of no real interest to the honest voter or anyone with a brain who is trying to decide how to vote. BUT THE SECOND ... now that is what the TERRORISTS want to know; they are the ones behind the hoopla over the returns; they need the returns -- just in case THE DONALD accidently won an election he really does not wish to win for the very same reason the terrorists want the returns ... as POTUS, any attack on Donald's holdings becomes a direct attack on American leadership and power ... an attack the USA can NOT respond to...

Using the American Military to defend a President's franchise fees from a Golf Course? REALLY?!?!

Yet the violent attack on the TRUMP name site -- with the death of tens, even hundreds, of rich people -- would be, in propaganda terms, a violent attack on the POTUS office which proved conclusively that America is powerless.

The Tax Returns are a potential Terrorist weapon ...

TRUMP 2017 Violence -- a non-issue

Will the 2nd Amendment supporters take action?
The myth is Trump called for assassination ... in reality, he called for them to get the guys out from under the desks.

Here's the Choice.  Susan Collins stood against Trump -- Maine stands with her.
The clowns under the desk are in Maine and they are going to get the boot.
But nationally -- the 2nd Amendment group has the power to pull the clowns out and get them cheering for TRUMP.
All those idiots in the Senate and House who have been obstructing Obama?  They had better back TRUMP -- or they go out the next time they run ... and many of them are running on the same ticket in November.
That's what TRUMP was actually saying... he wasn't advocating violence ... last time he did he was open about it, and the next time he does he will be open about it.
But advocating violence is a crime.  Especially if the target is a POTUS or sitting Judges.  And TRUMP really does NOT give a figs ass about the state of affairs, or affairs of state, after November.  So he has no reason to advocate violence.

Ted Cruz is a Naturalized, not Natural Born Citizen per Public Law 89-236

TED CRUZ is a Naturalized Alien -- not a Natural Born Citizen.  That would seem to be the evidence of the law under which he was admitted to the United States {Public Law 89-236 of October 3, 1965}.  The relevant parts being:

Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assenibled^ That section 201 of immigration and the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 176; 8 U.S.C. 1151): 

"SEC. 201. (a) Exclusive of special immigrants defined in section 101(a) (27), and of the immediate relatives of United States citizens specified in subsection (b) of this section, the number of aliens who may be issued immigrant visas or who may otherwise acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence...

"(b) The 'immediate relatives' referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall mean the children, spouses, and parents of a citizen of the United States: ... The immediate relatives specified in this subsection who are otherwise qualified for admission as immigrants shall be admitted as such,... 

THUS, as a "relative", specifically, the son of an American citizen, the alien (Canadian Born Citizen) child, Ted Cruz, entered the USA as a permanent resident.

NOTE: Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz was born December 22, 1970 and accordingly was fully subject to the terms of the law as it went into full effect in 1968 -- two years prior to his birth.  His mother being the one to file under: 

"SEC. 204. (a) Any citizen of the United States claiming that an alien is entitled to a preference status by reason of the relationships described in paragraphs (1), (4), or (5) of section 203(a), or to an immediate relative status under section 201(b),...

"(b) After an investigation of the facts in each case, and after consultation with the Secretary of Labor with respect to petitions to accord a status under section 203(a) (3) or (6), the Attorney General shall, if he determines that the facts stated in the petition are true and that the alien in behalf of whom the petition is made is an immediate relative specified in section 201 (b) or is eligible for a preference status under section 203(a), approve the petition and forward one copy thereof to the Department of State. 

As we see in section (b) the approved filing would be a document held by both the State Department and Attorney General.  In theory, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton would have had "easy access" to that document and would have been able to use it if the Republicans had been stupid enough to nominate Ted Cruz instead of Donald Trump.  In addition, Trump appears to have alluded its existence when he warned Cruz during the First Debate.

The real fun is that Congress also has, or legally should have, the document:

"(d) The Attorney; General shall forward to the Congress a report on each approved petition for immigrant status under sections 203(a) (3) or 203(a) ...

That would indicate the Republicans are aware Cruz is running a campaign donation scam -- obviously, the Democrats wouldn't care, since  the scam specifically targets and fleeces Republican donors with the full permission of the Republican leadership.

There are post-1986 rules which do not apply to Cruz, who is classified under:  "One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is on or after November 14, 1986"

Instead, he would come under:  "The genetic ...legal mother is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, and the birth date is after December 23, 1952 

7 FAM 1131.2  Prerequisites for Transmitting U.S. Citizenship (CT:CON-636;   02-24-2016)

Since 1790, there have been two prerequisites for transmitting U.S. citizenship at birth to children born abroad:

(1) At least one biological parent must have been a U.S. citizen when the child was born.  The only exception is for a posthumous child.

(2) The U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically present in the United States for the time required by the law in effect when the child was born.

Item (2) is historically dominant and there is a question as to whether or not the mother of Ted Cruz meets the pre-birth requirement, which, under some statutory laws,  covers all or part of the year in which gestation began. Cruz's mother became pregnant while a legal resident and business owner in Canada. 

7 FAM 1131.6-2  Not Citizens by “Naturalization”

(CT:CON-636;   02-24-2016)

Section 201(g) NA and section 301g) INA (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) (formerly 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth."  Accordingly, U.S. citizens who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s) are not considered "naturalized" citizens under either act.

Problem: "Until the Act of October 10, 1978, persons who had acquired U.S. citizenship through birth outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent had to meet certain physical presence requirements to retain their citizenship."  Cruz was born during the period of required physical presence and was a Canadian Resident for the first FOUR years of his life.  BY LAW, Cruz's dual national status, and its retention for 43 years or more, disqualifies him for certain Security Clearance levels -- all of which are lower than that which must be available to a sitting POTUS.  Cruz has publically claimed to have "learned" of his Canadian birth and citizenship when he was about 18 years old and applied for a US Passport.

Therefore he knowing decided to retain the second citizenship for a quarter century.  Since the draft had ened by the time Cruz was  brought into the United States, dual status retention could not have been affected by a desire to "Draft Dodge" -- though it might have been associated with escape from charges arising from the intent to commit fraud or  some criminal act.

Section I of the 1934 Citizenship Act added the provision that children of American mothers, as well as of American fathers, were entitled to become United States citizens through inheritance -- that is, in legalese, the children  were to be Americans jure sanguinis. 

The law which most closely applies to Cruz would be the one enacted in 1952.  However, the "Bottom Line" -- or as they said in our Law office meetings back in the 60's and 70's, "The Answer Is" -- Cruz is, without a doubt, entitled to American citizenship from birth; he might well have met all the requirements for that citizenship and therefore is entitled to the Senate office he now holds.  BUT, and there is always a BUT, his entitlement is by statute.  Moreover, the law which he falls under did not exist before 1934, when the children of female citizens were given the right to jure sanguinis status.

Statutory and legislative status is, it could be argued, NOT the same as Natural Born Status.  As a matter of legislative reality, Congress could pass a law, which the POTUS could sign, giving full citizenship to everyone in the world -- everyone holding human DNA.  That would not suddenly make them "Natural Born Citizens" -- it would just make them citizens under an idea similar to the one which created jure sanguinis status.

While there are those who would scarf at the idea of a global citizenship, it is the idea put forward in Star Trek and other sci-fi works where there are earth beings and aliens and the earth is under a single government.  It is also the basis of Christian and Islamic Belief -- the idea that the day will come when "The Messiah" will unify the planet and establish a single government.  All that means is that one government establishes a law which dictates that all other people are its citizens.  But, unfortunately, there are those who don't get it ... they believe Obama was born in Kenya and "magically" lost the same legal rights afforded Cruz.

OBVIOUSLY, since President Barack Obama was born 4 August 1961, this 1965 immigration statute could not be applied to him.  However, since he was born in Hawaii, and therefore is a Natural Born Citizen of a State, the immigration statutes are irrelevant.

However, as there have been Republican claims of a false Birth Certificate -- notably made by Donald Trump in 2012, and others over the past half-decade -- it is relevant that Barack Obama Sr applied for an extension of his VISA in August 1961; in it, he asserted the birth of his son.  That assertion would have triggered the need to provide proof of birth, and that would be available through an FOIA request for the VISA Records for Obama Sr.

NOTE: There could be no objection to the proof of birth being included, since President Obama has authorized the release of his Birth Certificate -- which, presumably, is the same document his father provided to INS.  Even if it were not, evidence of a legally accepted document, even it was partially redacted, would prove birth and Natural Born Citizenship status.

Given that the Obama Administration draws to a close at the beginning of January 2017, the BIRTHER focus on Obama serves no purpose other than to provide a possible nullification of his eight years and set the stage for a  unique and fully destructive Constitutional Crisis which would bring all his Presidential actions into legal question.    

   

We knew in 2014 that the TEA PARTY types were intent on bringing down the Republican Party. But they expected to be the new KINGS OF AMERICA who could spit on Constitution, take unlimited paid vacation days with absolutely no work days and undermine everything American.

Donald just decided to take them down too -- and keep his empire. People don't get it ... he needs 46% of vote to Hillary's 54% and he's golden and they're trash... imagine a world without Ted Cruz.

"If in 96 days Trump loses this election, I am pointing the finger directly at people like Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell, and Lindsey Graham, and John McCain, and John Kasich, and Ted Cruz if he won’t endorse, and any of these Jeb Bush and everybody else that made promises they’re not keeping."

"The Tea Party: America Upended"

WOLF BLITZER has no idea when Obama became POTUS or that Capt. Khan died four years before the first election.

There are times when silly gets too silly:  

CNN Lets Trump Spokesperson Falsely Blame Obama For 2004 Death Of Captain Humayun Khan

Barack Obama wasn’t President in 2004 George Bush was.  Actually, since Obama was only sworn in a Senator on 4 January 2005, he wasn't a part of the REPUBLICAN warmongering idiocy which cost Khan his life.

WOLF BLITZER was the host, has he no idea when the presidential elections were -- or how to subtract 8 from 2016 to get 2008 ... 

Oh well ... time to end the American Dream... as predicted in "Death Over Life: A Prophecy of America's Destruction"