I am a strong believer in the US being in macro financial issues. However, from this reporting graphing system http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/money/ . The US has its priorities all wrong.
We spend 1 billion in Afghanistan for a country we barely get any trade with and oil prices cost us more there than if we where to build in another country like the EU that needs the funds. While we could also get the gas cheaper from helping Ukraine, Poland, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Taiwan and a myriad of other countries open gas mines. That is if we do anchor mines and keep the development mines off the stock market, away from stock warfare and economic stock sniping. That is horrible economics macro economics. We give that country over 1 billion dollars because they threaten us with Mercenaries. While their people hate us and wish to kill us. Horrible, primary funding should be to help create trade for our country and allies to stay economically health. Not given to a country that is not even carrying about it sown economic growth in trade as it is more worried about fascist world dominance.
I would further state that the rest of the list of countries. During the cold war accountants did not give our money away without receiving trade or interest or some kind of monetary value. The idea that today's US administration economists give away more of US tax dollars than they are able to create for the asset sheets is horrible. During the cold war the US would give massive loans and its aid programs where low to known. As they where fighting a very conservative macro Soviet Union that made trillions on foreign direct loans for development for political and militarily control via economic enrichment of political leaders. Today's economists are horrible cold war warriors.
Then I look at vendors. I do not see economic development vendors at the top of the list. The World Bank of course is number one which is good. But at least in the top 5 should be more economic development entities. So the US can create more market places so the countries can be sovereign and we can trade more. This idea of given to them constant is horrible. The Communist Chinese idea is to loan them money create market place, control enrichment of empowerment and thus then create relationship through loans, like the US did during the 1st Cold War.
When the Communist fascist economic model in Russia collapsed the US had to write off around 40 trillion in world loans and interest earnings to keep the world from collapsing economically. When the Communist Chinese economic model collapsed from constant quarterly recapitalizing their SOE's. Which they covered very well.The West as a whole had to write off 51 trillion that just dissipated into their black whole of fascist economics. This is something that both Russian and Communist Chinese leaders seem to forget when they talk about world economics and finances. The US basically paid for the Soviets to re-transition into a freeer market and Democracy. While the West as a whole had to pay for the Communist Chinese to spit in our faces and keep moving forward with their economic fascist model to dominate the world economy, via resource monopoly, dumping (china price), and now development monopolies.
Then I look at the bureaus that obligate most of the funds. At the top is not the one that makes us funds and sustains our economy against fascist model macro attacks. Which it should be. As the idea is to make money and grow market so they can take care of themselves and trade with us for everyone to expand. Not to give money away and cause major horrible economic management issues by crutching then waiting for the Communist Chinese to come in with development loans and contracts.
I would really like to go over all of our international aid.See where we have given and see where we can loan to create development and markets. I am sure I could half our liabilities assets and double our assets while still having the same affect as helping but creating a stronger western allied economic front. It would be really simple I would just break down the analogy of the 1st Cold War aid v development loans and then reapply the strategies to todays issues.
It is a pretty simple idea. Every poor kid or hard working parent can tell the story. You give something to somebody they do not appreciate it and they crutch on it. However, you force them to work for it and build a independence on their own. They become a better ally for you and themselves.
Then I look to programs. I see that the majority of aid in that area goes to health. Where during the cold war if we pull up those files. We see that in the health area loans where doubled with development areas for the health issues. For example, in one Eastern Bloc country we where able to pry into with development loans. We gave loans for some projects that would create economic trades, specifically under control of Pro Democracy in hiding leadership. While also then given health funds based on the funds they would be receiving from the economic trade loans. Therefore, the US was flush with cash and the young satellite leaders to flourish where growing and where still tied and allied and working.Today however, we just give them money. Which drains us creates a crutch and stops economic development and Democracy empowerment.
That is my minor critique on our major macro development issue, as per the side of aid. I would like to do a analogical project paralleling the first cold war aid and loan tactics as compared to 2 Cold War against the last remaining major fascist economic model. I think I could really work out some good maneuvers and defensive ideas. For example, already I see the lost Greenspan love of if the Soviets move we move, inside of our administration.As the Communist Chinese have created full development loan banks for certain countries. While the US shucks huts in Afghanistan like the Soviets did when the US was developing the world. Which is funny as if you pull up Soviet aid and loans at the time of Charlie Wilson's liquidation draw war, like the PLA Colonials liquidation draw war. You will see basically the same issue. Afghanistan at the top of the list trying to give give give give to something that will never give and the US or I should say Charlie knew it and while they where liquidating trying, the US went around developing, exact play the Communist Chinese are doing just mirrored against the US; US is Soviet, Communist China is US, in this play book.
Rider I
Berny is not a war kid I believe. Like Greenspan was that went through a couple real wars. Berny is not Grandpa agent, or G. He does not move like you move I move. Greenspan was with the Soviet development funds though. If Berny was a chess player, he would be considered negligent, as the Communist Chinese have moved about five - ten steps in world development, hold 50% of the table and Berny is still trying to figure out how to fix the economy, when a simple less aid more loans, develop just move when they move will create more markets for everyone to trade with. Especially if we empower folks that are pro Democracy and against Fascist economic models they will trade with us more, like the old Cold War Econ kids. CWEC
We spend 1 billion in Afghanistan for a country we barely get any trade with and oil prices cost us more there than if we where to build in another country like the EU that needs the funds. While we could also get the gas cheaper from helping Ukraine, Poland, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Taiwan and a myriad of other countries open gas mines. That is if we do anchor mines and keep the development mines off the stock market, away from stock warfare and economic stock sniping. That is horrible economics macro economics. We give that country over 1 billion dollars because they threaten us with Mercenaries. While their people hate us and wish to kill us. Horrible, primary funding should be to help create trade for our country and allies to stay economically health. Not given to a country that is not even carrying about it sown economic growth in trade as it is more worried about fascist world dominance.
I would further state that the rest of the list of countries. During the cold war accountants did not give our money away without receiving trade or interest or some kind of monetary value. The idea that today's US administration economists give away more of US tax dollars than they are able to create for the asset sheets is horrible. During the cold war the US would give massive loans and its aid programs where low to known. As they where fighting a very conservative macro Soviet Union that made trillions on foreign direct loans for development for political and militarily control via economic enrichment of political leaders. Today's economists are horrible cold war warriors.
Then I look at vendors. I do not see economic development vendors at the top of the list. The World Bank of course is number one which is good. But at least in the top 5 should be more economic development entities. So the US can create more market places so the countries can be sovereign and we can trade more. This idea of given to them constant is horrible. The Communist Chinese idea is to loan them money create market place, control enrichment of empowerment and thus then create relationship through loans, like the US did during the 1st Cold War.
When the Communist fascist economic model in Russia collapsed the US had to write off around 40 trillion in world loans and interest earnings to keep the world from collapsing economically. When the Communist Chinese economic model collapsed from constant quarterly recapitalizing their SOE's. Which they covered very well.The West as a whole had to write off 51 trillion that just dissipated into their black whole of fascist economics. This is something that both Russian and Communist Chinese leaders seem to forget when they talk about world economics and finances. The US basically paid for the Soviets to re-transition into a freeer market and Democracy. While the West as a whole had to pay for the Communist Chinese to spit in our faces and keep moving forward with their economic fascist model to dominate the world economy, via resource monopoly, dumping (china price), and now development monopolies.
Then I look at the bureaus that obligate most of the funds. At the top is not the one that makes us funds and sustains our economy against fascist model macro attacks. Which it should be. As the idea is to make money and grow market so they can take care of themselves and trade with us for everyone to expand. Not to give money away and cause major horrible economic management issues by crutching then waiting for the Communist Chinese to come in with development loans and contracts.
I would really like to go over all of our international aid.See where we have given and see where we can loan to create development and markets. I am sure I could half our liabilities assets and double our assets while still having the same affect as helping but creating a stronger western allied economic front. It would be really simple I would just break down the analogy of the 1st Cold War aid v development loans and then reapply the strategies to todays issues.
It is a pretty simple idea. Every poor kid or hard working parent can tell the story. You give something to somebody they do not appreciate it and they crutch on it. However, you force them to work for it and build a independence on their own. They become a better ally for you and themselves.
Then I look to programs. I see that the majority of aid in that area goes to health. Where during the cold war if we pull up those files. We see that in the health area loans where doubled with development areas for the health issues. For example, in one Eastern Bloc country we where able to pry into with development loans. We gave loans for some projects that would create economic trades, specifically under control of Pro Democracy in hiding leadership. While also then given health funds based on the funds they would be receiving from the economic trade loans. Therefore, the US was flush with cash and the young satellite leaders to flourish where growing and where still tied and allied and working.Today however, we just give them money. Which drains us creates a crutch and stops economic development and Democracy empowerment.
That is my minor critique on our major macro development issue, as per the side of aid. I would like to do a analogical project paralleling the first cold war aid and loan tactics as compared to 2 Cold War against the last remaining major fascist economic model. I think I could really work out some good maneuvers and defensive ideas. For example, already I see the lost Greenspan love of if the Soviets move we move, inside of our administration.As the Communist Chinese have created full development loan banks for certain countries. While the US shucks huts in Afghanistan like the Soviets did when the US was developing the world. Which is funny as if you pull up Soviet aid and loans at the time of Charlie Wilson's liquidation draw war, like the PLA Colonials liquidation draw war. You will see basically the same issue. Afghanistan at the top of the list trying to give give give give to something that will never give and the US or I should say Charlie knew it and while they where liquidating trying, the US went around developing, exact play the Communist Chinese are doing just mirrored against the US; US is Soviet, Communist China is US, in this play book.
Rider I
Berny is not a war kid I believe. Like Greenspan was that went through a couple real wars. Berny is not Grandpa agent, or G. He does not move like you move I move. Greenspan was with the Soviet development funds though. If Berny was a chess player, he would be considered negligent, as the Communist Chinese have moved about five - ten steps in world development, hold 50% of the table and Berny is still trying to figure out how to fix the economy, when a simple less aid more loans, develop just move when they move will create more markets for everyone to trade with. Especially if we empower folks that are pro Democracy and against Fascist economic models they will trade with us more, like the old Cold War Econ kids. CWEC
No comments:
Post a Comment