Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 11:53
trotsky (frewils@islamic prohibition of interest) ID#377387:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
it's true, the Islamic banks have devised ways around the prohibition. however, i still believe that economic development in Muslim countries has been severely hampered by this rule. note that the devising of run-arounds is a fairly recent phenomenon - the enforcement of the interest prohibition was pursued with more zeal in the past.
and having to engage in economic calculations using non-standardized ways to escape a non-sensical rule is still a major head-ache.
Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 11:42
trotsky (Dave@war) ID#377387:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
oh yes, they're at war with the West. the question is, why?
i don't know if you've noticed this, but every single debate/discussion on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism begins with the unspoken ( and often outspoken ) premise that 'we can not negotiate with these people'. iow, we don't even have to listen to their grievances, as expressed in e.g. OBL's meandering screeds, since there's 'nothing to negotiate'. you're only ever hearing about the threats, but little mention is made of the demands issued alongside with the threats. after all, they're 'non-negotiable'.
this lack of willingness to engage in a little lateral thinking or exercise the imagination of course condemns us to a never-ending war with an enemy that's best described as a highly motivated hydra. you'll probably be surprised to learn that for a very long time, the US enjoyed an excellent reputation in the Mid East. Arabs generally looked at the US as a counterexample to the European colonialist powers, and a success story worthy of admiration. the whole notion that 'they hate us for our freedoms' and similar politically expedient claptrap is belied by that.
imo, if people WANT to live in a technologically , socially and economically backward society, LET THEM. what business is it of ours? since a huge amount of Western military assets is stationed in a region of the world that contains just about 2% of the world's population, it follows that they're not there because it's so funny to suffer through 45 degrees celsius during the summer months. it's also fair to assume that the 'welfare' of that tiny slice of the world's populations isn't foremost on their minds either ( in Iraq, they don't even count the native casualties - which gives you a rough idea of the 'value' assigned to a towel-head life ) . so that magic 3 letter word, OIL, explains it probably quite well. but what of that? do we really think the sheikhs ( or rather, their successors ) would NOT sell us their oil if we left them to their own devices? a ridiculous idea, to put it mildly.
the war with our fomer allies ( a load of irony there ) , the mudjaheddin, or holy warriors, will get us exactly nowhere. the only result of it will be that both sides will suffer casualties from time to time, and it's of course an excellent opportunity to loot Western tax payers and institute repressive legislation ( robbing us of the very 'freedom' that our enemies purportedly hate so much ) . a little bit of creative thinking may be a far better idea. per experience, and via historic examples, it will take an entire generation and several wasted ( in terms of both treasury and life ) decades before we arrive at that conclusion, collectively.
Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 11:08
trotsky (kapex) ID#377387:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
well, i would agree that FDR's disastrous economic policies played a major part in lengthening and deepening the depression. i for one believe he was one of the worst presidents ever, a consummate liar and thief, as well as a communist sympathizer. note that he actually won the election on a free market platform, and promptly went and implemented socialism on a grand scale after he'd won it.
however, this is one thing, and the charge that the Fed 'took away the punchbowl' as the colloquial expression goes, is quite another. it is in fact a myth, created in an early 60's monetarist theory book by Milton Friedman. he argued back then that 'if only the Fed had goosed he money supply the depression could have been averted'. implicit in this was the charge that the Fed didn't try to goose the money supply, however, in reality it DID do it, and in spades. the data prove it...not only were interest rates slashed to next to nothing in a very short time, they also increased free bank reserves by over 400% within 2 years of the 1929 stock market crash.
in view of these facts, Friedman's assertions, indeed his entire 'theory' would have fallen flat on its face, which is why he studiously avoided to present any actual data from the period. as i always point out, if economic prosperity depended on increasing the money supply, the third world would be a Utopia.
the culpability of the Fed w.r.t. the 30's depression isn't to be found in its actions during the bust ( as wrongheaded as they were... ) , but rather its actions during the preceding boom of the 1920's. it was the willy-nilly expansion of credit in the 20's, and the false boom that was created thereby that laid the groundwork for the depression. Fed officials of the day liked to boast about giving 'coups de whiskey' to the stock market with their open market operations. when they finally decided that they had to rein in the boom because it looked like it was overheating, it was far too late - the damage had been done.
Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 10:43
trotsky (Dave@Islamic Finance link) ID#377387:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
what an utter load of bunk...
note btw. that the Islamic prohibition of interest is one of the major reasons for the economic backwardness of most of the 'ummah'. as Eugen von Boehm Bawerk and others have already shown over 100 years ago, the time value of money is essential in economic calculation - without it, entrepreneurs and providers of capital are basically at sea. |
