Iceland sold something to Russia in turn for some temporary relief from the effects of Milton Friedman's economics. Iceland followed Friedman's advice to a large degree. Now they are in a huge financial hole with no way out but to sell rights to whatever they have that others want. Russia wants a military port and probably other things. So, Iceland has taken billions from Russia so Iceland might slow the bleeding a little if there is any blood left in the body.
Friedman's economics, which is laissez-faire with a monetarist's twist, is bad economics, not because of the twist, though that too is bad, but because laissez-faire is a disaster.
The main competing economic theory is Keynesianism, named after John Maynard Keynes (pronounced Cains). Keynes used fiscal spending to stimulate the economy. He advocated regulation.
Rather than continue tweaking when things didn't work out well, the Friedmanites advocated 1) throwing out the fiscal-spending stimulus idea 2) throwing out regulations as much as possible and 3) using interest rates set by the Federal Reserve to increase and decrease the money supply to control inflation and to stimulate and cool off the economy in anticipation. Friedman's is called the Chicago School of thought.
Here's an interesting quick read on it:
Iceland's Economic Meltdown Is a Big Flashing Warning Sign
By Toby Sanger, AlterNet. Posted October 21, 2008.
Another school is the pure laissez-faire school called the Austrian School. The Austrian School says 1) don't bother with fiscal stimulus or regulations or monetary policy and 2) get back on the gold standard or what they call hard or real money. They want as little government as possible leaving only national defense and some courts.
Then there are the socialists, who want as much regulation as possible and everything to be owned by the state.
There are also the anarchists who want to do away with the state and with capitalism.
The above is an extremely simplistic view. There are many subcategories.
What's happening now with the bailout? The following news is raising eyebrows. People who are undergoing foreclosures and who are being asked to have their tax dollars go to bailing out the Wall Street investment bankers are actually seeing nearly ten percent of the bailout money go to bonuses. The term bonus has always been a double-edged sword. It has had the psychological effect of stimulating the workers, but in the minds of outsiders, it also suggests a special reward. So, are the bonuses considerably lower than usual such that the workers are being paid no special reward? We aren't told. Is that because the right questions aren't being asked, or is it because the mainstream media are corporate and don't want to side against the stock market workers and their corporate banking bosses who still control the money?
Wall Street banks in $70bn staff payout
Pay and bonus deals equivalent to 10% of US government bail-out package
The Guardian, Saturday October 18 2008
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)