Fredric Williams
About Me
- Name: Fredric Dennis Williams
- Location: New Berlin, Wisconsin, United States
teacher, writer, father, husband, former government official, former corporate executive, former college teacher, former consultant
Tuesday, August 01, 2023
There Is No Money Any More
In 1977, I wrote a magazine article about gold for Medical Economics. The paper money of the US was said to be backed by gold for decades, but this "gold standard" had been abolished. Even foreign governments could not ask for the gold in Fort Knox in exchange for the paper promises of the US Government.
Gold wasn't money any more.
Some thought this was the time to buy gold. Inflation was high and gold had for centuries held its value -- it would buy as much tomorrow as it did yesterday.
But people are swayed by emotion -- they fear missing out and they fear getting caught in, so gold was not quite so predictable. The value of gold, as measured in US dollars, rose dramatically. It clearly seemed the ideal way to preserve one's wealth.
Except it wasn't. In the summer of 1977, gold was worth $700 an ounce in today's currency. By the spring of 1980, gold reached more than $2,500 per ounce. Then, over the next 20 years, gold fell -- dropping below $500 in the year 2000. Then, over the next decade, it rose again above $2,300 in real terms. Then it dropped below $1,400 before rising again above $2,300 as the covid pandemic created turmoil.
In the past month the price has ranged from $1,912-$1,977.
In other words, the value of gold has not been something stable or certain. It fluctuates with the mood of those who might feel comfortable or uneasy about other ways of storing value. As predicted nearly 50 years ago, gold will buy roughly the same thing today as it did long ago. But as noted then, it is a volatile investment -- not to be trusted as if it were money.
Meanwhile, we seem forced to rely on the declining value of our currency. The US Dollar is not money either.
Money must be a store of value as well as a medium of exchange. Money is something that not only can be used to buy things -- that would be currency -- it is also a trustworthy way to have the same purchasing power tomorrow that you have today. Money will be worth as much in ten years as it is now.
In ancient times unscrupulous governments and greedy citizens would cut a bit of gold or silver off of coins, diminishing their value. Today it is the policy of the US Government to do just that -- to steal 2% every year, sometimes more. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the theft has averaged just over 3% per year. If a 1913 dollar were money, it buy would $30 worth of goods today. Looked at another way, today's dollar is worth about three cents. Tomorrow it is likely to be worth less.
The Fed creates currency out of thin air -- more at some times, less at other. As God said "fiat lux" -- let there be light, Government says "fiat pecunia" -- let this [paper, metal, electronic signal] be money. And people believe.
In such a world, what is money? What is a reliable store of value that can be used to buy and sell things?
There is no money.
Black Crime Matters
Americans are often criminals -- more than 25 million have been convicted of a felony -- one out of 12 people, and a much higher percentage of adult men of all races. Extrapolating from a study made in 2010, an estimated 10 million Americans have been convicted and jailed for committing a felony. Most of these criminals did not go to prison -- about 10 million did, including 3 million black men (about 1 out of six).
Are We Arming Ukraine to Enrich the US Military-Industrial Complex?
What most people believe about the workings of the world is not based on actual experience. Most people have never worked for the Federal Government. Most people have never worked for a non-profit. Most people have never worked for a large corporation. Most people have never lived and worked in a foreign country.
Most people are dependent on others and come to believe what they are told. They are told, too, for the most part, by people who have no direct experience. These influencers build on and pass along the opinions of others who think as they do. What passes for knowledge in modern society is the summary of a long chain of opinion that often has its origin in speculation, in theories about the way things work.
Few people in this daisy chain of opinion stop to do even the most basic research. Even fewer take time to reason about how things work. To believe what you are told, even by sincere people with impressive credentials, is likely only to confirm your biases. Humans avoid listening to contrary views and readily discount anything that challenges their beliefs. Confirmation bias assures that we will continue to firmly believe what we believed to begin with.
Still, I offer this to those willing to learn.
There are more than 4,000 US companies large enough to be listed on a stock exchange and owned directly or indirectly by millions of people.
The largest companies? Walmart, Amazon, Exxon Mobil, Apple, United Healthcare, CVS, Berkshire Hathaway, Alphabet (Google), McKesson, Chevron — the next ten are health, computer, oil, and retailing companies. You will find more than 50 companies larger than any corporation supplying the military.
In 2020 the defense industry contributed about $50 million to elect Democrats and Republicans — roughly half to each party. That year $14.4 billion was spent by all candidates. So the defense industry provided about 1/300th of the money spent to win a typical office. Is this enough to control any of the people actually elected?
The defense industry spends about $125 million a year on lobbying. Once people are in office, you want to do what you can to influence them. More than 800 lobbyists represent more than 300 different defense corporations. While they might conceivably work together to get a paragraph into a 2,000-page tax bill, that is usually the limit of their power.
What of companies like Walmart and Exxon. If they were to elect Biden and the Congress, would they direct them to go to war in Ukraine with the goal of increasing their wealth.
As a corporation executive I sat on the strategic planning committee for the largest defense division of a Fortune 100 company. Our strategy was to figure out what the military would be looking for and to determine how we might best supply it.
Division executives donated a small amount of money to candidates for Congress, but this was little more than a courtesy. The local congressman would meet with us because we employed 5,000 people in his district. Our parent corporation had a Washington representative, but he was useless and everyone knew it. When I attempted to recruit a close friend of Bob Dole (and a former NASA head of legislative affairs) to help us in dealing with Congress, the company was unwilling to spend even an amount equal to 1/4th of my salary for this purpose.
The idea that (1) a single corporation might influence anyone in Washington to go to war is silly, and (2) while a large and powerful group of defense corporations might, in theory, conspire to foment military action, companies are competitive and have no ready mechanism to work together in any way that would be likely to directly benefit the entire industry, much less one company’s bottom line. The military-industrial complex benefits by constant saber-rattling, not by the letting of blood. Fear provides profit. War is unnecessary.
A good example to show how things actually work? Sperry Univac sold a computer system to the USSR. Unfortunately for the corporation, Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzeziński, his Polish National Security Advisor who hated the Russians and wanted to play the Great Game (he later wrote The Grand Chessboard), had decided to destabilize Afghanistan, which had a pro-Russian government. When the USSR came to the aid of the Afghan Government, Carter & Co. called it an invasion and canceled US participation in the 1980 Olympics. The Carter Administration then raised a trial balloon suggesting it would cancel Univac’s computer sale — worth about $40 million in today’s currency. I proposed we speak up before the sale was actually blocked. The corporation was unwilling to stand up to the Government and the sale was denied on specious “national security” grounds.
That is the reality. While you may wish to believe that candidates are the servants of the rich, once elected, they are loose cannons and thousands of contributors rush to pacify them for fear that a cannon will be aimed at them. When I asked about our local congressman, the division president said that business leaders on Long Island couldn’t find anyone willing to run — and that the candidate who finally took on the task was an idiot member of a local city council. When I was later recruited to work for the House Science Committee, I found that its chairman was dim-witted and turned the offer down.
That, sad to say, is the reality. No one hires these bozos and no one would trust them to do as they were told. Give them power and it will go to their heads. While the influencers in the public square — media pundits, intellectuals, professors, ex-officials, authors — may affect what politicians do, money alone would never suffice.
Tuesday, September 29, 2020
The First Presidential Debate: Trump v Biden
What is the purpose of a presidential debate? Why is it that it is never staged as a debate, but is rather a question and answer and rebuttal -- then move on?
How would a debate be conducted? It cannot be about one's past performance, both candidates will lie or rationalize or avoid answering. It cannot be about what will be done in the future, both candidates will promise and imagine and pretend they can predict the future.
What does that leave? What do debates typically have as topics? I have recast the first debate topics as they might appropriately be used. I might add that no moderator should preface the question with any comment whatsoever. These specific questions, I believe, would direct the candidates to speak clearly on issues of importance. I believe they would also show clear differences in the two candidates.
(1) Should a president nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court and ask for the Senate's consent in the weeks before a presidential election?
Analysis: Biden, I believe, would argue that presidents in the past did not go through the confirmation process during the period before an election. This allows voters to affect the choice of Supreme Court justice. Trump would argue that this is his sworn duty and the duty of the Senate is to advise the president and consent if it deems the candidate worthy. I believe, in such a debate, Trump would have the winning hand, Duty supersedes any claim about what may have happened in actual practice. Supreme Court justices are not elected by voters, so elections should be irrelevant to appointments. Trump might also note that just 114 justices have served over the past 231 years, so appointments occur about once every two years. The chance of an appointment occurring just prior to a presidential election is relatively small.
(2) Should businesses, sports, and other activities be limited by government action in response to a virus?
Analysis: Biden has publicly stated that businesses cannot resume until the virus is controlled. However, this practice has never been adopted in response to past viruses, despite the tens of thousands who have died each year. He would win with the public, which has accepted this approach as necessary. Trump might choose a weak view of the opposite, that such things should be limited to a very slight degree. On his side would be that it is not practical to destroy the lives of millions in the vain hope of preventing an airborne virus from infecting people. When some businesses are closed, many must remain open for the society to function, and these will permit the virus to continue its course until humans adapt.
(3) Should government direct the economy?
Analysis: Biden clearly takes the socialist position on this. He would use taxes and spending to redirect the economy to accomplish goals that he and his fellow politicians would select. Trump would argue that the private sector should be given the maximum freedom to do what works. The public might split on this. Most people have accepted government regulating, taxing, subsidizing, and managing large parts of the economy. Others still believe the market economy makes the best use of resources and produces the best results for people.
(4) Should limits be placed on protests as a means of reducing violence?
Analysis: Biden might have some trouble here. I believe he would argue that protests are a constitutional right and cannot be limited or controlled by government. Trump would argue that restrictions to prevent violence would be appropriate and necessary. I'd give this round to Trump.
(5) Is it possible for an election to be won by actions that distort the will of the voter?
Analysis: Biden would say that it is not possible and that there has been no significant fraud in past elections. Here, if Trump is properly armed with the facts, he might lay out in detail all of the frauds that have occurred and the ease with which they might occur. I'd give this round to Trump.
Judgment: I would score this 3-2 for Trump.