This one is for Detroit and all those who lost their Childrens homes to Communist EW.

This one is for Detroit and all those who lost their Childrens homes to Communist EW.
This is an unprofessional Collection cite. That wishes for Speech and Debate with Regards to the topics collected and Special Libraried. I wish for defense of Fair Use Doctrine, not for profit, educational collection. "The new order was tailored to a genius who proposed to constrain the contending forces, both domestic and foreign, by manipulating their antagonisms" "As a professor, I tended to think of history as run by impersonal forces. But when you see it in practice, you see the difference personalities make." Therefore, "Whenever peace-concieved as the avoidance of war-has been the primary objective of a power or a group of powers, the international system has been at the mercy of the most ruthless member" Henry Kissinger The World market crashed. There was complete blame from the worlds most ruthless power on the world's most protective and meditational power. So I responded. Currently being edited. If you have any problem with IP or copyright laws that you feel are in violation of the research clause that allows me to cite them as per clicking on them. Then please email me at US Copy Right Office Fair Use doctrine. Special Libary community common law, and Speech and Debate Congressional research civilian assistant. All legal defenses to copy right infringement.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

My Response to the IMF allowing the Neo-Mercantalist to take top shares.

Indivisimus Maximus!     
  Um when I first read this article I thought that truly developing markets were going to have more shares. Like countries with no industries, low quality of life and inability to compete with neo-mercantalist countries like Russia and China because of their centralized economic planning, huge infrastructures and unfair currency holdings.

    I was happy when I read the title and thoughts of fair poor real developing dynamic countries being able to have a place at the table was bright in my mind. Then I read on and I realized that the mindset that the neo-mercantalist countries of this world have somehow become a dynamic part of the international economy. However, if I remember correctly the world as a whole grew better when China and the others were developing than now when at least China is fully developed to the equation of the US. As such the light in my mind was that if we take the poor countries and develop them they are the dynamic countries of international economies as we will all have new places to import and export too. Not the countries like China and Russia which hold economic centralized plans due to huge political biases and protect their domestic markets which stops imports and world economic growth but allows them to grow and unfair takeover underdeveloped countries economies. As neo-mercantalist countries do not allow underdeveloped countries or developing countries to compete fairly due a a string of political economic models. Then I read on, and my aura of light went dark.
As, my major personal study is on the worlds biggest neo-mercantalist country which is China. I find that it is irresponsible for free market societies to not properly label China as a non-developing country and a non-underdeveloped country. The WTO has already stated that China should not and shall not receive these types of reliefs. However, here, I read that the IMF specifically calls them a dynamic developing country. Well they are dynamic and their neo-mercantalism was and is a huge part of the international economic instability with their wealth of high debt and currency reserve not being allowed for poor developing countries to compete and build security in their countries. However, the basis of their development has been on basic neo-mercantalist principles. Which are held high in communist political countries of Russia and China. This means that they basically in comparison to such free countries as the US, France, UK and others are in the same boat with few differences of developing and moving forward in economic power. As a matter of fact neo-mercantalist are actually high holding than free markets of the US and others. These differences are based on political miss steps. For example, we take the Chinese high technological trade, they have surpassed the US and free markets, we take the international trade they have surpassed the US and free markets, we take the production output they have surpassed the US and free markets, we take their military high technology and might they have surpassed the US and free markets, we take their Free Trade Agreements they have surpassed the US and free markets, we take their GDP growth they have surpassed the US and free markets, we take their protective economical centralized domestic market they have surpassed the US and free markets, we take their Direct Foreign Investment they are 2nd in the world to the US and beating free markets, we take their worlds Direct Foreign Investment in them they are the world’s leaders in it, we take their espionage and piracy of foreign countries patents they have surpassed all countries in the world.

  The only differences I find are their political views of economics. Which is to keep a high trade surplus and direct their loans and SOE financing to their major SOE champions that they wish to use to unfairly compete in the international market place. As the rule of reason ability would say if they have free enterprises at home that can compete fairly the SOE's of communist economics should no longer be needed and placed so highly as to be allowed to cartel, price fix via their centralized economic planning, and market share via conglomerating of strategic SOE’s instead of allowing their free enterprises to compete for those market shares, as China has the world’s biggest pocket next to the US in billionaires.

  I head warning that all Free Societies should sit down and decided on exactly what the world’s biggest neo-mercantalist country is. At this point there is no doubt in my unprofessional mind that the US and China could go currency wise 1 to 1 and both do just fine while actually allowing more global growth and country security. As China would then be forced to level up to the points of domestic quality of life of high service industries as the free markets have been forced to do by the neo-mercantalists.

  The other countries of Russia and Brazil, I can't follow. However, I do know their economic model revolves around a similar version of neo-mercantalism. Which in a free market economists mind is bad for business. This move to allow them to take the hold of a panel again I disagree with. The free markets should have a check and balance against the neo-mercanatalist countries. I have a complete collection cite on the matter of Chinese neo-mercanatalism.


These are purely my own personal thoughts and beliefs as an American with my 1st and foremost and most important political, civil and individual right the right to freedom of speech:

  I would disagree with the imbalance of a free market society that allows the neo-mercantalist to have more sway than the free enterprise countries. As the neo-mercantalist are not the most dynamic countries in the world. If the free markets so decided as their account balances show they are heading for economic implosion and therefore have to worry, unless China keeps up high currency buying and debt buying which does not allow free market currency to bonzi. Which then allows the free markets to balance out their account balances. Therefore, Free enterprise through freedom of economics without government SOE or centralized economies have been shown before to properly lead. Currently however the free markets allow a high service industrial curve which crashes with employment multipliers. Im witch, then allows the neo-mercantalist countries to acquire and gain shares with their reserves during the troughs of the service bell curves which drive the free markets business curves. This was ok at first with China to allow them to grow and stabilize. However, now it has become such a high threat to free markets as to completely crash their full economies; much like we saw in Greece who also has not had much of a production economy as it is based highly around 70% on the service industry which again crashes with supply and demand of employment multipliers. As the competition between free markets and neo-mercantalist markets is uncompetitive and it is not because they cloak of developing or undeveloped. It is the old timely saying of centralized planned economics does not allow for market forces much like we see in their economies. However, this gravely effects developing countries. Through political clout and ability to compete. As we have seen in the examples of Hong Kong who went the free market route then Venezuela who took after Russia and China economic models and went the neo-mercantalist route. We see huge disparity in Venezuelan ability to pay bills and keep civil rights as compared to Hong Kong's free economic model which as a freedom of economic scholar I must say hey hey big boys and ladies, Is the brightest and most exuberant example of why neomercantalist countries should not hold sway without a proper check form the free enterprises and free market countries. As that specific comparison is the reason why their neo-mercanalist strategies are not a miracle and it is not a hybrid.

This has been a Royal I Research and Production Analysis.

Rider i
Further not allowing free market's to balance their account balances I would believe in my economic unprofessional opinion would also be detrimental to world international economic stability.

No comments:

Post a Comment