Your article going to war with the political elite was a very good one. My husband is an officer in the military stationed at a base in Maryland. I found your site while looking for information about the housing bubble.

My husband and I were laughed at when we moved to the area over a year ago and decided not to buy a house (eventhough we could afford one) because of the outrageous prices. We were worried that we would pay too much and not be able to sell it without taking a big loss when we moved. Of course nobody's laughing anymore and now people casually inform my husband when they have a house for sale. Summer is the traditional moving season for many military personnel. I believe this summer is going to bring financial ruin for many relocating military families forced to sell but unable to find buyers for thier homes.

The article you wrote today took a complicated idea and broke it down. Fascinating! The article was so interesting I went back and read your article about the heavy environmental price China is paying to gain a place in the world economy. They're polluting thier enviornment and not really gaining anything.

Taxes on assets would be very bad for the economy. If Bill Gates, whose wealth is mostly Microsoft stock, has to pay a tax on assets, he has to sell Microsoft stock every year to find money for the government. I don't see what kind of social justice requires him to gradually sell off a company he founded to fund government. Plus the better the company does, the more of it he has to get rid of, which is a kind of perverse disincentive! And of course, if the stock drops, it's not like the government is going to give him his money back.

As a practical matter, companies and rich individuals can and will move out of the U.S. under high tax regimes. From what I read, we're already losing some of them because of Sarbanes-Oxley and higher corporate taxes than in other parts of the world. It will be interesting to see if flat taxes spread out of eastern Europe into the rest of the EU. There's already a lot of griping in the EU about "unfair tax competition", so they've definitely noticed the effects. After all, if the flat tax were hurting the people who've tried it, they would drop it, not be criticized for "unfair" competition.

At a more ordinary level, I'm sure you've noticed that the lifetime property taxes on your house add up to a fair percentage of the purchase price. Do you really think local government deserves that money? Or that an income tax wouldn't be more fair? There really are a lot of people with expensive houses and low income. Should they be carrying a disproportional share of the load? In states without Prop 13 limit on property taxes, the situation has got to be even worse.

BTW, I don't think Ron Paul qualifies as an extreme Libertarian. He's a moderate one.... :-) Unfortunately, Libertarians have too much contempt for politics to ever find anyone electable as President.

You've been on a roll lately. Have you upped your ginko biloba intake!? As a fellow peasant, I find myself enlightened by your thoughts and am in full agreement. I'm not sure if it's because of aged wisdom or jaded outlook (are they any different?), but my distaste for presidential candidates grows with each passing election cycle. Perhaps it is because my subconscious mind has grown more adept at tuning into the elitist undercurrents emanating from said candidates. I'm a libertarian at heart but I have settled for registered republican and grown unbelievably disillusioned with this sad, corrupt party. Unfortunately, the dems are no better. What's a guy to do? Ron Paul is the only candidate that I've actually applauded in my adulthood. I fear you are correct, however. He doesn't have a prayer - he kowtow's to no one. And his ideas, if ever implemented, would truly upset the elitist applecart. He'll still get my vote.

I do have some concerns about the current president.

Yes, he is part of the ruling elite by virtue of his family background. Yes, he has made the oil and drug companies rich. Yes, he has cut taxes for the establishment. Yes, he has surrounded himself with a large number of CFR members.

But... He has put our nation in a precarious position by busting the military and making us hated around the globe.

On all counts, he has given in to the cause for a new world order (North American Union) and made the international bankers rich by running up the national debt.

But... In the larger scheme of things, I'm not so sure that he is one of the true elites; I equate him closer to Nixon. Going back to Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope," we find that later on he lamented that there was a "western" branch of the elites who were not the true Eastern Establishment that had been handed the baton from the Round Table Group. This bunch of newbies were the defense industry and high-tech guys who made their money FROM the government. As such, they do not have the same ideals and beliefs that the old timers have.

Part of the problem is that the new guys are more concerned with wealth and power in and of itself, as opposed to what can be done with it. The new bunch are definitely cowboys, or more like bulls in a china shop. So when I envision the president as part of the ruling elite, I have to remind myself that his support group is the NASCAR dads and religious fanatics who definitely are not supportive of the one-world socialist government that the elites want to set up so that they control all the power and wealth and the rest of us peons are reduced to economic slavery--debtors.

Otherwise, we agree 100%.

Keep up the good work. We need exposes like this.

In my previous message I discussed the new elites that were the western bunch as opposed to the Eastern Establishment. I was relating what Professor Quigley had said about it. At that time I did not have the quote in front of me, so here it is:

"...This new wealth [arising from Southwest and Far West families], based on petroleum, natural gas, ruthless exploitation of national resources, the aviation industry, military bases in the South and West, and finally on space with all its attendant activities, has centered in Texas and southern California. Its existence, for the first time, made it possible for the petty-bourgeois outlook to make itself felt in the political nomination process instead of ain the unrewarding effort to influence politics by voting for a Republication candidate nominated under Eastern Establishment influence.

In these terms the political struggle in the United States has shifted in two ways, or even three. This struggle, in the minds of the ill informed, had always been viewed as a struggle between Republicans and Democrats at the ballot box in November. Wall Street, long ago, however, had seen that the real struggle was in the nominating conventions the preceding summer... [T]he new wealth appeared in the political picture, sharing the petty bourgeoisie’s suspicions of the East, big cities, Ivy League universities, foreigners, intellectuals, workers, and aristocrats. By the 1964 election, the major political issue in the country was the financial struggle behind the scenes between the old wealth, civilized and cultured in foundations, and the new wealth, virile and uninformed, arising from the flowing profits of government-dependent corporations in the Southwest and West."

interesting twist on assets. not sure i agree with most of taxes coming from this. i prefer a mix on consumption tax and income tax and assets. I agree about the foreign shelters, which is why, if a company wants to offshore locate, i would do something about a special income tax for all sales in the US to discourage foreign location. not to keen on leaning to heavily on asset tax, as it will bring up the prop13 motivator, and not on sales either, because it's progressive in the reverse. i like it when all pay something, that way it keeps all the people involved politcally, which is our problem now, the super elites and the poor pay nothing and get the majority of the benefits. i do agree with your logic about upsetting the apple cart. i like it when nothing gets done because we don't seem to undo anything, so i would rather have chaos than something being done which will further favor the elites and the poor at the expense of me and you.

i also firmly believe the fed is the trustee of the new social security, 401's. i would like to see a percentage breakdown of assets held as stock and stock held within 401, 403 etc. with the % so askew into managed assets, there is little rationale for the stock market as a whole for generating capital to expand a business. it's simply a retirement fund with a higher rate of return than social security, though you could obviously argue with that as you get way more than you put in. this is why everyone pays attention to the fed now, it's their retirement, not outlook for cost of capital. the whole financial world knows it, and to me,it doesn't matter that much if it collapses, as there will be a readjustment, and it won't be that big of a deal in the long term. just like the depression, even though there was a lot of sorry people including my grandparents who suffered. thees are basically their comments about the depression not being that big of a deal. the most commen comment from them was that it was a reallocation of assets from those who were poorly leveraged, similar to the flippers in trouble with adjustable rate mortagages at 100% financing. to me, this is the "new" depression, this reallocation of resources not really affecting anything except ticks in inflation, which cause disposable income to go down and we "consume" less for a while while manufacturing devises new ways to make things cheaper like they should be, ie tv's. i mean come on,does lead in tv's cost that much to get rid of as we switch to flat panels, or is it just the unjustified salaries of upper management with their golden parachutes. this is where the crime is, is that the $ doesn't get reinvested back into the economy, except as a more lavish home for a party once a year!

'fraid you have it, yep - the dreaded "ee" (ELETE ENVY). I have a cure but it's not what you think. If you want people to have power - responsible power - then priviledges must be linked to responsibilities.

I laugh when people talk about our "progressive" tax system. Right now, 40% of the people support the other 60%. That's right, 60% of all the folks don't pay any income tax. But they sure use all those services provided by big gov'mt. The way things go - and you believe in trends - soon it will be 30% paying to 70% not paying. Heck, let's go for 20% of those priviledged sloths paying for the other 80%.

Now if you don't go along with this vision of the future, tell me why not. Why won't those enjoying the priviledges of our system without paying anything into in, vote themselves more of the same?

Of course they will until the system slams to a stop. They may be poor or middle class but they're not stupid.

Everyone, rich and poor should pay equally into the system on a percentage basis. Think of it! The little guy, writing stories and entries into a blog, making almost nada, still has to pay.

Those who pay will pay more attention to what and who is running things.

Revolutionary, don't you think?

Damn, this makes too much sense and no one else has thought of it. But why? Because we're basically sheep, we go with the statis quo. No one alive has lived without income tax. Before 1917, there was NONE. Now how in the world did the gov'mt survive?

No one thinks out of the box anymore.

Basically Chomsky is right that democrats and republicans are part of the same party. But even historically that is true so we really shouldn't be surprised. U.S. political parties

Would be interesting if Bloomberg becomes president. With a billion dollar war chest, and media access off the bat might be possible. Don't really care if he is elite or not since he is very pragmatic.

I used to read a lot of books on wars especially golden horde etc... there was one line in a novel that went something like this; "better to be well fed slave than a hungry baron (merchant)". Really is worldly is it really better to be an elite in an african nation or someone in the projects here. I ll take the projects...

I think you are talking about "Haig-Simons" approach to taxation (public finance class taking now). They basically promoted taxes being imposed based on the ability to pay. Which is measured by consumption and changes in net worth. Haig-Simons Equation

Sure elite interests and the rest of the populous interest diverge and converge over time. But someone who will be elected will always imprint a little of their own thoughts in far flung reaching decisions. I realized how neutral Chomsky is on the whole thing when he was saying that they have to do what they have to do to keep power and you could do what you want to do to challenge it.

"A truly fair tax would be a percentage of all assets, including all assets held overseas and in tax-free bonds. Failure to comply would mean not a slap on the wrist but revocation of your citizenship (for starters) and criminal charges akin to money-laundering by gangsters--in other words, grounds to freeze accounts. This would collect a "fair share" of wealth from those who evade income taxes. Is such a plan even feasible? Don't make me laugh. The Elites go to a lot of trouble to control the poltical process, and the last thing they will ever allow is an asset-based tax because, duh, they'd have to pay something! "

How about an excise tax as in the old days and a straight consumption tax? That way private property would remain private (sans emminent domain) since there would be no tax on income or assets your property would remain yours. As it stands now failure to forfiet your "money" (it hurts to call fiat dollars that!) to the Man results in possible seizure of your private property. Really, how can you have any LIBERTY at all when the Man ( I am really biting my toungue and holding back) can take what you have on a yearly basis. I would rather have the elites keep all there wealth in favor of me maintaing my liberty. Consumption tax would really f*ck the elites because of the shear "100 penny" volume of the stuff they purchase. (Since a dollar is a specific amount of silver I shall skip calling the toilet paper dollars..."dollars")

" Failure to comply would mean not a slap on the wrist but revocation of your citizenship (for starters)"

Revocation of citizenship from the united states.............who cares? How can they(corp gov) revoke the citizenship of those (elitists, non filers etc...) from the state from which they are Soveriegn Citizen's. Maybe the national id act will force people's hands to decide if the are part of the united states or they are Soveriegn Citizens of the Many States. For me NID is "The Line in the Sand". I have already told Jeannine that the national id is the line for me. I will not capitualte at any cost. Being a surfer/deadhead/ carpenter etc existing off the underground would just be old school and the downside would be............. no bank account, ( I could stop contributing to the pollution of the money supply, fractional reserve banking.), I could not go into a federal building or courtthouse, (breaks my heart) and I could no longer fly. ( Helping to curtail the imapct of peak oil.) Pretty win-win in my book.

I need to tell you more about turning parking lots back into productive ag land...not as easy as you think.

Our notions of productivity are skewed to a view in which land use decisions have no lasting impacts. soils, like species, can become extinct. Ask a soil scientist. The very act of putting landscaprock down as an aesthetic or logistic solution has long term consequences with respect to agricultrual productivity. Most paved surfaces have had the fertile topsoils removed and replaced by compacted soils (compaction is not reversable) and gravel to a depth of at least 30 inches. No one will ever make a movie about dirt but it is truly the greatest story remaining to be told....