Quotes & Clippings


                          "Oh, ye wealthy: Your riches are corrupted, and your garments moth-eaten. Ye fail to hear the wails of the laborers of the fields, which is of you kept back by fraud." --- Holy Bible: James 5:1-3 (paraphrased) 
Money Changers In Charge

(Letter to the Editor reprinted from the Des Moines Register)

Third Party Wins U.S. election .... Again! No, it's not one of the third parties you've been reading about. However, it's been around the entire century and is once again dominating the entire political process and our economic system as well. Franklin D. Roosevelt gave it a name back in 1932 when he was running for president. He declared, "I'm going to run the 'Money Changers' out of the temple." In brief, what FDR really did was take the economy and the government back from the money changers and give the government and the economy back to the people. Now, 63 years later, the money changers are back in charge again. The sad part of all this takeover by the money changers is the fact that the average citizen hasn't the least idea of what is happening. Now comes the big stuff, farm raw materials. Due to the massive volume of agricultural raw materials, the opportunity for depressing earned national income is almost beyond comprehension. Depress the gross national farm income by $100-billion annually, not unusual, and we also lose the $1-trillion it would have generated. Over a 20 year period, the loss of earned national income amounts to $22-trillion. So, over the past 20 years, the "Money Changers" have been able to loan the $22-trillion into the economy and collect the interest. Nice work if you can get it. Now, let's get closer to home and see what is going on. Iowa is supposed to have a 1.6-billion bushel corn crop. That is roughly 16-million bushels per county. For each dollar that the corn price is depressed below parity, your county is losing at least $32-million. Then there is a sizable loss on soybeans as well. The role of money in the operation is to simplify and facilitate the exchange of goods and services. The role of government is to maintain a balance of price between labor, raw material and finished goods. With a proper balance we have maximum earned national income and an "honest dollar" without inflation. When money begins to throw its weight around as explained above is when we get into serious economic trouble. If there is any real political power left in D.C., it had better act immediately to take back the economy and the government and return them to the American people.

Francis York Indianola, Iowa (retired farmer)

A Scientific Approach To Government

by Jay B. Marcus Fairfield, Iowa Natural Law Party 3rd District Congressional Candidate '96 (Reprinted excerpts from the Des Moines Register)

The Natural Law Party was formed in 1992 to bring a scientific perspective to government. Where possible, government programs should be based on what has been proved effective, or at least on common-sense approaches that take into account the fundamental laws of science government human growth and evolution. Science can be a harmonizing influence in a society torn by conservatives warring with liberals, Republicans warring with Democrats, and the "haves" with the "have-nots." ...... "When third parties get votes, they are not wasted votes, but principled ones. They make it clear to the major parties that it is time for a change and that progress does not occur without it."

An Adaptive Approach To Agriculture 

A statement on national policy by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development

(Note: The following excerpts provide a historical perspective to the policy direction the federal government took in the 1960s to use the mechanism of low farm commodity prices to force millions of so-called "inefficient" family farmers from the land and consolidate a minimal food-producing labor force into larger and larger "efficient" enterprises. The policy worked to perfection from the Committee's perspective. From 1962 to the end of 1966, the number of farm workers decreased by 34.1% -- from 5,259.000 persons to 3,465,000 persons -- or 448,000 persons per year. In 1962, the farm labor force was 7.8% of the civilian non-farm labor force. In 1966, it was 4.6%. [Source: Economic Report of the President, 1967, pages 236-237] However, low commodity prices not only caused an exodus from the land, they also served to initiate America's slide into unserviceable trillions of dollars of public and private debt.)

Excerpt from pages 11-12: The adaptive approach utilizes positive government action to facilitate and promote the movement of labor and capital where they will be most productive and will earn the most income. Essentially this approach seeks to achieve what the laissez-faire approach would ordinarily expect to achieve, but to do it more quickly ..... The adaptive approach calls for action by government working with the free market, not against it. It seeks to achieve the results of the free market more quickly and easily ..... Excerpt from page 19: Although the exodus from agriculture in the past decade or longer has been large by almost any standards, it has not been large enough ... (there has been) a persistent excess of resources, particularly labor, in agriculture .... Excerpt from page 25-26: The adaptive alternative is a program to permit and induce a large, rapid movement of resources, notably labor, out of agriculture. This is the approach we recommend. In our opinion, it is the only approach that offers a solution from the standpoint either of the agricultural or of the non-agricultural community. If we choose the adaptive course recommended, we must pursue it in a large scale, vigorous, thorough-going way. Small steps will not do .... the program we suggest contemplates that a major part of the required adjustment in agriculture would take place over a five year period. We recommend steps to supplement, on a diminishing scale, the incomes that farmers would earn in free markets during that period ... We believe that the transition can be effected in a five year period if the program recommended is pursued with vigor .... Excerpt from page 32: Attracting excess resources from use in farm production. This is the heart of the matter in agricultural adjustment. Excess resources in use in the production of farm goods is the farm problem. Everything else suggested here is for the purpose of facilitating the fundamental transaction -- withdrawal of excess resources from agricultural production ... Excerpt from page 42-43-44: Therefore, it is recommended that the price supports for wheat, cotton, rice, feed grains, and related crops now under price supports be reduced immediately to the prices that could be expected to balance output and use after the transition period ... The lower price levels would discourage further commitment of new productive resources to those crops ... The adjusted price would be, for cotton about 22-cents per pound, for rice about $3 per hundredweight, for wheat about $1.35 per bushel, and for feed grains, the equivalent of about $1 a bushel for corn ... new resources (especially people) should be discouraged from entering agriculture .... Excerpt from page 59: As we emphasized in the early portions of this statement, it is the very heart of the farm problem that a massive adjustment needs to be made in the human resources now committed to agricultural production. Small adjustments in the farm labor force will not suffice. What we have in mind in our program is a reduction of the farm labor force on the order of one-third in a period of not more than five years. It would thereby contribute to the basic goal of a net reduction of the resources -- human and other -- now employed in farming. This is a high, but not impractical, goal. If the farm labor force were to be, five years hence, no more than two-thirds as large as its present size of approximately 5.5-millions, the program would involve moving off the farm about two million of the present farm labor force, plus an equal number to a large part of the new entrants who would otherwise join the farm labor force in the five years. The total number of workers leaving farming in the five years would amount to 3-4% of the present non-farm civilian labor force of some 65 millions. This would be some 400,000 to 500,000 persons a year. (Note: The only person serving on the Research and Policy Committee that drafted this "adaptive" approach to agricultural adjustment who had any connection to production agriculture was Harry Kleberg, Jr., president of King Ranch, Inc., the largest ranch in Texas. All others serving on the committee were leading industrialists, bankers, and professional economists.) 

Blemishes On An Otherwise Perfect Economy

(Excerpt from a syndicated column published June 24, 1997, by ROBERT RENO, a writer for Newsday. In it, Reno condemns conventional economic thought about inflation in the U.S. economy on that day.)
\93 Low unemployment and low inflation. Shouldn\92t inflation explode as scarce workers demand higher wages? Most economists thought this could not happen. It makes you wonder how many other goofy ideas \91most economists\92 believe in, and how many other truths of economy orthodoxy being peddled by today\92s upcoming generation of more conservative economists will turn out to be rubbish when tested in the real world. Given the profession\92s sorry record of understanding inflation over the past 30 years, the very term \91most economists\92 is in danger of being taken about as seriously as \91most witch doctors\92 ..... inequality of income is one reason inflation is non-existent. Workers do not press legitimate pay claims because too many of them are scared witless of losing medical coverage, of being laid off, downsized, replaced by temporary workers, made redundant by technology, displaced by global competition, or thrown out by union busters.\94 

Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Website Copyright ©  1996 - 2010
                     Website optimized by: NORM Economics Org. 
Used with permission. Contact the webmaster Randy Cook Update 1/25/10