"Skeptic isn't Keir Dullea!" - rush

Just great. I've been outed.

I hate it when that happens.

Ok, I am coming out.

I am actually a political button (at least until November). - Skeptic

---

- Skeptic - "... and there is no intelligent life in Washington D.C. either."

So who is going to bail out the U.S. when their economy collapses?

The next few generations are going to be real happy about this, but they may not understand the implications so 'its okay'.

Perhaps they will have to change the world-wide banking rules a "financial amnesty for all" ...LOL....

Lets just keep issuing those T-bills, too bad if Europe and Asia stop buying.

If they stop buying, the ones they hold become worthless, the dollars they hold in reserve become worth substantially less.

While they are trending away from buying them, that's fine with me. Bankrupt the Federal Gov't and I'll be ecstatic.

Well if i were you, i would be getting some 'offshore property' (if you dont already) cause when the bubble bursts in the U.S.A. (the Titanic didn't turn on a dime) i wouldn't want to be there, or even nearby!!

Entitlement junkies.(middle-class entitlements)(includes related articles)

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

So who is going to bail out the U.S. when their economy collapses?

The next few generations are going to be real happy about this, but they may not understand the implications so 'its okay'.

Perhaps they will have to change the world-wide banking rules a "financial amnesty for all" ...LOL....

Lets just keep issuing those T-bills, too bad if Europe and Asia stop buying.

If they stop buying, the ones they hold become worthless, the dollars they hold in reserve become worth substantially less.

While they are trending away from buying them, that's fine with me. Bankrupt the Federal Gov't and I'll be ecstatic.

Yes, the US$ is being 'held up' by thin air, or as pointed out an artificial need for US Dollars (by having foreign countries buying US debt (IOU)). With less being produced (USA), and massively increased debt (USA), in combination with countries (like Japan) weening themselves off USD (by diversifying their trading with other countries) it is only a matter of time until the USD collapses.

Fuel to fire - A number of countries are unpegging their currencies (historically tied to USD) which is a significant factor (less buying of t-bills or p-bills, they should probably be called f-bills).

I hope people in the U.S. are ready for a "change of lifestyle".

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

Well if i were you, i would be getting some 'offshore property' (if you dont already) cause when the bubble bursts in the U.S.A. (the Titanic didn't turn on a dime) i wouldn't want to be there, or even nearby!!

Or, to look at it in a different way, there wouldn't be any such thing as an "offshore property" in that context. The U.S. economy is large enough and elastic enough that while certainly it could suffer significant damage, the overwhelming number of other economies that depend on it both as the market of last resort and as the guarantor of their reserve currency would be decimated. They have orders of magnitude more to lose.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Yes, the US$ is being 'held up' by thin air, or as pointed out an artificial need for US Dollars (by having foreign countries buying US debt (IOU)). With less being produced (USA), and massively increased debt (USA), in combination with countries (like Japan) weening themselves off USD (by diversifying their trading with other countries) it is only a matter of time until the USD collapses.

Odd though, China is doing the exact opposite. But these countries LINE UP to buy U.S. debt. They certainly aren't going to buy Burkina Faso's and they are even afraid to some extent of buying Japan's.

Fuel to fire - A number of countries are unpegging their currencies (historically tied to USD) which is a significant factor (less buying of t-bills or p-bills, they should probably be called f-bills). I hope people in the U.S. are ready for a "change of lifestyle".

If the people in the U.S. have to be prepared for a "change of lifestyle," I hope that many people in many parts of the world are ready to "starve to death." Because if it happens overnight, the world economy will be destroyed. If it happens over time (far more likely and over a long time) it will stop the Federal Gov't from running around spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave.

Fine with me.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Well if i were you, i would be getting some 'offshore property' (if you dont already) cause when the bubble bursts in the U.S.A. (the Titanic didn't turn on a dime) i wouldn't want to be there, or even nearby!!

Or, to look at it in a different way, there wouldn't be any such thing as an "offshore property" in that context. The U.S. economy is large enough and elastic enough that while certainly it could suffer significant damage, the overwhelming number of other economies that depend on it both as the market of last resort and as the guarantor of their reserve currency would be decimated. They have orders of magnitude more to lose.

True today, however you just have to pick a country that has its own food supply, natural resources and a neutral trading relationship with the USA (a few come to mind).

I would not trust the powers-that be to elegantly manage their way out of this one (if history is any record of their capabilities to avoid financial turmoil).

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

"...A number of countries are unpegging their currencies (historically tied to USD)..." enigma

"China is doing the exact opposite..." -rush

Exactly. You are being "Chicken Little", Enigma. The sky is not falling. This administration and congress have done almost everything short of threatening nuclear war (including jawboning, threatening trade sanctions, etc.) to demand that the Chinese decouple their currency from the USD. The Chinese Government may be a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them. They flat out refuse and for a good reason. Their economy is better off coupled to our currency and they are going to leave it that way. The stupidity is on the part of our elected representatives and president that continues to demand they decouple, for reasons of pure politiical pandering to the base.

We do have a very serious problem with the out of control spending in this single party government, but it is nothing that cannot be fixed with some good old fashioned gridlock, if we can just get back to divided government in 2006.

---

- Skeptic - "... and there is no intelligent life in Washington D.C. either."

Yes, the US$ is being 'held up' by thin air, or as pointed out an artificial need for US Dollars (by having foreign countries buying US debt (IOU)). With less being produced (USA), and massively increased debt (USA), in combination with countries (like Japan) weening themselves off USD (by diversifying their trading with other countries) it is only a matter of time until the USD collapses.

Odd though, China is doing the exact opposite. But these countries LINE UP to buy U.S. debt. They certainly aren't going to buy Burkina Faso's and they are even afraid to some extent of buying Japan's.

China has already unpegged and stopped buying. Japan has stopped buying. Both are in the process of reducing their near 1 trillion dollar positions.

Japan and China Stop Buying US Debt

Fuel to fire - A number of countries are unpegging their currencies (historically tied to USD) which is a significant factor (less buying of t-bills or p-bills, they should probably be called f-bills). I hope people in the U.S. are ready for a "change of lifestyle".

If the people in the U.S. have to be prepared for a "change of lifestyle," I hope that many people in many parts of the world are ready to "starve to death." Because if it happens overnight, the world economy will be destroyed.

No doubt there would be reverberations world-wide. However i believe it would hurt the U.S. the most. Many east-asian countries have 'proteced themselves' since the "East Asian crisis" of 97.

As for starving, well Africa couldn't be much more screwed than it already is. The U.S. may have enough to feed itself.... China, India and Europe can feed themselves.....

If it happens over time (far more likely and over a long time) it will stop the Federal Gov't from running around spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave.

Fine with me.

I would hope so, however with a 0.7-1.0 Trillion increase in debt per annum, the solution may be more drastic and sooner than we expect.

Are you familiar with the demise of LTCM? To me, the current debt and debt servicing method seems like a similar set of machinery based on assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, then.....crunch.

China Signals Further Rate Increases

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

I am surprised that no one took up this discussion?? I am not American, but you don't need to be American to discuss some of the points raised....

I will note again that it wasn't my speech. I wanted to use it as a starting point for discussion, to see if I could get someone to defend the status quo.

The point of the entire satire is that the "plan" simply describes current trands in US politics, but in more colorful language.

Multilingual societies can function quite harmoniously, however when we are talking about "culture" it is more of a problem when religion enters the picture. In the above example, lets look at Malaysia 60% Islamic (malay), 30% Bhudist/Christian (Chinese) and 10% Hindu (Indian). There are no less than 30 spoken languages or dialects of Malay, Chinese and Indian in Malaysia. The problem is a little more complex that simply "language".

Historically, civil unrest in Malaysia was from economic inequalities (the minority was more affuluent that the majority ethnic group!).

However i will say that multilingual societies face greater challenges in terms of social and economic development because of confusion and misuderstandings that the various languages cause. Many people cannot communciate effectively because they do not have a strong common tongue! (English is often the bridge, i could write a lot here but i wont). In a few words, the overall education process is cumbersome, three types of schools and school systems (Malay, Chinese and International [for the wealthy]) books in different languages etc etc.

This is closer to what I've seen in 'serious' research about the issue. Although a common language is a "great to have," it's actually divergant cultures that cause the real problems. There are places where multi-ethnic and/or multi-lingual populations mingle without bloodshed, but multi-cultural populations almost always end in a civil war of some kind.

A self-aware culture can sustain any number of subcultures so long as there is some agreement on basic principles. Although a potato farmer in Idaho and a casino showgirl in Atlantic City may not agree on much, neither would have any trouble identifying the other as an "American." This is a very different thing than a nation trying to maintain distinct cultures. The French minority in Canada, the Kurds in Iraq, etc. see themselves as unrecognized nations. In a less-organized way, unassimilated immigrants cause similar problems. Note the riots in France by unassimilated Moroccan immigrants.

Could this be done, even if 'they' wanted to? If people wish to retain or relinquish their native culture they will choose accordingly.

The United States and other countries enable nonassimilation (hey, I just made up a word!) by providing education in languages other than the "common language." If ESL (English as a Second Language) instruction were limited to one year, then the children mainstreamed, it would be virtually impossible for immigrants to remain unassimilated for more than one generation.

Of course, the problem is more complex than that, but limiting ESL classes is a first easy step in the process that is prevented by well-meaning liberals who don't seem to realize they are not helping the immigrants, they are creating a non-English-speaking underclass.

I dont have any stats on this, so i cannot comment. But i will say this, who ever is the most poorly educated and impoverished demographic within a society is most likely to

a. Easily be controlled
b. Attack the affluent or middle-class/middle-upper-class.

The fastest-growing demographic in the US is Hispanic, although that term includes a broad array of groups of varying levels of assimilation. The subgroup that causes the concern is the one in the southwestern US that maintains its own Mexican-ish culture.

What's in it for the "big foundations and big business"? The root of the problem here again, is education and distribution of wealth.

The motivations may be more sinister than you realize. Politicians get votes by promising to fix things. Politicians are not above talking a group into thinking it is victimized just so that they can fix the problem.

The pols get the votes, but they've created animosity between groups and created an expectation of entitlement.

Again, well educated, balanced individuals with sufficient resources (economically speaking) can discuss/debate and reason. If these elements are removed then you wont need words like "heretic".

The problem is not a shortage of educated, balanced individuals. The problem is a shortage of politicians and activists who treat people like educated, balanced individuals. Having created inter-group tensions and unrealistic expectations, the propogandists have honed those baser instincts until they can be triggered with keywords.

Once an accusation of racism or homophobia or whatever is made, the entire discussion becomes about that accusation. This was used masterfully by the Democratic Party to shield New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin from criticism. The public debate about why a major city was unprepared for a predictable disaster was replaced by a public debate about why so many poor black families were displaced.

Hint: They were displaced because they lived in low-lying areas. They lived in low-lying areas because they were poor. They were poor because they had been raised on expectations of entitlements by the likes of Mayor Nagin.

This is happening now. Just take a look at the U.S. national debt, along with its 5 year trend. When this catches up, it could get very ugly and i dont think 25 basis points (of interest rate increase) every year for the next 5 years will fix this!! (clearly it is not working).

Everything in the speech is happening now. That's the point. This, however, doesn't have any racial or cultural overtones, so the implied argument doesn't devolve into namecalling (at least right away).

Once you mention trimming entitlements, it doesn't take long for the discussion to devolve into namecalling. Sigh.

How can it be that the government is not responsible for its own balance sheet? If they dont start looking at it, i think we will have another Enron/ Worldcom! Or is the rest of the world going to pay of the lifestyle of US Citizens!

It is truly breathtaking how shortsighted voters can be, isn't it?

National governments tend to be abyssmal at keeping their books in order. US monetary policy has matured considerably in the past 25 years. It has finally settled into a low inflation, low unemployment, moderate expansion trend. The peaks and valleys have been virtually flattened. Even the economic damage of the 9/11 attacks has been absorbed.

The nation's economic health is not the same thing as the government's fiscal health. Even accepting that nations run deficits in wartime, the US has been on a spending spree for a long time while now.

One party had held power in Congress for decades, and about ten years ago the other party took power. Since 2001 they've had a President of that party as well. For the past 6 years, they've been funding projects that they've probably wanted to fund for 30 years. Basically, not much changed when the other party took over.

There are two problems with this. First, for 30 years, the Republican Party had been scolding the Democratic Party for spending too much. Now the Republicans are doing the same thing. This could alienate many Republican voters who'd signed onto the limited government platform. Second, all of that spending is not sustainable. Europe is begining to realize this, but the entitlement mentality is so entrenched in some areas that it is going to get much much worse before it gets better.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

"...A number of countries are unpegging their currencies (historically tied to USD)..." enigma

"China is doing the exact opposite..." -rush

Exactly. You are being "Chicken Little", Enigma. The sky is not falling. This administration and congress have done almost everything short of threatening nuclear war (including jawboning, threatening trade sanctions, etc.) to demand that the Chinese decouple their currency from the USD. The Chinese Government may be a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them. They flat out refuse and for a good reason. Their economy is better off coupled to our currency and they are going to leave it that way.

Are we on the same page? The Yuan was unpegged in July 2005.

Unpeg of Yuan

The Yuan is pegged against a basket of currencies today (removal of dependency on USD, note that Malaysia followed suit within days and more will go this way). This means their 1 Trillion US$ positions can be slowly liquidated without affecting their (Japan + China) respective economies. Although China could probably take a hit if it wanted to (at the expense of the U.S.)

The stupidity is on the part of our elected representatives and president that continues to demand they decouple, for reasons of pure politiical pandering to the base.

We do have a very serious problem with the out of control spending in this single party government, but it is nothing that cannot be fixed with some good old fashioned gridlock, if we can just get back to divided government in 2006.

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

I will note again that it wasn't my speech. I wanted to use it as a starting point for discussion, to see if I could get someone to defend the status quo.

I think the problem may be apathy...... people have stopped caring.

This is closer to what I've seen in 'serious' research about the issue. Although a common language is a "great to have," it's actually divergent cultures that cause the real problems. There are places where multi-ethnic and/or multi-lingual populations mingle without bloodshed, but multi-cultural populations almost always end in a civil war of some kind.

A self-aware culture can sustain any number of subcultures so long as there is some agreement on basic principles. Although a potato farmer in Idaho and a casino showgirl in Atlantic City may not agree on much, neither would have any trouble identifying the other as an "American." This is a very different thing than a nation trying to maintain distinct cultures. The French minority in Canada, the Kurds in Iraq, etc. see themselves as unrecognized nations. In a less-organized way, unassimilated immigrants cause similar problems. Note the riots in France by unassimilated Moroccan immigrants.

Yes, but the riots and issues are usually related to discrimination and exploitation (either real or perceived) and or poverty. Assuming that these problems cannot be rectified the solution is assimilation (we need to employ some BORG tactics here, it is a question of what is assimilation?).

When I looked at the 'Kurd issue' in IRAQ, you have to add to the equation at least two Muslim sects Shiite and Sunni (which don't get along) outside of the Kurds. You can understand how unification and democracy is going to be a big issue here! The point is, without a certain level of consensus of population culturally you have significant division (and probably eventual riots / unrest / war etc).

The riots in France, from my understanding originated from

1. Unemployment
2. Poverty
3. 'Social Segregation' - The poorer classes living in discreetly polarised areas (geographically speaking).
4. Poor education

1-4 seem to be interdependent, wouldn't you say? You can understand why they (the minorities) are upset.

I believe that culture is deeply steeped in religion, if you consider Mexico and central America, it is my understanding that these are mostly roman catholic (Spanish origins etc, from the Dominicans etc etc...) which should fit into the "Christian framework" as major sect hence I believe this example is far more complex than the US/Mexico/Central American issue (but i could be wrong!) barring the 'language issue - see below'.

The United States and other countries enable non-assimilation (hey, I just made up a word!) by providing education in languages other than the "common language." If ESL (English as a Second Language) instruction were limited to one year, then the children mainstreamed, it would be virtually impossible for immigrants to remain unassimilated for more than one generation.

Of course, the problem is more complex than that, but limiting ESL classes is a first easy step in the process that is prevented by well-meaning liberals who don't seem to realize they are not helping the immigrants; they are creating a non-English-speaking underclass.

I don’t fully understand your statement. Are you saying that the public school system in the U.S. teaches multiple languages? (i mean all basic science, maths, economics, geography etc are taught in several languages... i am not talking about elective languages, like french, german etc.).

Australia also has ESL classes (for mature age students). However schools (public and private) are taught in one language, when i was at school we had a lot of students from Hong Kong (their English was shocking) but they were FORCED through the English system, which in my opinion 'worked well' in terms of assimilation. I believe this system has contributed to producing cultural stability in what is an extremely multicultural society (Australia that is), these days there are very very few racial problems in Australia (relatively speaking).

Having said this, Australia is run in a very different way than that the United States for example



1. Affluence is more evenly distributed due to the nature of the TAX system.
2. Entitlements are for the POOR not the middle class
3. The middle class are essentially paying for a 'better quality of life' for the poor.
4. Tertiary education is subsidised by the government

The net result is a better life for most people affluence, education etc.


From the little i have read about the U.S. it is the reverse of Australia.

The fastest-growing demographic in the US is Hispanic, although that term includes a broad array of groups of varying levels of assimilation. The subgroup that causes the concern is the one in the south-western US that maintains its own Mexican-ish culture.

So how big is this demographic? (as a percentage of population - the U.S. is around 300 million from memory)

The motivations may be more sinister than you realize. Politicians get votes by promising to fix things. Politicians are not above talking a group into thinking it is victimized just so that they can fix the problem.

Examples? Fix what exactly? Racial discrimination, education, poverty???

The pols get the votes, but they've created animosity between groups and created an expectation of entitlement.

Is it wrong to give more entitlements to the poor and less to the middle and upper classes??

The problem is not a shortage of educated, balanced individuals.

Are you sure? Does the average person especially in poverty stricken neighbourhoods know how to debate issues??? Logically, rationally? Are they even interested or are they more concerned where their next meal is coming from or how they are going to keep the lights on!??

Once an accusation of racism or homophobia or whatever is made, the entire discussion becomes about that accusation. This was used masterfully by the Democratic Party to shield New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin from criticism. The public debate about why a major city was unprepared for a predictable disaster was replaced by a public debate about why so many poor black families were displaced.

Hint: They were displaced because they lived in low-lying areas. They lived in low-lying areas because they were poor.

Is this really surprising, given the issue at hand (poverty) and 'crowd behaviour'.

They were poor because they had been raised on expectations of entitlements by the likes of Mayor Nagin.

I'm sorry but his statement is absurd. You are trying to say that 'the source of poverty" is because people think that they can 'live comfortably' purely from government entitlements. The only kind of people that would believe this are either

1. Extremely Desperate (poverty stricken)
2. Uneducated
3. Gullible (see point 2).
4. All of the above

4 most likely. From day #1, they (the poor) believe that they will grow up and "exist on welfare"? The pandemic (if it is) has to have another source, perhaps apathy and desperation driven by a system that is geared to 'sustain the rich' and suppress the poor.

Everything in the speech is happening now. That's the point. This, however, doesn't have any racial or cultural overtones, so the implied argument doesn't devolve into name-calling (at least right away).

Once you mention trimming entitlements, it doesn't take long for the discussion to devolve into name-calling. Sigh.

Given the current 'fairness of the system' it isn't any wonder. Lets assume for the moment

1. Immigrants will keep coming and people keep
2. The national debt will continue to increase
3. There is no assimilation

Is 'the black problem' (this is a terrible way of putting it, so anyone reading please don't be offended i am trying to make a point, but i have to generalise) due to non-assimilation or 'other issues'?? Have 'blacks' assimilated and if they have, is this a 'problem free area' for the united states? If i were to assume that there 'is a black problem' then do you think there is any chance of solving the "Hispanic problem" by using the current tools and tactics.

Is it time to over-haul the system??

It is truly breathtaking how short-sighted voters can be, isn't it?

Not surprising if 50% of them are in apathy and could not care less. I imagine that some proportion of the population would be looking forward to a 'major economic disaster' so that the lines can be re-drawn.

National governments tend to be abysmal at keeping their books in order. US monetary policy has matured considerably in the past 25 years. It has finally settled into a low inflation, low unemployment, moderate expansion trend. The peaks and valleys have been virtually flattened. Even the economic damage of the 9/11 attacks has been absorbed.

I think that transparency has helped a lot. Historically fed-rates were 'top secret' and large movements caused knee jerk stock market reactions and generally large economic waves..... this has stopped in the past 5-10 years.

The nation's economic health is not the same thing as the government's fiscal health. Even accepting that nations run deficits in wartime, the US has been on a spending spree for a long time while now.

One party had held power in Congress for decades, and about ten years ago the other party took power. Since 2001 they've had a President of that party as well. For the past 6 years, they've been funding projects that they've probably wanted to fund for 30 years. Basically, not much changed when the other party took over.

There are two problems with this. First, for 30 years, the Republican Party had been scolding the Democratic Party for spending too much. Now the Republicans are doing the same thing. This could alienate many Republican voters who'd signed onto the limited government platform. Second, all of that spending is not sustainable. Europe is beginning to realize this, but the entitlement mentality is so entrenched in some areas that it is going to get much much worse before it gets better.

I would agree with this. But who let them do it? The people! As i said i am not American, but i believe that the system which runs the U.S. was setup by individuals with incredible foresight (Jefferson and so on) but the system is not "bullet-proof", and is being eroded the people need to get passionately involved in the political process and stop the wolves from taking over. Too much trust in the government breeds corruption.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error"

-> U.S. Supreme Court Justice - Robert H. Jackson - 1950

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

((( sometime soon this thread will be under new management... carry on... )))

Yes, but the riots and issues are usually related to discrimination and exploitation (either real or perceived) and or poverty. Assuming that these problems cannot be rectified the solution is assimilation (we need to employ some BORG tactics here, it is a question of what is assimilation?).

When I looked at the 'Kurd issue' in IRAQ, you have to add to the equation at least two Muslim sects Shiite and Sunni (which don't get along) outside of the Kurds. You can understand how unification and democracy is going to be a big issue here! The point is, without a certain level of consensus of population culturally you have significant division (and probably eventual riots / unrest / war etc).

The riots in France, from my understanding originated from

1. Unemployment
2. Poverty
3. 'Social Segregation' - The poorer classes living in discreetly polarised areas (geographically speaking).
4. Poor education

1-4 seem to be interdependent, wouldn't you say? You can understand why they (the minorities) are upset.

I believe that culture is deeply steeped in religion, if you consider Mexico and central America, it is my understanding that these are mostly roman catholic (Spanish origins etc, from the Dominicans etc etc...) which should fit into the "Christian framework" as major sect hence I believe this example is far more complex than the US/Mexico/Central American issue (but i could be wrong!) barring the 'language issue - see below'.

Divergent culture is not the only cause for riots, but two groups who self-identify as different cultures and make no effort to find common ground will soon develop other reasons for rioting. The immigrant riots in France present a chicken-and-egg problem: did the immigrants refuse to adopt the "French culture" or did the Europeans make it impossible with discrimination? The reality is likely in the middle: the prejudice made it hard enough to not be worth the effort.

I don’t fully understand your statement. Are you saying that the public school system in the U.S. teaches multiple languages? (i mean all basic science, maths, economics, geography etc are taught in several languages... i am not talking about elective languages, like french, german etc.).

Yes, there are students who graduate from high school after taking several years of non-English-language instruction. To give you an idea of how little the government values English language skills, in 45 of the 50 states you can take your driver's examination in at least one language other than English. In 42 of those states, Spanish is one of the choices.

Australia also has ESL classes (for mature age students). However schools (public and private) are taught in one language, when i was at school we had a lot of students from Hong Kong (their English was shocking) but they were FORCED through the English system, which in my opinion 'worked well' in terms of assimilation. I believe this system has contributed to producing cultural stability in what is an extremely multicultural society (Australia that is), these days there are very very few racial problems in Australia (relatively speaking).

This is how ESL is supposed to work. However, due to "the soft racism of low expectations" the students in ESL are never pushed into mainstream classes. This is not to say that every student remains in ESL. Many are self-starters who get themselves out. The system is a an overall failure because by relying on student motivation it is expecting children to make mature decisions about their futures.

Having said this, Australia is run in a very different way than that the United States for example



1. Affluence is more evenly distributed due to the nature of the TAX system.
2. Entitlements are for the POOR not the middle class
3. The middle class are essentially paying for a 'better quality of life' for the poor.
4. Tertiary education is subsidised by the government

The net result is a better life for most people affluence, education etc.


From the little i have read about the U.S. it is the reverse of Australia.

I don't know the tax system in Australia. The situation in the United States is a bit complicated because the federal government, the state government, and the local government each levy taxes. While the federal taxes can be generalized, state and local taxes vary greatly. Some states use personal income tax like the federal government while others use a sales tax, Many use a bit of each.

Personal income taxes fall disproportionately on the middle class. They make too much to qualify for poverty status but don't make enough to hire fancy accountants to find all the loopholes (or hire lobbyists to get loopholes created for them). This is not to say the "rich" don't pay taxes... they do, but a middle class family pays a bigger percentage of its disposable income than a very affluent family. (A transparent and SIMPLE tax system would fix this)

Sales taxes fall disproportionately on the poor. Because goods are taxes and services are not, and the poor spend far more of goods (food and clothing) than services (massages and hunting expeditions). Some luxury services are specifically taxed, like hotels... but so are many necessities, like gasoline.

So how big is this demographic? (as a percentage of population - the U.S. is around 300 million from memory)

In 2004, the US Census reported that 13.85% of the US population self-identiied as "Hispanic." The second largest minority group is "Black or African American" at 12.79%. This includes those who identify themselves as "two or more races" when one of them in "Black or African American."

The percentage self-identifying as "Hispanic" overtook "Black or African American" in 2001.

Note that these are self-reported "racial" groupings. It doesn't capture religion, assimilation, language spoken in the home, etc.

Examples? Fix what exactly? Racial discrimination, education, poverty???

Exactly. Politicians often run on platforms to fix discrimination ("affirmative action"), poverty (welfare), etc. As any salesman knows, the only way to sell someone a solution is to convince them that they have a problem. This is where the victimhood mentality is created.

Many immigrants to the US take to the capitalist system with zeal and thrive despite all that is put in their way. This is part of the reason there are so many ethnic-food restaurants in the US. Many other immigrants fall prey to professional politicians and buy into the entitlement theory.

Is it wrong to give more entitlements to the poor and less to the middle and upper classes??

It is wrong for any able-bodied person to expect eternal entitlements that aren't available to everyone.

Example entitlements that are available to everyone include police protection, highways, public education.

Example entitlements that are not available to everyone include food stamps, cash payments, etc.

(Unemployment, disability and healthcare insurance are complex topics in the US and beyond the scope of this discussion.)

Are you sure? Does the average person especially in poverty stricken neighbourhoods know how to debate issues??? Logically, rationally? Are they even interested or are they more concerned where their next meal is coming from or how they are going to keep the lights on!??

The capitalist system pre-supposes that individuals are rational actors. To expect less of someone because he is in a certain socio-economic bracket is root of all bigotry. (It is not far from "We shouldn't expect rational debate from people worried about their next meal, so let's make the decision for them" to "We expect less civil behavior from brutes such as these, so keep them away from my children.")

Is this really surprising, given the issue at hand (poverty) and 'crowd behaviour'.

The devestation fell mostly upon the poor because the city failed in its basic duties so only those who could evacuate themselves got evacuated and because New Orleans was run so badly that its percentage of impoverished residents was high and rising.

The city had been run by "compassionate liberals" for decades. So long, in fact, that if their system actually worked at all then there shouldn't have been any poor people there at all.

I'm sorry but his statement is absurd. You are trying to say that 'the source of poverty" is because people think that they can 'live comfortably' purely from government entitlements. The only kind of people that would believe this are either

1. Extremely Desperate (poverty stricken)
2. Uneducated
3. Gullible (see point 2).
4. All of the above

4 most likely. From day #1, they (the poor) believe that they will grow up and "exist on welfare"? The pandemic (if it is) has to have another source, perhaps apathy and desperation driven by a system that is geared to 'sustain the rich' and suppress the poor.

Yes, 4 is the correct answer. Entire classes of people are told that they are victims, and that only the government has the power to overcome the insurmountable obstacles before them. When something is repeated often enough, it becomes "fact." Almost a religion. And like a religion, questioning the basic tenets is just not done.

Given the current 'fairness of the system' it isn't any wonder. Lets assume for the moment

1. Immigrants will keep coming and people keep
2. The national debt will continue to increase
3. There is no assimilation

Is 'the black problem' (this is a terrible way of putting it, so anyone reading please don't be offended i am trying to make a point, but i have to generalise) due to non-assimilation or 'other issues'?? Have 'blacks' assimilated and if they have, is this a 'problem free area' for the united states? If i were to assume that there 'is a black problem' then do you think there is any chance of solving the "Hispanic problem" by using the current tools and tactics.

Is it time to over-haul the system??

It's taken 150 years, but real progress is being made in "black-white" race relations in the US. The victimhood mentality is impeding progress in this area. It is very unfortunate that Hispanic immigrants happened to have gotten caught up in the machinations of the Democratic Party trying to use permanent victims as its political base.

Get rid of the victimhood mentality, prosecute any real discrimination with an iron fist, and let the free market do what it does best: find the most productive use for all of its resources (in this case people).

Not surprising if 50% of them are in apathy and could not care less. I imagine that some proportion of the population would be looking forward to a 'major economic disaster' so that the lines can be re-drawn.

The US has a very low voter turn-out for a "democratic" country.

Major economic disasters might make a few people very wealthy, but I've never heard of one that elevated any significant number of people out of poverty.

I think that transparency has helped a lot. Historically fed-rates were 'top secret' and large movements caused knee jerk stock market reactions and generally large economic waves..... this has stopped in the past 5-10 years.

Actually, this started with President Carter. He let his Federal Reserve Chairman do his job without interference. Presidents since then have kept their hands off for the most part.

I would agree with this. But who let them do it? The people! As i said i am not American, but i believe that the system which runs the U.S. was setup by individuals with incredible foresight (Jefferson and so on) but the system is not "bullet-proof", and is being eroded the people need to get passionately involved in the political process and stop the wolves from taking over. Too much trust in the government breeds corruption.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error"

-> U.S. Supreme Court Justice - Robert H. Jackson - 1950

The US system wasn't really designed with political parties in mind. The presence of two major parties throws many of the "checks and balances" out of whack because at any given time one party can usually count on an absolute majority.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

(Received in email)

My mailbox is being flooded with mail concerning gas prices and illegal immigrants. To boycott oil companies or not; to provide amnesty to illegal immigrants or not, etc.

Since I have become jaded to the various solutions proposed by the Republicans, Democrats, Sierra Club, ACLU, etc. I have elected to solve the problems as they affect me. It solves both my gas and illegal immigrant problems.

I have hired illegal immigrants to push my car. They're plentiful and cheaper than buying gas.

---

me@rescam.org

Divergent culture is not the only cause for riots, but two groups who self-identify as different cultures and make no effort to find common ground will soon develop other reasons for rioting. The immigrant riots in France present a chicken-and-egg problem: did the immigrants refuse to adopt the "French culture" or did the Europeans make it impossible with discrimination? The reality is likely in the middle: the prejudice made it hard enough to not be worth the effort.

Agreed, the source of the issue is likely from how the stage was set, integration and assimilation issues (complex). However from my understanding the suburbs where the rioting originated were 2nd and 3rd generation immigrant youths with very high unemployment rates and high school drop out rates. The suburbs were polarized already with most employment in manufacturing or primary industry. It can be argued that with the emergence of the e-economies these forms of employment literally ‘disappeared’, meaning high levels of education are required for an ‘average job’. The ‘working class’ is disappearing and being replaced by the ‘poverty class’. The causal link between poverty and riots can be made based on a combination of ‘source factors’ [the real cause].

Yes, there are students who graduate from high school after taking several years of non-English-language instruction. To give you an idea of how little the government values English language skills, in 45 of the 50 states you can take your driver's examination in at least one language other than English. In 42 of those states, Spanish is one of the choices.

This is scary.

It would make sense that people who speak the same language will ‘stick together’ out of social utility. In other words you end up with entire suburbs of a single race and language because they cannot communicate outside their community. In Malaysia this is very visible (Chinese, Malay and Indian suburbs), when I was living in the U.S. in the 1990, this was the case with (white/black neighbourhoods). This also occurs in Australia however to a much lesser degree and is virtually non-existent in non-urban areas. Many Chinese I have met in Malaysia cannot speak or have a very weak command of the ‘native tongue” which is ‘bahasa malayu’.

I would argue that the common language link is more of a 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation solution. A common language may promote better assimilation in time as a ‘common language’ will remove the need for individuals/families to stay huddled together (suburban polarization) and thereby provide a catalyst for suburbs to mix.

This is how ESL is supposed to work. However, due to "the soft racism of low expectations" the students in ESL are never pushed into mainstream classes. This is not to say that every student remains in ESL. Many are self-starters who get themselves out. The system is an overall failure because by relying on student motivation it is expecting children to make mature decisions about their futures.

Is it racism or discrimination? How did they end up with this kind of ESL in the first place? The only reason they have Chinese schools in Malaysia (from my understanding) is because of the discrimination that ‘Malay-only’ education system would create.

Personal income taxes fall disproportionately on the middle class. They make too much to qualify for poverty status but don't make enough to hire fancy accountants to find all the loopholes (or hire lobbyists to get loopholes created for them). This is not to say the "rich" don't pay taxes... they do, but a middle class family pays a bigger percentage of its disposable income than a very affluent family. (A transparent and SIMPLE tax system would fix this)

Sales taxes fall disproportionately on the poor. Because goods are taxes and services are not, and the poor spend far more of goods (food and clothing) than services (massages and hunting expeditions). Some luxury services are specifically taxed, like hotels... but so are many necessities, like gasoline.

Australia is now using GST with income tax. Frankly speaking the tax in Australia is very high, one of the highest in the world (pre-GST). And as I said the middle class take the brunt of the burden for the same reasons you have mentioned (the very wealthy find the loop-holes, companies, offshore trust structures etc). However the GST did help with more even distribution of ‘day to day’ goods AND services.

In 2004, the US Census reported that 13.85% of the US population self-identiied as "Hispanic." The second largest minority group is "Black or African American" at 12.79%. This includes those who identify themselves as "two or more races" when one of them in "Black or African American."

This is significant.

It is wrong for any able-bodied person to expect eternal entitlements that aren't available to everyone.

Example entitlements that are available to everyone include police protection, highways, public education.

Example entitlements that are not available to everyone include food stamps, cash payments, etc.

(Unemployment, disability and healthcare insurance are complex topics in the US and beyond the scope of this discussion.)

Yes, I would agree. However ‘able bodied’ doesn’t equate to ‘can get job’ and hence contribute to society. Able bodied but can barely read, write or speak English may in many cases equate to jobless.

The capitalist system pre-supposes that individuals are rational actors. To expect less of someone because he is in a certain socio-economic bracket is root of all bigotry. (It is not far from "We shouldn't expect rational debate from people worried about their next meal, so let's make the decision for them" to "We expect less civil behavior from brutes such as these, so keep them away from my children.")

A good definition, but far from reality, which is probably contributing to many of the issues at hand. There is a fine and sensitive line between bigotry and reality.

Yes, 4 is the correct answer. Entire classes of people are told that they are victims, and that only the government has the power to overcome the insurmountable obstacles before them. When something is repeated often enough, it becomes "fact." Almost a religion. And like a religion, questioning the basic tenets is just not done.

This is damn scary. But it is a very good feeling to know there is a cushion there for you…. And understandable that people would fall for this, given levels of education and poverty. Fundamentally this is a dismissal of social responsibility and ethics (by the people). Every individual in society has a responsibility to contribute for those that cannot (the disabled/handicapped etc) there are cushions.

It's taken 150 years, but real progress is being made in "black-white" race relations in the US. The victimhood mentality is impeding progress in this area. It is very unfortunate that Hispanic immigrants happened to have gotten caught up in the machinations of the Democratic Party trying to use permanent victims as its political base.

Get rid of the victimhood mentality, prosecute any real discrimination with an iron fist, and let the free market do what it does best: find the most productive use for all of its resources (in this case people).

At one time in history, I would say the blacks were victims. However agreeing with being a victim is a sure way to stay a victim. Perhaps the minorities and political process is also a victim, that of ‘political correctness’, which is becoming absurd to me.

I agree that the ‘iron fist’ and ‘free market’ would help, but I fear the hole is already too deep and there is probably a need for a structure social unification/assimilation programme (all pigs standing by to fly).

The US has a very low voter turn-out for a "democratic" country.

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

This is definitely a sign of the times.

Major economic disasters might make a few people very wealthy, but I've never heard of one that elevated any significant number of people out of poverty.

Difficult to argue, but certainly a good shake-up may adjust people’s realities a bit. Look what the 1997 “east Asian crisis” did for east Asia!

The US system wasn't really designed with political parties in mind. The presence of two major parties throws many of the "checks and balances" out of whack because at any given time one party can usually count on an absolute majority.

I cannot argue this point except as to say that we know what happens without adequate ‘checks and balances’…… regardless at the end of the day it is the responsibility of the people.

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

Agreed, the source of the issue is likely from how the stage was set, integration and assimilation issues (complex). However from my understanding the suburbs where the rioting originated were 2nd and 3rd generation immigrant youths with very high unemployment rates and high school drop out rates. The suburbs were polarized already with most employment in manufacturing or primary industry. It can be argued that with the emergence of the e-economies these forms of employment literally ‘disappeared’, meaning high levels of education are required for an ‘average job’. The ‘working class’ is disappearing and being replaced by the ‘poverty class’. The causal link between poverty and riots can be made based on a combination of ‘source factors’ [the real cause].

I don't live in France, have never visited it, and intend never to do so. However, my instinct is to say that these 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants attended schools that had the same standards as the "native French" schools. In theory, they should be just as prepared to work in the new economy as anyone else. In reality, they likely had lower-quality education which contributed to the high drop-out rate which contributed to the "unemployability" found in the suburbs.

I am surprised that NGOs in France hadn't stepped up to the plate and provided the needed education. In the US, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a nonprofit that wants to train underprivelaged (insert ethnic group here) people to use computers or whatnot. Competent public education would still be the best choice.

This is scary.

It would make sense that people who speak the same language will ‘stick together’ out of social utility. In other words you end up with entire suburbs of a single race and language because they cannot communicate outside their community. In Malaysia this is very visible (Chinese, Malay and Indian suburbs), when I was living in the U.S. in the 1990, this was the case with (white/black neighbourhoods). This also occurs in Australia however to a much lesser degree and is virtually non-existent in non-urban areas. Many Chinese I have met in Malaysia cannot speak or have a very weak command of the ‘native tongue” which is ‘bahasa malayu’.

I would argue that the common language link is more of a 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation solution. A common language may promote better assimilation in time as a ‘common language’ will remove the need for individuals/families to stay huddled together (suburban polarization) and thereby provide a catalyst for suburbs to mix.

It is not only scary, it is counterproductive on its face. However, the Left's clarion call of "don't make it hard or someone might fail" has dumbed down the entire public education system to the point where it serves almost no one's interests. The ESL students are simply a symptom.

Is it racism or discrimination? How did they end up with this kind of ESL in the first place? The only reason they have Chinese schools in Malaysia (from my understanding) is because of the discrimination that ‘Malay-only’ education system would create.

Schools get extra funding for each child in an ESL class. The longer he or she remains in ESL, the longer the extra funding lasts. There are even stories of native English speaking children placed in ESL classes for no other reason than to get extra funding.

Australia is now using GST with income tax. Frankly speaking the tax in Australia is very high, one of the highest in the world (pre-GST). And as I said the middle class take the brunt of the burden for the same reasons you have mentioned (the very wealthy find the loop-holes, companies, offshore trust structures etc). However the GST did help with more even distribution of ‘day to day’ goods AND services.

I'm not familiar with Australia taxes. I assume that you mean businesses pay a gross sales tax.

This is significant.

The data are only "race" and not "culture." The Melting Pot can deal with multiple races, but we're moving into a Salad Bowl where many different groups are jumbled togther but do not mix.

Yes, I would agree. However ‘able bodied’ doesn’t equate to ‘can get job’ and hence contribute to society. Able bodied but can barely read, write or speak English may in many cases equate to jobless.

Unemployment benefits are complex because they vary state-to-state, but most include basic retraining for people whose jobs have become obsolete. If the public education system would teach children English (and I am including those "natives" who graduate with semi-literacy) then adult ESL and/or literacy classes would be of a manageble scale.

A good definition, but far from reality, which is probably contributing to many of the issues at hand. There is a fine and sensitive line between bigotry and reality.

The government removes personal decision-making authority on a routine basis. I can't just decide that I feel like driving on the sidewalk today. Convicted criminals have their freedom of movement curtailed or suspended. Those who demonstrate an inability to cope with the economy can be identified by their presence in public assistance programs. Such individuals can be compelled to attend training or something. No one is advocating ending the assistance programs in principle, just making them transitory rather than eternal. (Note that compulsory training can lead to silly anecdotal cases, like a program to help fast-food addicts save money by cooking at home finding an out-of-work chef as a student.)

This is damn scary. But it is a very good feeling to know there is a cushion there for you…. And understandable that people would fall for this, given levels of education and poverty. Fundamentally this is a dismissal of social responsibility and ethics (by the people). Every individual in society has a responsibility to contribute for those that cannot (the disabled/handicapped etc) there are cushions.

There used to be a stigma in the United States attached to receiving public assistance. This was an effective motivator for many to do whatever it took to get back on the track to self-reliance. It wasn't foolproof, but it was preferable to entire generations of minorities being taught that the government owes them something.

At one time in history, I would say the blacks were victims. However agreeing with being a victim is a sure way to stay a victim. Perhaps the minorities and political process is also a victim, that of ‘political correctness’, which is becoming absurd to me.

Anyone who advocates minorities (particularly blacks) taking personal responsibility for their own individual development gets slaughtered by the press. Look at what happened to Bill Cosby. Political correctness is out of control when it is actively working against the interests of those it supposedly is trying to help.

I agree that the ‘iron fist’ and ‘free market’ would help, but I fear the hole is already too deep and there is probably a need for a structure social unification/assimilation programme (all pigs standing by to fly).

Free markets respond to incentives and dis-incentives. The tort system (enabled by legislation) has made it unprofitable for a company to be overtly racist or sexist. Therefore, companies bend over backward to avoid the appearance of racism or sexism. If the laws could be shaped to prevent actual harm, rather than the appearance of possible harm, it would vastly improve race relations in the US.

(edit for formatting)

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

I don't live in France, have never visited it, and intend never to do so. However, my instinct is to say that these 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants attended schools that had the same standards as the "native French" schools. In theory, they should be just as prepared to work in the new economy as anyone else. In reality, they likely had lower-quality education which contributed to the high drop-out rate which contributed to the "unemployability" found in the suburbs.

I am surprised that NGOs in France hadn't stepped up to the plate and provided the needed education. In the US, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a nonprofit that wants to train underprivelaged (insert ethnic group here) people to use computers or whatnot. Competent public education would still be the best choice.

I have been to France, how have not lived there. My brother is living in the U.K. and visits (France) frequently. From other sources I understand that the schools in some of these challenged areas have a very high turn-over of teachers contributing to ‘degraded education’. Also, ‘police state’ tactics were employed by the police to ‘handle the youth problem’ (borrowed from the United States).

Frankly speaking, ‘being prepared to work in the new economy’ is an interesting statement. At one point I was thinking reflectively of how the ‘types of employment’ have changed since I graduated from school etc. How many job classes have disappeared to be replaced by more ‘service oriented’ (new economy?) positions as manufacturing and primary industry in a number of 1st world countries have ‘migrated’ offshore. Does the education system cater for this change? Are people ready for this change? (it has happened rather quickly) especially if your immediate family work working in industries that simply disappeared.

Schools get extra funding for each child in an ESL class. The longer he or she remains in ESL, the longer the extra funding lasts. There are even stories of native English speaking children placed in ESL classes for no other reason than to get extra funding.

Great, so there’s corruption as well! This is sounding more and more like a contagion. Supply and demand……just need to take away the supply. As stated, in Australia ESL is not part of ‘main stream education’ however an intensive English program is provided Intensive English Courses to bring foreign immigrants up to speed before entering main stream classes (20-25 hours per week of ‘just english’).

I'm not familiar with Australia taxes. I assume that you mean businesses pay a gross sales tax.

Goods and Services Tax is a common tax for all private sector businesses and individuals. Income tax is still paid (at lower rates than pre-gst) and there are a number separate individual taxes (land, stamp duties etc).

Unemployment benefits are complex because they vary state-to-state, but most include basic retraining for people whose jobs have become obsolete. If the public education system would teach children English (and I am including those "natives" who graduate with semi-literacy) then adult ESL and/or literacy classes would be of a manageble scale.

As above, sounds like the system/process of English education needs some drastic change.

The government removes personal decision-making authority on a routine basis. I can't just decide that I feel like driving on the sidewalk today. Convicted criminals have their freedom of movement curtailed or suspended. Those who demonstrate an inability to cope with the economy can be identified by their presence in public assistance programs. Such individuals can be compelled to attend training or something. No one is advocating ending the assistance programs in principle, just making them transitory rather than eternal. (Note that compulsory training can lead to silly anecdotal cases, like a program to help fast-food addicts save money by cooking at home finding an out-of-work chef as a student.)

Government assistance programs in Australia used to be an “open cheque book”, just turn up and get your cheque each month. However in recent years (due to abuse) the “work for dole” program has been introduced Work for Dole now there is a basic process with check and balance. The unemployed have to attend interviews, ‘submit a progress report of sorts’, meet with counselors, and after several months start actively contributing to society in exchange for their government funded assistance.

There used to be a stigma in the United States attached to receiving public assistance. This was an effective motivator for many to do whatever it took to get back on the track to self-reliance. It wasn't foolproof, but it was preferable to entire generations of minorities being taught that the government owes them something.

As above, this was the case in Australia for a long time. However attitude change and ‘abuse of the system’ started in the mid 80’s and slowly got worse! To the point whereby in some social strata’s ‘it was cool’ to be on the dole (like it’s cool not to get good grades or good grades=geek etc). The burden on the system was growing and hence the above program was introduced to offset the problem. At least when people are ‘working for dole’ there is a channel for re-entering productive society at an acceptable gradient. It’s a WIN/WIN. However with any dualistic political process, this methodology has its criticls suggesting the work for dole is an “excuse for the failing education system” or “what if there are no additional jobs” (i.e. the economy is not growing etc). My personal opinion is that no matter which way to you look at it, it is an improved process over “free assistance FOREVER”

Anyone who advocates minorities (particularly blacks) taking personal responsibility for their own individual development gets slaughtered by the press. Look at what happened to Bill Cosby. Political correctness is out of control when it is actively working against the interests of those it supposedly is trying to help.

This is the usual case of extremes. Extreme bigotry Vs extreme ‘political correctness’ neither can work, however striking the balance is more than just challenging. We live in complex multi-religious, ethic societies extreme viewpoints (positive or negative) don’t work.

Free markets respond to incentives and dis-incentives. The tort system (enabled by legislation) has made it unprofitable for a company to be overtly racist or sexist. Therefore, companies bend over backward to avoid the appearance of racism or sexism. If the laws could be shaped to prevent actual harm, rather than the appearance of possible harm, it would vastly improve race relations in the US.

Perhaps ‘workers compensations’ (regulatory) and insurance would work better. This would separate racist and sexist litigation.
At the other end of the spectrum, in Malaysia there are rules (enforced by government regulation) that private sector companies have to follow whereby a certain percentage of employees have to be indigenous. Similar rules exist for ‘directors of publicly listed companies’. Note that the indigenous populations are in the majority (60% of total pop) not the minority! How do you like that one??

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

Iran letter to Bush urges turn toward religion
Democracy called failure; no concrete proposals offered

By Michael Slackman
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

May 10, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt – With the tone of a teacher and the certainty of a believer, the president of Iran wrote to President Bush that Western democracy had failed and that the invasion of Iraq, U.S. treatment of prisoners and support for Israel could not be reconciled with Christian values.

Locked in a conflict with the West over its nuclear program, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the observations in a letter delivered Monday that the Iranian government said “raised new ways of solving problems.”

The 18-page letter did not offer any concrete proposals for dealing with the crisis, but suggested that the United States give up its liberal, democratic, secular system – and turn more toward religion.

“Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems,” Ahmadinejad wrote.

Though the letter was dismissed by U.S. officials as an irrelevant screed, some said it provided an interesting window into the mind-set in Tehran, especially with its emphasis on grievances.

“There was not a single substantive proposal in the letter, but it was a revealing insight into their mentality,” a senior State Department official said.

While the letter laid out a litany of policy disputes with the United States, it was also personal, urging Bush, who has been very public about his religious conviction, to examine his actions in the light of Christian values.

As he has done in the past, the Iranian president struck a prophetic tone, likely to be well-received by his core supporters and mocked by his opponents.

“We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point that is the Almighty God,” Ahmadinejad wrote. “Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teaching of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question to you is: 'Do you want to join them?' ”

The wide-ranging letter was framed entirely in religious terms, but also laid out a populist manifesto of anti-Americanism, offering a case-by-case illustration of what has given the Iranian president a following among many ordinary people throughout the Middle East.

He presented himself as the defender not only of Muslims, but of all oppressed people, including those in Africa and Latin America.

But his primary focus was on religious principles central to Shiite Islam, specifically the concept of a just ruler and the fight against oppression. With a respectful, if superior, tone, he used a question-and-answer style to lay out a case for U.S. hypocrisy.

From an Iranian political perspective, the letter marked a significant gesture, the first direct contact between an Iranian head of state and a U.S. president since the revolution of 1979.

It also presented some degree of political risk for Ahmadinejad, who left himself open to criticism that this would aggravate a nuclear showdown, and from those who see his contact with Bush as a betrayal.

At the United Nations, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Britain, France and Germany might make a new offer to help Iran develop a peaceful nuclear program as a way to persuade Iranian leaders to halt uranium enrichment.

She said she discussed a package of incentives with the foreign ministers of Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia in New York.