Conservative Think Tank - Seeks Comments, Founders, Writers

Back in the heady early days of GW's first term, a redoubtable Bush trooper, Jim Nazios, was tasked with "reforming" or something, the USAID/State Department/NGO amalgam that was literally spending billions every year with no oversight, no documentable results, and according to vague and UN-inspired agenda.

Andrew S. Natsios worked at USAID from 1989 to 1991, after which he held more government / relief organization jobs, until he was appointed administrator of USAID in 2001, a post he held until he resigned in 2006. As the agency's chief, with a long history working in that field, it would be expected that not much would change during his tenure. "Reforming" is not needed so much as shutting down, which has been called for in the past.

The following AEI policy paper goes all through this past, but artfully neglects to mention anything related to the Soros network, and showing complete disdain for sunlight, neglect to mention the lawsuit AOSI v. USAID Soros's Open Society Institute filed against USAID. While the paper drones on and on about reform, it hides the fact that Soros is sucking possibly billions out of it and that his organizations are the organizers of of arab spring in all of the nations we see it happening. The idea is quite clear - the foreign meddling has been outsourced under the guise of aid to third parties who have considerable influence in who gets placed in power when their "revolution" is over. Also, notably, very little mention is made of U.N. and various elite think tanks, etc. When one starts researching from that end, one finds the U.S. government and all the familiar organizations happily participating together in globalist policy development.

The paper:

The Trouble with USAID

Yes, grassroots small business and the general public is what this JCSB Think Tank would have to be about: awareness, monitoring, publishing, educating, etc. All about the real policy creators - think tanks, etc., and what they are currently up to. All demographics, using various avenues of approach, reach out to various societal institutions, etc., need to be part of the mix of tactics.

The idea is to get public outcry going, slowly, over time, by working with key groups and expanding strategically. If you notice with left wing ideas, once they think they have enough of the public "ok" with their changes, they make campaigns aimed at legislators. But the public has been warmed up to the idea and they've built some organization that sounds like it has thousands of activist members. This makes the Congressman ready to deal. The think tank won't do lobbying, others will do that, but the think tank will come up with the research and analysis, and do general advocacy for principles, work with other organizations, etc.

USAID, for example, would be gone if the next time someone in Congress calls for it, the idea is wildly popular.

If you notice with left wing ideas, once they think they have enough of the public "ok" with their changes, they make campaigns aimed at legislators. But the public has been warmed up to the idea and they've built some organization that sounds like it has thousands of activist members.

What I have noticed with left wing ideas, is that when the "research" is in place, the legislators seem to have the legislation written up and ready to go, then the media blitz begins.

It's like rolling a snowball downhill in wet snow, in that it starts out small, with deniably minor bits like this : Drug dealers, tax cheats boost $100 bill demand?

Inference?

Hundred dollar bills are the favorite of drug dealers and tax evading crooks in the underground economy.

The pushed concept:

That those who carry/use hundred dollar bills are crooks or drug dealers.

The Alinsky payoff:

People don't want to be considered drug dealers or tax cheats so they won't carry hundred dollar bills, and use plastic instead (which means they won't have much cash on hand).

The eventual target:

A more vulnerable population and...

The accepted confiscation of any stash of hundred dollar bills, or any "large" (how big is big?) stash of cash, for that matter, which would be justified in the public consensus (including Conservatives, the group which should most strenuously object) because "only drug dealers and tax cheats would have a lot of cash on hand".

The Liberal counter argument to objections would be something on the order of: "I thought you were a Conservative, how could you be for Drug Dealers and Tax Cheats profiting from their illegal activities?"

The real downside:

Any prepper, or for that matter any prudent person who realizes banks can fail, will have some cash on hand as well as some stash of silver and/or gold, just in case the normal economic system is interrupted.

Credit/Debit cards are just so much plastic if the lights go out, and cash is king. Money talks, after all, and if the dollar is suddenly worthless, silver, gold, ammo, or other items of barter might carry the day.

Not having a stash of cash, at least enough to pay a month's bills, (and double that when you consider that in stressed supply situations, prices rise quickly), leaves one very vulnerable to government relief mechanisms or the absence thereof in more ordinary, temporary emergencies (like hurricanes).

Now, add in the fact that filling up your gas tank, a couple of bags of groceries, or even a modest dinner for two in many places will eat the lion's share of a C-note, and that a wad of fifties is twice the thickness of hundreds, it appears the whole idea is to get people away from having/using cash, or being able to summarily vilify them for having " a lot" of cash, to the extent that the pop consensus is that ...

They deserved to have it confiscated because everyone knows only drug dealers and tax cheats would have that much cash around.

Once the media meme is in place, the snowball gathers momentum and grows. Televised content will contain a few emotional dramatizations via the 'entertainment media', maybe even a 'made for TV movie', a couple of well-harped and filtered news stories, some "Evil Cash.com" type websites pop up along with focus groups (seeking, ironically, for you to donate some 'evil cash' to the cause via PayPal or Credit card), and when the ball is really rolling, the Bill to confiscate "large sums of cash" goes in the hopper and is passed by public acclaim.

Mission Accomplished!

...and our liberties just took another hit.

Of course, in an economy which has unprecedented numbers of people on food stamps, for many, the once not so rare $100.00 bill seems like a lot of money--a lot more than it did when they were working, anyway, and it is surprising how fast the concept of how much is "a lot" changes with the transition from good employment to unemployment or back again--especially if you have your own business on the return leg.

While the venerable 'Benjamin' might seem like 'a lot', it buys less than ever before in terms of day-to-day supplies.

Now I have used this (currently) non-issue as an example, partly because the story linked is new, and this may be the start of yet another assault on conservatives, preppers, and ordinary Americans' liberty, but mainly to illustrate the sequence of events, the pattern, which even now is being used in order to try to gather steam against the RKBA and virtually any other aspect of the fundamental Liberty Americans had come to take for granted.

That assault on fundamental Liberty, in typical Obamite fashion, is coming from many directions simultaneously in an attempt to overwhelm resistance, but typical of the Left, it follows the same playbook.

Big business has a vested interest in blocking innovation, new entrants and small businesses.

I can't agree with that assessment, and here is why. Big business spawns small business development, because, at least in my industry (Oil and Gas) it is smaller businesses which form the logistical support of Big Business.

In the course of drilling a well, the Operator hires the drilling rig, earthworks contractors, surveyors, roustabouts, rig moving specialists, drilling fluids companies, consultants, directional survey companies, and buys products ranging from shipping, salt and fresh water, material for surfacing the drill site, a host of rental equipment, casing crews, etc, ad infinitum. Some of these businesses on the vendor list are large, multinational conglomerates, some are as small as one-man LLCs. They are all jockeying for a competitive edge in their niche, and it is those edges, primarily ones which save the operator money, which are the source of innovation in the industry, as well as reducing their costs while maintaining quality or improving the quality of their services in a cost neutral fashion.

Sure, no one is going into a direct face-off with Exxon/Mobil or BP, but there is a question of capital outlay involved as well.

It is not uncommon for the really big companies to buy up innovative smaller companies as well, and often the small oil companies (you seldom hear about "Small Oil") are the ones which take risks which lead to discovering big plays. While they aren't out drilling deepwater GOM wells or the North Sea, especially of late, the power of drilling something different becomes manifest when one considers the Elm Coulee Field (the first major Bakken Field, in MT) was estensively (about half of the wells) drilled by one company few had heard of, and the others at the onset were not "big" oil companies, either.

The Big Boys only got interested when the reserve estimates were revised, and bought out some of the smaller companies at a handsome profit for their developers.

From the risks taken by a few smaller companies came one of the biggest booms in the Oil Patch.

I concur with those well-formed thoughts.

Plastic, i.e., an account, can be locked and also it’s use tracked. It’s very difficult to be a “Jesse James” style outlaw today, every time you use plastic you can be tracked. Accounts can be frozen and confiscated.

On the one hand, this brings to light why swat teams are largely unnecessary, and should be replaced by simple invitations to come to court. Let’s hear the case, and if Johnny is a drug dealer, that will come out in a proper trial, if not, he’ll be exonerated. If a person does not come to court, after years of contacts, at a certain point, IMHO, just have the trial in absentia. The big drug kingpin types could have their lives made miserable if they had no access to banking or accounts of any kind and had to run a 100% paper currency business. Little people who are mistaken for drug dealers, being good citizens, would certainly come to court to clear their name. Of course, it is a major inconvenience, but certainly better than having a swat team drop by at 5:00am and kill your family and your dog, just to find out they were at the wrong address.

On the other hand, if Johnny is not a drug dealer, not a murderer, etc., but he’s being set up by a few people that can’t stand his printing the truth or speaking the truth, etc., of course, that pursuit of him is illegitimate. A “good guy” might be on the run as well as a “bad guy”. If we find ourselves in a much degraded statist society, the “good guys” being illegitimately pursued may be a large part of society but will continue to conduct business, and paper currency will be used.

In either case, there should always be a currency that by design is not linked to any particular person, so someone can simply pay “cash” for an item, and not be traced or tracked and not suddenly find their account confiscated.

Such a currency is fundamental to freedom, and people will always develop such a currency where there is none, not so much so individuals will have a stockpile of currency, but to enable people to conduct transactions. (We would do well to remember that we earn the most by employing capital (investing in a small business), and should keep levels of cash at just what is prudent). Such a currency is a basic building block of commerce, and it is an essential element for people who have experienced catastrophe to rise from the ashes of failure. It enables us to pick ourselves up, etc., and start selling things for money and buying what we need and want, regardless of our status on anyone else’s books.

But I digress,.

As far as the coordinated efforts of the “thinkers”, media and legislators, IMHO, people would profit from thinking about what you’ve laid out.

Here’s to you, Smokin’ Joe.

Big business has a vested interest in blocking innovation, new entrants and small businesses.

The dividing line invariably is whether or not the small business is competitive to the big business.

Big business loves small business as customers. Take the large telcos. They love new small businesses as customers. But Verizon Wireless, for example, after the split up, simply went and merged across the country again to get their "national footprint" (GTE, etc.). I was working there as a consultant, employees matter-of-factly said this. Trouble is, the lack of competition has us overpaying for phone service by very large amount. Whatever the market will bear, and the internal costs of the company keep growing (it's natural, people want to have more people reporting to them). Remember the CLEC (competeing local exchange carrier) ? Real competition is quite limited, besides the big carriers with each other; it tends to last a while before it kind of goes away or at least gets whittled down. But since phone and data charges are typically a relatively small expense, the market can begrudgingly bear prices far higher than they need to be; at the end of the day you pay the bill and get on with your life. While having a whole different arrangement of small competitors that had technical compatibility would drive prices down and be good in other ways, it's just not that urgent a need. IMHO, the greatest cost is that of the opportunity cost of not having innovation moving as fast as it could, but again, we don't realize it much because the technologies are certainly adequate as they are.

What really is quite silly and annoying is the so tired rehash of about innovative small businesses being the light at the end of the tunnel for employment. Sometime I'll have to write on that, but for now, suffice it to say, some small businesses sell technology and innovation, but the majority of them are low-tech. By definition, high tech is not and can not be the bulk of the economy - people want, need and buy a lot more stuff than just computers, phones and healthcare, and most businesses spend on a lot of things other than those as well. Most small business people understand that whey we speak of small business, we're not only talking about software developers, but shoemakers, welders and anything else as well.

With oil, as is ably pointed out, the infrastructure investment is the highest, arguably, of any business, and the building of refineries, etc., needs to be undertaken by big business. IMHO, what is truly amazing is so many years after JDR Sr., the industry still operates on reasonable margins, and is quite efficient, considering the physical work that is done.

IMHO, what most big companies don't realize, which is surprising given the education level of the thinkers that influence them, is the connection between national societal principles and their effect on small business. Things like religion, family, education, etc., if they are allowed to be inculcated with immoralities, become destructive of small business. Put simply, morality matters. Of course, companies don't "think", corporations are just charters filed with a State. It's the officers, directors and senior management of a corporation that do the thinking, and since they are a product of universities and society, they simply reflect the values that have been impressed upon them.

The idea of smaller companies being a great source of innovation is really the idea of innovative people not being happy working as employees of big companies, a prevalent theme in the business world. In order to preserve the stream of innovation, if big companies were looking at the big picture, they would make a point of trying to avoid buying small vendor companies, even if costs seem a bit high or there are concerns about ownership continuity. Instead, IMHO, it would make the most sense to actually try to assist the smaller vendor with continuity, to try to preserve the flow of innovation without bringing it under the stifling corporate umbrella. But such thinking is rather avant garde to suggest inside big corporations, where the conventional wisdom is to suggest buying small vendors.

It never ceases to amaze me how typically wrong big companies are in their attitudes towards small business (even to the detriment of the big business), and also how big oil is actually, as you point out, one of the best at understanding and working with small business to the benefit of everyone.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.