A Place to Stand

  Romney has chosen Paul Ryan as his running mate.Thus we have a very serious, economically competent team which says a lot about how Romney intends to rule.

  Romney himself is a man who became a billionaire through taking over failing companies and either setting them up as success or asset stripping, or both. This is capitalism at its toughest but also its best. The ultimate difference between free and government control is that when a free enterprise institution fails to make a profit it goes bust and is dealt with as Romney did, whereas when a government department fails to achieve its targets it calls for and gets a bigger budget to try again.

  Ryan's many claim to fame is running the Senate Budget committee, which he has done in a way that shows he is strongly committed to fiscal sanity. He opposes the catastrophic warming fraud and even opposes allowing the government EPA to ban fire. He has an "all of the above attitude to energy - supporting more shale gas extraction, oil drilling and nuclear power. On space development he has never said anything of interest, which is not inherently a bad place to start.

  Like Romney he appears to be so squeaky clean it hurts.

  Since most of Obama's previous campaigns have been based on leaking sealed court reports on his opponents divorces and Obama is clearly unable to run on a record of any sort of success it is probably important to be bulletproof to smears. Obama having nothing else to offer.

  All of that looks like and intelligent campaign, on the issues, at least on the Republican side. There is a very clear divide between the parties on issues - free market V government control of everything; fiscal prudence V endless stimuli; honesty V catastrophic warming scares; small government V big government; growing energy production in the free market V declining in a controlled one.

  So far media coverage here has been muted since they don't know how to report what he actually stands for since it is so outwith allowed discussion in out media. |These are the sort of policies that will get the US out of recession very quickly & which are also endorsed by UKIP - which causes problems far a British establishment which censor any attempt to discuss them.

    On space development it looks like we are going to have to rely on Newt Gingrich cutting a deal whereby NASA's budget is to a large extent put into an X-Prize fund. That should not be difficult. Newt made a decent run for the nomination and giving him leadership of NASA would get him both enthusiastically supportive and out of the way. Newt has never asked for more money than NASA gets - just that it be used for prizes - and this suits the free market philosophy of both Romney and Ryan
 
-----------------------

   As an example of the censorship of any debate in Britain on what are going to be the main issues in the US election see this BBC report of the Bank of England chief wittering about his "deep sympathy" for the people of Britain whom he helped has put into recession and his inability to suggest any way out.

  "Unfortunately there is no easy remedy" he says knowing this to be a lie. He knows we could be out of recession in days if he and the other corrupt parasites wanted it.

 2 clear signs that what we are experiencing is not a true recession but that in fact we are in the boom phase of an economy that is in underlying technological decline.

1 - Employment is rising not falling while per capita productivity is falling. This just does not happen in a true recession - then employers shake out all the labour they can. This is consistent only with labour becoming a larger component of production as technological inputs, primarily electricity, become less. Less of it being produced and more expensively. Technologically we are in steep decline, purely because government prevents it. In the meantime print and spend (quantitative easing) is being used to produce a bigger bubble, but not a bubble growing quite as fast as the technological decline.

2 - Though all the state media keep pushing the line that much of the recession is due to the Euro problem because we do 40% of our trade with them. But if this were a factor we would be getting a far larger push from the fact that the rest of the world, providing 60% is growing far faster than the EU is declining (6%). This is proven by the fact that our trade balance with the EU is getting marginally better while with the rest of the world it is getting worse. That can only mean that we are being marginally less restricted by Luddism than the \EU average but that the rest of the world is becoming more competitive because it isn't in the hands of the ecofascists.