The alliance of bastards: central planners, do-gooders and population control

[Skybird]

http://www.garynorth.com/public/13371.cfm


There is an international alliance between the bastard children of the welfare state and the self-made bastards who designed the welfare state and then sold it to the voters, beginning in the French Revolution. The alliance rests on a crucial two-part idea: the moral legitimacy and economic efficacy of central economic planning.
(...)
What bothers Leftists today is this. Their programs of wealth confiscation in the name of the poor have produced the obvious result: single welfare mothers who have numerous children, because they know that they can get state and federal money when they have these children. Welfare mothers are not stupid. They are milking the system. The Leftists are appalled by the outcome of their policies. They find, lo and behold, that when the state subsidizes poverty, we get more poverty. The free market responds to incentives. Will wonders never cease?


So, they are schizophrenic. They have always been schizophrenic. On the one hand, they justify taxing the middle-class to finance the poor. They also make certain that their own tax advantages keep them from being taxed as heavily as the middle class. Then they are trapped. Red ink overwhelms national governments. The politicians need to have workers to support the welfare state, but the bastard adult children of the single mothers, who have grown up under the tender mercies of the welfare state's bureaucracies, don't want to work. They want to stay on the dole. Where are the central planners going to find productive citizens who will be capable of paying the taxes to support the present welfare state recipients? This includes a vast and growing army of old people, who are about to tap into the biggest welfare state operations in the history of mankind. It's tough to be a Leftist.



Way to look at things, made me think about some things I did not thought out to the end before, not having been too interested in these details so far.

However, 7 billion people on the globe is always too many, no matter how you look at it. And if man does not find a way to take care of this, than nature's ways will - without any sentimental scruples man is so proud to have.

I note that a slowly increasing number of people seem to draw the consequences I have drawn in my life: not to live at the cost of the system/society and refusing its offered services as far as it does not force us to accept them by law and sanctions (for example it is punishable in Germany now not to have a health insurance), but also refusing to actively help or work for the support of this system and its corrupted policies and rotten schemes. Consider it to be an unlimited strike, not much different from the kind of strike Rand describes in Atlas Shrugged. Becasue the more you would be willing to do in order to aid the system and the wellfare regime, the more you get abused and your aid gets expoected from you and taken for granted. Your own ideals and standards get turned against you, and get turned into a tool of exploiting you. What does it tell about you if you allow that to be done to you without you resisting?

Don't try to be a good human saving the world, for the road to hell is plastered with good intentions. Just try to be a reasonable human. I promise you that most peope will achieve much more sustaining success by doing so, than all those do-gooders and central planners with oh so ambitious ideals and loud Hoorays written on their flags.

For as Mises already said: its not societies or states acting and deciding - but individuals.

[Oberon]

http://images.rapgenius.com/cqt63li4y604o9k3nzore4i7q.500x350x10.gif

[Betonov]

However, 7 billion people on the globe is always too many, no matter how you look at it. And if man does not find a way to take care of this, than nature's ways will - without any sentimental scruples man is so proud to have.



Yep. But they are here to stay.
And if anyone wants to lower that number, he can start with himself

[u crank]

And if anyone wants to lower that number, he can start with himself


Do some thing useful first. Become an organ donor. :yep:

[Jimbuna]

Soylent Green anyone?

[Tchocky]

Can't hear you over the sound of THE SKY FALLING

[Oberon]

Can't hear you over the sound of THE SKY FALLING

Sky Falling Bird? :hmmm:

[Rockstar]

Sky Falling Bird? :hmmm:


Sounds too native american, might be offensive.

[Skybird]

As I recall it, SKYFALL ended pretty nasty but had some great lines by Tennysson in it:

We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

[AndyJWest]

Skybird is plugging a Ludwig von Mises cult member again I see. Though North seems to combine his von Mises dingbattery with demands for rule by a Christian theocracy. So much for 'libertarianism'.

[Skybird]

Skybird is plugging... (...) ...much for 'libertarianism'.
Wenn einmal der Grundgedanke des Sozialismus und Interventionismus, dass nämlich die Marktwirtschaft die Mehrheit des Volkes zugunsten einer Minderheit von Profitmachern benachteilige, als richtig unterstellt wird, dann ist der liberale Standpunkt preisgegeben.“ - L.v. Mises

Translation:
Once the key-note of socialism and interventionalism - that market economy would disadvantage the majority of the population for the benefit of a minority of profiteers - is accepted as to be correct, the libertarian position has been relinquished.

[AndyJWest]

And how exactly does that prove anything? The fact is that these so-called 'libertarians' have amongst their numbers an authoritarian fundamentalist who thinks that women that lie about their virginity and children who disrespect their parents should be stoned to death. A viewpoint closer to that of the Taliban than any movement actually concerned with individual liberty.

[Onkel Neal]

Do some thing useful first. Become an organ donor. :yep:
Amen:yep:

[Betonov]

Do some thing useful first. Become an organ donor. :yep:

Done that.
Prime cuts :) Don't smoke, rarely drink, constantly hiking and even a low cholesterol level. I'm quite fit for an overweight person.

Let's bid on one of my kidney ??

[Skybird]

AndyWest, I have not quoted/posted a link to just any text by North or to Christian Reconstructionism, but just and only to the one text that you can find in post #1 in this thread. This text and nothing else, not more and not less, I refer to. Either you have something to say on that one text and its points, or not. Its not about the man, its about what he says on the issue addressed in that text.

Beyond that text, I am not that much interested at all currently. Honestly said, I do not know that guy too well at all. What I am about is is the argument and thought expressed in this text. This text, and none other.

Reminds me a bit of some people implying I were a general admirer of Ayn Rand. Heck, I have not read any of her books beyond Atlas Shrugged, both fiction and non-fiction, and my sympathy expressed is sympathy not for her general work (that i do not know in general), but this one specific book only, the only one that I have read by her. And that one book is brilliant no matter her other books. That makes me a fan less of Ayn Rand, but more of Atlas Shrugged. Even if the rest she wrote would be total nonsense, it would not devalue what she has written in Atlas Shrugged.

Same with that article by North. Which makes no reference to religion, Christianity and Reconstructionism at all, btw.

You may consider that to be invalid doing, or opportunism. But then you also should not listen to music by Wagner, because of his later sympathy for the Nazis, or should not read Heidegger, because although the basis of his philosophical work was formed before Hitler, he later openly supported Hitler and his ideas, or you should ignore Arendt, for she is accused of quoting and refering antisemitic authors and material.

Lets keep the one and the other thing in all these cases separated. North's arguments in that one text do not support and are no assistance to any positions claimed by or pushed for by Reconstructionism. His remarks in that text stand for themselves, therefore.

[u crank]

Done that.
I'm quite fit for an overweight person.

:haha:

I'm pretty young for an old guy.:03:

[Betonov]

:haha:

I'm pretty young for an old guy.:03:

I'm pretty bald for a young guy

[u crank]

I'm pretty bald for a young guy

Wear that John Deere hat. :O:

[AndyJWest]

Skybitrd, what I have to say on that text is that it is vacuous blather from an ignorant bigot.

And I suggest that you actually read articles before posting them in future - contrary to your assertion that North "makes no reference to religion", he not only links to his "1985 commentary on the Book of Exodus", but quotes from it.

[Skybird]

Okay, so when asking whether a calculation is correctly done in a formula or not, "vacuos blather" form now on qialifies as a valid mathematical argument.

Thanks for your enlightening contribution. My understanding of maths will never be the same again.

[em2nought]

You who earn by the sweat of your brow are so beneath contempt for not wanting to share it with those that don't wish to sweat. :D

[Tchocky]

There is an international alliance between the bastard children of the welfare state and the self-made bastards who designed the welfare state and then sold it to the voters, beginning in the French Revolution. The alliance rests on a crucial two-part idea: the moral legitimacy and economic efficacy of central economic planning.

A rather impressive pile of bilious garbage.

Full marks to the author for getting the words "voters" and "French Revolution" into the same sentence.


What bothers Leftists today is this. Their programs of wealth confiscation in the name of the poor have produced the obvious result: single welfare mothers who have numerous children, because they know that they can get state and federal money when they have these children. Welfare mothers are not stupid. They are milking the system

Ah, so what he really doesn't like is women.

Pensioners of both genders are blameless, it's those nasty women causing all the trouble.

Not exactly a novel or defensible viewpoint but he's free to speak his mind (such as it is).

(for example it is punishable in Germany now not to have a health insurance)

What a horrific example of corrupt state power excising hard-earned currency from the slaves of Leftist "democracy".

To the barricades!

[Jeff-Groves]

Bastard, Bastard, Bastards!!!
(Just wanted to get that outta my system.)
:D

[Oberon]

Bastard, Bastard, Bastards!!!
(Just wanted to get that outta my system.)
:D

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20140614_BRP006_0.jpg

[Penguin]

As someone who grew up on welfare with a single mother I have to say the passage Skybord quoted is one of the most ridiculous pieces of garbage that I have ever read. The author sits so far up in his ivory tower of ignorance that any NASA operation to rescue him would be abandoned because of the sheer impossibility to reach this altitude.

[Betonov]

Bastard, Bastard, Bastards!!!
(Just wanted to get that outta my system.)
:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn7DavxmzkA

So come on all you losers, you bastards and cheats
Vagrants and barflies down on the streets
Follow this path to salvation vindication awaits
We're marching on East Broadway streets tonight

[Tchocky]

Even if they reached the tower, Penguin, finding the author's head would prove anatomically tricky.

[Jeff-Groves]

Even if they reached the tower, Penguin, finding the author's head would prove anatomically tricky.

Not really. There's very good clues where to look.
:03:

[Wolferz]

Soylent Green anyone?

It's made from poor bastards.:huh:

[Jeff-Groves]

It's made from poor bastards.:huh:

Yep. It's a bastard mix of bastards.

[Penguin]

Even if they reached the tower, Penguin, finding the author's head would prove anatomically tricky.

Well according to the author I'm a bastard, so I guess I have no idea if you find any facts, records or studies about growing up in poverty in a person's colon. :know:

[nikimcbee]

Done that.
Prime cuts :) Don't smoke, rarely drink, constantly hiking and even a low cholesterol level. I'm quite fit for an overweight person.

Let's bid on one of my kidney ??

The Betonov song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VP2k1dWk3w

How much for the pancreas?

[Betonov]

How much for the pancreas?

€40 000

[Jeff-Groves]

€40 000

I got a couple coupons for $1.75 off of smokes.

[Betonov]

I got a couple coupons for $1.75 off of smokes.

Do they convert into a new car ??

[nikimcbee]

I got a couple coupons for $1.75 off of smokes.
OMFG!:har::har::har::har::har:
Post of the year!

[Penguin]

We could use Jeff's cigs to smoke Betonov's meat and turn it into tasty čevapčiči!

[Jeff-Groves]

Do they convert into a new car ??

Based on stories of your Cars in the past?
I'd think the Coupons, folded properly?
Should produce the same results.

On second thought?
SURE!! Just send me your financial information.
:D

[Betonov]

SURE!! Just send me your financial information.
:D

Freshly unemployed :nope:

Woahh, I'm a bastard on welfare :rock:
IN YOUR FACE SKY

[Skybird]

Before this intelligent humour here causes the first people laughing themselves to death, you may want to attempt understanding what that article actually is after.

And for you, Penguin, speaking German, I once again recommend Christoph Braunschweig's ""wohlfahrtsstaat leb wohl" - LINK (http://www.amazon.de/Wohlfahrtsstaat-wirtschaftliche-moralische-Zerfall-Wohlfahrtsstaates/dp/3643121121/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422182058&sr=8-1&keywords=christoph+braunschweig)-and/or "Die demokratische Krankheit" - LINK (http://www.amazon.de/Die-demokratische-Krankheit-Politikerversprechen-W%C3%A4hleranspruch/dp/3957680921/ref=pd_cp_b_1)-. Coming from a direction completely unsuspicious of being Christian-fundamentalist, his arguments are that of an empirist knowing the real world data by his profession. I especially recommend to you his chapters about the early roots of today's totalitarian debt regime as to be found in - the era of and around the French revolution indeed. If you label the quoted passage as "garbage", then you either do not know that chapter of history too well, or you have an even greater left-leaning spin than I am so far was aware of. The name to watch out for, is Rousseau, of course. Without Rousseau, there would have been no basis for Marx to build on. Needless to say that Rousseau was in bitter opposition to three other of the outstanding French minds of that era - Montesquieu, Montaigne and Voltaire.

There is a reason why our states de facto are bankrupt, and can delay the declaration of insolvency only by using cheating, betraying, devaluing money, and lying - at the cost of constantly increasing the damage that finally will fall on us like Loki's hammer.

These past ten days will be a significant mark in the poor history of the Euro. First the Swiss spit the ECB in its face and recalled that they were a sovereign people not needing to accept over one billion in own damages every day just to help keeping this dead corpus alive (nice comment by a Swiss in German apper Die Welt here: LINK (http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article136537411/Ihr-habt-von-der-Schweiz-null-Ahnung.html)). Then former Golden Sacks baron Mario Draghi officially declared the collective responsibility of all for the mismanagement and debts-raising by some, and declared the remains of the Euro-treaty as dead and done. And third, today the Greek no doubt will vote in a far-left leaning government that already has announced it wants to once again betray its creditors, and that can and will serve for according political course-plotting in Spain, Italy, and France.

But let the dream live! :yeah: Credit from nothing, and money for free! I want, therefore I have claim!

Or as one of the customers at that Amazon site I linked above, quotes Frédéric Bastiat: "L'État, c'est la grande fiction à travers laquelle tout le monde s’efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde." - The state is the great fiction according to which everybody tries to live at the expense of somebody else. F. Bastiat: L'État. Journal des débats, n° du 25 septembre 1848.

[Oberon]

http://rs1img.memecdn.com/mccarthyism_o_1506453.jpg

[STEED]

Bastard, Bastard, Bastards!!!
(Just wanted to get that outta my system.)
:D

Feel better for that? :rotfl2:

[August]

http://rs1img.memecdn.com/mccarthyism_o_1506453.jpg

Well he was right about Alger Hiss...

[Oberon]

Well he was right about Alger Hiss...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :03:

[August]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :03:


Even just two commie spies are better than nothing.

[Penguin]

And for you, Penguin, speaking German, I once again recommend Christoph Braunschweig's ""wohlfahrtsstaat leb wohl" - LINK (http://www.amazon.de/Wohlfahrtsstaat-wirtschaftliche-moralische-Zerfall-Wohlfahrtsstaates/dp/3643121121/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422182058&sr=8-1&keywords=christoph+braunschweig)-and/or "Die demokratische Krankheit" - LINK (http://www.amazon.de/Die-demokratische-Krankheit-Politikerversprechen-W%C3%A4hleranspruch/dp/3957680921/ref=pd_cp_b_1)-. Coming from a direction completely unsuspicious of being Christian-fundamentalist, his arguments are that of an empirist knowing the real world data by his profession.


Do you mean the "professional" who declared private bankrupcy and now gives financial advice, or the guy who had a school and gave out fake certificates? A good hint how repubtable an academic is, is to take a look how often his works are quoted and who does so. I only see him cited by the ideologically very same echo chamber. So no, thanks.

If you label the quoted passage as "garbage", then you either do not know that chapter of history too well, or you have an even greater left-leaning spin than I am so far was aware of.

I think Tschoky already pointed out the authors failure to get the difference between voters and revolutionaries.
I pointed out that the author's pov about today's welfare state is garbage. All his stuff is based on assumptions, no sources are given - except to his own work about the bible. No proof is given for his belief how single mothers on welfare get freaking rich. What makes it even more terrible, is that his logic is fueled by his Christian fundamentalist and "Libertarian" faith about infinite growth. It's basically Economy 101 that any calculation with an infinity factor in it is trash.

Here's (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/18/growth-destructive-economic-expansion-financial-crisis) a counter-opinion challenging the view of an economy based on "growth". There's also an interesting link in it, to a piece written by real experts, from the Bank Of England, which also counters your belief that money creation is basically the state turning on its printing press.

[Betonov]

If you want to ruin yourself:

gambling is fastest
with women is most pleasurable
listening to advice from experts is the most sure

[Penguin]

Most economic experts forecasts are just as good as asking the next gypsy fortune teller around the corner, but both know how to make a quick buck, so I guess they are experts about their own economy.

[Betonov]

Most economic experts forecasts are just as good as asking the next gypsy fortune teller around the corner, but both know how to make a quick buck, so I guess they are experts about their own economy.

I have gazed into my crystal ball and saw the future.
One must invest in canned tomatoes if one desires wealth

[Skybird]

Do you mean the "professional" who declared private bankrupcy and now gives financial advice, or the guy who had a school and gave out fake certificates? A good hint how repubtable an academic is, is to take a look how often his works are quoted and who does so. I only see him cited by the ideologically very same echo chamber. So no, thanks.

That Keynesians and the FED do not quote him, is understandable, and especially in Ameri ca ther eis no carrer in the bajk and finance busienss that you could run against the FED. Hayek or Mises also do not get quoted by Keynesians. And practically every mainstream economists and politician today is Keynesian. You seem to follow Merkel, who recommended when a certain man named Sarrazin released a most unwelcomed book that it would be best dealt with by not reading it.

What else you said, I needed to google for, and hear it for the first time ever. The only usable link after 8 pages of Goggle results that has something to say about a person of same name, is this.

http://www.uni-protokolle.de/foren/viewt/15253,0.html

And even this leaves not only doubts about the correctness of the accusations, but also does not allow clear identification.

The man I talk about, is best identified by his books, of which I know only the popular titles for the wider public, not the academic titles, which seem to be very popular. BTW, the university he is professor at, is described to be one of the two most important in the Ural region, and is part of the Europe-university project, brought into it by former Russian president Yeltzin. Not really a lightweight, it seems to me, but one of the major academic adresses for economic education in Russia, and frequented by an international audience. I doubt they would let a man teach that is wanted for fraud, or gives out fake certificates of any kind. Again, note that in the forum link I gave, it is said at the end the the claimed accusations have not triggered any investigations, that the author seems to suffer form violations of his copyrights for his books, and that many open bills and lies seem to have flown around back then.

If you have any further information on the man, let me know. I have a lose contact to Susanne Kablitz who knows him personally and wrote one book together with him, I could ask her about him. But before I go to her and behind the man's back try to spy on him through her (and I am not sure that she even would comply with such a request), you have to give me something better than just your vague hints. And she herself also most likely will be unwilling to say anything if you cannot add some substance to what you indicate and/or imply.

BTW, the books I refer two, speak for themselves. Which also is reflected by readers and reviewers feedback. Finally, there are quite some contributions in writing by him in practically all major print media in Germany, from Junge Freiheit to Financial Times Germany, FAZ to Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten, from Süddeutsche Zeitung to Rheinischer Merkur, plus many libertarian blogs and platforms, of course.

Either one can show his reasons wrong, or one cannot. Having compared him to quite some other readings and authors, I must say that he is one of the most outstanding voices of reasonable economcis and liberalism in German language today, after Roland Baader's early death. But do not expect him to be quoted in the mainstream. The mainstream is Keynesian and "etatistisch" from A to Z. That makes people like Braunschweig extremely unpopular and very much unwanted.


I pointed out that the author's pov about today's welfare state is garbage. All his stuff is based on assumptions, no sources are given - except to his own work about the bible. No proof is given for his belief how single mothers on welfare get freaking rich. What makes it even more terrible, is that his logic is fueled by his Christian fundamentalist and "Libertarian" faith about infinite growth. It's basically Economy 101 that any calculation with an infinity factor in it is trash.

Here's (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/18/growth-destructive-economic-expansion-financial-crisis) a counter-opinion challenging the view of an economy based on "growth". There's also an interesting link in it, to a piece written by real experts, from the Bank Of England, which also counters your belief that money creation is basically the state turning on its printing press.I recommend once again to analyse the intellectual conceptions at the time and after the time of the French revolution that demanded - in the name of de facto a socialist state order - the uncondito9nal surrender of the individual citizen under the totalitarian will of the centralised state, and of course Rousseau. Tchocky shot his reply too short by a lightyear, and in no way he gave me the impression that he really had a wider understanding about what he said there.

The mechanism by which the forming and handing out of debt-based credit de facto leads to an increase of the debt-based amount of currency in existence (which is practically an inflation and according a devaluation of money), is no invention by me, but is a fact that Mises illustrated (unrefuted until today! ;) ) already in the 40s or earlier, and it was only refinement of thoughts by Austrian forethinkers even before him. That has something to do with this god-forsaken fractional reserve banking, and the fact that lend credit is used to finance even more, other credits. I explained that repeatedly in the past, for example here:


When you have a person going to the bank and paying in 1000 bucks, and the bank is allowed to hold only one tenth of that in real reserves, and pay out the other 9/10 as new credit, then you create more money, new money, from nothing. Which devalues the money in circulation. Which essentially is inflation. Because the bank gives that money as a credit to a new debtor, who uses it to invest into something, do usual bank deals, and pays at least major parts of it to other banks - who again hand out most of that money to other debtors, becasue it must hold only one tenth of that sum as reserve.

If you do not see that as an essential and vital problem, then nothing will ever make you waking up: Somebody paid 1000 bucks to a bank as credit, and the bank uses that to increase the amount of money in existence - WITHOUT THAT NEW ADDITIONALL MONEY REPRESENTING ANY NEWLY CREATED MATERIAL VALUE. And the ratio is intimidating:

After the first paying in (forgive my probably inapt English here, I am not familiar with precise business English and the German terminology probably would not help here) by a customer of 1000 bucks, the bank can hand out nine tenths of that money to other customers, as new credit, becasue it must hold only a fractional reserve. That would be new money worth 900 bucks. Comparing assets and liabilities, the ammount of money in circulation (digitally or paper, it does not matter), has grown by 900 bucks.

But it does not end here. The debtor of the bank who has taken those 900 bucks as a credit, uses it to mind his businesses and in the end the money ends on banking accounts of other banks, employees he paid, bills he paid, and so forth. These banks again can use this money to just keep one tenth in reserve, and hand out nine tenths again. From 900 bucks, the bank hands out 810 bucks, and only keeps 90 bucks in reserve.
Or they keep all the money as a reserve, all those 900 bucks, and take that as a basis for handing out credit worth 9 THOUSAND bucks, since they must keep only one tenths of credits they hand out in real value as reserves.

Adding together the increase in money from the first (900) and second (810) iteration of this game, the original, value-covered (lets assume that) 1000 bucks, have grown to a total of 2710 bucks. But only 1000 bucks of that sum is real value. The remaining 1710 bucks are - "uncovered", value-less. They are FIAT indeed.

Now go to the next iteration, and do your math.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2171789&postcount=35
I just had posted it yesterday, or the day before: the discrepancy between credit money that represents no real asset value , and money representing such a value in any form, in the Eurozone is now around 27:1. At the same time the stockmarkets have run hot once again, and several key indices as well as house/land property vlaues in places went through the ceiling. Is anyone here really so naive to take those numerical expressions of an increased value for real...??? Does anyone really seriously believe these claimed growths in wealth and value? Even more so when considering that nations have gone to desperately manipulate their GDP calculations, and to gloss over them and to oush them up by now counting the absurd thigns and categroieis as substantial,m material ciontirbtuiuons to the net prodfution of welath thrpough proiduction and services? I said it in one thread a week ago: if all the heavy subsidies, the bailout moneys, the artifically manipulated and kept-alive banks, and the non-sustainable minimum-wages jobs in the Us would be claned out of the GDP calculation for the US 2014, the numbers would not show a growth that the golbal audience currently speaks about and admires, but would show a delcine.

Fractional Reserve Banking, one of the most menacing evils to justice, liberty and economics there can be. And you lead me to a link where the - Bank of England ! is given opportunity to defend its papermoney-related interests? The first central bank in history that had been put to work by politicians? Are you kidding me...? when wanting a fair and balanced assessment of the devils role in the world, hell itself maybe is the worst place to ask for, wouldn't you agree? Why do you think do most private and business banks not sell or buy physical gold on their counters anymore? Becaseu they have no interest in selling private customers gold. They want to sell bits of paper without intrinsic value - THAT is their business model.

I give you an antidot:
http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking

On the illusion of unlimited growth possible, you must not challenge me. I criticise that concept myself since long. It is present in libertarian economic views as well, and there I criticise it as well. While there is constant tranformation, there cannot be something like "unlimited growth".

P.S. Just to make one thing clear, when I say "switching on money printers", I often use this phrase for a variety of different measures by which in the end the money in cporuclation gets devlaued by the state, which is wanted by the state to keep itself floating on a growing ocean of debt. That most ney money isa not punmpoed inbtot he market by Central Banks after porinting itk,l but is created by "private banks in the form of loans", as the Guardian puts it, I know, and have described that in other posting as well. You can find that mechnaisms dexscribed in every reaosnable book on the matter. At least you should, else what you consider to be a book maybe only is an advertising prospect by a bank.

Like Roland Baader said it so many times: the biggest evil there is, is the fractional reserve system. All other evils result from that.

[Skybird]

Most economic experts forecasts are just as good as asking the next gypsy fortune teller around the corner, but both know how to make a quick buck, so I guess they are experts about their own economy.
Ogh, regarding economists educated in the wanted dogma of today, I absolutely agree. Almost none of them saw the outbreak of the symptoms in 2007 coming. Of the few who did, only some attributed it to the correct causes and triggers. But those who did see it coming, and identified the correct structural causes, almost all belonged to the Austrian school. A school that had predicted these developements - and argued them to be inevitable! - since at least a minimum of 70 years.

So, I would not listen to economists form the FED, ECB, political parties, business lobbies - they are all having the same dogmatic interest and got the same ideolgiocal schooling, and in the end theya all are Keyniasians. If Keynes probably talked some of the the worst nonsenes in the history of of ecopnomics - and at least late in his life, he knew it, thus his famous reply to the question of where his ideas would lead to in the end: "In the end, we're all dead." Until that collapse, politicians can do their spending frenzies to bribe the crowds for legitimising them in power that they abuse.

Keynes gave politicians what they needed: the card blanche for abandoning sound fiscal policies and pushing etatism and central planning state authority - this and nothing else is the reason why he became so popular. Reason, truth or methodology in his work had nothing to do with it. He is kind of a Pied Piper that got turned into a figurehead by politicians that for themselves secured the control of the helm and map desk.

[Tchocky]

Hayek and Mises - never wrong about anything ever.

There's no reason to read further

[Skybird]

After two years I am still waiting for your first substantial demonstration ever of them being wrong in their basic thinking. Just opportunistic balks for the cheap rhetoric score here and there.

You dislike them because they are not in line with your ideological bias, and their reason and historically demonstrated truth you hate because both shows you to be wrong. Your thinking helps to lead us all deeper and deeper into the mess, because it is the crowd's mainstream dogma everybody believes in. But fact is that Mises, Hayek and others like them have correctly predicted the unfolding of the crisis already one man-life in advance. And there is nothing you can do about them having been right and you being wrong. And that is like an itching spot that you cannot scratch.

You can try to avoid or ignore the unwanted reality as long as you want. But one day the consequences of doing so will find you as real like all of us. Most people will deserve their grim fate then, may they have been stupid, or lazy, or too comfortable. Some will not have deserved it, but will get blown away by the storm nevertheless. Little children will be the only really innocent victims there are.

Anyway, nuff fun was had here. I'm out.

[Oberon]

http://replygif.net/i/588.gif

[Jeff-Groves]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/e2460e6715df02a75279684228d1f10b/tumblr_ml7v65Yqo61s8t3eao7_250.gif

[Penguin]

That Keynesians and the FED do not quote him, is understandable, and especially in Ameri ca ther eis no carrer in the bajk and finance busienss that you could run against the FED. Hayek or Mises also do not get quoted by Keynesians. And practically every mainstream economists and politician today is Keynesian.


Sure, it's a conspiracy! :rotfl2: I wonder why Hayek never received a little medal by some obscure Swedish institution and why he never get's quoted by economists...
A better comparision to Braunschweig might be Wilhelm Hankel, as he comes from a similar train of thought. Just check out Google scholar about both men - the latter being cited in hundreds of serious works. So much for keeping the man down for ideological reasons. Also check out both their websites. Like any serious academic, Hankel stated when, where and in which discipline he received his titles - Braunschweig omits those infos. This is extremely strange for anybody in academia.


You seem to follow Merkel, who recommended when a certain man named Sarrazin released a most unwelcomed book that it would be best dealt with by not reading it.


That's what a Scientologist would also say to me for not having read Senor Hubbard. :cool:

I have a lose contact to Susanne Kablitz who knows him personally and wrote one book together with him, I could ask her about him. But before I go to her and behind the man's back try to spy on him through her (and I am not sure that she even would comply with such a request), you have to give me something better than just your vague hints. And she herself also most likely will be unwilling to say anything if you cannot add some substance to what you indicate and/or imply.

Sure, there are some very simple questions: what is his Professor title for and is it honorary or real? What happened to his Doctor title? What happened to his private learning institution in Cologne which went by his name?
And the most important one: will she found a new party for the conspiracy nutters? :haha:


BTW, the books I refer two, speak for themselves. Which also is reflected by readers and reviewers feedback. Finally, there are quite some contributions in writing by him in practically all major print media in Germany, from Junge Freiheit to Financial Times Germany, FAZ to Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten, from Süddeutsche Zeitung to Rheinischer Merkur, plus many libertarian blogs and platforms, of course.


His articles in the serious press are about microeconomics. On the political or macroeconomic level his contributions are found either in the marketliberal echo chamber, in half-brown papers like JF or on tinfoil sites like DWN.

However we're on a tangent, I threw this in, because you gave the man credit because of his professional work. I think his political writings look like pure ideological bs from a point of view based on ideology rather than reality - just as North's.

Now please put butter to the fishes and explain how the welfare state creates more poverty and how to get rich as a single mom. I'm also still interested how folks on welfare become somehow fans of the government in another way as for example patients become fans of hospitals. This is what the article in post #1 was about - the other stuff is of secondary interest to me.

Ogh, regarding economists educated in the wanted dogma of today, I absolutely agree. Almost none of them saw the outbreak of the symptoms in 2007 coming. Of the few who did, only some attributed it to the correct causes and triggers. But those who did see it coming, and identified the correct structural causes, almost all belonged to the Austrian school. A school that had predicted these developements - and argued them to be inevitable! - since at least a minimum of 70 years.


The financial crisis in '07 - just as the one in 1929 - has a lot to do with deregulation and less market control - in combination with a faith in the invisible hand. This is exactly what the market liberals always wanted, worked out very well. Again that's also a whole other topic though.

[Skybird]

Sure, it's a conspiracy! :rotfl2: I wonder why Hayek never received a little medal by some obscure Swedish institution and why he never get's quoted by economists...
Do your homework better. Hayek was given the medal not before after all previous economic Nobels had been given to Keynesians and opponents of free market economy (different to what sometimes is claimed, Mises never got it) , and not without giving Hayek a final kick in the butt nevertheless: he had to share the prize with Gunnar Myrdal, an economist who in parts had directly opposing views , though also having some things on which he agreed with Hayek.

Today Hayek gets quoted in the mainstream communication only as an example by which to demonize market economy and liberal (=liobertzaraian) political concepts. The respect he is is being given, comes from minority factions of dedicated Hayek-school supporters (like the local representations of the Hayek-Gesellschaft in various regions in Germany, one of which I do know myself since two years), and libertarians and Austrians and their according minority platforms, of course. They all play practically no role in mainstream economics and ordinary politics, and get completely ignored more or less.


A better comparision to Braunschweig might be Wilhelm Hankel, as he comes from a similar train of thought. Just check out Google scholar about both men - the latter being cited in hundreds of serious works. So much for keeping the man down for ideological reasons. Also check out both their websites. Like any serious academic, Hankel stated when, where and in which discipline he received his titles - Braunschweig omits those infos. This is extremely strange for anybody in academia. Hear-say. You made claims about almost criminal activities, and I demanded you to add substance to your claims, and you only have this ^ to discredit the competence of a man about whom you only know that he does not fit in your ideological view of the world? I know from first hand that Braunschweig's academical books have been in high demand at universities and I know that not from that years-old forum site I linked to (because you did not care to post any evidence for your dubious claims and accusations that you had posted before), but from businessmen and university-professionals that I have met at the Hayek Club summer last year (I am kind of an alien there...) . The quality of the three books he wrote for a wider public (which nullifies your complaint they are not up to the standard and format of an academic paper, because they are not meant to adress the academic audience but the common public) I can assess, since I know them very well (a fourth will be published soon, btw.) And I say they are doing very well what the aim at to do.


That's what a Scientologist would also say to me for not having read Senor Hubbard. :cool:That ^ says not really the optimal candidate qualified for this kind of reply. Shooting in one'S own foot hurts, doesn't it.


Sure, there are some very simple questions: what is his Professor title for and is it honorary or real? What happened to his Doctor title? What happened to his private learning institution in Cologne which went by his name? Will you finally add some substancer to your claims and implications, or will you just continue with your underhanded tactic of trying to get away with Rufmord only? If you have sources that I do not know of, I asked you before to reveal them, and if you have not such substance to add, then simply just shut up in shame. I am willing to learn if there is some dark matter in the man'S biography, but your underhanded dubious claims and attempts to merely discredit him on the basis of just hear-say, is cheap and in no way worth to be given second thought. So - can you add substance to your implications/claims, or can you not? If all you have is that forum that I linked (what would have been your job if that is all what you have, btw, since you raised the accusations), I counter the hear-say in that forum that you seem to refer to with some other hear-say, that is posted by others in the same forum, if I may refresh your memory:

http://www11.pic-upload.de/28.01.15/ai7n7pgslhh5.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-25972171/1.jpg.html)
http://www11.pic-upload.de/28.01.15/671ie9gmdsg7.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-25972172/2.jpg.html)
http://www11.pic-upload.de/28.01.15/1tlfu1ctz94u.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-25972174/3.jpg.html)
http://www11.pic-upload.de/28.01.15/szpj1eps72.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-25972175/4.jpg.html)
http://www11.pic-upload.de/28.01.15/xmhmzdq28n59.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-25972177/5.jpg.html)


And the most important one: will she found a new party for the conspiracy nutters? :haha:She has not founded the pdv, I told her it was a bad idea to accept the chairman's seat for it, and she realised the truth faster than I expected, and quit. Of a new party she seems to have enough at least for the moment, even more so when seeing what is happening to AfD, Pegida, and the likes. As I always say: political parties are no answer, and never solve anything. I would even prohibit party factions in parliaments. Because a voted representative cannot serve his party's interests and his conscience at the same time, and the Grundgesetz prioritizes the individual conscience, but not factions' interests. Hell, I would even prohibit national and federal parliaments alltogether and tell people to take care of things themselves in their local regions where they live, instead of surrendering their responsibilities and freedoms to this ananchronistic caste of selfish, anti-social parasites that the political caste is.


His articles in the serious press are about microeconomics. On the political or macroeconomic level his contributions are found either in the marketliberal echo chamber, in half-brown papers like JF or on tinfoil sites like DWN.If you are left enough, it all seems to be like that. But your attributed assessments mean little. Interesting is only whether the man is right in what he says, or not. And I can see clearly that his arguments and projections based on the state of things have the grim reality on his side,m while the Keynesian money policy is constantly growing disaster ruining all that our forefathers have fought and suffer for to achieve in wealth, liberties, rights and freedoms. But socialism always is just a big destroyer, never a builder or creator.

However we're on a tangent, I threw this in, because you gave the man credit because of his professional work. I think his political writings look like pure ideological bs from a point of view based on ideology rather than reality - just as North's.I have no illusions about the value of a professor title, it means little today, it only means that you spend some time with working for an expertise knowledge in one very small special branch of a knowledge tree, which effectively makes many professors "Fachidioten" (and I knew two such Fachidioten with titles who absolutely said the same). But when you dismiss his books for the public due to your ideological reasons and do not know his academic books, then you have a bias regarding the first and lacking competence regarding the latter.


Now please put butter to the fishes Says the man who repeatedly commits character assassination and does not care to provide evidence for his attempts of discrediting an unwanted voice's author.


and explain how the welfare state creates more poverty and how to get rich as a single mom. I'm also still interested how folks on welfare become somehow fans of the government in another way as for example patients become fans of hospitals.I have repeatedly explained and touched on this issue, and this topic just links another illustration of the argument. I will not repeat all that once again because I know that you will all competently dismiss it anyway. I shall be a cruel man and give you this torment instead, you will hate it for its context, and for the author who wrote it. And if then you still ask the above question and do not see the link, then its hopeless.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nlycw0to6ueyj6l/W%C3%A4hleranspruch%20und%20Politikerverf%C3%BChru ng.docx?dl=0

I have explained that so often now, I do not do that old dance once again just because you ignored it all the times before, or forgot it again.

The financial crisis in '07 - just as the one in 1929 - has a lot to do with deregulation and less market control - in combination with a faith in the invisible hand. This is exactly what the market liberals always wanted, worked out very well. Again that's also a whole other topic though.2007 was no crisis, not in that it is not ended, nor that it had began just then. It was only the symptoms breaking out, of a disease that has spread and bred since decades already. The outbreak of symptoms was caused by the American democrats demanding to give credit for houses to people who could not afford neither houses, nor such immense credits. Careless fiscal management was the trigger, and if the symptoms would not have being triggered by this irresponsible, politically made (made by those crazy people you want to regulate the markets and banks!!) decisions, then with some delay something else would have triggered them, for the system is foul and rotten, and ripe for collapse. The deformations of the markets and the banking sector comes again from major political influence:_ the massive lobbyism by the economy that corrupts the political sector and submits it, and by that creates a state allowing and assisting in the worse deformation of healthy capitalism there is: monopolism. what is being directed as criticism against capitalism, comes from a lacking understanding of what capitalism really is, and would be more correctly targetted and monopolism. The other cause for the crisis' symptoms breaking out is the fractional reserve system, and the FIAT money regime: the state'S monopole for "minting", to use the old system-reference, and manipulating the money'S value to his own liking. Money most be a trading commodity just like any other, it must be object to market negotiations, and shall inj no way be manipulated or "regulated" by politics.

You want to regulate all that, you imply. the state, the party knows it all so well, and knows in advance what will be needed, what people will be motivated to do, will wish and will yearn for - or better, we do like in the DDR, we tell people what they should want and what they should say and what they should think! Every socialist state there ever has been sooner or later did like that. That is the way to go! Have you ever wondered why Mises'S basic work "Nationalökonomie" has in wegnlish the far more matching title "Human Action"...? Well, think about that a bit.

Man, you really do not see that you put the fox in charge of the henhouse when demanding politicians to "regulate" something! I agree, the banking sector is hopelessly corrupted and deformed, the whole price-structure is distorted, because if the value of money is not representing market values for it, but political opportunistic daydreams, the no calculation of commodities and services real value can be done (the mathematical basis is corrupted iof the money value is corrupted), and buyer and sellers cannot assess in advance or analyse in reverse the benefits and losses in deals they did or plan to do. The result is that companies not producing anything like FB could gain totally hysterical market "values" and stockmarkets could go crazy over illusions, could form bubbles on and on. And boom and bust and boom and bust, always with friendly participation of the great regulator and interventionist, the money-monopolist, the state. And with every cycle it becomes worse, both frequency and amplitude turn hotter and hotter. And Boom! And Bust! And Boom! And Bust!

You need to get rid of the monopoles. For that you need to get rid of the political caste and the governmental structures, and of paper money and fractional reserve systems. That is so difficult a task that I have no illusions about its probabilities to ever be tried, or being successful. It will not happen. But that does not make dysfunctional plan B's like "more market regulation" any less dysfunctional. A wrong alternative remains to be a wrong alternative, even if the correct solution is impossible to be applied. Thats why I say we are heading for total collapse. We will not avoid it, because we do not want to avoid it. Following a dysfunctional plan B becasue polan A we think is so hard and difficult, only increases the speed at which we travel on what Hayek called the road to serfdom. The loss of liberty, civil rights. Because from one point on debts will become too pressing and people will see the truth , and then the state order and the fiscal regime can only be maintained and the elites can stay in power only by tyrannical means of control: a de facto dictatorship, under the flag of socialism, of course.

I also recommend to you these two books by Thomas Rietzschel: "Geplünderte Demokratie", and "Die Stunde der Dilettanten". Verbally even you may enjoy them, the language is a piece of art, almost. But the content you will hate. But that is not the question. The question is if you can counter the author'S line of thoughts and his arugments by own solid arguments - or if you only once again fall back to discreditting the author and character assassinating him, like you try and leave it to with Braunschweig.

Some people think they can influence events by going to elections. For these well-meaning naive minds, just this: LINK (http://www.misesde.org/?p=9283&print=1)When you vote, you legitimise criminals and parasites, unscrupulous egoists and sun-royal narcissists, and you can and should know in advance that they will betray you and lie. You therefore have no right to complain, for you have been an accomplice and are as guilty as they are: you legitimised them. You had it coming to you by accepting to have the game run by their self-designed rules and therefore you have lost your right to criticise. Only when you boycot their demand to legitimise them in there criminal doing, when you resist their bribery and refuse to accept the poisoned gifts they offer you (and have stolen before or will steal by devaluing your money and raising your debts) your voice attacking them has credibility. If you voted for them and afterwards criticise what you got, you are a hypocrite.

[Oberon]

Is someone going to need to build another wall here? :hmmm:

[Jeff-Groves]

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n12/privateer_2006/wall-of-text-mr-bean.gif~original

[Onkel Neal]

If you want to ruin yourself:

gambling is fastest
with women is most pleasurable
listening to advice from experts is the most sure

Wait, slow down, I need to write this down I already know how to ruin myself, but I didn't know there was more than one way. :D

[ikalugin]

Makes a thought full face.

Maybe the reason why majority does not take libertarian views seriously is not because of some grand keynesian conspiracy, but because the theories supporting those views are by large unscientific?
That would certainly be the simpler way to explain things I think.

[Betonov]

Wait, slow down, I need to write this down I already know how to ruin myself, but I didn't know there was more than one way. :D

Take your time, you don't look like a gambling man and the other 2 are slow ways :03:

[Dowly]

Makes a thought full face.

Maybe the reason why majority does not take libertarian views seriously is not because of some grand keynesian conspiracy, but because the theories supporting those views are by large unscientific?
That would certainly be the simpler way to explain things I think.
That makes way too much sense. You should be ashamed. :stare:

[Skybird]

Consdering Keynes' esoteric collection of assumnptions and daring claims - that by his own material can be shown to finally necessarily end in disaster, and he knew it! - as more scientific, is absurd. It is right the strength of the Austrian thinking that it does refuse this kind of distraction. and if that is no argument for you, then you still cannot work around this simple fact that I have mentioned repeatedly now: that the Austrrians have pridcted the crisis correctly and sinc elong time, whziole your scientific oh su soperiuor mainstream economy theories all more or less got surprised and poverrolled by it, and warned of it not at all, even were braindead enough to claim that it could not happen and and that the spending frenzy on credit could run for just about ever.

I stay with empiriy here. And empoiry shows that the reason of argument in the Austrian concept is more, MUCH more in line with the way in which economic history and the destruction of our money went on. And to not reject empiry but to deal with it is basic part of good scientific methodology.

They Keynesian, "scinetific" model has only led to constant inflating of money, its devaluation, inbcreaisng spending madness by states and governments, and a tyrannic rule of the fractional reserve system that under Keynes was led to new dominating heights.

But go on, continue to believe in your holy grail of stimulus programs and state-regulated stimulation, and more action by the state to stimulate demand! The state knows so much better what people must demanded and must want and must buy. And once the economy has been successfully ruined, the state then knows what they must not want, and must not demand and must not buy! :yeah:

The primary incentive for people to learn is pain, and I think you guys still do not feel enough pain. My only fear is that once you start to be bothered you just will do what habit dictates you: to demand as a cure more of what has caused the pain in the first.

States do not solve problems. They create them, and they create them the more the stronger the states - or their meta-organisation on supranational level - become. especially you should know that, ikalugin, more than most others here.

[ikalugin]

States do not solve problems. They create them, and they create them the more the stronger the states - or their meta-organisation on supranational level - become. especially you should know that, ikalugin, more than most others here.

I know many instances where the state actually decreases transaction costs and fixes market failures. Thus strong state in some form must exist (if only to combat market failures), it's measure is dependent on a specific economy.

p.s. pure free, non regulated market does not lead to effective distribution of resources due to transaction costs/market failures.

[Skybird]

Sigh...

Okay, spill even more oil into the fire in order to extinguish it, and see what happens.

We have a proverb in German: wer nicht hören will, muß fühlen.

Think of it as Karma, self-made and inescapable.

[ikalugin]

I think it is carma to think that non regulated market would work, as it assumes that corporate entities would not seek to create additional friction via semi rational behavior and breaking the rules, and then ask why people don't take you seriously.

[Betonov]

Thinking a not regulated market would work is like setting up a campsite fire in the middle of summer drought without lining it with stone.

Businesses don't care about hurting the people and laws when these laws are (somewhat) enforced. Imagine them when they have free reign.

I have no intention of moving back to feudalism, be it under nobility or business.

[Skybird]

Your criticism aims at monopolism. Monopolism that has the state as its ultimate master and at the top of the food chain.

Have a free market and a civil model with no state and local population being responsible itself for the immediate regional details of how to organise itself. Then you have people who trade and give and take according to the values they themselves attribute to things - and nobody, not even comrade state or the party, can know better then these people what value they attribute to any service or commodity on offer.

They will either be shortsighted and follow the pied pipers trying to establish monopolies (so that in the future they can dictate the prices and conditions and thus avoid the free market competition) by making very attractive offers to lure people intop buying jzst form them and thus ruining their competitiors; or people/market participants will be clever and respect the longtime perspective and diversify their selling/buying behavior, in order to prevent that somebody could gain a monopolist status: they will do business with not as little but a smany people possible.

In any case, that population get that free amrekt and that monopolism that it deserves and has helped to build by its own behaviour.

THAT is karma.

You defend a system of "Staatsgläubigkeit" that time and again, whereever it has raised its head in history, failed and left disaster, ruin and pushed people into collective poverty ans misery, and dictatorial regimes. That state is no guarantee and protector against monopolists. It is the biggest monopolist of all! A mononopolised breaker of rules that has monopolised the right to make the rules that it runs on its own behalf, a monopolised enforcer of rules that escapes the rules on its own behalf, a monopolised robber who claims to protect private property and legalises the open or hidden expropriation of private property.

You, a Russian (=ex-Soviet, so to speak), should know that better than anybody. But apparently Russia today is very successful again to teach people obedience to the state and strong belief in its honesty and regulatory competence. And lets face it: Putinism is anythign but a free, liberal state model.

You are being fooled, ikalugin. Dont allow to be corrupted so cheaply! Is the history of your country telling you nothing? A history of serfdom and bondage, for always, since always, and since before?

Germans and Russians - these two really should know it better. But especially these two seem to fail more in learning the lessons of history. I cannot understand this. Maybe it has become kiond of a hbait to always fall back ointo the same historical patterns. If so, then the deities may have mercy with all of us.

[ikalugin]

My argument has nothing to do with monopolistic markets or economies, but thanks for the strawman.

History tells me that without a strong unified state there is no Russia.

[Skybird]

Yes, I have perfectly understood that yopu are a fan of strong state identity. Russia is there, fine. Its just that it is not en par in civil rights, wealth and innovations with other states. Enlightenment and renniassance passed it by. The industry is extremely backwardly and uncompetitive until today. And for Putin's idea that strength only is to be defined militarily while economically being extremely vulnerable, your beloved Russia is already paying a terribly high price. Russia lost the cold war due to economic collapse and mismanagement. And it is about loosing this confrontation tody as well. Corrupt elites back then - corrupt elites today. And it goes like that back to the first Czars.

When the only thing strong in your country is the state and the military, while economy and finances are a mess, you have the perfect sowing ground for dictatorship growing once again. And it does. Putin is the evidence. The Kremlin is the biggest monopolist of all.

[ikalugin]

I see, so you hand wave my economics argument and now attempt to dodge the response to your faulty historic one. Ok.

[Skybird]

No. I simply think that history has overtaken your "economic argument" (I would call it a mere claim only) already several decades ago, and that in an uncontrolled drive of romantic sentiment you hopelessly overestimate the economic and financial strength of your country . Sorry.

Russia is not as weak as many in the West think. But it also is by far not as strong as Russians are made to believe by their state propaganda.

And there I am once again: with that statement ^ I once again sit between all chairs and will collide with everybody here. . :lol:

The cracking loud sound you inevitably will hear sometime in the coming months, or two years at max, will be you impacting down there, on that hard surface that marks the ground of reality.

Four years is the utmost maximum that I think is possible for Russia holding out the finmcial drain it curently suffers due to the state reserves being consumed and investors fleeing the money and Russian wealth also conducting a massive excodues from Russia and its banks. Two years probably is much more realistic. Even for the attempt to retaliate against the EU by changing the gas trafficking, away from the Ukraine territory and in the future transporting it only to Turkey and leave the rest to the EU dealing with the Turks, several y<ears of coinstruciton work and 3 dozen billiuon Euros in investments by Russia would be needed to be invested.

That your economy is in that pitiful sate, is not due to free markets. Free markets have not driven Russia against the wall, but the state-regulated economy system of central planning - almost as intense now like ti was during Soviet times. And during soviet times, not wealthy public supply was administred by the state, but lack. The cold war ended because Russia had to quit, could not afford it anymore.

They say Germans know how to do quality, and are good engineers, especially cars. I ask you this:

There were two German states, and in both lived German engineers of same intelligence and creativity. But in the one state with less state regulation of economy for some time the German engineers designed and produced hundreds of different car models, cars that were wanted in all the world and were seen as superior in quality in all the world, and in the other German state with plenty of centralised, state-regulated planning, German egineers build only two car models, the trabant and the Wartburg, that all world was laughing about, and nobody outside the company of poor brothers that the Warsaw Pact was, wanted them.

Think of it. ;) There is a reason why planned economie never are competitive against non-planned economies, or why the US and Europe could outlast the Warsaw Pact in the arms race. And it has been like that since long before the Soviet Union and communism arriving as a state ideology. When you go through the history books, time and again you will see that free trade and less regulation meant more wealth and commercial activity. As a general rule, it is a simple fact. Since at least 3000 years. Wise kings encouraged free markets, and their realms blossomed. Stupid kings wanted to control and press more taxes, and ran into financial troubles due to trade and their economies hitting rock bottom. Napoleon even also did not understasnd this, like you. Compared to its size, France never played the economic role in Europe of that time, that it should, have played, In the end England outlasted Napoleon - for reasons of superior economic structures that financed them even when the times were grim.

As usual in this context of military power, finances and economic systems, and countries rising and falling for these reasons, I recommend Nigel Kennedy's formidable bestselling book "The rise and fall of the great powers. Europe 1500-1980s", the most accessible book on this matter I ever stumbled over.

[ikalugin]

You would notice that all of successful western economies during the cold war had ample government intervention in them, with de facto establishment of welfare state in most places.

Thus your post cold war euphoria is misplaced, as is your purposeful derailment of the topic away from the simple fact that pure non regulated free market is not going to be efficient in the real world. Why do I call it a fact, because market failure exists, as do transaction costs.

[Penguin]

Makes a thought full face.

Maybe the reason why majority does not take libertarian views seriously is not because of some grand keynesian conspiracy, but because the theories supporting those views are by large unscientific?
That would certainly be the simpler way to explain things I think.

Bingo! It's the same as when we are talking about historic materialism, also an ideology-based theory their followers saw as an accurate, scientific explaination for everything. It also makes sense when you compare Marx and Hayek: both are still regarded among economists for their analyses; not for the philosophies which derived from them.

Although I still refuse to use the term libertarian for the proponents of the "the market will solve all our problems"-crowd. Especially when regarding your location, I think in our historic tradition, libertarianism has much more to do with Bakunin or Makhno, than with Ron Paul or Mises.

[Penguin]

Back to the original topic:
At first I think I owe someone an apology for an honest mistake I made:

Dear Oberon,
I saw your gif being the first reply to the posted polemic. I scrolled down, regarded the picture with a smirk and didn't really consider the deeper warning behind it, even though I own my share of vinyl. I should have known better that this thread was not meant to discuss an opinion piece, but it's all about preaching the gospel. So I am truly sorry fornot giving your post the consideration it deserved!
Anteeksi! :salute:


@Sky:
Schätzeken, you are so predictable. I knew questioning the credentials of one of your saints would lead to accusations of character assassination. It's a common trait of fundamentalists to react this way. That's why I included the example about Hankel. Fyi: I don't agree with the guy either, but at least he's credible. My last words on Braunschweig is that he looks extremely dubious. No academic that I know of would hesistate for a second to tell where and how they acquired their title. The same shadyness is seen when a businessman doesn't mention a company he founded in his name. Yeah I found the mentioned forum when checking out Braunschweig. So if the 1 post contributers are right, good for them that their titles got accepted. To me, it still looks shady, but expectable: A market-liberal who has no problems taking advantage of a corrupt government and weak EU laws – both stuff he claims to despise - when it comes to dodging taxes or giving out titles. It's also pretty new to me, that books written for the large public shall not be held to any standards or scientific methodology, good to know! :up: So I still think Braunschweig is a hack and his (final) solutions to disband welfare and fight the poor are thoughts of a maniac.

Like I implied before: I'm not terribly interested in discussing your holy men, the fed, the money system, the French revolution nor listening to your preaching about your new found religion of "Libertarialism". I wanted to comment the article you posted and looked for your answers reagrding its content. So besides going on tangents, your answers so far have been: read this book, read that pamphlet and eventually a recommendation to read former posts of you. Sounds to me like: "Oh, I wrote about it before, go and read the ten commandments I set in stone back in 1679! Everything I wrote is true. Why? - because I say so.". Sorry, that's not how discussions work in the real world.

And lastly, the accusations about "Rufmord" are pretty rich, coming from a guy who posts and agrees with an article that calls a huge bunch of the populace bastards. :har: Well, hasn't been the first time you use the big brush to paint groups of the population in the color you like, certainly won't be the last.

[Oberon]

Back to the original topic:
At first I think I owe someone an apology for an honest mistake I made:

Dear Dowly,
I saw your gif being the first reply to the posted polemic. I scrolled down, regarded the picture with a smirk and didn't really consider the deeper warning behind it, even though I own my share of vinyl. I should have known better that this thread was not meant to discuss an opinion piece, but it's all about preaching the gospel. So I am truly sorry fornot giving your post the consideration it deserved!
Anteeksi! :salute:


:hmmm: Make that two honest mistakes. :03:

[Betonov]

...coming from a guy who posts and agrees with an article that calls a huge bunch of the populace bastards. :har: Well, hasn't been the first time you use the big brush to paint groups of the population in the color you like, certainly won't be the last.

He really likes to do that. Using an arrogant smug tone to generalize entire populations. A trait of people with IQ measured in double digits.


:hmmm: Make that two honest mistakes. :03:

I actually re-read the entire thread to find that Dowlys gif :haha:

[Penguin]

:hmmm: Make that two honest mistakes. :03:

:/\\!!:oops:
ehhm...., I mean: That's typical of you gay commie-muslims: rewriting history, when my post clearly states your name, even in bold letters! :O:


(Sorry Oberon)

[Oberon]

:/\\!!:oops:
ehhm...., I mean: That's typical of you gay commie-muslims: rewriting history, when my post clearly states your name, even in bold letters! :O:


(Sorry Oberon)

Revision tiem!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Voroshilov,_Molotov,_Stalin,_with_Nikolai_Yezhov.j pg

:haha:

[Skybird]

Schätzeken, you are so predictable.

Tell that yourself, Mr. Righteousness. You raise dubiuos claims and remarks that imply that some person whose views you do not like and who you obviously know nothing real and serious about, has acted criminally or had been involved in criminal acts, you paint it as if that were a fact, you still owe me/us any source for your accusations until today, not to mention: evidence, you do not provide any background on where your information is coming from, and just reply by raising more such dubious claims. All the time you do not care for his arguments and work, thinking you get away but just giving the man a bad name by character-assassinating him, and again: you do not care to provide a single piece of evidence for your claims, you do that just to discredit the man so that you must not take the effort to counter his thoughts and arguments. I asked you three times to provide ypour informational basis, soucre, or evidence, and you provided Nothing. Nix. Rien. Nada.

Extremely underhanded, but matching the impression i got of you already longer time ago, since I see you doing like this not for the first time.

I think we are done with each other. I am allergic to people that are so underhanded, so in the future: leave me alone.

[Penguin]

Revision tiem!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Voroshilov,_Molotov,_Stalin,_with_Nikolai_Yezhov.j pg

:haha:

You monster, you purged all penguins from this photo! :o

[Betonov]

Projection: a psychological defense mechanism where one person, in defense, denies negative qualities in himself and attributes same negative qualities in others.

[Penguin]

Ahh, time for a cigarette. I love them because it pays taxes to dear leaders, also so my beloved state doesn't have to pay any pension for me. More for them!

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Just-Another-Day-In-The-Village-With-Cars-Flying-Everywhere-Oh-Russia.gif

Did I hear someone going repeatedly off the track? Pfff, I couldn't give any flicks. I have Stalin in my mind and a cig in my hand.

[Oberon]

This thread needs more Honecker, Ordnung muss sein!

https://andreariscassi.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/1988-honecker.jpg

[Tchocky]

Tell that yourself, Mr. Righteousness. You raise dubiuos claims and remarks that imply that some person whose views you do not like and who you obviously know nothing real and serious about, has acted criminally or had been involved in criminal acts, you paint it as if that were a fact, you still owe me/us any source for your accusations until today, not to mention: evidence, you do not provide any background on where your information is coming from, and just reply by raising more such dubious claims. All the time you do not care for his arguments and work, thinking you get away but just giving the man a bad name by character-assassinating him, and again: you do not care to provide a single piece of evidence for your claims, you do that just to discredit the man so that you must not take the effort to counter his thoughts and arguments. I asked you three times to provide ypour informational basis, soucre, or evidence, and you provided Nothing. Nix. Rien. Nada.

Comedy post of the year

I'm calling it.


Edit - Betenov I didn't see yours, the contest begins! Well done sir!

[Skybird]

Four Honecker clones in one thread - and I thought Merkel already were his late revenge against the FRG...

Well, as we say in German: gleich zu gleich gesellt sich gern...

[Tchocky]

Yup, card-carrying raving leftist, me.

Also opposed to systemic societal categorisation and generic fascism. That and blatant economic illiteracy.

If that makes me Honecker then I'm ready to pose for the official portrait.

Left side would be best, obviously

[Oberon]

Four Honecker clones in one thread

I remember that film:

Four Honeckers and a Fuhrer

Was released straight to DDR.

[Dowly]

I am still struggling to understand how free market could work in today's world. :hmmm:

[Wolferz]

Ahh, time for a cigarette. I love them because it pays taxes to dear leaders, also so my beloved state doesn't have to pay any pension for me. More for them!

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Just-Another-Day-In-The-Village-With-Cars-Flying-Everywhere-Oh-Russia.gif

Did I hear someone going repeatedly off the track? Pfff, I couldn't give any flicks. I have Stalin in my mind and a cig in my hand.

Is this footage of Uncle Adolph's early career as a crash test dummy?

These bugs roll guten!

[Oberon]

Is this footage of Uncle Adolph's early career as a crash test dummy?

These bugs roll guten!

Actually this is the footage you stated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndunzlTVDSM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y35WRwETkUU/Uh-P-TgDKJI/AAAAAAAAOys/_UfzU_5HkMw/s1600/nein.gif