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

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And for you, Penguin, speaking German, I once again recommend Christoph Braunschweig's ""wohlfahrtsstaat leb wohl" - LINK -and/or "Die demokratische Krankheit" - LINK -. 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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penguin

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 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/show...9&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/w...eserve_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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

[Jeff-Groves]

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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! 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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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?

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Sure, it's a conspiracy! 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.

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:

And the most important one: will she found a new party for the conspiracy nutters?

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/nlycw0to6u...rung.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: LINKWhen 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?

[Jeff-Groves]

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Betonov

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.