PDA

View Full Version : Free Market Capitalism Incompatible With Nationalism



Pages : [1] 2 3

Caledonian
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 06:33 AM
Capitalism And White Racial Decline

Editor’s Note: The following discussion of Michael O’Meara’s recent review of William Lind and Paul Weyrich’s The Next Conservatism is from the Occidental Dissent blog. It is so good, I have decided to steal it.

At The Occidental Quarterly, Michael O’Meara is saying a lot that I happen to agree with about America’s racial decline. It wasn’t a function of a small cabal of Jewish cultural Marxists associated with the Frankfurt School. The triumph of political correctness in the 1980s happened long after the Civil Rights Movement had realized its primary goals. The worship of “diversity” as a fundamental American value was unheard of before Judge Powell’s opinion in the Bakke case. Multiculturalism first emerged on the scene in the 1970s. Chalking up our racial demise to “diversity snobbery” is putting the cart before the horse.

Capitalism has always been one of the primary drivers of race replacement. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the internal logic of international markets (the profit motive) resulted in the dumping of hordes of negroes on America’s shores. The settlement of the West Indies was even more driven by these concerns. In the mid-nineteenth century, demand for cheap labor in the sparsely populated American West brought the first waves of Chinese immigrants to the United States. This experience was repeated with the Japanese in Hawaii (working on sugar plantations), Mexicans in the Southwest (who first came to work on the railroads), and the Great Migration of blacks to Northern cities (who came to work in wartime industries). The Immigration Act of 1924 specifically exempted Mexicans in order to appease Southwestern business interests.

The Germans, the Irish, the Italians, the Scandinavians, the Slavs, and the Jews all came in waves and settled throughout the American North. Most left their homelands for economic reasons. Many were attracted by the wages being offered by Northern industries at the time. Then as now, big business lobbied Congress for loose immigration laws. The indigenous Yankees soon dwindled to a minority throughout most of the Northeast. It was the push and pull of America’s capitalist economy that drove these demographic changes, not a vast Jewish conspiracy.

The fate of New England is now happening on a nationwide scale. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, and the Wall Street Journal are naturally the biggest boosters of open borders. The same fundamental forces are at work that have always been operative throughout American history. The only difference is that they are now met with less resistance than before.

Capitalism has eroded white racial consciousness in other insidious ways. During the Cold War, Americanism came to be identified with anti-communism. In order to score points for capitalism in the Third World, rightwing anti-communists like Dean Acheson adopted anti-racist rhetoric and began pushing for desegregation in the Jim Crow South. The most obvious example of this would be the Eisenhower administration’s response to the crisis in Little Rock with the Civil Rights Act of 1957. America’s elite ultimately cared more about the wealth and privilege they enjoyed under capitalism than the racial values inherited from their ancestors. And so, Truman and his postwar successors would go on to give their seal of legitimacy to Martin Luther King and his fellow radicals.

As the capitalist system evolved in the twentieth century, it became necessary to dispense with traditional values like thrift and prudence in order to sustain economic growth. The advertising industry began to take shape after the First World War. Americans were molded by its propaganda into thinking of themselves as consumers. An ethos of expressive individualism was encouraged that ultimately became severely corrosive of white ethnocentrism. It triumphed in the counterculture and eventually went on to dominate the cultural mainstream.

Suburbanization has allowed millions of Whites to avoid the costs of integration. Suburban living enables better off Whites to sing the praises of diversity while pushing it off on their poorer neighbors. White flight has acted for years as a release valve of racial tension. Why make a fuss about the status quo when you can simply pack up your bags and move off to another city or state?

As I said in a recent thread, the liberal democratic capitalist system is the meta cause of white racial decline. It chewed up Norman Rockwell’s America and spit out Barack Obama’s.

http://www.toqonline.com/blog/capitalism-and-white-racial-decline/

In a economical system like capitalism that needs to forever expand in constant expansion globalism was inevitable with free market capitalism along with global immigration that supplies it's cheap labor for businesses and industries in it's forever quest of searching out profit and to control the flow of capital.

What every nationalist opposes is a direct result of free market capitalism like the outsourcing of jobs and industries to other countries along with the high influx of immigration into our nations that feeds a need for cheaper labor somthing of which free market capitalists support.

A nationalist economy is usually one that is more protectionist based somthing of which is the direct opposite of free market capitalism.

Free market capitalism is generally globalist in ideology and internationalistic in it's approach which is just another reason a nationalist needs to reject it.

Therefore my conclusion is simple.

Free market capitalism is incompatible with nationalism and therefore it is every nationalist's duty to reject free market capitalism.

SpearBrave
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 06:51 AM
What you have posted is not a description of free market capitalism. Capitalism has always existed and always will it is not a what leftist describe it to be as they are twisting what it really is as a propaganda tool.

Capitalism was not invented it was only named it occurs in nature and that can be proven. Even the most strict and totalitarian form of government has to have capitalism to exist same as the most free form of government.

Really to buy into this that you can't have capitalism and nationalism is totally false as and is leftist propaganga.

Paradigm
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 06:54 AM
http://www.toqonline.com/blog/capitalism-and-white-racial-decline/

In a economical system like capitalism that needs to forever expand in constant expansion globalism was inevitable with free market capitalism along with global immigration that supplies it's cheap labor for businesses and industries in it's forever quest of searching out profit and to control the flow of capital.

What every nationalist opposes is a direct result of free market capitalism like the outsourcing of jobs and industries to other countries along with the high influx of immigration into our nations that feeds a need for cheaper labor somthing of which free market capitalists support.

A nationalist economy is usually one that is more protectionist based somthing of which is the direct opposite of free market capitalism.

Free market capitalism is generally globalist in ideology and internationalistic in it's approach which is just another reason as a nationalist to reject it.

Therefore my conclusion is simple.

Free market capitalism is incompatible with nationalism and therefore it is every nationalist's duty to reject free market capitalism.

You act as if people couldn't choose to buy or not buy from someone or a business they don't agree with? That's the beauty of capitalism, I can refrain from partaking in something, I can refuse to buy from someone or sell to someone. Central planning always ends up backfiring. If people want to trade abroad (which can increase wealth) than so be it. Then again, when you bring racial nationalism into capitalism I'm not sure what you want. Can only whites trade with other whites globally, or is there something I'm not getting? Can we not trade outside the country, or is the government restricting what sort of sale takes place (as if they don't already)?

Caledonian
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 07:05 AM
What you have posted is not a description of free market capitalism. Capitalism has always existed and always will it is not a what leftist describe it to be as they are twisting what it really is as a propaganda tool.

Capitalism was not invented it was only named it occurs in nature and that can be proven. Even the most strict and totalitarian form of government has to have capitalism to exist same as the most free form of government.

Really to buy into this that you can't have capitalism and nationalism is totally false as and is leftist propaganga.



What you have posted is not a description of free market capitalism.Yes it is. It's been a practice of free market capitalism the last hundred years.


Capitalism has always existed No it hasn't.

Capitalism was created by Adam Smith and has only existed since his book "The Wealth Of Nations" was created that gave rise to capitalist based economical systems.


and always will it is not a what leftist describe it to be as they are twisting what it really is as a propaganda tool.Oh really?

Or maybe you are twisting political leftist views to support your free market capitalist ideologies as a propaganda tool piece...........


Capitalism was not invented it was only named it occurs in nature and that can be proven.Where are capitalist economical systems found amongst nature beyond human beings?

This I got to hear......

http://hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/pipesmoking.jpg



Even the most strict and totalitarian form of government has to have capitalism to exist same as the most free form of government.I don't understand this statement.

Can you articulate a bit more?


You act as if people couldn't choose to buy or not buy from someone or a business they don't agree with? That's the beauty of capitalism, I can refrain from partaking in something, I can refuse to buy from someone or sell to someone. Central planning always ends up backfiring. If people want to trade abroad (which can increase wealth) than so be it. Then again, when you bring racial nationalism into capitalism I'm not sure what you want. Can only whites trade with other whites globally, or is there something I'm not getting? Can we not trade outside the country, or is the government restricting what sort of sale takes place (as if they don't already)?


You act as if people couldn't choose to buy or not buy from someone or a business they don't agree with? What happens when all the stores you have to choose from are merely large corporate mega stores because a whole line of small businesses have been squeezed out of existence?


That's the beauty of capitalism, I can refrain from partaking in something, Not really as my previous example suggested above this quote.


If people want to trade abroad (which can increase wealth) than so be it. Then again, when you bring racial nationalism into capitalism I'm not sure what you want. Can only whites trade with other whites globally, or is there something I'm not getting? Can we not trade outside the country, or is the government restricting what sort of sale takes place (as if they don't already)?The goal of free market capitalism is non stop expansion which inevitably leads to globalism and internationalism somthing of which is the epitome of being against nationalist goals.

There is nothing compatible between nationalism and free market capitalism.

[In my opinion only a protectionist models of economics would safe guard nationalism somthing of which free market capitalism is against.]

Paradigm
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 07:32 AM
What happens when all the stores you have to choose from are merely large corporate mega stores because a whole line of small businesses have been squeezed out of existence?


So now I'm battling strawman arguments? Who said only large corporate mega stores exist? When you mean store do you actually mean a seller/distributor (Wal-Mart, Target, Harris Teeter, Amazon, etc) or an actual producer? A lot of the things I own I get from a variety of stores from a huge variety of producers. Again, how all of the sudden when it's free-market small businesses become obsolete? Nothing to back your case.


Not really as my previous example suggested above this quote.


So I can't refrain from purchasing a good from one specific store?


The goal of free market capitalism is non stop expansion which inevitably leads to globalism and internationalism something of which is the epitome of being against nationalist goals.

There is nothing compatible between nationalism and free market capitalism.

The only goal free-market capitalism has is freedom of choice and trade between individuals. There is no secret or esoteric agenda, there is no conspiracy plot, there is no scheme. It's simple economics. Individuals trading. I highly doubt small business owners have non stop global expansion on their minds. I don't think Toys R Us or Black Label skateboards or even the publisher for Kurt Vonnegut books wants to dominate the world in some globalist plot.

The laws of economics in one part of the world or country still apply to another. The same laws affected the Soviet Union as did the United States. If you take one country and erect a protective wall around them, economics goes on as usual, except now you just blocked all the individuals in that country from trading with people outside that country, and those on the outside can't get to the inside. Restrictive barriers that don't do anyone any good. If someone doesn't want art made from India they don't have to buy it. If someone doesn't want a car made from Sweden they don't have to buy it (I'm not sure what kind of racialist theories you are trying to pull, can I still drive my Volvo even though I'm not Swedish, and if I'm correct my Swedish made Volvo also has German made parts, can some Anglo-American purchase a Scandinavian made car? Will my Swedish car refuse American made coolant?).


Capitalism was created by Adam Smith and has only existed since his book "The Wealth Of Nations" was created that gave rise to capitalist based economical systems.


LOL. Yes, before Adam Smith people lived in a non-capitalist utopia where roasted birds flew into our mouths and by the work of magic all our goods came to being without modern methods of production. Once Adam Smith created, patented, and copyrighted capitalism all our past hopes and dreams went out the window. Blast!

On a serious note Smith and Ricardo refuted mercantilism in place of a market economy, they didn't "create" anything (seriously, are you serious?). The marginal revolution came along and people like Carl Menger and his work Principles of Economics furthered the market economy. Smith believed in the labor theory of value, that value in a good is objective due to the work put in. Menger put forth that value is subjective to the individuals, and the value is =/= to the labor put into the good. Smith looked at economics from the perception of the producer, not the consumer. This was a flaw in his theory, but must be applauded in refuting mercantilism. Economic science was still developing at this point in time.

Trade among individuals existed thousands of years before Adam Smith. People traded gold and other highly valued objects all the time. Can you explain how someone would acquire goods before Adam Smith? How would a blacksmith receive payment for the goods he produced, or how would the farmer receive payment for his crops? A transaction was made between two individuals. That transaction involved both individuals trading goods they feel were less valuable than what they were receiving, so they both had a benefit. Economics 101 (or even less, this is pretty common sense).

SpearBrave
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 11:43 AM
Yes it is. It's been a practice of free market capitalism the last hundred years.


Sorry but free markets and capitalism is much old than the last hundred years, that is too easy to prove in even in ancient times.




No it hasn't.

Capitalism was created by Adam Smith and has only existed since his book "The Wealth Of Nations" was created that gave rise to capitalist based economical systems.

Where are capitalist economical systems found amongst nature beyond human beings?

This I got to hear......


Adam Smith only coined the term he did not invent it. Have you read The Wealth of Nations I have and no where does he lay claim to inventing anything only describing.

http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2009/04/adam-smith-and-capitalism.html

It is very simple and I explained the nature of capitalism in another thread where tried to say wage slavery exist and were proven wrong.

For every action there is reaction, I will used predator/prey population levels as a example of laws of supply and demand. When prey numbers are high so increases the level of predators and when prey levels decrease because of predators so do the predators levels. Cause and effect are the roots of capitalism it was not invented only termed. This also holds true in the plant kingdom as well, really it is quite natural.


Or maybe you are twisting political leftist views to support your free market capitalist ideologies as a propaganda tool piece...........


No I'm not twisting anything only pointing out that the article you posted uses a leftist view on capitalism and that you can have capitalism and Nationalism, in fact you have to have capitalism as it occurs in nature.

Ever wonder why people create such article? As it is clearly created as it states no facts and it's sources are hard to trace.

I don't view capitalism as a ideology marx did that, so it would be real hard for me to use it as a propaganda tool. I have made other post on this subject before and I will say it again capitalism is not a political ideology it is a description of trade and laws of supply and demand.




I don't understand this statement.

Can you articulate a bit more?

You don't understand it because you view capitalism as a political ideology not as a fact of nature. Oppressive governments have trade same as non-oppressive governments. Even when free trade oppressed by a state black markets spring up. Nothing to complicated about that.

In the future please refraim from quoteing me out of context it only makes your points seem weaker.:|

velvet
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 04:32 PM
What you have posted is not a description of free market capitalism. Capitalism has always existed and always will it is not a what leftist describe it to be as they are twisting what it really is as a propaganda tool.

Capitalism was not invented it was only named it occurs in nature and that can be proven.

Oh, that would be interesting to see :D

Money grows on trees and generates profit out of nothing? C'mon, thats total nonsense.

Capitalism has never existed before "profit" interests of banks existed. Namely the banks we have today (starting with the bank of England in 1694 and basically ending with the successful implementation of the FRB in 1913).



Even the most strict and totalitarian form of government has to have capitalism to exist same as the most free form of government.

You still (and we have been through this several times already) confuse "capital" with "capitalism". Capitalism really has only very little to do with capital.

Of course you need money to run a state, but you certainly dont need capitalism to do so. And the Japanese, rejecting capitalism but not capital, run their state quite good! ;)



Really to buy into this that you can't have capitalism and nationalism is totally false as and is leftist propaganga.

"Free market capitalism" is indeed anti-nationalistic in nature.

The state either exercises control over its economy with regulating the products that can possibly be imported or exported, and also regulating, directing and controlling the money flow, then you can maintain a nationalist attitude as well.

Or you have free market capitalism, where the "profit from money" (not work or products) is what directs the money flow, because it is the determining factor of every single aspect of economy. The money world is easy, either something generates profit, then it is good, or it does not generate profit, then it is bad.

Let's see what is good for "profit":
- cheap labor
- competition on the labor market (to make labor ever cheaper and to generate therefore more profit)
- open borders for more competition on the labor market
- no limits / regulations of tradeable goods
- no limits for private ownership (including governments and the nations themselves).

Let's now see what is good for your nation:
- proper payment for work in order that people can live well and can effort to get many children
- competition on all levels kills community sense and makes team work impossible
- open borders and the influx of all sorts of cheap labor scum obviously is not good for a nation
- you really dont want each and every crap in your nation, from weird ideologies to chinese cheap products, all damage your internal economy, and when you export likewise unlimited, you also export knowledge and core technology which in turn also damages your internal economy
- the "nation" belongs to the community of the folk, not in private profit-greedy hands. It is not a trade object. The government of the nation are servants to this highest common good under whose protection your nation-folk can florish. They are not in a sphere of competition, nor do their tasks require "profit thinking".


Unlimited "free market capitalism" is a lethal enemy of the nation state.

Caledonian
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 05:08 PM
Oh, that would be interesting to see :D

Money grows on trees and generates profit out of nothing? C'mon, thats total nonsense.

Capitalism has never existed before "profit" interests of banks existed. Namely the banks we have today (starting with the bank of England in 1694 and basically ending with the successful implementation of the FRB in 1913).




You still (and we have been through this several times already) confuse "capital" with "capitalism". Capitalism really has only very little to do with capital.

Of course you need money to run a state, but you certainly dont need capitalism to do so. And the Japanese, rejecting capitalism but not capital, run their state quite good! ;)




"Free market capitalism" is indeed anti-nationalistic in nature.

The state either exercises control over its economy with regulating the products that can possibly be imported or exported, and also regulating, directing and controlling the money flow, then you can maintain a nationalist attitude as well.

Or you have free market capitalism, where the "profit from money" (not work or products) is what directs the money flow, because it is the determining factor of every single aspect of economy. The money world is easy, either something generates profit, then it is good, or it does not generate profit, then it is bad.

Let's see what is good for "profit":
- cheap labor
- competition on the labor market (to make labor ever cheaper and to generate therefore more profit)
- open borders for more competition on the labor market
- no limits / regulations of tradeable goods
- no limits for private ownership (including governments and the nations themselves).

Let's now see what is good for your nation:
- proper payment for work in order that people can live well and can effort to get many children
- competition on all levels kills community sense and makes team work impossible
- open borders and the influx of all sorts of cheap labor scum obviously is not good for a nation
- you really dont want each and every crap in your nation, from weird ideologies to chinese cheap products, all damage your internal economy, and when you export likewise unlimited, you also export knowledge and core technology which in turn also damages your internal economy
- the "nation" belongs to the community of the folk, not in private profit-greedy hands. It is not a trade object. The government of the nation are servants to this highest common good under whose protection your nation-folk can florish. They are not in a sphere of competition, nor do their tasks require "profit thinking".


Unlimited "free market capitalism" is a lethal enemy of the nation state.

I must say Velvet you put it in words better than I have where I'm very impressed with your expressive insight. :)

That's exactly the contingent I wanted to take this thread to in subject.

SpearBrave
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 05:24 PM
Oh, that would be interesting to see :D

Money grows on trees and generates profit out of nothing? C'mon, thats total nonsense.

Capitalism has never existed before "profit" interests of banks existed. Namely the banks we have today (starting with the bank of England in 1694 and basically ending with the successful implementation of the FRB in 1913).


Never said money grows on trees and money/currency is just a form of exchange medium.

Interest on loans existed prior to this as well, the Knights Templar had this during the middle ages. Some say they even invented international banking.



You still (and we have been through this several times already) confuse "capital" with "capitalism". Capitalism really has only very little to do with capital.


Capitalism derives from the use of capital and capital is just a form of exchange medium. That medium could be anything land, water, food, etc..
Capitalism is word used to explain the laws or supply and demand. I already explained how these things occur in nature.

I have asked several times for the names of the people that invented Capitalism as a political theory none yet have been able to give a answer. Yet people insist that it is political theory.

The idea of central banking is not Capitalism in no way.


Of course you need money to run a state, but you certainly don't need capitalism to do so. And the Japanese, rejecting capitalism but not capital, run their state quite good! ;)


Hm. I seem to remember that the Japanese falling on tough economic times in the 1980's or 1990's because they failed to understand basic natural laws of supply and demand of capitalism. Yet I am sure capitalism exist in Japan to this very day. Even if it is amongst themselves.



"Free market capitalism" is indeed anti-nationalistic in nature.

The state either exercises control over its economy with regulating the products that can possibly be imported or exported, and also regulating, directing and controlling the money flow, then you can maintain a nationalist attitude as well.

Or you have free market capitalism, where the "profit from money" (not work or products) is what directs the money flow, because it is the determining factor of every single aspect of economy. The money world is easy, either something generates profit, then it is good, or it does not generate profit, then it is bad.


This is where you are wrong in labeling Capitalism as a political idea, when it is not. It only came to being so by false representation of the word itself. A state/nation should not regulate every aspect of people lives including how they make their incomes to support their families.( this is where you have your chance throw all bad ideas about porn without adding all good things that come with it like education and science;))



Let's see what is good for "profit":
- cheap labor
- competition on the labor market (to make labor ever cheaper and to generate therefore more profit)
- open borders for more competition on the labor market
- no limits / regulations of tradeable goods
- no limits for private ownership (including governments and the nations themselves).

Let's now see what is good for your nation:
- proper payment for work in order that people can live well and can effort to get many children
- competition on all levels kills community sense and makes team work impossible
- open borders and the influx of all sorts of cheap labor scum obviously is not good for a nation
- you really dont want each and every crap in your nation, from weird ideologies to chinese cheap products, all damage your internal economy, and when you export likewise unlimited, you also export knowledge and core technology which in turn also damages your internal economy
- the "nation" belongs to the community of the folk, not in private profit-greedy hands. It is not a trade object. The government of the nation are servants to this highest common good under whose protection your nation-folk can florish. They are not in a sphere of competition, nor do their tasks require "profit thinking".


This is where you fail to mention that Germanics don't get along with total dictatorships and the fact that you use Capitalism as a political idea not as natural occurring action. You also fail to mention the good aspects of private ownership and self pride that leads to national pride and nationalism.



Unlimited "free market capitalism" is a lethal enemy of the nation state.

Unlimited government is lethal enemy of a nation state.

Æmeric
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 09:56 PM
Capitalism & Nationalism can co-exist. We need to view human stock differently from other forms of capital. We can have a laissez faire economic system without also having free immigration & open borders. Also the current "free trade" system is not what Adam Smith envisioned. Free trade meant that competition would force different countries to devote resources to those products and servives they were best suited for, that prohibitively high tariffs protected inefficient industries. Nowadays instead of competitive advantage corprorations are investing in the cheapest labor force. Free trade also has to work both ways, if one side is practicing it & the other is not you will end up with a huge trade imbalance.

genius
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 10:38 PM
A lot of good points here.

Capitalism is certainly old and natural but so is government regulation.

What is Alarich wanting here though? Essentially a non-competitive world where small business is protected from Wal-Mart? Where wages are kept high and people don't need to compete so much? This creates less efficiency it also goes against his other threads where he supports anarchy and now he's supporting a strong central government.

The problem is people should not look for the government to solve their problems. If you don't like wal-mart don't shop there. Shop at the local mom and pop store. you will pay higher prices, but that's what you want. It is a leftist idea to force your views on everyone else "make them all pay higher prices because I want the store protected".

We don't live in an unrestrained free market. There have always been tariffs and such. Anti-monopoly laws exist. Labor laws and so forth. Pure free market capitalism would be destructive to a nation, no serious or educated person doubts this.

I agree with the general view that modern Globalist Capitalism is harmful to nationalism but that's sort of apparent right from the name right? Let's not confuse 'Capitalism' as ONLY meaning the type of capitalism we have today in the U.S. or West Europe. No.

Obviously a nationalist state would have certain laws and structure that would be more beneficial to the quality of the community rather than to "profit". So I think that was a very good and insightful point. I have taken note of some of the arguments here they are very useful.

If we are looking at a National Socialist type state we must understand the big differance between a folkish socialist state and a modern "progressive" socialist state.

In the folkish state wages are kept high. But retards, criminals etc. are removed from the labor pool, sterilized and so on. In leftist socialism wages are kept high, welfare freely dolled out etc. except the increasingly stupid and criminal population is left unchecked and the parasites grow fat from the "socialism".

At any rate I think the solutions to our problems starts more on a grass roots level organizing rather than looking to the government. We should be able to form our own communities which weed out parasites and help each other out. One person could buy a business and pay the others a high wage etc. In that way he can show his community responsibility rather than looking to unrestrained greed. It all starts in the ideas of the people- the folk- not in governance. We need to see that there is more to the life and prosperity of a community than just sheckels and gold. The folk element is very important to national prosperity as well as the eternal ideal values and morals the people possess.

Jäger
Sunday, November 28th, 2010, 11:24 PM
Shop at the local mom and pop store. you will pay higher prices, but that's what you want.
This is actually because of too many regulations, small businesses can't spare resources which only concern themselves with keeping up with regulations, large ones can.


It is a leftist idea to force your views on everyone else "make them all pay higher prices because I want the store protected".
Well, the idea behind this topic is that "free movement of capital" (including humans) is paramount to Capitalistic theory. Today it also means that Americans can
own land in Germany, which shouldn't be possible for any foreigner.


At any rate I think the solutions to our problems starts more on a grass roots level organizing rather than looking to the government.
The whole idea of all this is to replace the government, it seems paradoxically to even think one could turn to the government for help.


We should be able to form our own communities which weed out parasites and help each other out. One person could buy a business and pay the others a high wage etc.
Yes, this is a good plan.

velvet
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 03:11 AM
Never said money grows on trees and money/currency is just a form of exchange medium.

You said capitalism exists in nature. It obviously does not.


Interest on loans existed prior to this as well, the Knights Templar had this during the middle ages. Some say they even invented international banking.

Yeah, and the same criminals still run the banks today.


Capitalism derives from the use of capital and capital is just a form of exchange medium. That medium could be anything land, water, food, etc..
Capitalism is word used to explain the laws or supply and demand. I already explained how these things occur in nature.

Yes, you did, but your explanation is wrong.

Capitalism has nothing to do with "goods" or "trade of goods", even only secondary with money as the 'innocent' exchange good.

Capitalism is a finance market system, where money is traded, where money generates more money, or rather claims to do so by increasing the book money unlimited while having absolutely no more real worth backing it up, where distribution of money only follows the profit promise, where bets are placed against currencies to generate profit. The driving force of capitalism is "profit" at any prize.

In so far it would even be correct to state that capitalism is not a political theory. Because indeed it is a anti-political theory, it aims to destroy any sound limits and necessary regulations, though in practice this means by overtaking the political control itself (ie manipulation of politicians to support the finance market's goals; btw, ever wondered why it is called "finance market"? Because it is an own market!).


Since the finance market's driving force is profit, and capitalism forms the policies that enable maximum profits, and any nationalism (pro the interests of a nation) would limit this profit, capitalism must by necessity be anti-nationalistic, anti-souvereignity of nations, anti-independence and anti-autarchic, because any even slight approach in this direction potentially limits profit.

Capitalism needs an internationally inter-dependent and globalised environment, precisely because it exists 'above' the economy. It is the instance that exercises control over the economy and drives it to generate more profit (not goods, wealth or worths). Instead of national laws. Instead of common sense or honour. Instead of the interests of a nation to maintain its homogenous society. Instead of any of the interests or requirements of this nation directing the economy. Only "profit" for its own sake.


We cannot sell our nations to foreign investors and expect them to be still 'ours' or to work in our interests, and even less if we as a folk want to survive. There must be limits to capitalism as well as private ownership. This is not about nationalising the bakery at the street corner or deny people (natives!) to own houses or land. Control, limits and regulation are necessary though when it comes to core technologies (such as electricity supply), foreign ownership of businesses or banks. Banks cannot be private, and even less a currency. That is an absurd idea actually.

Where the indeed political idea of a "Free Market" comes back into play, because this is the vehicle on which capitalism can sell its finance-magical tricks as "economical concept".

But "Free Market" does not mean unregulated trade inside an economy of a nation, but "Free" does indeed mean without rules and limits. EVERYTHING can be traded with everyone, from core technologies to governments, from "human resources" (did anyone say 'individual freedom'? forget about it when you're an investment which has to generate profit!) to the nation itself. And when your nation is an investment of foreign investors which has to generate profit, how much do you think these foreign investors care for the interests of your folk? They will continue to dumb the scum of the earth into your suburbs to have you work for a dollar a day (hey, you wanted competition) as soon as they managed to generate so much "demand" for jobs that people sell their very soul for one. The joys of "Free Market Capitalism".


As a nationalist, this is not in my interest. As a nationalist, and for a moment fantasising about what I'd do if I were in a position to do that, I would nationalise the banks, issue my own un-indebted currency and would regulate the economical environment in a way that enables businesses to thrive. Some businesses that are central to the economy, such as electricity and other energy, communication systems, banks do not need 'market competition', and they also do not need to generate profit (it's nice when that happens, but actually it is enough when they cover the expences). Essentially, they are made servants of the nation and the economy in order to generate benefit for the nation.

When I want capital to generate benefit for my nation, for my people, for my economy, it is most important to control and direct the money/profit back into the economy and dont allow it to be taken out. So there will be regulations limiting the possibilities to export money, ie to invest in foreign nations or have foreign investors invest in my nation and instead encourage re-investment in nation-internal businesses.

Competition is to a certain degree a nice thing, but there are a lot of businesses that would do better when they were not competitors, but would work together for a common goal. Market segments often overlap, different business types share common interests. In "Free Market Capitalism" though they are competitors, and the only common goal they share is the will to destroy each other. Makes no sense to me, because when everyone is the enemy of everyone I have war in my nation and a nation/economy in war does not thrive.

When you are of the opinion that everything has its place and time and that also counts for competition, you obviously dont want "rampant competition", but instead would encourage businesses to form (AAATTENTION: EEEEVIL BUZZZZ WORD) cartells. :-O They share common business interests, even can depend on each other, so why the Hel should they be competitors??? :shrug

And when the nation controls the money flow and regulates the frame in which the economy can thrive, you dont even need to control each and every business, since the "control" happens by the cartell, simply by ensuring that every member does work for their common goal. They can concentrate on their business, instead of worrying that a corporate raider buys them up and dumbs them into the trash bin.

Competition should exist between products, in terms of quality, functionality and so on. In "Free Market Capitalism" competition is 'cheaper cheaper cheaper', something of which I know you're also against. Quality though simply is no competing factor in Free Market Capitalism. Profit is. ONLY.


As a nationalist, I dont have interest to serve the interests of profit and capitalism. I have interest that both capital and profit benefit my nation. Therefore it is nonsense to leave that unregulated, since its own interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of a nation.

SpearBrave
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 03:55 AM
You said capitalism exists in nature. It obviously does not.

I already have proven that it is a natural action. You need to prove that it is a man created action the burden of proof is yours to provide. Again real sources only with traceable footnotes.


Yeah, and the same criminals still run the banks today.

Not all banks are criminal there are still private banks, I bank at one I know. There is nothing wrong with banking on a small and private level. It is when they become centralized is where the problems exist.


Yes, you did, but your explanation is wrong.


Prove that capitalism does not exist in nature, I have proven it does. It really is just basic trading and laws of supply and demand.


Capitalism has nothing to do with "goods" or "trade of goods", even only secondary with money as the 'innocent' exchange good.


Not according to Adam Smith the man who first described capitalism.;)




When I want capital to generate benefit for my nation, for my people, for my economy, it is most important to control and direct the money/profit back into the economy and dont allow it to be taken out. So there will be regulations limiting the possibilities to export money, ie to invest in foreign nations or have foreign investors invest in my nation and instead encourage re-investment


Can you name one modern country where this has worked for a extended period of time? More than even one generation? Governments can and should be separate from controlling the exchange of legal goods.

Capitalism allows people to grow and prosper. When people grow and prosper they become proud of themselves and proud of their folk and nation. When you restrict people that is when they lose that pride in themselves and their folk/nation.

Paradigm
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 04:09 AM
Do I have to send half the people here a copy of Economics in One Lesson?

Capitalism: A Discussion Piece (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=135517)

Economics is a science. It's the science and study of human action. Human's have been interacting and trading before the usage of "capitalism". Even in the most primitive societies/tribes economics had it's place. Division of labor, trade, property, and saving. The foundations for capitalism haven't changed from even the most basic concepts societies use to grow and function. From the most primitive to the most advanced civilizations the same laws of economics apply to both.

Capitalism is not an ideology, it's the preferred position of economics. For those who know economics, they acknowledge that capitalism is the most productive, as it's in it's natural free state, compared to restrictions based upon outside intervention. Whatever political philosophy you have, that doesn't change the fact of two people trading goods using a medium of exchange will take place somewhere in the world.

People want to go on and on about nationalism or socialism and say capitalism is in the wrong. Well, can someone explain capitalism in only economic terms? Most of the opponents here have not. They probably couldn't explain the things they support. How would the economics of individuals differ in a country with a free-market compared to one of that of a nationalist? Are the markets even different? Does the nationalist country and/or government restrict trade in some areas?

This topic becomes tiresome and goes in circles, mainly since the counter-arguments are weird and bizarre.

thirsty
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 05:50 AM
The problem isn't with capital, it's with usury. That is why the biblical era had a debt jubilee every fifty years give or take.

The etymological root word of capital is cattle. Both concepts are symbolized by the first letter in the Eldar Futhark, wealth is derived by how many 'head' of cattle ancients drovers used to drive from pasture to market. Real capital can only be expanded through natural means, coupled with skill, patience and perserverance. Failure to expand your capital base in ancient times meant one went hungry or became desitute as they 'ate' through their stock. There is a reason why Fehu is at the start of the Futhark, money is the most important gnostic concept to man, all other words are just helper words. :D

These concepts can be referenced here:

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/capitalism/etymology.html

and here:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30705805/French_Turn_to_Cash_Cows_as_Alternative_ Investments

I don't think Adam Smith much talked about 'capitalism'. I think he took some french concepts like 'cheptel', laissez-faire and 'entrepeneur' and expanded on them to form not neccessarily a political-economic system, but merely the reality we find ourselves in. Smith's construction wasn't merely a denial of mercantilism, it was more an identification of an 'invisible hand', a force, an impetus that seemed to way lay man's best laid economic plans. Basically, there is at any and all times a 'free-market' and all attempts to subvert simply shift the consequences of those decisions to a later date. Collectively this would be called 'mercantilism'.

Fast forward to the modern era and the byzantine complexity of today's economics go along way to cloud the purist's defintions. Firstly, Central Banks are anathema to the definition of free-market capitalism. The fifth plank of the communist manifesto calls for the establishment of central banks and the collectivization of credit. This can be referenced here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

Secondly, and this is an important point, capital is not credit. Capital is and always has been the tangible means of production. Fehu has never been thought to be an abstraction such as imaginary cows to be paid at a later date. That is an invention of usury, and the enablement of usury is a violation of the laws of nature. One must remember why usurers occupy the seventh circle of Dante's hell. :-O

The etymological root of violation is something to consider when referencing the inner ring of the seventh circle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(Dante)

:D

What does this boil down to???

On one side you have the high priests of economy, the scientists of usury, temples masquerading as central banks full of moneychangers, at the very wellspring of credit creation and state control. Wizards of the intangible, peddling fraudulent and unknown wares, printing money without numeraire.

Central bank notes are feudal contracts with third party liability (debt). Specie is the exact opposite, allodial title is inherent in the exchange/barter of tangible goods between 'sovereign' parties. Our money did not just lose it's numeraire, it also lost us our ability to transfer allodial title. One must ask themselves not nationalism vs. capitalism, one must ask themselves feudalism vs. allodialism. Understanding the etymology of the argument clears the fog from the field on which the clash of ideas takes place.

Very important and ancient concepts to consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odelsrett

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_money_(policy)

http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/hath-numeraire.html

velvet
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 12:44 PM
I already have proven that it is a natural action. You need to prove that it is a man created action the burden of proof is yours to provide. Again real sources only with traceable footnotes.

There is no point to discuss that point as long as you confuse (on purpose I may add) capital/money with the system Capitalism.

This is not the same.

And again, money does not exist 'in nature'. It is an invention by man. It is stupid to have an invention by man control a market. In fact, this is retarded. Just as it is retarded to let technology control a market.

When you're not the master of your inventions anymore, you're not a master at all, but a slave.



Not all banks are criminal there are still private banks, I bank at one I know. There is nothing wrong with banking on a small and private level. It is when they become centralized is where the problems exist.

And how did banks become centralised?
Maybe you want to read up on the history of the Rothschilds, the Bank of England, and most of all, the Federal Reserve Bank?

It was not criminal politicians who came up with the idea to centralize banks or to outsource the control over the currency to private banks with profit interests. THIS WAS DRIVEN BY BANKS AND BANKSTERS.


Prove that capitalism does not exist in nature, I have proven it does. It really is just basic trading and laws of supply and demand.

Capitalism is a FINANCE MARKET SYSTEM. It has nothing to do with trade, and even less with demand and supply.




Not according to Adam Smith the man who first described capitalism.;)


You see, there is no point in discussing theories, when the reality is completely different.



Can you name one modern country where this has worked for a extended period of time? More than even one generation?

Japan since after WWII.



Governments can and should be separate from controlling the exchange of legal goods.

So, this is interesting. When governments should not control the market that is inside their nation, WHO PLEASE DEFINES what is LEGAL?

The market? Capitalists? People who are emptied out of any higher value through "demand"? Laws based on "free market capitalism"?


Oh, right, this is what we have, that's why our countries go down the drain with high speed :oanieyes





Capitalism allows people to grow and prosper. When people grow and prosper they become proud of themselves and proud of their folk and nation. When you restrict people that is when they lose that pride in themselves and their folk/nation.

You're writing "capitalism" when you mean money. Again, this is not the same, and I find it laboring and rather pointless to discuss with you when you mix up terms on purpose. :shrug

Paradigm
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 04:44 PM
There is no point to discuss that point as long as you confuse (on purpose I may add) capital/money with the system Capitalism.

This is not the same.

And again, money does not exist 'in nature'. It is an invention by man. It is stupid to have an invention by man control a market. In fact, this is retarded. Just as it is retarded to let technology control a market.

Money is a medium of exchange. Exchanges don't take place in nature? SpearBrave makes no confusion, it's you who is trying to purposefully break down and confuse the argument at hand.



And how did banks become centralised?

The Government. How else would a bank get special privileges by law to have a monopoly over the supply of money?


Maybe you want to read up on the history of the Rothschilds, the Bank of England, and most of all, the Federal Reserve Bank?

Yes, criminals who used the state to get what they wanted, not free-market capitalist. Your point?


It was not criminal politicians who came up with the idea to centralize banks or to outsource the control over the currency to private banks with profit interests. THIS WAS DRIVEN BY BANKS AND BANKSTERS.

It was driven by a handful of powerful people who happened to be involved with banks, there's a difference in saying that, and it was blatantly driven by just banks and banksters.


Capitalism is a FINANCE MARKET SYSTEM. It has nothing to do with trade, and even less with demand and supply.

This is rather hilarious. The foundation of capitalism is property, trade, division of labor, and saving. Demand and supply goes right along with that. Without any of the four it's not capitalism.



So, this is interesting. When governments should not control the market that is inside their nation, WHO PLEASE DEFINES what is LEGAL?

Governments can't control, they can only distort and manipulate. The government and our country is trying to control the market, and unemployment and inflation is what we get with a dying dollar. I don't know what the economy is like in your country, but we experience first hand what happens when a government wants to intervene in the economy.


The market? Capitalists? People who are emptied out of any higher value through "demand"? Laws based on "free market capitalism"?

The market and capitalist is made up of individuals, individuals deciding what's legal for themselves sounds good to me!



You're writing "capitalism" when you mean money. Again, this is not the same, and I find it laboring and rather pointless to discuss with you when you mix up terms on purpose. :shrug

You're the one who's constantly mixing up terms even when you take a statement in context. You have bizarre definitions of capitalism and money that a college economics professor would stare blankly into your soul if you decided to utter such statements in his classroom.

velvet
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 06:15 PM
The Government. How else would a bank get special privileges by law to have a monopoly over the supply of money?

Through indebting the state and blackmailing the government into signing bills like the Federal Reserve Act. For example.



The market and capitalist is made up of individuals, individuals deciding what's legal for themselves sounds good to me!

Oh great, everyone's defining what's legal themselves. And America wonders why tons of drugs get smuggled in (why do they even smuggle, simply say its legal, eh), why everyone ignores borders and America's south is swarmed by Mexicans (hey everyone says himself what's legal). Christopher street days with public sex free for viewing for everyone including little kids. And even illegal immigrants can become president.

Freedom for everyone :thumbup

genius
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 09:29 PM
The whole idea of all this is to replace the government, it seems paradoxically to even think one could turn to the government for help.

I mean replacing one government with a new one. I don't think any government is really the answer. We simply need to consider that all governments have their limitations and mainly look to solving our problems ourselves rather than the solutions being in who governs us or how.

I haven't noticed regulation being that big of a problem with local stores. They seem to go out of business because of price competition. Mainly big retailers like wal-mart can buy in bulk and negotiate deals that smaller retailers cannot. Other than that a business hires a tax company to do their taxes and can't rip off their customers, there's not a lot of regulation. The areas where there's a lot of regulation are only industries like serving alcohol, strip clubs etc. There's also regulation in the quality of food or medicine, but this applies on the industrial level rather than commercial level.

If we look at industrial farms replacing smaller farms I can agree with that to a large degree. But even here this has a lot to do with economy of scale. But here it also is because of all the government handouts which most small farmers don't understand how to get. So the "subsidies" combined with regulation are a problem. Yet without these subsidies we wouldn't be growing any of our food and instead would import it from Africa or some low wage area. So its a two edged sword.

Paradigm
Monday, November 29th, 2010, 10:11 PM
Through indebting the state and blackmailing the government into signing bills like the Federal Reserve Act. For example.

The fault of the state, not the market.


Oh great, everyone's defining what's legal themselves. And America wonders why tons of drugs get smuggled in (why do they even smuggle, simply say its legal, eh), why everyone ignores borders and America's south is swarmed by Mexicans (hey everyone says himself what's legal). Christopher street days with public sex free for viewing for everyone including little kids. And even illegal immigrants can become president.

Freedom for everyone :thumbup

Yeah, we have tons of drugs smuggled in, tons of illegal immigration, and tons of crime, and that's when the government TRIES to solve problems!

You've just proved my point, twice, in just this one post.

Caledonian
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 01:42 AM
Through indebting the state and blackmailing the government into signing bills like the Federal Reserve Act. For example.




Oh great, everyone's defining what's legal themselves. And America wonders why tons of drugs get smuggled in (why do they even smuggle, simply say its legal, eh), why everyone ignores borders and America's south is swarmed by Mexicans (hey everyone says himself what's legal). Christopher street days with public sex free for viewing for everyone including little kids. And even illegal immigrants can become president.

Freedom for everyone :thumbup



Through indebting the state and blackmailing the government into signing bills like the Federal Reserve Act. For example.

A great example too. ;)

Everybody wants to talk about the virtues of a free market capitalist system but when it comes to major banks and private corporate industries controlling their government along with having complete absolute control of their politicians by private corporate lobbying firms all of a sudden capitalism becomes less glamorous where every nationalist starts to realize exactly what their true enemy is.

[Namely the international free market system.]

When any private bank, industry, commercial enterprise, and corporation can hustle your government for all it's worth if it becomes large or wealthy enough to own half of your economy in the control of [any] private hands that wields them you know there is a problem within your nation that needs dealing with.

The fact that international free market capitalism puts more emphasis of value on privatization versus collective public welfare should be telling enough to the point of being obvious of the fundamental problems concerned.



Æmeric:
Capitalism & Nationalism can co-exist. We need to view human stock differently from other forms of capital. We can have a laissez faire economic system without also having free immigration & open borders. Also the current "free trade" system is not what Adam Smith envisioned. Free trade meant that competition would force different countries to devote resources to those products and servives they were best suited for, that prohibitively high tariffs protected inefficient industries. Nowadays instead of competitive advantage corprorations are investing in the cheapest labor force. Free trade also has to work both ways, if one side is practicing it & the other is not you will end up with a huge trade imbalance.

Capitalism and nationalism cannot coexist.

Even if you strip away free trade principles which has led capitalism to international globalization via global privatized monopolies you still have the deep level of economical privatization that encompasses capitalism which is often enough misused against collective national public welfare.

It was that level of misuse of commercial privatization that has lead capitalists to embrace free trade which later brought international globalization on us all from which we are taking a brutal toll from within our nations as a people.

If nationalism is to succeed capitalism as a economical system must be destroyed entirely. I see no other way around this currently.

The solution to our problems racially, culturally, ethnically, and as a people in the preservation of our history is to nationalize our economies with nationalistic socialist principles in which the general national collective public welfare can be once again protected against unwanted intrusion.

[Such a nationalized economy would also safe guard against infiltration from within from those who would put privatization of industry and profit over the collective welfare of a nation in that such inside infiltrators must be dealt with in the most extreme manner as a symbol of national coordinated strength.]

Once you have a nationalized economy it then only follows that you will have a nationalized form of government or leadership shortly after.

Only upon the destruction of international free market capitalism can this in any way be possible.

Free market capitalism has turned our nation states into trade federations and international trading hubs erasing any semblance of national identity of our once proud nations.

[Our nationalized territories reduced to trading territories in which national citizenry have been merely reduced to gluttonous consumers.]

Anybody who calls themselves a nationalist might want to reexamine themselves in their embracing of international free market capitalism.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 02:53 AM
There is no point to discuss that point as long as you confuse (on purpose I may add) capital/money with the system Capitalism.

This is not the same.


I don't think I'm the one that is confused what capitalism is, you view capitalism in the manner leftist tried to make it out to be and that is a false way of viewing it. They tried to do this to promote their own ideas and agendas unfortunately to some their false hoods have stuck and they are not the true meaning of capitalism.

If you can prove me wrong by facts please do so you are yet to do that.


And again, money does not exist 'in nature'. It is an invention by man. It is stupid to have an invention by man control a market. In fact, this is retarded. Just as it is retarded to let technology control a market.


Money is just a exchange medium nothing more it can be in the form of script, coin, rock, liquid or any other object. No logical person would deny that. It only represents a trade value and nothing more. Even fiat money represents something even though it is just debt.



When you're not the master of your inventions anymore, you're not a master at all, but a slave.


No one is a slave in my country unless they choose to be with a slave like mentality. To many people have proven otherwise to question this.


And how did banks become centralised?
Maybe you want to read up on the history of the Rothschilds, the Bank of England, and most of all, the Federal Reserve Bank?

It was not criminal politicians who came up with the idea to centralize banks or to outsource the control over the currency to private banks with profit interests. THIS WAS DRIVEN BY BANKS AND BANKSTERS.


Centralised banking is not a product of capitalism it is product of trying to control capitalism.


Capitalism is a FINANCE MARKET SYSTEM. It has nothing to do with trade, and even less with demand and supply.


Really, you could go to any real definition of capitalism and very easily be proven wrong. It very well is just a description of the natural laws of supply and demand again I ask for proof that it is not.



You see, there is no point in discussing theories, when the reality is completely different.


So Adam Smith was not a real person or his descriptions not real, if that is so can you provide proof that of this also?


Japan since after WWII.


Funny I was thinking of Japan as a nation that has prospered with capitalism and Nationalism when this thread was started. Japan of all the countries very much endorses capitalism really more so after WWII than before. Think of all those Japanese cars, electronics, and other goods they export.



So, this is interesting. When governments should not control the market that is inside their nation, WHO PLEASE DEFINES what is LEGAL?

The market? Capitalists? People who are emptied out of any higher value through "demand"? Laws based on "free market capitalism"?


Oh, right, this is what we have, that's why our countries go down the drain with high speed :oanieyes


Our countries go down the drain when marxist ideas of control are instituted along with marxist ideas of racial and cultural mixing. Not because of people prospering off of a free market that the folk particpate in.



You're writing "capitalism" when you mean money. Again, this is not the same, and I find it laboring and rather pointless to discuss with you when you mix up terms on purpose. :shrug

No I'm writing capitalism when I mean capitalism, if you find it laboring than it is because you are unable to provide proof of your own ideas of what capitalism is.

I already explained what money is it is just a medium of exchange and capitalism is description of the laws of supply and demand. I never stated otherwise and have been very clear on that point. I have also been very clear that capitalism is not a political ideology.



Oh great, every one's defining what's legal themselves. And America wonders why tons of drugs get smuggled in (why do they even smuggle, simply say its legal, eh), why everyone ignores borders and America's south is swarmed by Mexicans (hey everyone says himself what's legal). Christopher street days with public sex free for viewing for everyone including little kids. And even illegal immigrants can become president.


There are many forms of laws criminal laws, laws of physics, laws of nature no one is deciding the laws of capitalism as it is just a description of actions that occur in nature. This can be explained with plant or animal as well as with markets and trade.

I was wondering when you would get around to trying to bring up the bad that you say are from capitalism without ever mentioning the good things. I think I even predicted it some post back. None of these things you mention are products of capitalism, they are products of moral decay plain and simple.


Freedom for everyone :thumbup


Well at least Germanics, I could care less about the other races.;)

Caledonian
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 02:59 AM
To SpearBrave: :thumbup


Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.


More fundamentally, others define capitalism as a system where production is carried out to generate profit, or exchange-value, regardless of legal ownership titles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Ardito
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 03:06 AM
It seems utterly absurd to me to argue for free market capitalism on a cultural preservation forum. What free market capitalism is, at its heart, is the commodisation of all things, the ability to exchange anything at will. This is quite literally the opposite of cultural preservation, which is surely the belief that culture should be separate from and above mere economic exchange.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 03:17 AM
To SpearBrave: :thumbup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

oh, yes wikipedia is such a good and realiable source.[sarcasm] :D

Even that explains that capitalism is about trade and laws of supply and demand. Not that it is political ideology.

Good try though, maybe if you dig a little more and actually come up with a real source you might learn something.;)

Caledonian
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 03:19 AM
It seems utterly absurd to me to argue for free market capitalism on a cultural preservation forum. What free market capitalism is, at its heart, is the commodisation of all things, the ability to exchange anything at will. This is quite literally the opposite of cultural preservation, which is surely the belief that culture should be separate from and above mere economic exchange.

I'm starting to think that the abandoment of mercantilism was the worse mistake we made in western civilization.

More and more I'm starting to think that we need nationalized socialist economies revolving around a form of economical mercantilism as national policy.


The Austrian lawyer and scholar Philipp Wilhelm von Hornick, in his Austria Over All, If She Only Will of 1684, detailed a nine-point program of what he deemed effective national economy, which sums up the tenets of mercantilism comprehensively:[7]

That every inch of a country's soil be utilized for agriculture, mining or manufacturing.
That all raw materials found in a country be used in domestic manufacture, since finished goods have a higher value than raw materials.
That a large, working population be encouraged.
That all export of gold and silver be prohibited and all domestic money be kept in circulation.
That all imports of foreign goods be discouraged as much as possible.
That where certain imports are indispensable they be obtained at first hand, in exchange for other domestic goods instead of gold and silver.
That as much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that can be finished [in the home country].
That opportunities be constantly sought for selling a country's surplus manufactures to foreigners, so far as necessary, for gold and silver.
That no importation be allowed if such goods are sufficiently and suitably supplied at home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism#Influence

Sounds like the beginning of a great coordinated and effective national economy to me.

velvet
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 03:29 AM
The fault of the state, not the market.

The market had nothing to do with that. And still hasnt.

For the fault. No, it wasnt the state's fault. It was the fault of the people who give a shit about who leads them under what conditions into what abyss. That your country doesnt belong to you - the people - anymore, is the people's fault.

And in so far you believe in "market self regulation", this failed obviously to correct this error. Because the market is the people, and the people give a shit. :shrug


Nation, state, folk (people, markets....), government, this is all "the same". Or lets say, it should be the same. And then a government isnt an enemy, but works in the interest of the people and the economy. But when you dont care who is the government, or what these people do, then you end up with people who are your enemy. It is a direct result of the absurd idea that a market anarchy and the 'good will' of people would be enough to maintain order.

How naive must one be to believe that a government that is comprised of enemies of the folk (literally) would enforce any form of order benefitting its enemy-folk? How naive must one be to believe that they even would work in the interests of the "entity America" and not rather for the interests of their own people (ie, more enemies of Americans)?

And how naive must one be to believe that this is a problem one could solve with market anarchy. :-O


To the theory of capitalism in general:

When an economic (financial) market 'needs' individual rights, specially those to private ownership, and that is what capitalism needs, you also need an instance that protects these property rights of both the people and companies, and also protects and enforces regulations protecting the market.

Capitalism though, through its preference for a "free market" (unregulated) and with that the requirement to limit government regulations, also limit the government's ability to protect property rights and the legal means to enforce individual rights.

This means that capitalism unconstructs its own base. For short term profit interests.

Once this point is reached, the free market must become globalised, because only on the global market profit is still possible, and so the "free market" removes borders.

Though when the government doesnt/cannot protect its nation's individual rights anymore nor its property, there is no way to maintain the nation either.

Then governments bail out companies that lost on the anarchic 'survival of the fittest' market (they scream for help from that instance that they destroyed themselves, ironic), and governments (with their few remaining means to ignore its task to protect property and instead rob the people off of ever more property -> taxes) add to the 'naturally appearing inequality of wealth distribution' with actively redistributing all remaining individual wealth to the few that own everything (including the government).

While the financial section, the profits and productions are almost longterm plans in companies, they also give a shit about maintaining their "government company", but still expect it to function somehow.

Deprived of all legal means to enforce anything, the government now fails to protect either of them. The natural dead of a capitalistic nation.


While I do see the "goodies" of capitalism, there are also bad aspects, and that is where regulations against Laissez-Faire Capitalism and the Anarchic Free Market are due. To maintain a national capitalistic economy long term, the free market cannot be free unlimited, because it endangers the integrity of the nation and the nation's economy and actually its own existence too.

As a nationalist and someone interested in preserving my people long term, it would be rather stupid to support such a system at whose end the dead of my nation stands.

And it has an end, an also selfmade one. Through the demand of constant growth which at a certain point becomes unsustainable, capitalism builds the financial bubble of which we saw a 'fata morgana' in 2008. No, the burst is not yet here, we are in the phase where the government redistributes the last individual wealth to the top 5 percent of private owners. Depending on the wage slave's productivity (the phase is accompanied by a lack of protection of individual rights and property of individuals) this phase may last some more years, even decades (we stupid Germanics are like the horse Boxer from Animal Farm), and the longer it lasts the more sudden its end and our death will be.

Caledonian
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 04:15 AM
So now I'm battling strawman arguments? Who said only large corporate mega stores exist? When you mean store do you actually mean a seller/distributor (Wal-Mart, Target, Harris Teeter, Amazon, etc) or an actual producer? A lot of the things I own I get from a variety of stores from a huge variety of producers. Again, how all of the sudden when it's free-market small businesses become obsolete? Nothing to back your case.



So I can't refrain from purchasing a good from one specific store?



The only goal free-market capitalism has is freedom of choice and trade between individuals. There is no secret or esoteric agenda, there is no conspiracy plot, there is no scheme. It's simple economics. Individuals trading. I highly doubt small business owners have non stop global expansion on their minds. I don't think Toys R Us or Black Label skateboards or even the publisher for Kurt Vonnegut books wants to dominate the world in some globalist plot.

The laws of economics in one part of the world or country still apply to another. The same laws affected the Soviet Union as did the United States. If you take one country and erect a protective wall around them, economics goes on as usual, except now you just blocked all the individuals in that country from trading with people outside that country, and those on the outside can't get to the inside. Restrictive barriers that don't do anyone any good. If someone doesn't want art made from India they don't have to buy it. If someone doesn't want a car made from Sweden they don't have to buy it (I'm not sure what kind of racialist theories you are trying to pull, can I still drive my Volvo even though I'm not Swedish, and if I'm correct my Swedish made Volvo also has German made parts, can some Anglo-American purchase a Scandinavian made car? Will my Swedish car refuse American made coolant?).



LOL. Yes, before Adam Smith people lived in a non-capitalist utopia where roasted birds flew into our mouths and by the work of magic all our goods came to being without modern methods of production. Once Adam Smith created, patented, and copyrighted capitalism all our past hopes and dreams went out the window. Blast!

On a serious note Smith and Ricardo refuted mercantilism in place of a market economy, they didn't "create" anything (seriously, are you serious?). The marginal revolution came along and people like Carl Menger and his work Principles of Economics furthered the market economy. Smith believed in the labor theory of value, that value in a good is objective due to the work put in. Menger put forth that value is subjective to the individuals, and the value is =/= to the labor put into the good. Smith looked at economics from the perception of the producer, not the consumer. This was a flaw in his theory, but must be applauded in refuting mercantilism. Economic science was still developing at this point in time.

Trade among individuals existed thousands of years before Adam Smith. People traded gold and other highly valued objects all the time. Can you explain how someone would acquire goods before Adam Smith? How would a blacksmith receive payment for the goods he produced, or how would the farmer receive payment for his crops? A transaction was made between two individuals. That transaction involved both individuals trading goods they feel were less valuable than what they were receiving, so they both had a benefit. Economics 101 (or even less, this is pretty common sense).


So now I'm battling strawman arguments?

:D


Who said only large corporate mega stores exist?

I didn't say that they are the only type of stores that exist but I merely was trying to say that their presence becomes so large to an extent that they overshadow small business owners by squeezing them out of the market altogether where one's choice of purchasing things practically becomes circulated around large mega store franchises.

They are of course a consequence of pervasive capitalism in commercial over expansion.


When you mean store do you actually mean a seller/distributor (Wal-Mart, Target, Harris Teeter, Amazon, etc) or an actual producer?
What does it matter when a mega store like Walmart does all of the above?


Again, how all of the sudden when it's free-market small businesses become obsolete? Nothing to back your case.

Because when you have a mega store that has everything sold at a much cheaper price versus a small locally owned store that sells half of those things of a mega store at a slightly more increased price just to be able to keep their doors open to the public in comparison more and more people will opt for the giant mega store.

The mega store is able to sell things in massive bulk at a much cheaper sale's price versus a small locally owned store that cannot.

Of course, how do these mega stores sell products at a much cheaper sale's price?

By cheap labor such as outsourcing their production centers to foreign countries who will then hire workers at a much more lower wage.

[Nothing like being paid 10 dollars a day as a foreign worker in another country.]

But wait it gets better................

What happens if I'm a representative owner of a mega store, industry, corporation, or commercial enterprise that wants to cut their monthly expense here at home? I'll just hire some recently added foreign workers to my workforce who will do twice the work for less the amount of standardized pay that local nationalized workers will do where I will lobby with politicians with my lobbying firm to keep the global immigration gates open in order to fulfill my demand for cheap labor where I will incentivize them for their loyalty by a means of generous political donations.

[Meanwhile everybody starts wondering why their wages are decreasing and why the costs of everything is going up but that's a topic for another thread.]

If I have problems with anti immigration activists I'll just have my pet politician go into the glory of multiculturalism branding them as racists of which to secure this public political stance of keeping the global immigration gates open in my country I'll then make a move to invest in groups like La Raza with my corporation where people will then applaud my commercial enterprise as being the highest expression of racial cultural tolerance where as a CEO I will eventually find my face on a edition of TIME magazine as a humanistic heroin.

Now if I'm a really big corporate enterprise where I own somthing like 35% of the national economy say somthing like a very large bank I can then really influence government into a variety of ways in that I'll have a large bargaining chip within it and if I go through a financial crisis say somthing on the lines of 2008 in the United States I can effectively put a gun to the head of the government in which I'll demand to be bailed out of which the government will then force the tax payers to come up with the sum of money to be gathered in further taxation at a later date because if the government does nothing that is 35% of the economy that is no longer there anymore threatening a situation of depressed economical like proportions where I will be deemed too big to fail as a business.

[Of course I could only get away with this in a free market capitalist economy because in a heavily regulated socialistic planned marketed economy such a scenario or situation would never occur where if I was also a nationalistic one global immigration wouldn't be a issue either because such immigration would not be allowed to take place whereby the national worker's place within a nation would be protected without fear of having decreased wages in the process by means of outsourced jobs abroad.]


So I can't refrain from purchasing a good from one specific store?

You could but you would have a hard time doing so considering one already has a limited amount of choices in where they purchase things at a local level given that anymore you have a choice of one mega store over another with hardly any locally owned small businesses in between.


The only goal free-market capitalism has is freedom of choice and trade between individuals.

Well your freedom speaking rhetoric is pretty hilarious given the oligarchical nature of free market capitalist economies where populations are effectively ruled by a select few in power that control the means of financial capital that then restrict the trade of others.

Do you know what it is like to be a small business right now in trying to get a loan from a bank?


There is no secret or esoteric agenda, there is no conspiracy plot, there is no scheme. It's simple economics. Individuals trading. I highly doubt small business owners have non stop global expansion on their minds. I don't think Toys R Us or Black Label skateboards or even the publisher for Kurt Vonnegut books wants to dominate the world in some globalist plot.Don't be naive. Nothing is ever that simple.

As for conspiracy the world is full of deception along with lies, deceit, and trickery.

[Nothing is ever what it seems.]

The world is nothing but that of conspirators trying to get the upper hand on one another. Don't talk to me about conspiracy.



The laws of economics in one part of the world or country still apply to another. The same laws affected the Soviet Union as did the United States. If you take one country and erect a protective wall around them, economics goes on as usual, except now you just blocked all the individuals in that country from trading with people outside that country, and those on the outside can't get to the inside. Restrictive barriers that don't do anyone any good. If someone doesn't want art made from India they don't have to buy it. If someone doesn't want a car made from Sweden they don't have to buy it (I'm not sure what kind of racialist theories you are trying to pull, can I still drive my Volvo even though I'm not Swedish, and if I'm correct my Swedish made Volvo also has German made parts, can some Anglo-American purchase a Scandinavian made car? Will my Swedish car refuse American made coolant?).

You can have a protectionist mercantile economy and still trade with other countries reasonably on the grounds of not importing what you don't need or importing more than what you produce in exporting.

Certainly when you have a economy like the United States where somthing like 65% of it's economy is built upon consumption I think is somthing that is doomed to disaster in that no country should import more than what it exports where a nation consumes more than what it produces somthing of which we find in unregulated free market capitalist economies.


Will my Swedish car refuse American made coolant?).
Such a problem wouldn't exist in a nationalized economy.

That example is a consequence of international trading to the extremes.

Why not create the coolant and vehicle in your own nation where you know both are compatible with each other?


LOL. Yes, before Adam Smith people lived in a non-capitalist utopia where roasted birds flew into our mouths and by the work of magic all our goods came to being without modern methods of production. Once Adam Smith created, patented, and copyrighted capitalism all our past hopes and dreams went out the window. Blast!Actually Mr. Fancy Pants we had a mercantilist economical structure before the rise of economical capitalism which safe guarded nation states with nationalist themes of planned economies coordinated at a state level.



On a serious note Smith and Ricardo refuted mercantilism in place of a market economy, they didn't "create" anything (seriously, are you serious?). The marginal revolution came along and people like Carl Menger and his work Principles of Economics furthered the market economy. Smith believed in the labor theory of value, that value in a good is objective due to the work put in. Menger put forth that value is subjective to the individuals, and the value is =/= to the labor put into the good. Smith looked at economics from the perception of the producer, not the consumer. This was a flaw in his theory, but must be applauded in refuting mercantilism. Economic science was still developing at this point in time.

Well that's all very wonderful but I disagree with most capitalist economical interpretations where I'm more for a planned socialized economy somthing of which we can debate if you wish.



Trade among individuals existed thousands of years before Adam Smith. People traded gold and other highly valued objects all the time. Can you explain how someone would acquire goods before Adam Smith? How would a blacksmith receive payment for the goods he produced, or how would the farmer receive payment for his crops? A transaction was made between two individuals. That transaction involved both individuals trading goods they feel were less valuable than what they were receiving, so they both had a benefit. Economics 101 (or even less, this is pretty common sense). Adam Smith was the originator of the economical market system and ideology of capitalism although there were specific merchants that expirimented with similar ideas at the end of the medieval period if one wanted to get technical about history.

Beyond all of that capitalism is to be found nowhere else.

Now I know you and SpearBrave got this whole thing that capitalism is more than that where it is a way of life where you guys try to go into detail of some sort of esoteric meaning of capitalism beyond it being a type of market economy in some sort of naturalistic explanation of it being related to nature and the world around us by decreeing capitalism to have always existed but until you can show me a group of chimpanzees in a jungle discussing the finer details of moving capital by a expanding free market system by reading out of a Adam Smith piece of writing or quoting a verse about unregulated markets from Alan Greenspan I'm just going to flat out doubt everything you two are saying on the subject by means of rationalization.

Paradigm
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 05:19 AM
The market had nothing to do with that. And still hasnt.

For the fault. No, it wasnt the state's fault. It was the fault of the people who give a shit about who leads them under what conditions into what abyss. That your country doesnt belong to you - the people - anymore, is the people's fault.

And in so far you believe in "market self regulation", this failed obviously to correct this error. Because the market is the people, and the people give a shit. :shrug

This was outside the market, this was state intervention. They made it law, they intervened, regulated, and manipulated, and decide their actions legal.


Nation, state, folk (people, markets....), government, this is all "the same". Or lets say, it should be the same. And then a government isnt an enemy, but works in the interest of the people and the economy. But when you dont care who is the government, or what these people do, then you end up with people who are your enemy. It is a direct result of the absurd idea that a market anarchy and the 'good will' of people would be enough to maintain order.

How naive must one be to believe that a government that is comprised of enemies of the folk (literally) would enforce any form of order benefitting its enemy-folk? How naive must one be to believe that they even would work in the interests of the "entity America" and not rather for the interests of their own people (ie, more enemies of Americans)?

And how naive must one be to believe that this is a problem one could solve with market anarchy. :-O

Do you not realize your own contradiction? You specifically discuss a government working against it's own people, yet at the end say it's naive that people believe these problems could be solved by the market. Is your solution more government? Do you realize that it would be the same government regardless, no matter who's elected? Our government seldom works in our own interest. It's in our history (I don't want to step out of bounds, but take the Civil War for example, the government was really working in the interest of the people, right?).


To the theory of capitalism in general:

When an economic (financial) market 'needs' individual rights, specially those to private ownership, and that is what capitalism needs, you also need an instance that protects these property rights of both the people and companies, and also protects and enforces regulations protecting the market.

Capitalism though, through its preference for a "free market" (unregulated) and with that the requirement to limit government regulations, also limit the government's ability to protect property rights and the legal means to enforce individual rights.

Wrong. You won't find a single free-market supporter who's against property rights. Private property is the foundation of capitalism. The greatest threat to private property and property rights is the state. Property rights must be upheld. This is a staple of libertarianism. The government must be regulated to that of the "night watchman". The government's sole purpose is to protect people and property (people being their own property), and nothing else. The government can stay completely out of the market and it will prosper. When individuals rights are violated, there must be justice. (I don't want to step out of topic, again, but in libertarian legal theory the courts, judges, and police would also be on the market competing to bring the best service [justice and protection] in the most efficient means. The government does not have this incentive, as it's not a for-profit business in the technical sense. They will get paid [taxes] regardless of how good the service is).


This means that capitalism unconstructs its own base. For short term profit interests.

Once this point is reached, the free market must become globalised, because only on the global market profit is still possible, and so the "free market" removes borders.

Though when the government doesnt/cannot protect its nation's individual rights anymore nor its property, there is no way to maintain the nation either.

This is not grounded in anything.


Then governments bail out companies that lost on the anarchic 'survival of the fittest' market (they scream for help from that instance that they destroyed themselves, ironic), and governments (with their few remaining means to ignore its task to protect property and instead rob the people off of ever more property -> taxes) add to the 'naturally appearing inequality of wealth distribution' with actively redistributing all remaining individual wealth to the few that own everything (including the government).

Bail outs went to corporations who lobby Congress on their behalf. The banks are bailed out by the Fed (a problem with central banking). They didn't lose in a battle of survival of the fittest, the banks lost due to bad business decisions, and they know they would have bailed out regardless. It's the Fed's duty to do so. The plan was already in place, so to speak. The government was their pre-bought safety net. This is beyond free-market principles.


While the financial section, the profits and productions are almost longterm plans in companies, they also give a shit about maintaining their "government company", but still expect it to function somehow.

Deprived of all legal means to enforce anything, the government now fails to protect either of them. The natural dead of a capitalistic nation.

While I do see the "goodies" of capitalism, there are also bad aspects, and that is where regulations against Laissez-Faire Capitalism and the Anarchic Free Market are due. To maintain a national capitalistic economy long term, the free market cannot be free unlimited, because it endangers the integrity of the nation and the nation's economy and actually its own existence too.

As a nationalist and someone interested in preserving my people long term, it would be rather stupid to support such a system at whose end the dead of my nation stands.

Sorry, economics knows no creed, nation, sex, or people. It's a neutral, value-free science. Whether you are a nationalist or not, the laws of economics will not change. Remember that.


And it has an end, an also selfmade one. Through the demand of constant growth which at a certain point becomes unsustainable, capitalism builds the financial bubble of which we saw a 'fata morgana' in 2008. No, the burst is not yet here, we are in the phase where the government redistributes the last individual wealth to the top 5 percent of private owners. Depending on the wage slave's productivity (the phase is accompanied by a lack of protection of individual rights and property of individuals) this phase may last some more years, even decades (we stupid Germanics are like the horse Boxer from Animal Farm), and the longer it lasts the more sudden its end and our death will be.

The bubble was due to over lending of loans on artificially low interest rates with the increase in the money supply. We are past the bust and feeling the effects now, which is inflation and high unemployment.

In Keynesian economics they believe they can artificially continue a boom by lending and inflation, but this only creates a bigger bubble, and bigger bust. They believe they can fix the problem before it goes into full collapse. The Austrian side of economics believes that the market will self regulate, and remove waste, by reallocating resources in employment in more productive areas at the time. Doing so by not printing more money, and letting interest rates fluctuate to the market.

I'm not too fond of the "stupid Germanics" statement. Whether you are referring to yourself or everyone, unlike whatever intention you have, I'm well aware of what's going on, and I'm not naive, nor stupid.


I didn't say that they are the only type of stores that exist but I merely was trying to say that their presence becomes so large to an extent that they overshadow small business owners by squeezing them out of the market altogether where one's choice of purchasing things practically becomes circulated around large mega store franchises.

They are of course a consequence of pervasive capitalism in commercial over expansion.

Because when you have a mega store that has everything sold at a much cheaper price versus a small locally owned store that sells half of those things of a mega store at a slightly more increased price just to be able to keep their doors open to the public in comparison more and more people will opt for the giant mega store.

The mega store is able to sell things in massive bulk at a much cheaper sale's price versus a small locally owned store that cannot.

Yet, small businesses are still popping up, and people still like going to large chain stores. You act like it's a bad thing when people can get the same product for cheaper because the methods of production and business have advanced to serve a great yield at a cheaper price. God forbid advancements!

Yet, you can't get everything at Wal-Mart or Target. Plenty of small businesses come about to meet people's needs.


Of course, how do these mega stores sell products at a much cheaper sale's price?

By cheap labor such as outsourcing their production centers to foreign countries who will then hire workers at a much more lower wage.

Yes, because Wal-Mart has outsourced all it's workers, and brought in on ships natives of Niger, Panama, and Guam to work in all it's stores, and their production (I didn't know they actually produced anything) is done by children in India.


[Nothing like being paid 10 dollars a day as a foreign worker in another country.]

Foreigners get paid 10 dollars a day? Is that amount accurate, and does this amount reflect US dollars here, and is that a wage slave?


But wait it gets better................

What happens if I'm a representative owner of a mega store, industry, corporation, or commercial enterprise that wants to cut their monthly expense here at home? I'll just hire some recently added foreign workers to my workforce who will do twice the work for less the amount of standardized pay that local nationalized workers will do where I will lobby with politicians with my lobbying firm to keep the global immigration gates open in order to fulfill my demand for cheap labor where I will incentivize them for their loyalty by a means of generous political donations.

Yep, sounds like a problem with the government not the market.


[Meanwhile everybody starts wondering why their wages are decreasing and why the costs of everything is going up but that's a topic for another thread.]

Inflation perhaps?


If I have problems with anti immigration activists I'll just have my pet politician go into the glory of multiculturalism branding them as racists of which to secure this public political stance of keeping the global immigration gates open in my country I'll then make a move to invest in groups like La Raza with my corporation where people will then applaud my commercial enterprise as being the highest expression of racial cultural tolerance where as a CEO I will eventually find my face on a edition of TIME magazine as a humanistic heroin.

Now if I'm a really big corporate enterprise where I own somthing like 35% of the national economy say somthing like a very large bank I can then really influence government into a variety of ways in that I'll have a large bargaining chip within it and if I go through a financial crisis say somthing on the lines of 2008 in the United States I can effectively put a gun to the head of the government in which I'll demand to be bailed out of which the government will then force the tax payers to come up with the sum of money to be gathered in further taxation at a later date because if the government does nothing that is 35% of the economy that is no longer there anymore threatening a situation of depressed economical like proportions where I will be deemed too big to fail as a business.

[Of course I could only get away with this in a free market capitalist economy because in a heavily regulated socialistic planned marketed economy such a scenario or situation would never occur where if I was also a nationalistic one global immigration wouldn't be a issue either because such immigration would not be allowed to take place whereby the national worker's place within a nation would be protected without fear of having decreased wages in the process by means of outsourced jobs abroad.]

Yeah, it was the market that bailed out all those corporations, right? It was the market that created a corporate safety net, right? Socialism would never fail and lead to poverty and corruption, right?


You could but you would have a hard time doing so considering one already has a limited amount of choices in where they purchase things at a local level given that anymore you have a choice of one mega store over another with hardly any locally owned small businesses in between.

I see thousands of locally owned businesses in my area.


Well your freedom speaking rhetoric is pretty hilarious given the oligarchical nature of free market capitalist economies where populations are effectively ruled by a select few in power that control the means of financial capital that then restrict the trade of others.

Do you know what it is like to be a small business right now in trying to get a loan from a bank?

No, with your knowledge on banks (you must be an assistant manager at Wachovia with your intellect) enlighten me on the process for a small business loan.


Don't be naive. Nothing is ever that simple.

As for conspiracy the world is full of deception along with lies, deceit, and trickery.

[Nothing is ever what it seems.]

The world is nothing but that of conspirators trying to get the upper hand on one another. Don't talk to me about conspiracy.

Yeah, businesses doing things means conspiracy.


You can have a protectionist mercantile economy and still trade with other countries reasonably on the grounds of not importing what you don't need or importing more than what you produce in exporting.

Certainly when you have a economy like the United States where somthing like 65% of it's economy is built upon consumption I think is somthing that is doomed to disaster in that no country should import more than what it exports where a nation consumes more than what it produces somthing of which we find in unregulated free market capitalist economies.

Ah, the leftist rhetoric was tricky in this. "65% of it's economy is built on consumption" - Statements like these must be pointed out. Every individual is a consumer and a producer. We all have a part in economics There's no percentage of more over the other. It's an illusion.


Such a problem wouldn't exist in a nationalized economy.

That example is a consequence of international trading to the extremes.

Why not create the coolant and vehicle in your own nation where you know both are compatible with each other?

Maybe because I want a god damn Swedish made Volvo with French and German parts, and they don't make Volvo's in the United States. Do I need permission from you for what I drive?


Actually Mr. Fancy Pants we had a mercantilist economical structure before the rise of economical capitalism which safe guarded nation states with nationalist themes of planned economies coordinated at a state level.

I'm not sure you understand sarcasm, and I don't remember reading life being too productive and lovely for us peasants under mercantilism.


Well that's all very wonderful but I disagree with most capitalist economical interpretations where I'm more for a planned socialized economy somthing of which we can debate if you wish.

I have debated this, I'm actually debating it right now, I even made a thread about capitalism and offered my position over how it's more productive over a planned economy. Seriously, it's like amateur night in Dixie on the Skadi forum. Can someone bring forth some real competition?

Caledonian
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 05:52 AM
I have debated this, I'm actually debating it right now, I even made a thread about capitalism and offered my position over how it's more productive over a planned economy. Seriously, it's like amateur night in Dixie on the Skadi Forum. Can someone bring forth some real competition?

Paradigm your a funny man and I will continue to indulge you in the future.

[Sometime later this week I'm sure.]

At the moment I have to get some rest for the following work day tomorrow because not all of us have enough time to be on the internet always in our striving to make a living for ourselves.

At any rate I'll let you have your cheap victory for now in that I cannot and am unable to make fast replies at this given point.

Paradigm
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 05:54 AM
At the moment I have to get some rest for the following work day tomorrow because not all of us have enough time to be on the internet always in our striving to make a living for ourselves.

At this moment, I have just over 100 post, and you have over 900 post. Seems like you spend more time on this than I, fact or no?

velvet
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 03:43 PM
This was outside the market, this was state intervention. They made it law, they intervened, regulated, and manipulated, and decide their actions legal.

The BANKS made it law.

This is the entire problem. This didnt happen "suddenly" in 1913, there is a prestory to this, that already started in your Civil War, and the Civil War was agitated by banks to indebt the US so much that at one point "a central bank, the Federal Reserve (which has nothing to do with federal nor with reserve) was the only option" to save the US.

Who signed the Federal Reserve Act?
Piatt Andrew, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip (president of Kuhn Loeb & Co bank), Henry Davidson (senior partner of J.R. Morgan bank) Charles Norten (president of Morgan's First National Bank), Paul Warburg and Benjamin Strong (president of Morgan's Bankers Trust & Co).

Kuhn Loeb & Co: Rothschild offspring bank
Morgan is a Rothschild
Paul Warburg is a Rothschild agent paid by the European Rothschild banks from Paris and London.
Jabob Schiff and Paul Warburg rallied relentlessly for the private Central bank:
"If we dont get a central bank with proper control over the credit procurement, then this land will see the strongest and most profound money panic in its history" (Jacob Schiff in a speech to the New York Chamber of Commerce, 1907).

And since the government of the US refused the plans, America was thrown into the strongest and most profound money panik which eventually enabled the private banks of Rothschild to install their Federal Reserve Bank. Against the will of the American government and without knowledge of the American people, who obviously, like you, still dont understand that the Federal Reserve Bank is since 1913 the instance that exercises control over the USA, not the puppet government.

The Federal Reserve is owned and run by Rothschild offspring to this day and ROTHSCHILDS POSSESS AMERICA.



Do you not realize your own contradiction? You specifically discuss a government working against it's own people, yet at the end say it's naive that people believe these problems could be solved by the market.

How is this a contradiction when the people who agitate the market are the government?

You have lost control over your economy and your country, because it is now privately owned by people whose only interest is profit. THEY WILL NOT DO ANYTHING TO SOLVE THE PEOPLE'S PROBLEMS, BECAUSE FOR THEM IT IS WHAT THEY WANTED: A FREE MARKET.


Is your solution more government? Do you realize that it would be the same government regardless, no matter who's elected?

Look, the point is to replace the government and re-nationalise the ownership of the nation in order to limit the power exercised by banks over the country.


Our government seldom works in our own interest. It's in our history (I don't want to step out of bounds, but take the Civil War for example, the government was really working in the interest of the people, right?).

Oh, your government back then tried indeed to work in the interest of the people. They just couldnt, and the first try to install a central bank after the Civil War ended with a Rothschild-ordered murder of the president because he refused. This put the plans a little off, but finally they succeeded in 1913.

But what you really must understand is that your government is owned and directly controlled by Rothschild banks, who also own and run the ADL and its pre-organisations and most of all the Rockefeller ministry "Council of Foreign Relations" which is a private organisation that now appoints your puppet government.


Wrong. You won't find a single free-market supporter who's against property rights. Private property is the foundation of capitalism.

Of course it is, but what they do effectively limits those property rights, because they also remove the 'neutral instance' that is supposed to protect these rights (because it is the same instance that would also limit, in order to protect the property rights, the free market).

This obviously is a design error of capitalism.

And this is where I say that the free market must be limited and the government must be of and for the people, a neutral instance that can and does enforce individual rights and protects private property.

This isnt the case, because the government is the banks, and the banks want a free market, but the free market, maybe not willingly but it does, endangers and eventually destroys 'private property' through accumulating all property in the hands of a few who are both the 'free market', banks and the government at the same time. Who's interests do you think THEY will protect? That of your private property and your individual rights or the profit interests of banks and investors (which is anyway also the same)?


The greatest threat to private property and property rights is the state. Property rights must be upheld. This is a staple of libertarianism. The government must be regulated to that of the "night watchman". The government's sole purpose is to protect people and property (people being their own property), and nothing else.

See above. The government has neither the will nor intention to protect individual rights. EVEN IF it has members who happen to be of the opinion that this would be due, they dont have the means to do so because the government is not neutral. It is "private property" of private banks, and this really is the only private property they protect.


The government can stay completely out of the market and it will prosper. When individuals rights are violated, there must be justice.

LOL, who should enforce justice in your name?


(I don't want to step out of topic, again, but in libertarian legal theory the courts, judges, and police would also be on the market competing to bring the best service [justice and protection] in the most efficient means. The government does not have this incentive, as it's not a for-profit business in the technical sense. They will get paid [taxes] regardless of how good the service is).

Theory is funny, and just shows how naive you obviously are.

When the justice system is on the "free market" (which really is ruleless, not 'free'), it is not neutral. Justice is either absolute or an absolute joke. Absolute it can only be when it is neutral and independend of competition.



They didn't lose in a battle of survival of the fittest, the banks lost due to bad business decisions

Now this is great :thumbup :D

You want a free market where the only 'rule' is the survival of the fittest, and you dont think that 'bad business decisions' are a fuckn cornerstone of that???

When you make bad decisions, you will obviously fail on the free market.



The government was their pre-bought safety net. This is beyond free-market principles.

But your government is a fuckn PART OF THE FREE MARKET, it is privately owned by market players.




Sorry, economics knows no creed, nation, sex, or people. It's a neutral, value-free science. Whether you are a nationalist or not, the laws of economics will not change. Remember that.

So, now finally you understood the central problem of the 'free (ruleless) market: it knows no creed, nation, sex or people. In short, it knows no limits.

This is the problem really. You cannot maintain a nation, individual rights and the property rights of the people when the people, nation, rights are objects pushed around on a global chessboard of profit games.


As said, a 'free market' has its positives (competition, development etc), but it also has shadow sides that are inherent to the "laws of economy" [of a ruleless and limitless market].

When you lack the instance to protect the nation and the people and their rights, you will not be able to compete against the interests of this free market.



I'm not too fond of the "stupid Germanics" statement. Whether you are referring to yourself or everyone, unlike whatever intention you have, I'm well aware of what's going on, and I'm not naive, nor stupid.

Boxer is the worker, and while the pigs throw out all the profit, Boxer must work more and longer and harder, and he does, because he believes that when he just works hard enough, all will turn out well for all.

At the end Boxer, because he is old now and cannot work more more more anymore, he is put on a wagon and brought to the butcher. It is only then that he really understands that he himself, through his naive belief that when he just works enough and his participation in the pig's system and through his own effort (also because he thinks work is honourable and therefore he didnt care that much about what kind of work or more important, what is done with the profits of his work) has brought about this situation.

He has sold himself as impersonlised work force, as is expected of him in the capitalistic free market where "people" and their "work force" are dispatched, and this is how he now is consequently treated, a broken machine that has no more use and therefore is thrown on the trash.

When you see some parallels to the world we live in, you're a step closer.

People ARE the work force and people ARE the consuments, people are those who have the individual rights and people possess private property. It all culminates in the people, its one and the same.

The "laws of a capitalist free market" dispatches this unit into the trade objects of this free market. And this is where a capitalist free market must be 'boxed' into rules and regulations, in order to protect the people, their rights, their private property and with that also the foundation of a moderate 'capitalist' market.

genius
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 04:35 PM
Okay alarichs theory:

Free market doesn't work. National Socialize everything.

Here's the thing: If John Q. Rockefeller owns a big private business and he isn't looking out for national interests how is John Q. Rockefeller who now runs the nationalized business going to serve the public interests any better?
Now if John Q. Rockefeller is the owner of private industry but doesn't care, how much more will he care when is president of the nation?

For the fault. No, it wasnt the state's fault. It was the fault of the people who give a shit about who leads them under what conditions into what abyss. That your country doesnt belong to you - the people - anymore, is the people's fault.

People. Nations are run by people. Businesses are run by people.

More or less I seek to divorce myself from the masses. I don't rely on the masses, on the giant nation or anything else to solve my problems. I need to rely on my own inward quality, my own accomplishment and ability to thrive in any environment.

The only thing nationalizing will do primarily is it will decrease competition and therefore make most industries less competitive. This will raise prices and decrease wages. That won't solve anybody's problem at all. But those who need "big brother" to protect them, save them, provide for them from cradle to grave will feel much better then because they will be living in a less competitive world.

This less competive world will create more and more incompetency. Over time we go back to the soviet union and its collapse, horribly low productivity levels etc.

If the banks have all the power, go buy a bank. Find out how to weasle into the Fed. Reserve. Get elected to office and weaken the influence of the Fed. All that is far more practical and productive than saying "we need to overthrow the country and bring back NS ideas".

Paradigm
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 05:27 PM
The BANKS made it law.

Banks set laws now? Again, the banks lobbied the state, the state made it law. Your flaws are becoming more obvious, and frequent. Everything after that was irrelevant to your own argument.


How is this a contradiction when the people who agitate the market are the government?

You have lost control over your economy and your country, because it is now privately owned by people whose only interest is profit. THEY WILL NOT DO ANYTHING TO SOLVE THE PEOPLE'S PROBLEMS, BECAUSE FOR THEM IT IS WHAT THEY WANTED: A FREE MARKET.

The contradiction is in what you say. You ask where's the contradiction when the people who agitate the [free] market are the government, when it's not a free market if the government is involved. See? I just blew your point up in less than 10 seconds.

We have lost control over our economy and country, because it is not a free-market, but a Keynesian run economy with central banking, and government intervention. Do you realize all the problems with the US economy were started by government intervention and the Federal Reserve? Nothing in the free-market started it, only outside forces.

It being privately owned is a good thing. You collectivization of production will be a better idea? If so, enlighten me. I've read everything from Marx to Mises so don't skip a beat if you want to elaborate.


Look, the point is to replace the government and re-nationalise the ownership of the nation in order to limit the power exercised by banks over the country.

Since you don't live in the United States (from what your profile seems) you probably don't understand a lot of people are more interested in limiting the government to near extinction than replacing it with people they would "reflect their interest" etc etc. Same political nonsense over and over. This country was founded in a revolution against it's parent country in that of a limited government that would uphold life and liberty. Not to be replaced with some national socialist regime. I don't care about replacing the government for nationalist interest, I'm interested in removing the government out of our lives, and let the people live without being told what to do by someone who has no ties to the people at all.


Oh, your government back then tried indeed to work in the interest of the people. They just couldnt, and the first try to install a central bank after the Civil War ended with a Rothschild-ordered murder of the president because he refused. This put the plans a little off, but finally they succeeded in 1913.

Uh, ha, you're way off. What I'm referring to is the mass murder of both Northerners and Southerners in a totalitarian war Lincoln wanted to "preserve the nation". Lincoln was shot for being a dictator, has nothing to do with banks. I guess you don't realize Andrew Jackson killing the central bank in his presidency.


But what you really must understand is that your government is owned and directly controlled by Rothschild banks, who also own and run the ADL and its pre-organisations and most of all the Rockefeller ministry "Council of Foreign Relations" which is a private organisation that now appoints your puppet government.

Yeah, uh-huh, like I haven't heard this from Alex Jones like FIVE YEARS AGO or all the conspiracy books sitting on my shelves spouting things I haven't heard a hundred times. Again, this is irrelevant to theory and the idea of nationalism and capitalism. Filler for your argument.


Of course it is, but what they do effectively limits those property rights, because they also remove the 'neutral instance' that is supposed to protect these rights (because it is the same instance that would also limit, in order to protect the property rights, the free market).

This obviously is a design error of capitalism.

And this is where I say that the free market must be limited and the government must be of and for the people, a neutral instance that can and does enforce individual rights and protects private property.

Again, why must the market be limited? In one instance does the market have to be limited to sacrifice more power for the government? There's no reasoning to back this up in the protection of property. As we have seen the greatest threat to property is the government.


This isnt the case, because the government is the banks, and the banks want a free market, but the free market, maybe not willingly but it does, endangers and eventually destroys 'private property' through accumulating all property in the hands of a few who are both the 'free market', banks and the government at the same time. Who's interests do you think THEY will protect? That of your private property and your individual rights or the profit interests of banks and investors (which is anyway also the same)?

*YAWN*

The banks are granted a monopoly over the supply of money, so there is no free-market in banking. The [central] banks don't want a free-market, they want a monopoly, and have it. Accumulation of private property does not destroy private property. Doesn't even make sense.

Also, again, I point out your contradiction with "Who's interests do you think THEY will protect? That of your private property and your individual rights or the profit interests of banks and investors (which is anyway also the same)?", do you realize you ask who will protect us, and then point out the government is not working in our interest, and then will blame the idea of limited government. Do you not realize what you're saying? Very inconsistent.



See above. The government has neither the will nor intention to protect individual rights. EVEN IF it has members who happen to be of the opinion that this would be due, they dont have the means to do so because the government is not neutral. It is "private property" of private banks, and this really is the only private property they protect.

The government is evil, so let's limit the market and expand government power to protect the people, is that right? Let's also wear tinfoil hats so the Rothschilds' can't read our minds.


LOL, who should enforce justice in your name?

Theory is funny, and just shows how naive you obviously are.

When the justice system is on the "free market" (which really is ruleless, not 'free'), it is not neutral. Justice is either absolute or an absolute joke. Absolute it can only be when it is neutral and independend of competition.

Either a minarchist government (extremely limited, constitution or not), or anarcho-capitalist society. The government has a monopoly over the judges, courts, and police. They have no incentive to protect people, only their own interest. This idea is actually an old one of a private arbitrator to settle disputes. The judges and courts would actually be on a for-profit system, so if they have bad service, and a majority of people do not like their decision making, they will lose service, and money, and eventually go out of business, compared to the same bad judge keeping his seat. The police would be privatized like any other business, and would have incentive to protect people and property, because if not they will not have a job. This would end the time wasted of cops beating up old couples and children or shooting dogs. If they are caught doing that, their service is rendered null and void instead of taking a paid 2 week break with our tax money for "anger management". The police would essentially be no different than security guards, they would be for profit and hired to protect neighborhoods and businesses. This is where insurance companies tie in. Insurance companies (unlike the government influenced ones we have now) would also have incentive to make sure their customers are protected the best way at the cheapest price to keep premiums low and customers happy.

For a New Liberty: Chapter 12 The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p215)



You want a free market where the only 'rule' is the survival of the fittest, and you dont think that 'bad business decisions' are a fuckn cornerstone of that???

When you make bad decisions, you will obviously fail on the free market.

Uh, yeah. You want bad businesses to stay in business? They make bad decisions, they deal with competition, others prove themselves better in the market, and businesses fail at the expense their resources will be re-allocated to more productive areas of the market. This is a great process to clear waste from the market. Are you insisting these bad businesses stay propped up with government (tax) money?


But your government is a fuckn PART OF THE FREE MARKET, it is privately owned by market players.

The government has to play by the same rules of economics we do. For every action there is a reaction. For every cause there is an effect. The government is not privately owned (sometimes I wish it was). It's a shoddy democracy with no long term interest or investment in it's capital or people.


So, now finally you understood the central problem of the 'free (ruleless) market: it knows no creed, nation, sex or people. In short, it knows no limits.

Um, you misunderstood what I said. I said:

Sorry, economics knows no creed, nation, sex, or people. It's a neutral, value-free science. Whether you are a nationalist or not, the laws of economics will not change. Remember that.

Economics is a value-free science. I never said the free-market, because whether it's a planned economy, free-market, or socialist dictatorship the same rules of economics apply. The physics of this reality won't change in a capitalist society as it would in a planned economy. Next time don't take something out of context.


This is the problem really. You cannot maintain a nation, individual rights and the property rights of the people when the people, nation, rights are objects pushed around on a global chessboard of profit games.

As said, a 'free market' has its positives (competition, development etc), but it also has shadow sides that are inherent to the "laws of economy" [of a ruleless and limitless market].

When you lack the instance to protect the nation and the people and their rights, you will not be able to compete against the interests of this free market.

I really don't care.


Boxer is the worker, and while the pigs throw out all the profit, Boxer must work more and longer and harder, and he does, because he believes that when he just works hard enough, all will turn out well for all.

At the end Boxer, because he is old now and cannot work more more more anymore, he is put on a wagon and brought to the butcher. It is only then that he really understands that he himself, through his naive belief that when he just works enough and his participation in the pig's system and through his own effort (also because he thinks work is honourable and therefore he didnt care that much about what kind of work or more important, what is done with the profits of his work) has brought about this situation.

He has sold himself as impersonlised work force, as is expected of him in the capitalistic free market where "people" and their "work force" are dispatched, and this is how he now is consequently treated, a broken machine that has no more use and therefore is thrown on the trash.

When you see some parallels to the world we live in, you're a step closer.

If you were making an Animal Farm reference Animal Form was based on socialism, not capitalism, so your point just go flipped on itself.


People ARE the work force and people ARE the consuments, people are those who have the individual rights and people possess private property. It all culminates in the people, its one and the same.

The "laws of a capitalist free market" dispatches this unit into the trade objects of this free market. And this is where a capitalist free market must be 'boxed' into rules and regulations, in order to protect the people, their rights, their private property and with that also the foundation of a moderate 'capitalist' market.

The government seldom does anything to protect people, only it's own interest. The market has manifested benefits and advancements for the people, not the government.

Ardito
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 11:31 PM
Paradigm, why do you post here? Are you trolling? Your ideology is exactly the opposite of cultural preservation. It is the surest and most efficient destroyer of culture.

You may protest and say that you, your friends, and your family choose to preserve Germanic culture, and that your argument is that others should be free not to, but this in itself is an anti-preservationist attitude. By saying that everyone should be simply able to choose, on a whim, not to subscribe to traditional culture, is to reduce culture to mere economic units, which is, again, exactly the opposite of the idea of cultural preservation. Thinking of everything in terms of economics is the poison which is destroying culture in the modern age.

Caledonian
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 01:23 AM
Okay alarichs theory:

Free market doesn't work. National Socialize everything.

Here's the thing: If John Q. Rockefeller owns a big private business and he isn't looking out for national interests how is John Q. Rockefeller who now runs the nationalized business going to serve the public interests any better?
Now if John Q. Rockefeller is the owner of private industry but doesn't care, how much more will he care when is president of the nation?

For the fault. No, it wasnt the state's fault. It was the fault of the people who give a shit about who leads them under what conditions into what abyss. That your country doesnt belong to you - the people - anymore, is the people's fault.

People. Nations are run by people. Businesses are run by people.

More or less I seek to divorce myself from the masses. I don't rely on the masses, on the giant nation or anything else to solve my problems. I need to rely on my own inward quality, my own accomplishment and ability to thrive in any environment.

The only thing nationalizing will do primarily is it will decrease competition and therefore make most industries less competitive. This will raise prices and decrease wages. That won't solve anybody's problem at all. But those who need "big brother" to protect them, save them, provide for them from cradle to grave will feel much better then because they will be living in a less competitive world.

This less competive world will create more and more incompetency. Over time we go back to the soviet union and its collapse, horribly low productivity levels etc.

If the banks have all the power, go buy a bank. Find out how to weasle into the Fed. Reserve. Get elected to office and weaken the influence of the Fed. All that is far more practical and productive than saying "we need to overthrow the country and bring back NS ideas".


Okay alarichs theory:

Free market doesn't work. National Socialize everything.

Indeed.


Here's the thing: If John Q. Rockefeller owns a big private business and he isn't looking out for national interests how is John Q. Rockefeller who now runs the nationalized business going to serve the public interests any better?

Well for starters John won't be allowed to pursue private profit against the collective interests of the nation where through a regulated planned socialized economy John would only be able to profit for himself with his business only by making sure it is in line with the interests of the national economy whereby any agitation within the national economy on his part would be met with fines and severe penalties.

Such measures would make sure that John serves the collective public interests of the nation in that he would be serving himself and his own security if he did where he wouldn't if he did otherwise.

A individual that risks the collective security of a nation risks the security of their own lives as far as I'm concerned whereby in order to meet the security of their own individual life as a business owner it becomes necessary for them to pursue the interests of the collective nation of which they reside in to which they can individually profit with and prosper accordingly.

I think it's about time that economics fits the description of that which fulfills collective social needs and not the self indulgence of any one individual or group of individuals.

Any individual(s) that selfishly serves themselves only is of no benefit to the collective community around them.

Likewise the means of a economy should not be entirely privatized either because the economy as a vehicle serves everybody not just a few individuals where it therefore should be made to be a public device of which everybody can benefit from in which a economy should symbolically be that which serves a national social purpose.




For the fault. No, it wasnt the state's fault. It was the fault of the people who give a shit about who leads them under what conditions into what abyss. That your country doesnt belong to you - the people - anymore, is the people's fault.

The people cannot always be the one to blame especially when they have bayonets pointed at them from which they cannot even mount a decent defense or offense.

It's those that direct, control, and dictate the people who should be hold accountable.

In many ways the actions and behaviors of the people has a direct parallel with the state's ability or lack of to lead them.

Such deficiencies cannot be entirely blamed on the people themselves.


More or less I seek to divorce myself from the masses. I don't rely on the masses, on the giant nation or anything else to solve my problems. I need to rely on my own inward quality, my own accomplishment and ability to thrive in any environment.


While it's true that individuals forge their own destinies to say that they do it completely alone is dishonest in that a individual by themselves is no stronger than those individuals who come together in coordinated unifying strength.

Individuals need other individuals where no individual lives completely isolated.

I'm not saying that the individual should become a slave to a collective but what I am saying is that individuals can do better to serve themselves by helping to serve others of which can only be a benefit to themselves in a shared prosperity that safe guards a sense of common collective community.

Obviously all individuals have a private life but such a private life is better suited when some of it is devoted to common communal activities to which strengthens private lives in relation to each other when it concerns the common public welfare of all private households.


The only thing nationalizing will do primarily is it will decrease competition and therefore make most industries less competitive. This will raise prices and decrease wages. That won't solve anybody's problem at all. But those who need "big brother" to protect them, save them, provide for them from cradle to grave will feel much better then because they will be living in a less competitive world.

Such is the defamation and ridicule of nationalized economies but the fact of the matter is that before the advent of capitalist free market economies historically nationalized territories of whole entire civilizations did pretty well competing against each other in a variety of means and by no way were they by some manner disabled of expansion in which onto the contrary such past examples of nationalized economies expanded quite well on their own by their independent exercised autonomy.


But those who need "big brother"

In my vision of leadership there is no big brother totalitarian state that forces the will of the people to become one with the will of the state's in that when I think of leadership I think of one that is forced to become one with the will of the people and not the other way around.

When I think of leaders I think of those that have a stake with the interests of the commonwealth and community of which interacts with the people on a daily basis simply put because they don't see themselves as being any different.


This less competive world will create more and more incompetency. Over time we go back to the soviet union and its collapse, horribly low productivity levels etc.

I don't see how you derive how a planned nationalized economy would become less competitive considering it would be equally competitive on many fronts.

Nations would still compete with each other in which citizens that make up any population of a nation would follow suit.


If the banks have all the power, go buy a bank. Find out how to weasle into the Fed. Reserve. Get elected to office and weaken the influence of the Fed. All that is far more practical and productive than saying "we need to overthrow the country and bring back NS ideas".
Sometimes things are too slow to reach where there is a need of force to speed up specific desired processes.

At any rate I still nonetheless believe that a nationalized form of socialized planned economy woud be the best vehicle to serve us of which nothing has shown me contrary.

thirsty
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 04:29 AM
From a point of view of sovereignty it is obvious who is correct...

Name me all the Presidents who have ever been assassinated because of their opposition to Karl Marx fifth plank economics??? (I could throw in the Czar, Hitler and Franz Ferdinand.... but I won't)

Four?

Nevermind the attempts (at least as many), the last one being Reagan who explicitly stated he wanted to take the US back to the Gold Standard.

Free market capitalism has been a lot more antogonistic to the power cabal than anything by far (other than a brief interlude of 3rd reich economic).


Look, plain and simple, if the germans are all they are cracked up to be as the second highest IQ tribe on the planet they would see free market economics to be an advantage, whether in win-win exchanges, or in more win-lose exploitive situations. Honour prefers the former.....

Paradigm
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 04:40 AM
Paradigm, why do you post here? Are you trolling? Your ideology is exactly the opposite of cultural preservation. It is the surest and most efficient destroyer of culture.

Why does anyone post here? I came here because of my interest in Asatru and the runes. I have a growing interest in ancient European history and culture. Whatever ideology I have is not against cultural preservation.


You may protest and say that you, your friends, and your family choose to preserve Germanic culture, and that your argument is that others should be free not to, but this in itself is an anti-preservationist attitude.

I honestly don't personally know anyone who's a cultural preservationist. I'm alone in that department, so it's another reason to be on this forum.


By saying that everyone should be simply able to choose, on a whim, not to subscribe to traditional culture, is to reduce culture to mere economic units, which is, again, exactly the opposite of the idea of cultural preservation. Thinking of everything in terms of economics is the poison which is destroying culture in the modern age.

Interesting that you make up these things. Not everyone cares about traditionalism, or their ancestry. This is no surprise, and you should realize those who do like the ones on this forum are a small group compared to the amount of Germanics there are in this country. People should be able to choose what they do with their life. Forcing culture on someone whether it's their own or not doesn't work. They have to accept it, not be forced into it.

I'm not reducing anything in economic terms, but the topic is about capitalism and nationalism. I'm putting forth the argument that economics is a value-free science, and trying to explain how economics works. I'm not trying to reduce a culture or tradition in economic terms. What you're talking about isn't even relevant to the topic at hand, which just so happens to be about economics.

Also, about cultural preservation. I see that you're a Christian, do you plan to push or put forth Christian ideas on Germanics compared to that of their ancestry? I certainly wouldn't accept Christianity nor would I put it on my children. I could put out that you believe in an eastern, universalist, multicultural religion that has roots outside of Germanics. Who's the real cultural preservationist?

Caledonian
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 11:25 AM
Sorry but free markets and capitalism is much old than the last hundred years, that is too easy to prove in even in ancient times.




Adam Smith only coined the term he did not invent it. Have you read The Wealth of Nations I have and no where does he lay claim to inventing anything only describing.

http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2009/04/adam-smith-and-capitalism.html

It is very simple and I explained the nature of capitalism in another thread where tried to say wage slavery exist and were proven wrong.

For every action there is reaction, I will used predator/prey population levels as a example of laws of supply and demand. When prey numbers are high so increases the level of predators and when prey levels decrease because of predators so do the predators levels. Cause and effect are the roots of capitalism it was not invented only termed. This also holds true in the plant kingdom as well, really it is quite natural.


No I'm not twisting anything only pointing out that the article you posted uses a leftist view on capitalism and that you can have capitalism and Nationalism, in fact you have to have capitalism as it occurs in nature.

Ever wonder why people create such article? As it is clearly created as it states no facts and it's sources are hard to trace.

I don't view capitalism as a ideology marx did that, so it would be real hard for me to use it as a propaganda tool. I have made other post on this subject before and I will say it again capitalism is not a political ideology it is a description of trade and laws of supply and demand.




You don't understand it because you view capitalism as a political ideology not as a fact of nature. Oppressive governments have trade same as non-oppressive governments. Even when free trade oppressed by a state black markets spring up. Nothing to complicated about that.

In the future please refraim from quoteing me out of context it only makes your points seem weaker.:|


Sorry but free markets and capitalism is much old than the last hundred years, that is too easy to prove in even in ancient times.

How much older do you think capitalism is as a economical system?

Curious.......


Adam Smith only coined the term he did not invent it.

It has been said that capitalism as a sort of economical model was embraced by various merchants at the end of the medieval period of Europe in a small scale before it ballooned to be embraced by whole entire nations.

Nonetheless Adam Smith was the only writer to go into great depth when it concerns capitalism in that prior to Adam Smith's writing everybody was using a mercantile form of economy which later was consequently replaced because of his influence.


Have you read The Wealth of Nations I have and no where does he lay claim to inventing anything only describing.

Yes I have read the book.


No I'm not twisting anything only pointing out that the article you posted uses a leftist view on capitalism and that you can have capitalism and Nationalism, in fact you have to have capitalism as it occurs in nature.

So you have a esoteric view of capitalism as being somthing that is not just a economical system but instead is also found in nature as well.

I would like to know how capitalism occurs in nature.

Do flocks of birds have a open free market exchange amongst themselves that I don't know about?


and that you can have capitalism and Nationalism,
How can one have international free market capitalism and still have a intacted form of nationalism?


I don't view capitalism as a ideology marx did that, so it would be real hard for me to use it as a propaganda tool. I have made other post on this subject before and I will say it again capitalism is not a political ideology it is a description of trade and laws of supply and demand.

And yet several people beyond Marx who weren't even communist or Marxist viewed capitalism as a ideology as well.

Since you like repeating this same old conjecture over and over again I think the burden of proof falls onto you to prove that capitalism is purely not some ideological framework.


laws of supply and demand.
There are various interpretations when one discusses trade centered around supply and demand.


You don't understand it because you view capitalism as a political ideology not as a fact of nature.

Well I would like to know more about this fact of nature you uphold.


Oppressive governments have trade same as non-oppressive governments. Even when free trade oppressed by a state black markets spring up. Nothing to complicated about that.

Explain more indepth please.


In the future please refraim from quoteing me out of context it only makes your points seem weaker.

I'll try to keep that in mind.

Caledonian
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 11:55 AM
A lot of good points here.

Capitalism is certainly old and natural but so is government regulation.

What is Alarich wanting here though? Essentially a non-competitive world where small business is protected from Wal-Mart? Where wages are kept high and people don't need to compete so much? This creates less efficiency it also goes against his other threads where he supports anarchy and now he's supporting a strong central government.

The problem is people should not look for the government to solve their problems. If you don't like wal-mart don't shop there. Shop at the local mom and pop store. you will pay higher prices, but that's what you want. It is a leftist idea to force your views on everyone else "make them all pay higher prices because I want the store protected".

We don't live in an unrestrained free market. There have always been tariffs and such. Anti-monopoly laws exist. Labor laws and so forth. Pure free market capitalism would be destructive to a nation, no serious or educated person doubts this.

I agree with the general view that modern Globalist Capitalism is harmful to nationalism but that's sort of apparent right from the name right? Let's not confuse 'Capitalism' as ONLY meaning the type of capitalism we have today in the U.S. or West Europe. No.

Obviously a nationalist state would have certain laws and structure that would be more beneficial to the quality of the community rather than to "profit". So I think that was a very good and insightful point. I have taken note of some of the arguments here they are very useful.

If we are looking at a National Socialist type state we must understand the big differance between a folkish socialist state and a modern "progressive" socialist state.

In the folkish state wages are kept high. But retards, criminals etc. are removed from the labor pool, sterilized and so on. In leftist socialism wages are kept high, welfare freely dolled out etc. except the increasingly stupid and criminal population is left unchecked and the parasites grow fat from the "socialism".

At any rate I think the solutions to our problems starts more on a grass roots level organizing rather than looking to the government. We should be able to form our own communities which weed out parasites and help each other out. One person could buy a business and pay the others a high wage etc. In that way he can show his community responsibility rather than looking to unrestrained greed. It all starts in the ideas of the people- the folk- not in governance. We need to see that there is more to the life and prosperity of a community than just sheckels and gold. The folk element is very important to national prosperity as well as the eternal ideal values and morals the people possess.


A lot of good points here.

Capitalism is certainly old and natural but so is government regulation.

Capitalism as a economical system and political ideology really isn't that old at all. As for being natural well that's just a interesting way of describing it in that I would like to know the context of the word natural in the way you are using it.


What is Alarich wanting here though?

A couple of things.

I want us to return to a national socialized planned form of economy with a socialized market system going back to a mercantile framework but a type of mercantilism that is completely modernized.


Essentially a non-competitive world where small business is protected from Wal-Mart? Where wages are kept high and people don't need to compete so much? This creates less efficiency it also goes against his other threads where he supports anarchy and now he's supporting a strong central government.

It's really a bit of a perpetuated myth and a form of slander that nationalized economies are less competitive.

I can think of many competitive nationalized economies of entire civilizations in the past that expanded greatly in a variety of ways by a variety of means.

Mercantilism is a form of nationalized economy that was used between the 16th and 18th centuries.

Are you trying to tell me that there was no competition and expansion during those centuries of history? Why is it that I would not believe you if you said as much?


it also goes against his other threads where he supports anarchy and now he's supporting a strong central government.

Actually the national economical structure would work in existence of anarchy as well amongst smaller communities besides being upholded by a vast statist centralized government.

[Such a national economical structure could work in both instances.]

I of course am a anarchist in that I don't believe any form of government should exist at all in that the people should be able to rule and coordinate themselves at a local level.

I do believe in leadership somthing of which I view to be entirely different than a vast centralized bureaucratic government.


The problem is people should not look for the government to solve their problems. If you don't like wal-mart don't shop there. Shop at the local mom and pop store. you will pay higher prices, but that's what you want.

A problem occurs when in free market capitalism entire corporate conglomerates come to influence and own those that work within government.

Then of course another problem of free market capitalism comes when the merchants themselves become more powerful than government as seen somthing on the lines like wallstreet having more power and influence than the government of Washington DC for example.


It is a leftist idea to force your views on everyone else "make them all pay higher prices because I want the store protected".

It's a international free market capitalist concept where foreign companies can come into your nation and essentially buy or force out all local forms of both business and industry.


We don't live in an unrestrained free market. There have always been tariffs and such. Anti-monopoly laws exist. Labor laws and so forth. Pure free market capitalism would be destructive to a nation, no serious or educated person doubts this.
Which only illustrates it's toxicity.

We don't live in a unrestrained free market but such a free market is unnregulated enough to the point of still being damaging with it's international focuses and by it's means of upholding cheap labor at all costs.

We see this with the outsourcing of jobs into foreign nations.

We see this with the flood gates of international foreign immigration into our lands which then serves as a mechansim for companies to hire a cheap laboring workforce all the while it displaces national citizens.

We also see this in decreased wages of the working class because companies refuse to have to pay any more than what they have to as a way of harboring most of the profit for themselves.


I agree with the general view that modern Globalist Capitalism is harmful to nationalism but that's sort of apparent right from the name right? Let's not confuse 'Capitalism' as ONLY meaning the type of capitalism we have today in the U.S. or West Europe. No.
What do you mean by saying this?


Obviously a nationalist state would have certain laws and structure that would be more beneficial to the quality of the community rather than to "profit". So I think that was a very good and insightful point. I have taken note of some of the arguments here they are very useful.

Nods.


If we are looking at a National Socialist type state we must understand the big differance between a folkish socialist state and a modern "progressive" socialist state.

In the folkish state wages are kept high. But retards, criminals etc. are removed from the labor pool, sterilized and so on. In leftist socialism wages are kept high, welfare freely dolled out etc. except the increasingly stupid and criminal population is left unchecked and the parasites grow fat from the "socialism".

There are a number of flaws with any economical system in that nothing can ever be perfect but I do think if you reformed specific institutions you would not see the level of wasted expenditures that we see today.


At any rate I think the solutions to our problems starts more on a grass roots level organizing rather than looking to the government. We should be able to form our own communities which weed out parasites and help each other out. One person could buy a business and pay the others a high wage etc. In that way he can show his community responsibility rather than looking to unrestrained greed. It all starts in the ideas of the people- the folk- not in governance. We need to see that there is more to the life and prosperity of a community than just sheckels and gold. The folk element is very important to national prosperity as well as the eternal ideal values and morals the people possess.

Agreed.

velvet
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 12:11 PM
Paradigm:


You deliberately ignore that a precondition to my position is to replace the current government including the criminal system they put up, and then to implement another government with other people who's concern is their own folk, who follow a nationalist ideology and so on.

Your entire rant is completely worthless, because I did state it, though you removed the paragraph from your reply. When you ignore this initial position/opinion, there is not much point to discuss any further about possible alternatives to this.


And its always nice to meet people who claim to know everything, but understand only little. You are one of them, because your dog-eat-dog system is obviously the one you want and love.

Not all Americans obviously agree with that, and certainly Europeans do not agree with that, because we dont like being exploited and cheated all the time, just because someone granted us the right to do the same to others. When it's the American way, fine, your problem, but keep us Europeans out of your shit.

Which is basically the entire problem. As long as the US government is owned by profit oriented banksters, we will not be able to opt out of this system, because if we would try America would bomb us into the ground once more. But I distract.


Your "private ownership" is an illusion. Make one bad move and you'll be stripped off everything you ever 'owned' (ie had an exclusive use right to). It is really not more, you're granted this exclusive use right in order to keep up the illusion that it would be possible for you to "own" anything in order to make you participate further in the system whose only goal is to transfer all property to the banks. You work half your life for them anyway, because you take loans, mortgages whatever and pay them four times the worth of whatever you used the money for. One time failure to deliver the money to your slave master in time and the illusion of "property rights" bursts like a soap bubble. Someone slips on your ground and breaks his leg or whatever and the illusion of property rights bursts. And even if you never failed, never anything happened, someone wants your ground and house and they take it, because they can and they dont even need a court.

There is really no big difference between capitalism and communism. In communism you know that you dont own anything, in capitalism you are made to pay four times the worth for the illusion and still dont own anything. And most of all, both systems are despotic and totalitarian, and both systems are a mean to the very same end.

Makes no sense to me, and even less in the light of wanting to preserve my people into the future, a future that is worth to live. I have no interest to screw over my fellow folk and then whine about that there is no more community sense. I have no interest in letting people live in an illusion at whose end their extinction waits. We are masters of economy, and my interest is to make economy serve the common good. Because real freedom really only exists in a homogenous society which has a common good and higher goals. When that means to limit the greed of some, so be it.

And, I ask you, what would be wrong about it when profits are directed back to the people who produced these profits in the first place and not end up in the vaults of people who already have robbed the people off of billions and want ever more more more? Explain what would be wrong about it when these profits instead serve the people, the nation and the common good?

SpearBrave
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 12:27 PM
How much older do you think capitalism is as a economical system?

Curious.......


As old as nature itself. As basic capital in the capitalism is just a exchange medium. A example of in is very easy and I think I already provided you with one in another thread. Since you are so stuck on the idea of what capitalism is not I will humor you. I will try and keep it simple so even a budding elitist can keep up.

In nature there are things called plants. They are simple organisms requiring light,water, air and nutrients to exist. Some of these plants are more aggressive than other plants. Now the the more aggressive plants require more water and nutrients( capital ) than the lesser aggressive plants. When more aggressive plants moves into a new area they push out the lesser aggressive plants. After a period of time these aggressive plants deplete the water and nutrients( capital ) in a area and recede back. When these plants recede back the lesser aggressive plants have a chance to reestablish and flourish. The laws of supply and demand are over the water, nutrients and space required. Hence they are the capital in this case. That is no different than basic trading of goods and services. It is a reaction for a action.



It has been said that capitalism as a sort of economical model was embraced by various merchants at the end of the medieval period of Europe in a small scale before it ballooned to be embraced by whole entire nations.

Nonetheless Adam Smith was the only writer to go into great depth when it concerns capitalism in that prior to Adam Smith's writing everybody was using a mercantile form of economy which later was consequently replaced because of his influence.


So there was no trade or barter or exchange mediums prior to the end of the medieval period in Europe? How odd I thought even the most primitive man had traded goods and even knowledge. ;)



So you have a esoteric view of capitalism as being somthing that is not just a economical system but instead is also found in nature as well.

I would like to know how capitalism occurs in nature.

Do flocks of birds have a open free market exchange amongst themselves that I don't know about?


I don't see why you have to ask the same question twice, but anyway I explained it above.

You can bet that wild flocks of birds cause actions and react to other actions in their environment.


How can one have international free market capitalism and still have a intacted form of nationalism?


Capitalism is going to exist no matter if you have nationalism or not. Plain and simple. Political Ideologies have little bearing on it. Even in the most ruthless dictatorial system capitalism exist. Goods are always being exchanged in one form or another.


And yet several people beyond Marx who weren't even communist or Marxist viewed capitalism as a ideology as well.

Since you like repeating this same old conjecture over and over again I think the burden of proof falls onto you to prove that capitalism is purely not some ideological framework.


Marx was the first to misuse the term all that followed him also used the term incorrectly. If someone does something wrong for over a hundred years does it make it right? Of course it does not.

Well you are the one that challenged what capitalism is you are the one that has to provide the proof. Oh are we having trouble with, I wonder why?



There are various interpretations when one discusses trade centered around supply and demand.


Well there are correct terms and incorrect terms, as I stated before most people who blame capitalism use the term in a incorrect manner. They are shifting the blame as to try and make their points valid. That is where marx comes in he wanted to blame something to try and impose his own ideas and the things that went with them.


Well I would like to know more about this fact of nature you uphold.


It is real easy just open your door and observe what goes on in the world around you and then. It is really simple and uses common sense. Not every has a twisted or hidden meaning most things in life are really just plain and simple.



Explain more indepth please.


Well, when a government is over restrictive and people still want or need goods and services black markets develop for these good and services. The old USSR was a prime example of this on many items, including even toilet paper.

I hope this is all I can explain to you for now, as I am busy practicing basic capitalism and trying to make a supply meet a demand- working ;)

Caledonian
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 12:38 PM
Do I have to send half the people here a copy of Economics in One Lesson?

Capitalism: A Discussion Piece (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=135517)

Economics is a science. It's the science and study of human action. Human's have been interacting and trading before the usage of "capitalism". Even in the most primitive societies/tribes economics had it's place. Division of labor, trade, property, and saving. The foundations for capitalism haven't changed from even the most basic concepts societies use to grow and function. From the most primitive to the most advanced civilizations the same laws of economics apply to both.

Capitalism is not an ideology, it's the preferred position of economics. For those who know economics, they acknowledge that capitalism is the most productive, as it's in it's natural free state, compared to restrictions based upon outside intervention. Whatever political philosophy you have, that doesn't change the fact of two people trading goods using a medium of exchange will take place somewhere in the world.

People want to go on and on about nationalism or socialism and say capitalism is in the wrong. Well, can someone explain capitalism in only economic terms? Most of the opponents here have not. They probably couldn't explain the things they support. How would the economics of individuals differ in a country with a free-market compared to one of that of a nationalist? Are the markets even different? Does the nationalist country and/or government restrict trade in some areas?

This topic becomes tiresome and goes in circles, mainly since the counter-arguments are weird and bizarre.


Economics is a science.
Alright.


It's the science and study of human action.

Sure.


Human's have been interacting and trading before the usage of "capitalism".

Yes they have.



Even in the most primitive societies/tribes economics had it's place. Division of labor, trade, property, and saving.

Of course not all primitive societies worked in the same manner.


The foundations for capitalism haven't changed from even the most basic concepts societies use to grow and function.

They have changed quite a bit actually.

When mercantilism existed it was of the view that the prosperity of nation depended upon it's supply of capital and that the global volume of trade to be interchangeable.

With capitalism as a economic system the means of production are all or mostly privately owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy of which both the nation state and government are essentially cut out of influence where there is only the means of the market economy itself that is loyal to nobody.

[That's essentially the fundamental flaw of free market capitalism in that there is a lack of loyalties.]



Capitalism is not an ideology, it's the preferred position of economics.

Preferred positioning within economics is ideologically guided.


For those who know economics, they acknowledge that capitalism is the most productive, as it's in it's natural free state, compared to restrictions based upon outside intervention. Whatever political philosophy you have, that doesn't change the fact of two people trading goods using a medium of exchange will take place somewhere in the world.

The most productive on what exactly? Profit?

Well when you have a entire economical system that is only loyal to profit I would imagine it would be very profitable to the few that are able to benefit from it's exchanges however when you only have a loyalty to profit alot of other things in comparison suffer that cannot solely depend on profit alone that needs people to transcend their greed namely like that of national identity.

Still I don't believe capitalism is the most productive system considering before the advent of capitalism as a economical system nations profited all the same and still kept their nationalism intacted.


Whatever political philosophy you have, that doesn't change the fact of two people trading goods using a medium of exchange will take place somewhere in the world.

Yes well such mediums of exchanges can be done in a variety of ways of which don't have to specifically be done with a capitalist variation.


People want to go on and on about nationalism or socialism and say capitalism is in the wrong. Well, can someone explain capitalism in only economic terms? Most of the opponents here have not. They probably couldn't explain the things they support. How would the economics of individuals differ in a country with a free-market compared to one of that of a nationalist? Are the markets even different? Does the nationalist country and/or government restrict trade in some areas?


That all imports of foreign goods be discouraged as much as possible.

That where certain imports are indispensable they be obtained at first hand, in exchange for other domestic goods instead of gold and silver.

That as much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that can be finished [in the home country].

That opportunities be constantly sought for selling a country's surplus manufactures to foreigners, so far as necessary, for gold and silver.

That no importation be allowed if such goods are sufficiently and suitably supplied at home.


Neomercantilism is a term used to describe a policy regime which encourages exports, discourages imports, controls capital movement and centralizes currency decisions in the hands of a central government. The objective of neo-mercantilist policies is to increase the level of foreign reserves held by the government, allowing more effective monetary policy and fiscal policy.


These are generally protectionist measures in the form of high tariffs and other import restrictions to protect domestic industries combined with government intervention to promote industrial growth, especially manufacturing. At its simplest level, it proposes that economic independence and self-sufficiency are legitimate objectives for a nation to pursue, and systems of protection are justified to allow the nation to develop its industrial and commercial infrastructure to the point where it can compete on equal terms in international trade. In macro-economic terms, it emphasizes a fixed currency and autonomy over monetary policy over capital mobility.


Neomercantilism is founded on the use of control of capital movement and discouraging of domestic consumption as a means of increasing foreign reserves and promoting capital development. This involves protectionism on a host of levels: both protection of domestic producers, discouraging of consumer imports, structural barriers to prevent entry of foreign companies into domestic markets, manipulation of the currency value against foreign currencies and limitations on foreign ownership of domestic corporations. While all nations engage in these activities to one degree or another, neo-mercantilism makes them the focus of economic policy. The purpose is to develop export markets to developed countries, and selectively acquire strategic capital, while keeping ownership of the asset base in domestic hands.

This use of protectionism is criticized on grounds that go back to Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, which was aimed directly at classical mercantilist policies, and whose arguments are applied to neo-mercantilism. Namely that protectionism is effective as a means of fostering economic independence and national stability; and questioning the conclusion that it allows for sustainable development of the nation's industrial base in the most efficient manner. Instead market economics has for over two centuries argued that increasing competition within the nation which will more effectively promote capital development and efficient allocation of resources. "Free traders" argue that by closing an economy, resources will be spent duplicating products that could more effectively be bought from abroad, and that there will be less development of exports which offer a comparative advantage. Market economists also argue that protection denies a nation's own consumers the opportunity to buy at cheaper market prices when quotas or tariffs are imposed on imports.

The subsidy of goods has also been advocated under neomercantilism. The fair trade movement claims that the protection of stability in emerging economies by guaranteeing a minimum purchase of goods at prices above those available in the current world markets, can contribute to restoring economic and social balance as well as promote social justice. Proponents of the fair trade movement argue that this may help to avoid the instability generated by the influence of global corporations on developed and developing nations.

Neomercantilists claim that "Free Trade" results in a negative philosophy that a nation that is not competitive deserves to decline and perish, just like an under-performing corporation should. They argue that "free trade" does not work well whenever dumping is practiced or the international rules do not take into account the differences between wages, costs environmental regulations, and benets from nation to nation. For instance, there is a major difference in the cost of labour between a "First World" and "Third World" country for two equally skilled (or unskilled) sets of workers. When this economic reality is exploited by "First World" manufacturers, the benefits accrue to "First World" shareholders and consumers (and slightly improved work condition of exploited Third World workers) at the expense of privileged "First World" workers and their status in the "Middle Class".

An unquestioningly open policy in such circumstances may effectively devalue "first world" human capital investments in favor of financial capital investments. Consider for example, a person deciding whether to invest in training as an engineer or in a portfolio of financial assets. Offshoring dramatically increases the effective supply of engineers, and as a result, their price will tend to decline (or grow at a slower rate). This decline will be increased by the lower cost of living in non-first world countries that would allow an engineer there to live much better on a lower nominal salary than their first world counterpart. (see purchasing power parity). This obviously is resulting in a huge immigration of skilled professionals from first-world countries to the third world, seeking a better quality of life.

Faced with such prospects, rational economic agents will tend to avoid investing in human capital in areas that are vulnerable to such government-induced devaluation. Instead, they will shift training toward areas that are protected by regulation (for example : careers in law , medicine, government) or social tradition (tenured academia), or socio-cultural factors (sales) or local physical requirements (nursing, medicine, construction). Alternatively, rational economic agents in "first world" economies may choose to invest in financial assets instead of human capital — further eroding the long term ability of the "first world" country to produce and grow. As predicted by Adam Smith, this effect would reduce the inequality between First World and Third World countries, increasing overall fairness.

Additionally, since cost of goods sold tends to be a larger component of total revenue than profits for most industries, production within a country may keep a larger portion of the total wealth within the local economy in comparison to dividends of profits and reduced prices on consumer goods. Furthermore, infrastructure investments may be reduced when production is shifted offshore. Over the longer term, such reduced local investments may reduce longer term productivity and economic growth. Neomercantilist economies on the other hand are often characterized by higher long term growth rates (that tend to flatten when neomercantilist policies are halted). This claim unfortunately is not verified among developed nations, where Australia is both the main proponent of international free trade and among the first world countries, the one with the higher sustained growth during the last fifteen years. Also, as of February 2009, Australia is also the only developed country who is not officially in recession.

The language of neomercantilist policies repeats the claims of earlier centuries that protective measures benefit the nation as a whole and that governmental intervention secures the "wealth of the nation" for future generations. In doing so, neomercantilist admit that the interests of large corporations might as often be represented and protected as pushed aside for the national interest.

As a neomercantilist nation's industrial production capacity and improving research and development grow as a threat to the hegemon's (who usually unilaterally practices free-trade as Britain in the 19th century and the USA in the late 20th century) domestic markets, so protectionism is the usual response, initially through political and, when necessary, military means (see World War I).

[edit] Examples of neomercantilism
[edit] United States and Germany in 19th Century
By 1880 the United States passed the British Empire in economic strength — ahead of Germany, second in strength, due to Bismarck’s adherence to similar neomercantilist policies.

After 1900, Britain was unable to remain an effective hegemon, having followed its "free trade" philosophy since the 1840s, but the United States was still pursuing policies of its American School rooted in Hamilton's three reports, that it had embraced in the 1860s under Abraham Lincoln. Germany followed Otto von Bismarck’s policies based on Friedrich List’s "National System," and American economic practices — allowing both powers to continue their dominance in world economics and power. Germany chose to use its strength to pursue a 'balance of power' with the British Empire leading indirectly to World War I, whereas the United States refrained from European power struggles through its foreign policy of 'isolationism' or non-interventionism in foreign conflicts.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomercantilism



Protectionism is THE economic policy of restraining trade between states, through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign take-over of domestic markets and companies.

This policy contrasts with free trade, where government barriers to trade and movement of capital are kept to a minimum. In recent years, it has become closely aligned with anti-globalization. The term is mostly used in the context of economics, where protectionism refers to policies or doctrines which protect businesses and workers within a country by restricting or regulating trade with foreign nations.


A variety of policies have been claimed to achieve protectionist goals. These include:

Tariffs: Typically, tariffs (or taxes) are imposed on imported goods. Tariff rates usually vary according to the type of goods imported. Import tariffs will increase the cost to importers, and increase the price of imported goods in the local markets, thus lowering the quantity of goods imported. Tariffs may also be imposed on exports, and in an economy with floating exchange rates, export tariffs have similar effects as import tariffs. However, since export tariffs are often perceived as 'hurting' local industries, while import tariffs are perceived as 'helping' local industries, export tariffs are seldom implemented.
Import quotas: To reduce the quantity and therefore increase the market price of imported goods. The economic effects of an import quota is similar to that of a tariff, except that the tax revenue gain from a tariff will instead be distributed to those who receive import licenses. Economists often suggest that import licenses be auctioned to the highest bidder, or that import quotas be replaced by an equivalent tariff.
Administrative barriers: Countries are sometimes accused of using their various administrative rules (eg. regarding food safety, environmental standards, electrical safety, etc.) as a way to introduce barriers to imports.
Anti-dumping legislation Supporters of anti-dumping laws argue that they prevent "dumping" of cheaper foreign goods that would cause local firms to close down. However, in practice, anti-dumping laws are usually used to impose trade tariffs on foreign exporters.
Direct subsidies: Government subsidies (in the form of lump-sum payments or cheap loans) are sometimes given to local firms that cannot compete well against foreign imports. These subsidies are purported to "protect" local jobs, and to help local firms adjust to the world markets.
Export subsidies: Export subsidies are often used by governments to increase exports. Export subsidies are the opposite of export tariffs, exporters are paid a percentage of the value of their exports. Export subsidies increase the amount of trade, and in a country with floating exchange rates, have effects similar to import subsidies.
Exchange rate manipulation: A government may intervene in the foreign exchange market to lower the value of its currency by selling its currency in the foreign exchange market. Doing so will raise the cost of imports and lower the cost of exports, leading to an improvement in its trade balance. However, such a policy is only effective in the short run, as it will most likely lead to inflation in the country, which will in turn raise the cost of exports, and reduce the relative price of imports.
International patent systems: There is an argument for viewing national patent systems as a cloak for protectionist trade policies at a national level. Two strands of this argument exist: one when patents held by one country form part of a system of exploitable relative advantage in trade negotiations against another, and a second where adhering to a worldwide system of patents confers "good citizenship" status despite 'de facto protectionism'. Peter Drahos explains that "States realized that patent systems could be used to cloak protectionist strategies. There were also reputational advantages for states to be seen to be sticking to intellectual property systems. One could attend the various revisions of the Paris and Berne conventions, participate in the cosmopolitan moral dialogue about the need to protect the fruits of authorial labor and inventive genius...knowing all the while that one's domestic intellectual property system was a handy protectionist weapon." [7]


Protectionists believe that there is a legitimate need for government restrictions on free trade in order to protect their country’s economy and its people’s standard of living.

[edit] The "Comparative Advantage" argument has lost its legitimacy
The Comparative Advantage argument is used by most economists as a basis for their support of free trade policies. Opponents of these policies argue that the Comparative Advantage argument has lost its legitimacy in a globally integrated world—in which capital is free to move internationally. Herman Daly, a leading voice in the discipline of ecological economics, emphasizes that although Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage is one of the most elegant theories in economics, its application to the present day is illogical: "Free capital mobility totally undercuts Ricardo's comparative advantage argument for free trade in goods, because that argument is explicitly and essentially premised on capital (and other factors) being immobile between nations. Under the new global economy, capital tends simply to flow to wherever costs are lowest—that is, to pursue absolute advantage." [10]

Protectionists would point to the building of plants and shifting of production to Mexico by American companies such as GE, GM, and even Hershey Chocolate as proof of this argument.

The Comparative Advantage argument is also premised on full employment. According to the Wikipedia entry on Comparative Advantage, “if one or other of the economies has less than full employment of factors of production, then this excess capacity must usually be used up before the comparative advantage reasoning can be applied”. Protectionists believe that it is therefore erroneous to base trade policy on the principle of Comparative Advantage in those countries that suffer from significant unemployment or underemployment.

[edit] Domestic tax policies can favor foreign goods
Protectionists believe that allowing foreign goods to enter domestic markets without being subject to tariffs or other forms of taxation, leads to a situation where domestic goods are at a disadvantage, a kind of reverse protectionism. By ruling out revenue tariffs on foreign products, governments must rely solely on domestic taxation to provide its revenue, which falls disproportionately on domestic manufacturing. As Paul Craig Roberts notes: "[Foreign discrimination of US products] is reinforced by the US tax system, which imposes no appreciable tax burden on foreign goods and services sold in the US but imposes a heavy tax burden on US producers of goods and services regardless of whether they are sold within the US or exported to other countries."[11]

Protectionists argue that this reverse protectionism is most clearly seen and most detrimental to those countries (such as the US) that do not participate in the Value Added Tax (VAT) system. This is a system which generates revenues from taxation on the sale of goods and services, whether foreign or domestic. Protectionists argue that a country that does not participate is at a distinct disadvantage when trading with a country that does. That the final selling price of a product from a non-participating country sold in a country with a VAT tax must bear not only the tax burden of the country of origin, but also a portion of the tax burden of the country where it is being sold. Conversely, the selling price of a product made in a participating country and sold in a country that does not participate, bears no part of the tax burden of the country in which it is sold (as do the domestic products it is competing with). Moreover, the participating country rebates VAT taxes collected in the manufacture of a product if that product is sold in a non-participating country. This allows exporters of goods from participating countries to reduce the price of products sold in non-participating countries.

Protectionists believe that governments should address this inequity, if not by adopting a VAT tax, then by at least imposing compensating taxes (tariffs) on imports.

[edit] Infant industry argument
Main article: Infant industry argument
Protectionists believe that infant industries must be protected in order to allow them to grow to a point where they can fairly compete with the larger mature industries established in foreign countries. They believe that without this protection, infant industries will die before they reach a size and age where economies of scale, industrial infrastructure, and skill in manufacturing have progressed sufficiently allow the industry to compete in the global market.[citation needed]

[edit] Unrestricted trade undercuts domestic policies for social good
Most industrialized governments have long held that laissez-faire capitalism creates social evils that harm its citizens. To protect those citizens, these governments have enacted laws that restrict what companies can and can not do in pursuit of profit. Examples are laws regarding:

child labor
environmental protection
competition (antitrust)
occupational safety and health
equal opportunity
collective bargaining
minimum wage
intellectual property
Protectionists argue that these laws place an economic burden on domestic companies bound by them that put those companies at a disadvantage when they compete, both domestically and abroad, with goods and services produced by companies unfettered by such restrictions. They argue that governments have a responsibility to protect their corporations as well as their citizens when putting its companies at a competitive disadvantage by enacting laws for social good. Otherwise, they believe that these laws end up destroying domestic companies and ultimately hurting the citizens these laws were designed to protect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism

velvet
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 01:46 PM
The laws of supply and demand are over the water, nutrients and space required. Hence they are the capital in this case. That is no different than basic trading of goods and services. It is a reaction for a action.

Where are the debts? The interests charged for loaning? The mortgages? The taxes? The profits?

Caledonian
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 01:48 PM
Where are the debts? The interests charged for loaning? The mortgages? The taxes? The profits?

But wait, I thought capitalism was to be found all amongst nature. :D

SpearBrave
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 02:55 PM
Where are the debts? The interests charged for loaning? The mortgages? The taxes? The profits?

Those things again are not capitalism, I and others have already explained that. That is usery-loans, mortages, and taxes - governmant created- and Profits are just a suplus in my explantion the surplus in the case with plants could be the production of fruit/seed and foliage. ;)

Really it is that simple if you break it down. Ever think there is reason why some people try and over complicate things? Or the reason why some people or groups try to change the simple meaning of things? The reason is they want to further their own agendas. In the case of this thread and the artical that started it you have to question why someone would write it in the first place.

thirsty
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 03:24 PM
Where are the debts? The interests charged for loaning? The mortgages? The taxes? The profits?

All forms of debt/credit sit on the opposite side of the balance sheet from capital. To confuse it as capital is disingenuous and/or amateurish.

I will make several points, whether anybody wishes to debate them is up to you:

1) No other economic ideology has pulled more people out of poverty than free-market capitalism.... just in the last decade.

2) There are about a half dozen countries on the planet that can go mecantilist/protectionist and not starve to death in a month. See North Korea.

3) More world leaders have been assasinated over the war against specie backed money than all the other wars have managed to accomplish in the last two centuries. When 'capital' was a tangible entity people and their countries had sovereignty. Now we accept central bank debt backed paper money for goods produced and services rendered. Just think about how ridiculous that is for a moment, we accept somebody elses debt for labour rendered, debt which actually ends up on the opposite side of the balance sheet from all the items in life we want and need-true capital. There is a legal argument here, abstract, yet simple, the difference between allodial money (freedom) and feudal scrip (slavery) is very much an accounting slight of hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(Biblical)


From a legal point of view, the Jubilee law effectively banned sale of land as fee simple, and instead land could only be leased for no more than 50 years. The biblical regulations go on to specify that the price of land had to be proportional to how many years remained before the Jubilee, with land being cheaper the closer it is to the Jubilee.[10]

http://www.amazon.com/Gold-Wars-Battle-Against-Perspective/dp/0971038007

velvet
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 03:58 PM
Those things again are not capitalism

So, what are they then when they are not part of capitalism?

Why do they exist in the first place when they are not part of capitalism but we have a "capitalist free market system" in place?

You said, btw, capitalism (including interests, mortgages and profits) exists in nature. Your explanation though is that you simply ignore things that exist in capitalism, but doesnt fit well with your explanation. That's not an explanation at all, but the usual distortion of the topic at hand: the failures of capitalism.


Really it is that simple if you break it down. Ever think there is reason why some people try and over complicate things? Or the reason why some people or groups try to change the simple meaning of things?

The only one doing this is you and paradigm. Capitalism is a system, that you want to break down to simple laws of demand and supply, completely ignoring that capitalism comes with some more things.

Taxes, mortgages, interests, profits, indebting, etc are all parts of Capitalism. You dont like them and I agree, but they are still part of capitalism. :shrug


The reason is they want to further their own agendas. In the case of this thread and the artical that started it you have to question why someone would write it in the first place.

Capitalism has an agenda too: to transfer all property into the hands of few and make the rest pay for the costs of doing so.

The intention of such articles is to open eyes. A ruleless "free market" removes borders and nations by design. For me there is nothing new in this article.

And I ask you too: what would be wrong about it when the profits, that the people generated in the first place, would serve them, the common good, the nation, the national idendity and economy and with that the people/society as a whole, instead of the greed of few? What would be wrong about it to make property rights real instead of holding up an illusion thereof?

And maybe another interesting question is, what is your agenda when you defend the greed of those few who give a shit about your rights?

SpearBrave
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 05:04 PM
So, what are they then when they are not part of capitalism?

Why do they exist in the first place when they are not part of capitalism but we have a "capitalist free market system" in place?

You said, btw, capitalism (including interests, mortgages and profits) exists in nature. Your explanation though is that you simply ignore things that exist in capitalism, but doesnt fit well with your explanation. That's not an explanation at all, but the usual distortion of the topic at hand: the failures of capitalism.



I never said profit does not exist, profit is just surplus. The other things you mention are things created by man. There are not part of basic capitalism. Those things exist where governments create them.


Why do they exist in the first place when they are not part of capitalism but we have a "capitalist free market system" in place?


You are confusing what capitalism with usery ( money lending ). Taxation in the sense you mention it is a fee created by governments, a toll so to speak for being part of a society.


You said, btw, capitalism (including interests, mortgages and profits) exists in nature. Your explanation though is that you simply ignore things that exist in capitalism, but doesnt fit well with your explanation. That's not an explanation at all, but the usual distortion of the topic at hand: the failures of capitalism.


First off intrest and mortages are not parts of capitalism other than a service that is provide as a good. They do not define capitalism what capitalism no more than if someone makes a car and sells it. Profit is just a surplus of exchange medium.


The only one doing this is you and paradigm. Capitalism is a system, that you want to break down to simple laws of demand and supply, completely ignoring that capitalism comes with some more things.


Well there is thirsty,genius as well that agree. I want to brake Capitalism down to it's root core, and at that core it is not a bad thing. The things you mention come with government and market control.


Taxes, mortgages, interests, profits, indebting, etc are all parts of Capitalism. You dont like them and I agree, but they are still part of capitalism. :shrug


All of these things except profit( nand profit occures in nature as well ) are not part or products of capitalism. You have those same things even in a controlled market.



Capitalism has an agenda too: to transfer all property into the hands of few and make the rest pay for the costs of doing so.

Capitalism has no agenda it is just a series of actions and reactions.


The intention of such articles is to open eyes. A ruleless "free market" removes borders and nations by design. For me there is nothing new in this article.

And I ask you too: what would be wrong about it when the profits, that the people generated in the first place, would serve them, the common good, the nation, the national idendity and economy and with that the people/society as a whole, instead of the greed of few? What would be wrong about it to make property rights real instead of holding up an illusion thereof?

And maybe another interesting question is, what is your agenda when you defend the greed of those few who give a shit about your rights?

Is the intention to open peoples eyes or is it to distract or make them lose hope? Only the writer knows what his intent is in this case.

There is nothing wrong if a nation/people/folk use those things to make them strong. Ownership of property going to few is where people interacted and controled free markets to their advantage using government and greed.

My agenda is that Germanic people view things in realistic manner, not by unrealistic version of something that the left twisted. Basically I believe in the indvididual Germanic person and their ability to succeed if they are given the oportunity to do so without a restrictive government controlling every aspect of their lives.

Caledonian
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 05:10 PM
What's interesting is that these guys here are trying to say that the ills of international free market capitalism that we have now is due to the regulation of capitalism which gots to make one think just how bad things would get even further with a more unnregulated version of it. ;)


[It would just be better to scrape it altogether in my book.]

SpearBrave
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 05:27 PM
^True free market in trade and capitalism is self regulating( supply and demand). As I stated you must first use the correct term what capitalism is, not the marxist verison of what capitalism is. Then you understand that no matter what you are going to have capitalism, unless you have something like a total dictorship. I don't know about you but I don't have any intention of living under a total dictorship. Nor do I think any other Germanic should either.

So since we will always have capitalism and have always had it. The artical that started this is very false stating that capitalism and Nationalism can not co-exist. That is why I question the intent of it.

Caledonian
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 05:40 PM
^True free market in trade and capitalism is self regulating( supply and demand). As I stated you must first use the correct term what capitalism is, not the marxist verison of what capitalism is. Then you understand that no matter what you are going to have capitalism, unless you have something like a total dictorship. I don't know about you but I don't have any intention of living under a total dictorship. Nor do I think any other Germanic should either.

So since we will always have capitalism and have always had it. The artical that started this is very false stating that capitalism and Nationalism can not co-exist. That is why I question the intent of it.

I've given you the official definition of capitalism many times here where you are insistent to keep ignoring it of which you keep making posts to which there is this sort of mystic esoteric universal quality or natural state of being when it concerns capitalism that you rather vaguely not to mention very cryptically refuse to elaborate upon beyond a few unsupportive sentences.


As I stated you must first use the correct term what capitalism is, not the marxist verison of what capitalism is.

Again not all critics of capitalism are Marxists or communists.

[Although I'm sure in your mind that anybody that criticizes capitalism must be a Marxist or communist somehow.]

Where do you get your information from? Glenn Beck? Sean Hannity?

Fox neo conservative capitalism loving media news?

Yeah I wouldn't look towards neo conservatist republicanism in America for political accuracy when it concerns the country or the world around it considering that political party in our nation is always in bed with big corporate industry that gives them generous donations for their public representation and mainstreaming of them.

Always look to a republican to tell you how good international globalization is with the selling of our country to foreign outsiders by a sort of cultic zeal in decreeing how capitalism is good for everyone and that it should be embraced globally by everybody else. Never ceases to fail.

Than if there is a foreign country that rejects international free market capitalism amongst themselves all of a sudden let it be a republican to tell you how tyrannical they must be as some sort of dictatorship without even knowing anything about the country or having gone there themselves to see.

Do you want to know why the United States of your youth doesn't exist anymore? It's called international free market capitalism aspiring to globalization.

You along with a great deal of the public citizenry have been lied to.


Then you understand that no matter what you are going to have capitalism, unless you have something like a total dictorship.
Capitalism hasn't been around that long.

How old do you think capitalism as a economical system is?


I don't know about you but I don't have any intention of living under a total dictorship. Nor do I think any other Germanic should either.

We already live under one whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.


So since we will always have capitalism and have always had it.
Incorrect. Capitalism hasn't always existed and Germanics let alone Europeans weren't always under a capitalistic economy either.


The artical that started this is very false stating that capitalism and Nationalism can not co-exist. That is why I question the intent of it.

Prove to me otherwise that it can. Atleast stand by your convictions and defend them when confronted by opposition.

From my perspective international free market capitalism is incompatible with nationalism.

Now since you believe that they are indeed compatible tell me how both systems can be together. I'll await your reply.

Keep in mind that nationalism requires a nationalized economy somthing of which international free market capitalism isn't keen on doing but instead is largely against.

SpearBrave
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 06:25 PM
I've given you the official definition of capitalism many times here where you are insistent to keep ignoring it of which you keep making posts to which there is this sort of mystic esoteric universal quality or natural state of being when it concerns capitalism that you rather vaguely not to mention very cryptically refuse to elaborate upon beyond a few unsupportive sentences.

You have not given a accurate definition of capitalism not even once.


Again not all critics of capitalism are Marxists or communist.


never said they were, I said they if they start with a wrong definition then they are wrong it does not matter if they are marxist or not.


Where do you get your information from? Glenn Beck? Sean Hannity?

Fox neo conservative capitalism loving media news?

Yeah I wouldn't look towards neo conservatist republicanism in America for political accuracy when it concerns the country or the world around it considering that politicy party in our nation is always in bed with big corporate industry that gives them generous donations for their public representation and mainstreaming of them.


Sorry, but I don't watch TV, I can't even get those stations were I live, and I don't have satellite either. Nor do I subscribe to neoconservative views. I guess since you have been unable to argue my points you resort to accusations about what I believe and don't believe ....weak real weak.



Capitalism hasn't been around that long.


We have already gone over that, yes it has. It is as old as nature.


How old do you think capitalism as a economical system is?


capitalism is not economical system, it is just a description nothing more, nice try;)



We already live under one whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.


you may think you do, but I know I do not that is the difference.


Incorrect. Capitalism hasn't always existed and Germanics let alone Europeans weren't always under a capitalistic economy either.


I have given you a example of the nature of capitalism, I can't help you fail to understand that no matter how simple it is.



Prove to me otherwise that it can. Atleast stand by your convictions and defend them when confronted by opposition.


I have stood by my convictions and I have deafened them very well I might add. I think it is you who been trying to say I have not. Since when you started personally attacking me and accusing me of believing in something I don't you failed in proving your points...see above in your own words.



From my perspective international free market capitalism is incompatible with nationalism.

Now since you believe that they are indeed compatible tell me how both systems can be together. I'll await your reply.


Ever think your perspective may be tainted by the misuse of the word capitalism?

I think I have proven it to you, do you remember I what I stated about Japan.

genius
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 07:36 PM
Here's the misunderstanding:

you want the government to "serve the interest of the nation". I don't trust that other people will somehow feel a need to protect me and serve my interests. I don't understand how one government is different from the other, they are all composed of people and I can't trust any of them. All people serve their own self interests. That's is the differance in ideology where I guess we just wont agree.

Here's the key: how do you ensure the government is going to look out for national interests? Very few politicians are not looking out for themselves. And there's no way to ensure this. If the people were trustworthy then we wouldn't need the government. Its rhetorical. We need government to "ensure" that people look out for national interests. Who ensures the government is looking out for national interests? We need the government because we can't trust the people to look out for national interests. But the government is made of people too, if we can't trust those people then why can we trust them once they become governors?

You just have this idea that some "saviour" will somehow protect you and enrich you. It's not realistic. Many people have been sold on this in the past and it has led to failure. You probably wish Hitler were around to run our nation too. Well let's see Hitler was the worst thing to happen to ethnic Germans as his wars killed more of them than anybody else! He was a failure at the end of the day.


It doesn't make sense.

National Socialism was based on Capitalism, exept the government regulated most of the major industries. People could start a business, and work for others in NS Germany. People could own personal property and rent it to others etc. It was very similar to modern Europe's heavy handed government, just run by different people.

The "socialist" part of national socialism involved the nazis pledge to increase home ownership among Germans, help every german own their own car, increase wages and respect for workers, decrease capital gains.

Guess what? We have all that in the United States and Europe today. In the U.S. policy is made to increase home ownership. Look into the Federal Housing Association. There are minimal wage laws and worker unions that negotiate high wages. There are capital gains taxes and a progressive income tax system. It would be a little more severe under the reich's system but its the same basic system. National socialism was not based on mercantilism!

You see prior to the early 1900s free market capitalism involved no worker safety laws, no child labor laws, no minimal wage laws, few worker unions, and the work was much harder and dirtier than today (even worse than previous peasant work on a farm). That's why the communist revolution came about the NS revolution etc. compared to the past all nations are now socialist. The differance is in a communist nation all industries were owned by the government. You couldn't go out and start a business on your own. Even Communist nations now allow people to start businesses and let people buy want they want in markets.

So you are arguing moot points that were relevant 100 years ago but have been resolved. We have tried all these various system somewhere in the world at some point. We have arrived at the best working system.

The main differance between now and what the Reich had was the NS system abolished the central banks (so the government directly printed money), tied the money to labor, and encouraged bartering of goods locally and bartered internationally (thus circumventing international bankers- exchangers etc). however it was a free market nation other than perhaps some neccessary war time price freezes which the U.S. and the rest of Europe also did! Along with rationing!

The idea that there is a big differance between the U.S. market of today and some utopian third reich system is only a fantasy. If you fail in life it doesn't always mean the government is wrong sometimes it means you aren't competitive! "well 99% of people are successful in this system exept me. We need to dismantle the system and find one that works better". come on!

Ragnar Lodbrok
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 07:56 PM
I guess thats why being NS I find myself sympathizing with local democratic candidates more often than republican ones...lol.

Especially with how the economy got flushed down the toilet by Bush and his ilk. People are starting to wake up and see a new kind of "patriotic socialism" as an answer to the questions of tradesmen and working young adults. Walstreet capitalism, globalization and excessive unneeded wars for liberating oppressed rag heads and protecting Jewish national security interests are things that people are starting to agree we can do without.

Wouldn't progressive taxation and taxation of enviromentally irresponsible businesses be great?

SpearBrave
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 10:18 PM
Here's the key: how do you ensure the government is going to look out for national interests? Very few politicians are not looking out for themselves. And there's no way to ensure this. If the people were trustworthy then we wouldn't need the government. Its rhetorical. We need government to "ensure" that people look out for national interests. Who ensures the government is looking out for national interests? We need the government because we can't trust the people to look out for national interests. But the government is made of people too, if we can't trust those people then why can we trust them once they become governors?


There is way that you can achieve both, it is called a Constitution. It is a legal contract between the government and the people that is the law. ;)

To enforce this contract the people/nation need to have national law stating that the people need to be armed in order to hold the government accountible by force if they have to. Also it might be a good idea that the folk be allowed to choose who gets to run this government through a voting process. ;)

genius
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010, 10:37 PM
exactly but that system hasn't worked either because of the people who give up their power. It all boils down to the people. A good people can make any government work, a bad people will screw up any government communist, capitalist etc. That is the one key to national socialism. I mean that was their key idea (what I stated above) so the highest goal of the state should be to maintain the health of the folk and all else follows. What does this mean? Sterilize the stupid, the criminal etc. punish crime, reward the best and encourage them to have babies, provide educational opportunities and upward mobility etc.

Anyway I think you must crawl before you run. So I find it a bit pointless thinking too much about "how the country should be run" when I can't run a small business, can't run my own life etc. So I think the focus people should have is on how to empower themselves first and organize in small groups. Its just unrealistic to think in such large terms. If I was a billionaire or some leader of a congregation of tens of thousands then it would make sense to be more nationally focused.

Well Republocrats are the same party. The only republicans that make any sense are Ron Paul and Rand Paul and that's because they are "liberatarians" running as republican. Libertarian is the same thing as a liberal back in the 1800s. I believe the nation is ruled by an oligarchy who controls the media and sets agendas for politicians. So I think voting has very little power in this system because money buys votes and influence. But at least it does have some power albeit its small.

The best way to gain power is a) resistance. Just refuse to obey something you disagree with. If enough people do this the government is powerless. Take prohibition as an example and the civil rights movement. b) become wealthy and knowledgeable and influence the system with your wealth.

Paradigm
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 12:43 AM
Paradigm:


You deliberately ignore that a precondition to my position is to replace the current government including the criminal system they put up, and then to implement another government with other people who's concern is their own folk, who follow a nationalist ideology and so on.

Your entire rant is completely worthless, because I did state it, though you removed the paragraph from your reply. When you ignore this initial position/opinion, there is not much point to discuss any further about possible alternatives to this.

Do you realize how impossible it is to literally uproot one government and replace it with another who would have national interest at hand, and at that white national interest? In the United States, it will not happen. Ever.

You've been ranting on every topic of economics bringing up irrelevant points and spewing ignorance that a few people on this board get duped into believing is true or correct.

Whatever paragraph I removed was worthless, useless, and took up too much space.


And its always nice to meet people who claim to know everything, but understand only little. You are one of them, because your dog-eat-dog system is obviously the one you want and love.

Yeah, I love the American government. You're right, I love that they control more and more each day. They control the media, the market, and what we can do with our own property. Yes, I know everything, and understand very little. Unlike yourself who's a German trying to discuss the American way of life and politics. No, you're never wrong.


Not all Americans obviously agree with that, and certainly Europeans do not agree with that, because we dont like being exploited and cheated all the time, just because someone granted us the right to do the same to others. When it's the American way, fine, your problem, but keep us Europeans out of your shit.

Mind your own fucking business yourself. I know the type of sentiment that's spreading amongst the people in my country. I don't need a FOREIGNER of my country telling me what to do with my government, and how to handle my country. I want no business in European affairs, but what my government does is out of my hands.


Which is basically the entire problem. As long as the US government is owned by profit oriented banksters, we will not be able to opt out of this system, because if we would try America would bomb us into the ground once more. But I distract.

Your "private ownership" is an illusion. Make one bad move and you'll be stripped off everything you ever 'owned' (ie had an exclusive use right to). It is really not more, you're granted this exclusive use right in order to keep up the illusion that it would be possible for you to "own" anything in order to make you participate further in the system whose only goal is to transfer all property to the banks. You work half your life for them anyway, because you take loans, mortgages whatever and pay them four times the worth of whatever you used the money for. One time failure to deliver the money to your slave master in time and the illusion of "property rights" bursts like a soap bubble. Someone slips on your ground and breaks his leg or whatever and the illusion of property rights bursts. And even if you never failed, never anything happened, someone wants your ground and house and they take it, because they can and they dont even need a court.

Your argument is an illusion founded in misinformation and misconception of reality.


There is really no big difference between capitalism and communism. In communism you know that you dont own anything, in capitalism you are made to pay four times the worth for the illusion and still dont own anything. And most of all, both systems are despotic and totalitarian, and both systems are a mean to the very same end.

Actually, I own a lot of things. Yet, I have to pay taxes on even the things I have fully paid for. That's not a problem of the market, because it's outside the market, it's the state. They get a percentage of every transaction, and don't do anything to deserve it, and half of that goes to paying people who simply do paperwork, and the other half to military and public works. It keeps growing and growing, and the taxes rise and rise, if they drop one thing, they find another. Tax bad food and cigarettes, we'll show them!


Makes no sense to me, and even less in the light of wanting to preserve my people into the future, a future that is worth to live. I have no interest to screw over my fellow folk and then whine about that there is no more community sense. I have no interest in letting people live in an illusion at whose end their extinction waits. We are masters of economy, and my interest is to make economy serve the common good. Because real freedom really only exists in a homogenous society which has a common good and higher goals. When that means to limit the greed of some, so be it.

And, I ask you, what would be wrong about it when profits are directed back to the people who produced these profits in the first place and not end up in the vaults of people who already have robbed the people off of billions and want ever more more more? Explain what would be wrong about it when these profits instead serve the people, the nation and the common good?

Profits do. A business owner will reinvest his profit back into his company to expand and increase production, and while expanding the company will expand employment in different areas, and as production because more efficient and cheaper, goods become cheaper for those who consume them. The expansion of business and capital formulation can be an amazing thing, because no central planner could ever compete with these types of methods.

Other than that I don't really give a damn what you have to say and don't really care. You can go on about folk, community, nationalism and all that, but it doesn't mean shit to people when they are just trying to live their life the best they can while trying to avoid all the problems that come from their own government and everyone else. Toppling governments and replacing them with white nationalist systems is the least of anyone's worry who actually lives in the real world. I'm more worried if I'll have enough money to fix my car and pay my bills, or if I'll even have enough to go to college next semester, or whether or not I can live contently without outside forces and common assholes telling me what I should do with my life. I don't sit back and think, "Hey, if this was a white nationalist government they would have my best intentions in their mind!", no, I'm thinking, "This fucking government needs to stay out of my life". This country was founded on the idea of limited government, and keeping the government out of the lives of individuals, but it's been destroyed. I'm more interested in returning to that than anything else.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 01:20 AM
To SpearBrave:

You seem to think capitalism has always existed where every transaction of trade and exchange in nature down to every interaction of human beings is a example of capitalism where Adam Smith was merely just writing a observation of existence in general instead of devising or inventing a ideological economical system of trade that later came into history.

[In other words in history you believe that capitalism doesn't have a beginning or ending ideologically where you even refuse that it's a kind of created invented economical ideology altogether.]

So I got one question for you.....................

http://mp082.k12.sd.us/Neanderthal.jpg

Was this guy a capitalist?

[The humanoid in the picture is a neanderthal but if you wish we could also use a example of cromagnon man of the neolithic era if it simplifies the analogy any.]

Now if you believe ancient human beings to be venture capitalists in history I would like a detailed explanation of your view on the subject in illustrating how.

If you deny that ancient human beings were venture capitalists I would like for you to give me a historical model to when capitalism arrived within human history.

Can you meet that challenge delivered to you Spear Brave?

Also SpearBrave if you believe capitalism has always existed I would like you to tell me how feudalism and mercantilism fits into history as economical systems.

Paradigm
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 02:03 AM
Yes, that neanderthal is a "capitalist" in the most primitive sense if he:

1. Has his own goods (property).
2. Accumulates or saves what he makes and/or works for for future use (saving).
3. Trades his goods for others goods that he feels have a higher value (exchange).

...on a further note...

4. He may partake in a specific task that he's better at, and the rest of his pack does the same (division of labor).
5. They have a preferred good to trade between them because of it's value (money).
6. Design better tools to make hunting more efficient (production).

In a broad sense he's taking part in "capitalism" or simply is demonstrating economics in action.

When did capitalism arrive within human history? Answering that is like answering who invented the wheel. All we know is that in some part in history it happened. Trade happened because it benefited. People decided to save goods, and design tools that wold increase their yield in food.

In your response to mercantilism and feudalism, capitalism is the expansion of individual rights. That the individual can move upwards economically and decide in what area of the market to strive in, and that the individual can become his own boss in the process. That through economics the people are best served when there is more freedom of choice in goods and services, which leads to more types of production and areas of industry.

It's more or so political, that the less the state was in control, the more freedom their was of choice and of individual rights, and the individual had a say and was equal amongst his fellowmen, than just being a servant to those above him.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 03:15 AM
Yes, that neanderthal is a "capitalist" in the most primitive sense if he:

1. Has his own goods (property).
2. Accumulates or saves what he makes and/or works for for future use (saving).
3. Trades his goods for others goods that he feels have a higher value (exchange).

...on a further note...

4. He may partake in a specific task that he's better at, and the rest of his pack does the same (division of labor).
5. They have a preferred good to trade between them because of it's value (money).
6. Design better tools to make hunting more efficient (production).

In a broad sense he's taking part in "capitalism" or simply is demonstrating economics in action.

When did capitalism arrive within human history? Answering that is like answering who invented the wheel. All we know is that in some part in history it happened. Trade happened because it benefited. People decided to save goods, and design tools that wold increase their yield in food.

In your response to mercantilism and feudalism, capitalism is the expansion of individual rights. That the individual can move upwards economically and decide in what area of the market to strive in, and that the individual can become his own boss in the process. That through economics the people are best served when there is more freedom of choice in goods and services, which leads to more types of production and areas of industry.

It's more or so political, that the less the state was in control, the more freedom their was of choice and of individual rights, and the individual had a say and was equal amongst his fellowmen, than just being a servant to those above him.



Yes, that neanderthal is a "capitalist" in the most primitive sense if he:

1. Has his own goods (property).
2. Accumulates or saves what he makes and/or works for for future use (saving).
3. Trades his goods for others goods that he feels have a higher value (exchange).

...on a further note...

4. He may partake in a specific task that he's better at, and the rest of his pack does the same (division of labor).
5. They have a preferred good to trade between them because of it's value (money).
6. Design better tools to make hunting more efficient (production).

In a broad sense he's taking part in "capitalism" or simply is demonstrating economics in action.

I see you quoting alot of economical terms but how that relates to capitalism in the accepted definition of the word as a type of economical system when it concerns ancient man is beyond me.

Capitalism by it's very definition means:


Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism




You see everything in a primitive community is collectively owned in which there is little privatization in that there isn't so much of a need to privatize alot of things in primitive economies as there is for modern ones.

More over everything within a primitive community is designed for the collective profit of the community not just specifically for individual interests alone.

[Also in primitive societies the means of production are collectively owned.]

What does that mean? Well it means ancient human beings didn't practice capitalism at all where both you and SpearBrave fail in explaining how capitalism has always existed which means capitalism hasn't always existed in that it started somewhere in a specific point in history.

[Which means that as a economical theory and ideology capitalism started in a specific point in time in history where it was invented by somebody.]

Also:


decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market;

In a primitive society all decisions of a community were made collectively which then was relayed to a leader and a leading caste that were also members of that same community who then through collective consensus enacted those decisions.

You will find this is somthing completely opposite of the capitalist economical system that we have today.


profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses,

Being that alot of individuals within primitive societies created their own tools, structures, crafts, and what have you on their own individually there wasn't much of a need for owners.

[Everybody was owners in what they created in which they bartered in trade amongst themselves in what they produced.]

[Only upon specialization when it concerns specialists in the history of economics did all of that change where specific groups of people created things that not everybody else could reproduce for themselves on their own. All of sudden people had to start selling their labor to acquire such goods where they became servants to other people and so on.]

Which means if everybody can reproduce what everybody else has by their own independent self autonomy there is no need to be owned or controlled by another where everybody then becomes owners in a sort of regard to the collective community in that everybody would then own what they produced.

[And in a primitive society everybody produced somthing useful which was then bartered between themselves for goods or services all of which was shared collectively within the community.]


and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.

In ancient economies currency didn't really exist where there was no centralized form of currency value in place in which there was only barter trade.


When did capitalism arrive within human history? Answering that is like answering who invented the wheel. All we know is that in some part in history it happened.

Your exactly right in saying that some point in history it happened.

I have a guess to when it happened.............

You see in 1776 there was this book published called the Wealth Of Nations by one Adam Smith that later influenced a great deal of nations to go from a mercantile economical exchange to a capitalist economical model of exchange with his economical ideology of which after it was published a great deal of highly influenced capitalist economists would later keep adding onto the original ideal of capitalism with their newer expanding variations.

After economical capitalism began to have a stranglehold on global economics later on a bunch of anarchists, socialists, communists, protectionists, nationalists, and previous mercantilists began criticizing it where to this day there is still critiques of capitalism much like on the lines of this thread that we are conversing in by means of typed words right at this instance on the modern day internet.


In your response to mercantilism and feudalism, capitalism
So I see that you agree that there was different models of economical systems in place prior to capitalism.

[Marvelous.]


is the expansion of individual rights.
For me capitalism is the monopoly of individual rights by merchants, industrialists, banksters, corporatists, businessmen, and statists alike by privately used means which is why they highly praise privatization versus public collectivization.

When they are praising the individual rights to private property or privatization what they are really saying is that individuals can only acquire privatization and private property for themselves if only they give themselves away to obedience first by means of individual submission in which allocated profit is their reward that is if they are lucky enough to be rewarded at all.


That the individual can move upwards economically and decide in what area of the market to strive in, and that the individual can become his own boss in the process.
Like anything else the market is controlled by somebody especially by those who own big percentages of it.

In other words the individual isn't independent within the market at all in that more or less is instead dictated by it especially by those who have the most influence within it.


It's more or so political, that the less the state was in control, the more freedom their was of choice and of individual rights,
Except that in a free market existence of capitalism the state becomes reduced to nothing beyond a public mouthpiece of which trade monopolies come to replace the state and government where overtime such trade monopolies become centralized into one single coordinated power somthing on the lines of a centralized bank which believe it or not is not a creation of socialism but rather is a creation of capitalism quite inevitably out of the very trade monopolies that come to dominate capitalist economies.

[Centralized banks are merely those centralized power structures within a free market economy that through competition have come to dominate the market singularly as a giant economical power house in which by owning a large share of a economy by defeating other market players are then able to influence the market and monopolies within it almost acting like a centralized government themselves except for the fact that centralized banks dominate the market whereas typical governments do not in that in today's societies the real power is not in the hands of governments as it is in the centralized banks that come to control the government by usage of the market itself. If one market player comes to dominate all the others by process of elimination it then becomes feasible that such a player will then position themselves as a centralized market authority within a free marketing system especially in the guise of a bank.]

Yes you heard me correctly when I said that centralized banks are a symptom of capitalism itself the very centralized banks you criticize.


and the individual had a say and was equal amongst his fellowmen, than just being a servant to those above him.

Let's not be naive here.

We both know that equality in modern societies is nonexistent.

kuehnelt
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 05:07 AM
You see everything in a primitive community is collectively owned

Your definition for capitalism describes exactly what Paradigm began with. This, your rebuttal to it, is just something you've made up. Or that someone else just made up and that you found merely to sound nice in its conclusion - it's the same in either case. If you want to know more about property, this guy is not a Jew (http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/#econ-ethics), and that book is a bit of a collection of articles that you can make your own way through.

Please don't attempt to defend your obvious fantasies by adding more 'fantasy' to them: Don't I know that they rode dinosaurs around? Don't I know that they had a strong telepathy before 'greed' murdered it? Look: this one people, who managed to stay as completely impoverished stone-age primitives well into the Industrial Age, managed this through some systematic abuses of property. Which shows that they enjoyed the same paradisical stupidity as the twentieth century Americans did, if you recall the 'Eminent Domain' documents that our team excavated last mid last rotation.

Error is not a competing social order.


You see in 1776 there was this book published called the Wealth Of Nations by one Adam Smith that later influenced a great deal of nations to go from a mercantile economical exchange to a capitalist economical model of exchange

You've described capitalism above. Mercantilism is that plus tariffs, monopolies, subsidies, a view of exports as 'good' and imports as 'bad'. If this definition suggests that we have a mercantilist and not a capitalist economy today, it should, because this is the case even if the US is doing a bad job on that last part. I'd only hesitate to say that we simply have mercantilism today as what we have is enormously more invasive.


For me capitalism is the monopoly of individual rights by merchants, industrialists, banksters, corporatists, businessmen, and statists alike by privately used means which is why they highly praise privatization versus public collectivization.

... 'monopoly of individual rights'? I'm sure that sounds really impressive to someone, but it's meaningless. Reading it as 'privilege': merchants, merchants, banksters, merchants, merchants, and the state do not work together to acquire privileges for themselves under capitalism. These practices are precisely what Adam Smith attacked.

If by 'capitalism' you do not mean your definition above or what Paradigm described, but "the present system, whatever that may be, the thing that's the cause of all our ills", then please say so. I feel a bit ridiculous in this thread, as I don't really expect you to ever read that book or otherwise improve yourself - sad to say, that may be an unfair expectation brought here from inferior forums with their own anti-capitalists - but mostly as the threat of your wrong ideas catching fire is not what I'm really worried about. I'd much rather have a thieving impoverishing stupid 'socialist' government that at least kept the aliens at bay, than I would a grotesque multiculti parody of a society that at least understood how to produce wealth rather than destroy wealth. Although I guess both are those are preferable to the present situation, where the anti-capitalists and the multicult are indistinguishable allies.

Paradigm
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 05:10 AM
You see everything in a primitive community is collectively owned in which there is little privatization in that there isn't so much of a need to privatize alot of things in primitive economies as there is for modern ones.

More over everything within a primitive community is designed for the collective profit of the community not just specifically for individual interests alone.

[Also in primitive societies the means of production are collectively owned.]

What does that mean? Well it means ancient human beings didn't practice capitalism at all where both you and SpearBrave fail in explaining how capitalism has always existed which means capitalism hasn't always existed in that it started somewhere in a specific point in history.

[Which means that as a economical theory and ideology capitalism started in a specific point in time in history where it was invented by somebody.]

The foundations for capitalism have always existed. If you want to debate whether neanderthals practiced trade, I could care less, because it's not relevant to humans in this point of history. Look at ancient civilizations, trade was practiced, there were various merchants and artisans.

Even if you are stranded on an island by yourself, you're going to save and accumulate food and supplies, and use those supplies to create better means of catching and obtaining food, and working more on what you're better at.


In a primitive society all decisions of a community were made collectively which then was relayed to a leader and a leading caste that were also members of that same community who then through collective consensus enacted those decisions.

You will find this is somthing completely opposite of the capitalist economical system that we have today.

If you want to live in a primitive society in the wilderness go ahead. I'll live in a sophisticated civilized world.


In ancient economies currency didn't really exist where there was no centralized form of currency value in place in which there was only barter trade.

The goods that are bartered IS the medium of exchange at that point in time. That was the currency, and also, how ancient? Are we to discuss we hunted with spears and lived in huts, or when Rome was at it's height? There's one I'd prefer over the other.


You see in 1776 there was this book published called the Wealth Of Nations by one Adam Smith that later influenced a great deal of nations to go from a mercantile economical exchange to a capitalist economical model of exchange with his economical ideology of which after it was published a great deal of highly influenced capitalist economists would later keep adding onto the original ideal of capitalism with their newer expanding variations.

Is Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations the only god damn economist and book you know of? Why not Ricardo or the marginal revolution that surpassed Smith in economic thought with the likes of Carl Menger who influenced Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, and Hayek? Economic science progressed, when you rely on outdated economist like Smith while trying to refute someone who actually has a grasp of economics it will not work. You'll just get shot down, because Principles of Economics refuted a lot of what was in Wealth of Nations, such as the labour theory of value which is an objective value of labor from the view of the supplier.

I don't need some plebeian trying to tell me about economic theory and history when he knows none of which he speaks.


So I see that you agree that there was different models of economical systems in place prior to capitalism.

Different political systems that had restraint and control over the market.



When they are praising the individual rights to private property or privatization what they are really saying is that individuals can only acquire privatization and private property for themselves if only they give themselves away to obedience first by means of individual submission in which allocated profit is their reward that is if they are lucky enough to be rewarded at all.

In the collective everyone's a slave to everyone else. In an individualist state (a state of being or coming, not a political state) people are free to decide amongst themselves what they wish with their own bodies and minds. In the collective, you are already submitted by default to everyone else before you even consent.


In other words the individual isn't independent within the market at all in that more or less is instead dictated by it especially by those who have the most influence within it.


Liberty and freedom are the conditions of man within a contractual society. Social cooperation under a system of private ownership of the factors of production means that within the range of the market the individual is not bound to obey and to serve an overlord. As far as he gives and serves other people, he does so of his own accord in order to be rewarded and served by the receivers. He exchanges goods and services, he does not do compulsory labor and does not pay tribute. He is certainly not independent. He depends on the other members of society. But this dependence is mutual. The buyer depends on the seller and the seller on the buyer.

- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (http://mises.org/humanaction/chap15sec6.asp)


Except that in a free market existence of capitalism the state becomes reduced to nothing beyond a public mouthpiece of which trade monopolies come to replace the state and government where overtime such trade monopolies become centralized into one single coordinated power somthing on the lines of a centralized bank which believe it or not is not a creation of socialism but rather is a creation of capitalism quite inevitably out of the very trade monopolies that come to dominate capitalist economies.

No monopoly or central bank can exist without a state. This is fact. A central bank is in power, because the state made them the sole suppliers of money, and what they do is legal, and no one can compete with them. Monopolies are corporations who are granted privileges by the state, this is fact. Without the state, there are no privileges, and laws to keep them on top, and their competition out. In a market, they would have to deal with competition, and this would keep them "in check" per se.

Also, the 5th Plank of the Communist Manifesto is the centralization of credit in the hands of the State.

Very capitalist, isn't it?


Yes you heard me correctly when I said that centralized banks are a symptom of capitalism itself the very centralized banks you criticize.

Yeah, the State made the central bank the sole publisher of Federal Reserve Notes, also, it's illegal for anyone to print their own currency by law, the United States law. How could this have come about in a market, if it's not for the state creating these monopolies?


We both know that equality in modern societies is nonexistent.

Thank god. I'd hate to be your equal. One thing we can agree one, except I say we push the agenda further (and get rid of anti-discrimination laws and egalitarian micromanagement from the state).

Paradigm
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 05:17 AM
If you want to know more about property, this guy is not a Jew (http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/#econ-ethics), and that book is a bit of a collection of articles that you can make your own way through.

Hans Herman-Hoppe is pretty awesome. I plan to get his Democracy: The God That Failed soon. Even though he was influenced by people of Jewish descent (Mises and Rothbard) he puts out some very anti-egalitarian ideas mixed with anarcho-capitalism (not saying Mises and Rothbard are bad, but I know there are those who will put up an iron curtain around any idea or theory written by a Jew). He's taken some heat from the liberal thought police for some things he's wrote and said in lectures.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 08:16 AM
To the capitalists in the thread:

Tell me what one ought to do with a nation where various corporations under the guise of free enterprise rule your government, congress, and politicians that end up making public policy for everybody else?

What does a nationalist do when confronted by a government that is ruled by various free enterprise corporations or profiteering international banks that have no intention of allowing nationalism to even remotely take place as they stand firm and hide behind international free market capitalism as opposed to a nationalized economy?

Is a nationalist supposed to embrace international free market capitalism somthing of which hinders their goal and dream of nationalism or a nation state?

You all speak of international free market capitalism as somthing of which that brings fourth the greatest amount of profit and wealth yet this same very system has brought about a global recession not to mention a crumbling infrastructure of the United States as it was brought about by market capitalists themselves who's only concern is profit.

It has brought about forclosures, unemployment, lost equity, and misery for a great deal of people.

More recently is has brought about lowered wages for the working class that has not even increased all that much in the last thirty years to even match a livable wage for workers.

Free market capitalism in it's value of profit at all cost has brought about international foreign immigration in it's quest to find abundance of cheap labor for the workforce for whom it lobbies with in congress for immigration reforms that only favor in letting even more foreigners in to displace those people who are national citizens.

I thought the general disposition of this website is the preservation of race, culture, and national identity.

Free market capitalism is a corporation moving it's production to a foreign country abroad so that it does not have to pay local national workers a livable wage through outsourcing.

Free market capitalism is that of selling the integrity and pride of nation along with it's national vitality for that of a profit of which is always guaranteed to fall into private pockets.

If that is what international free market capitalism is then it can be damned for it is nothing but damnation and a blight for any intelligent nationalist to see.

Someone here earlier called me a plebeian as a sort of sarcastic gesture in making fun of my views and my occupation as a factory worker.

Although I'm somewhat of commoner now I assure you that in the not too distant future through my own hard work and self educational pursuits I'm a middle class man in the making.

I'm a intelligent commoner or plebeian and one day when I transcend into the upper class in the back of my mind I will never forget where I came from nor the cruelty from those of the top income brackets where I will transcend my class with new ideas that I will bring with me.

At any rate yes I'm currently a commoner but being that I live as a common man I have the eyes to see that which is uncommon to both the middle and upper classes.

I get the privilege as a commoner to observe the ills of this world at first hand up close in observation having even expirienced a great deal of it myself where the upper classes aren't able to in comparison with their comfortable insulated world that leaves them arrogant or stubbornly child like.

Make fun of common people that make up a majority of population of any nation if you must with their common beliefs, goals, and ideals but know that it's the common people who's lives remain destroyed because of recent unregulated international free enterprise to which if they should feel the brunt end of capitalism anymore the common masses will start to revolt in the street where the harmless plebeian as the ancient Latin aristrocratic Romans would once call them will suddenly turn violent into whole entire rebels where you will have national rebellion on your hands.

I don't expect anybody to pay this post much attention here but it is my warning and future prophecy for this world along with this nation if things continue down this disasterous current path.

kuehnelt
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 09:04 AM
Tell me what one ought to do ... What does a nationalist do ...

What you definitely should not do is embrace falsehood and fantasy, which is what you are doing. If the enemy fires rockets at you, pretending that the laws of physics don't exist, or that the basic math they're doing is invalid because you're just certain that primitives couldn't add one and one together, will only get you blown up more dishonorably. Propositions are not true or false based on wishful thinking or how much you like or dislike some agents who, in you yourself recognize with 'guise', only say them to present a false appearance!

If you'd come of age in the early USSR, the exact same stuff you're saying here would have lead you to ardently support capitalism and markets. Reaction to an enemy is not a standard of truth, and not just because enemies can present a false front for you to react against.


You all speak of international free market capitalism as somthing of which that brings fourth the greatest amount of profit and wealth yet this same very system has brought about a global recession not to mention a crumbling infrastructure of the United States.

Are you really saying this good faith? Did you really think that you'd get any answer but "No, it isn't." to this assertion? Are you only trying to slip that 'international' in there so you shout "ah hah!" a little later? This is how incredulous I am. The simplest thing for you to do is to accept that there's an entire body of thought about the global recession that blames it on extra- or anti-market malefactors, such as central banks and credit manipulation. If you think that's all wrong for no good reason, you still can't score any points with this line of attack.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 09:13 AM
What you definitely should not do is embrace falsehood and fantasy, which is what you are doing. If the enemy fires rockets at you, pretending that the laws of physics doesn't exist, or that the basic math they're doing is invalid because you're just certain that primitives couldn't add one and one together, will only get you blown up more dishonorably. Propositions are not true or false based on wishful thinking or how much you like or dislike some agents who, in you yourself recognize with 'guise', only say them to present a false appearance!

If you'd come of age in the early USSR, the exact same stuff you're saying here would have lead you to ardently support capitalism and markets. Reaction to an enemy is not a standard of truth, and not just because enemies can present a false front for you to react against.



Are you really saying this good faith? Did you really think that you'd get any answer but "No, it isn't." to this assertion? Are you only trying to slip that 'international' in there so you shout "ah hah!" a little later? This is how incredulous I am. The simplest thing for you to do is to accept that there's an entire body of thought about the global recession that blames it on extra- or anti-market malefactors, such as central banks and credit manipulation. If you think that's all wrong for no good reason, you still can't score any points with this line of attack.

You mean those market malefactors and credit manipulations of private corporate firms on wallstreet.

What about them?

What ended up bringing about the global recession is the overt competition of capitalism eating away at itself in a free market system as a parasite eating away at itself when it can no longer eat the corpse of the living body it once inhabitated prior.

For you to try to blame somebody else from a ardent position of a capitalist supporter just ends up being reduced to classic scapegoating and general absurdity.

Let us not forget that those same private firms then manipulated congress to take money from the tax paying citizen base by then proceeding to bailing them out where afterwards as a sort of thanks for the gesture those same very private firms decided to spend that money on bizarre expensive luxories and million dollar pay bonuses to ceo's.

Yeah keep telling me about the benefits of free market capitalism as it erodes a government's ability to regulate a nation not mention as it leads the national interests along with a sense of national identity in erosion altogether. Your position doesn't fool me in the slightest.

Also all of you here are so ready to criticize central banks forgetting that historically it was a conglomerate of many private banks that got together in forming central banks in history to begin with. [Capitalism at work again where bank centralization is not opposed to the free markets where instead it is actually a representation of free market capitalism somthing of which you guys deny so poorly here.]

[Not only is centralized banking a consequence and creation of international free market capitalism but so is globalization the damnable enemy of every nationalist.]

kuehnelt
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 09:49 AM
You mean those malefactors and credit manipulations of private corporate firms on wallstreet.

Let me just interpret this as a request for a pointer to information on the body of thought I referred to. Here you go (http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879). You don't have to agree with it, but you can't attack it without knowing what it is.


For you to try to blame somebody else from a ardent position of a capitalist supporter

Thank for this comment: I am now very aware of why I find discussions like this so infuriating. It is because there is often a grave insult insistently implied in them - that is, in the case of this thread, there is the suggestion that I hold my positions for the same reason you hold yours, that I have invested as much thought in them as you have yours, that I am as serious about as you are yours. Every reply you make, which you base on your not knowing anything about anything, is spittle in my face - not because you know nothing, but because you think what you can say can cancel out what I've said to you, and because at the end of the thread you'll still say, well, I must only support capitalism because I'm somebody's lapdog, because 'interests' and 'alliances' are the only reason that anyone supports anything.

velvet
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 12:25 PM
Do you realize how impossible it is to literally uproot one government and replace it with another who would have national interest at hand, and at that white national interest? In the United States, it will not happen. Ever.

No, in the US this certainly would not happen. Because you people over there love rampant "freedom" to screw over everyone - while at the same time oppressing the rest of the world to play along with your screw-everyone-for-some-profit-greed system.

Germany tried. Germany became in just 12 years, rising literally out of of ashes, the most successful economy in Europe. National Socialism IS a massive threat to capitalism, and you dont want to claim that Germany was anything like a "planned economy". Oppression existed here only for those who didnt belong here anyway, the German people thrived, were supported, there was almost no unemployment, women could work although they had kids etc.

Then the US and the Allies decided that this system must be crushed, because it would spread like a wild fire and would eradicate "free market capitalism". The US and Allies bombed us into the ground, they pulverised Germany and rally relentlessly since 70 years against National Socialism. Because it was evil? Most of the BS is made up, so no. Because the US and the Allies thought fascism is bad? They run themselves a (left) fascist oppression system, so that cant be the reason either. The only fuckn reason why National Socialism got crushed and demonized the way it is is because it would render the NWO wet dreams including rampant free market capitalism nonexistent and still would generate thriving economies.



Whatever paragraph I removed was worthless, useless, and took up too much space.


Okay, fine, discuss with whomever you want, I think we two are through.

I think its anyway pointless to discuss with someone who is not the slightest interested in the preservation of his own people or the nations they live in.

Enjoy all your "competition" on your free market with all the Hispanics and Asians and lately also Muslims swarming into your country and adding some competition on the labor market for you. Maybe when you have to start your 4th job in order to survive and notice that the fuckn day just isnt long enough to do all that you'll notice that some limits to this would be a good thing.

SpearBrave
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 12:47 PM
No, in the US this certainly would not happen. Because you people over there love rampant "freedom" to screw over everyone - while at the same time oppressing the rest of the world to play along with your screw-everyone-for-some-profit-greed system.


Who ever said freedom was about screwing people? Freedom allows people to grow and be themselves that can be good as well as bad. It is a most realistic concept. Freedom also gives people the chance to do good for their folk and nation.

I will say that the biggest problem with this thread that neither Nationalism or Capitalism is defined in the artical that started this. It never said National Socialism it just stated Nationalism( pride in ones Nation is one aspect of Nationalism ).

Using the Third Riech as a example would not be good as it did not withstand the test of time (no matter if the reasons were right or wrong why it ended) and we should not try again to re-fight WWII all over again. ;)

RoyBatty
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 12:51 PM
Perhaps some of the posters feel that anti-capitalist sentiments are being posted. This is not the case. Nobody here are anti work, anti labour, anti reward-on-merit, anti trade for profit etc.

There is a massive difference between the above and UK / American / ZOG "Capitalism" and so-called "Free Trade" which is a somewhat different beast based on

- opening, acquiring and controlling markets via bombing and Anglo-Zionist terrorism

- which invites its own citizens to enter into cut throat destructive competition for jobs and wealth where the strongest, most deceitful and violent ones claw their way to the top of the pyramid and the rest are left behind or trampled

- where local societies are sold out by the State in cooperation with Corporations who first collected the wealth of those societies and then transferred it elsewhere in order to create greater profits for the major shareholders of the Corporations

- where the State and Corporations legally rob the general population in order to finance their failures and theft and to finance more wars for more conquest of markets in which to practice their brand of "Free Trade" and "Capitalism"

- where national assets and utilities like transport networks, power infrastructure, mines, water supplies etc are privatised so that prices can be increased beyond reasonable levels in order to enrich the Capitalist Monopolists

the list goes on and on and on.

There is nothing wrong with working for a living or engaging in Fair Trade. There is everything wrong with the vicious brand of American dog-eat-dog capitalism which invites destructive competition amongst the locals and which recruits the locals and non-locals to profit-share in the spoils of American War Crusades to seize foreign wealth and lands, to occupy them and to enslave their populations.

RoyBatty
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 12:56 PM
Who ever said freedom was about screwing people?


Velvet meant that the American interpretation of "freedom" = "Freedom for Americans to screw over the rest of the world".

My own observations of American policies and behaviour sadly concur with hers.

We're not implying that the average American acts like this or agrees with these policies but through ignorance and sometimes through self-delusion many buy into these practices designed by their Oligarchs and Politicians.


Freedom allows people to grow and be themselves that can be good as well as bad. It is a most realistic concept. Freedom also gives people the chance to do good for their folk and nation.


You're describing concepts which are closer to the true meaning of the term "freedom". This is quite different to "American Freedom" as defined by US Policymakers and Military.

SpearBrave
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 01:04 PM
I could go on and say really my description of freedom is a the version of American freedom in its original context. Without illegal centralized banking, and illegal government sanctioned monopolies which were not the intent of American freedom.

Neither central banking or government sanctioned monopolies were the intent of our Constitution and they are still not supported by it to this day. That is a problem we Americans must deal with one way or the other. Hopefully it is a peaceful way.

RoyBatty
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 01:15 PM
I could go on and say really my description of freedom is a the version of American freedom in its original context.


For sure. And as we all understand the original context of that Freedom was very different to what it is today. Unfortunately much changed since the time of the Founding Fathers.



Without illegal centralized banking, and illegal government sanctioned monopolies which were not the intent of American freedom.


Yes



Neither central banking or government sanctioned monopolies were the intent of our Constitution and they are still not supported by it to this day. That is a problem we Americans must deal with one way or the other. Hopefully it is a peaceful way.

Of course not but no system, no matter how beautiful, well intentioned and well set up is immune to infiltration and corruption unless the entrances are guarded. Once the guards become lax, lazy and corrupt the enemies slip in and from that point they soon set to work corrupting the entire system.

This has happened in the USA. It has happened throughout much of Europe. The corrupters are very well educated people and very aware of what would happen to them should they fall into the hands of "public justice" which is why they are going to such extreme lengths to entrench their power, to hide themselves behind layers and layers of bureaucracy and to make it as difficult as possible for unorganised average citizens (laymen in other words) to unseat them from power.

kuehnelt
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 01:37 PM
velvet, you can't preserve anything with error. That ridiculous fairy tale about the motivations of WWII's enemies only serves to make you feel good, not to give you any advice about economic policy. Germany did do good things in the interim years - Hans Hoppe has a lecture about that here (http://mises.org/media/1570). Nobody then or today is fretting about the threat the rest of their economic decisions poses to what you call 'free market capitalism', as A) the present system already incorporates much of the bad of their economy, and B) come on, listen to what people are telling you: we do not have a free market in any of the countries you're thinking of. More socialism in those countries, more power in the state in those countries, would just give more of the economy to the people you should already know are in control of those countries. A socialist flag in the US would just have a Star of David on it.

It is precisely the free market and hard money and anti-socialist groups that would actually undermine them, are what they actually regard as a threat. As a bonus, the people who support the free market are correct; you should at least be aware that they're actually bothering to try and support it with systematic arguments that are rooted in clear premises, whereas neither you nor your allies have any basis for your beliefs that you can even fend off your own passing doubt with. Seriously, are you serious about this?


I think its anyway pointless to discuss with someone who is not the slightest interested in the preservation of his own people or the nations they live in.

You're aware of all the globalist socialists, and also of national socialism. You're aware of all the globalist capitalists, so please be aware that national capitalism is also possible, and that the 'national' has the same relationship in both terms: it means to temper an economic order to the benefit of its nation. We should all be nationalists - this is an easy choice. Whether we should also be socialists or capitalists depends on the actual natures of these economic orders - and if you are educated in economics instead of in feel-good fairy tales, this is also an easy choice.

If I tell you that a rocket when fired will behave a certain way, you should immediately be aware of what you need to know - physics - to know to affirm or refute what I've said, and if you don't know this then you should not just way what pleases you. If you're not even aware of what you need to know if you are to evaluate a proposition... this is a position no reasonably educated adult should ever be in. But plainly, very many people are in this position with respect to economic propositions. Why do you think so? When Jews benefited from the ruinous hyperinflation of the interim years, when Jew-run companies benefit from corporatist privilege and from the bailouts, when Jews run banks and central banks to do what simple economics can reveal to be pernicious and harmful, when the threat and the lies come at you from the economic sphere -- well of course what you should refuse to learn anything about that and instead tell your real allies on Skadi that they don't care about the race and probably aren't aware of their mestizo problem, because they're obviously real deep in the pocket of the NWO.

genius
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 05:06 PM
To the capitalists in the thread:

Tell me what one ought to do with a nation where various corporations under the guise of free enterprise rule your government, congress, and politicians that end up making public policy for everybody else?

What does a nationalist do when confronted by a government that is ruled by various free enterprise corporations or profiteering international banks that have no intention of allowing nationalism to even remotely take place as they stand firm and hide behind international free market capitalism as opposed to a nationalized economy?

Is a nationalist supposed to embrace international free market capitalism somthing of which hinders their goal and dream of nationalism or a nation state?

Organize with others who are competent, get an education, work together and run your own corporation. There will always be winners and losers, strong and weak. Current reality is that Jews are ahead of Germanics and that's why Germanic interest is dumped on.

One of the best aspects of this system is that it is not horribly oppressive. Anyone with talent and hard work can rise up from the bottom. I'm not saying its practical to think in one generation you can become a real power player but people can move upward and within a few generations if you really are "superior" and have enough people on your side you would be running the country the same as anyone else.


To the capitalists in the thread:
You all speak of international free market capitalism as somthing of which that brings fourth the greatest amount of profit and wealth yet this same very system has brought about a global recession not to mention a crumbling infrastructure of the United States as it was brought about by market capitalists themselves who's only concern is profit.

It has brought about forclosures, unemployment, lost equity, and misery for a great deal of people.

This is part of the natural economic cycles. If you understood the cycles you would still be doing well.

But even if you lived in the middle ages some years have bad weather and bad crops, other years better. Even a mercantile will have some good trade years, some bad etc. There's always cycles. But overall the system is healthy.

The people hurt worst by these cycles are the people at the bottom of society. Though the economy is recovering. Here's a secret anyway: one of the real reasons the economy is sluggish is much of our resources are going to fund wars in the middle east to protect Israel's interest. What can we do about this? See the above answer (empower yourself- if you can't do it then you are inferior- this is a competitive world).


To the capitalists in the thread:
More recently is has brought about lowered wages for the working class that has not even increased all that much in the last thirty years to even match a livable wage for workers.

Free market capitalism in it's value of profit at all cost has brought about international foreign immigration in it's quest to find abundance of cheap labor for the workforce for whom it lobbies with in congress for immigration reforms that only favor in letting even more foreigners in to displace those people who are national citizens.

I thought the general disposition of this website is the preservation of race, culture, and national identity.

Free market capitalism is a corporation moving it's production to a foreign country abroad so that it does not have to pay local national workers a livable wage through outsourcing.

Free market capitalism is that of selling the integrity and pride of nation along with it's national vitality for that of a profit of which is always guaranteed to fall into private pockets.


If Germanics can't compete in a capitalist system then they wont be competitive in a mercantile, communist, etc. system. Jews were on top in Communist russia as well. They weren't able to compete in the Reich either because the Reich was crushed.

About the lowered wages etc. Here's a solution: your family can buy a business (a gas station, resteraunt, whatever) and pay their own family very high wages to work at these very simple jobs!! Go out and start a business and pay people better wages, or better yet get elected to office and increase the minimal wage. All very easy solutions to the problems you mention without destroying the whole system.

The problem isn't Captialism or the American Democracy so much (though there should be "standards" as to who can vote) its the people that are running the system, the people that are voting etc.

I hate the weakness in myself more than I hate anyone else. I hate the weakness of my own family more than other families. I hate the weakness of my own race more than other races. If you want to be successful in life you have to turn the hate inward as an iron forge in order to mold you to be stronger. You have to take an attitude of being successful in any environment, of wanting to compete, and be willing to get bloodied in the process, be willing to fall down 100 times and get back up and if it so happens be willing to lose and die. That's the way I look at it.

I was raised under the influence of Christianity, progressive liberalism and the general culture and beliefs of 99% of people in the west. It made me weak. Made me a loser. I've been probably more poor and down trodden than you.

I realized what made me a plebian wasn't so much my I.Q. (which is high), not so much my physical strength (which is strong), but my beliefs!!

I had been bought up with attitudes and beliefs that made me weak!!

That's what I'm trying to comment to you- if you just change your beliefs you will start to see a change in life. I don't think you will be too successful if you always look outside yourelf for success though.

But also the second weakest aspect is my own family and my own race. They don't work together. They always want to be a plebian told what to do, need collective action, strong rules to follow, want to "work hard" for someone else, act selfish, don't enrich their own family or race and so on.

Social skills is the most important thing to success: being able to work together as a group. The first key would be to social network with people and work towards success. Have an attitude that you can go start your own business rather than work for someone else, solve your own problems rather than expect the system to solve your problems for you and so on.

Jews sell liberalism to non-Jews in order to enslave them. And christianity is the same thing. They don't believe it themselves. It makes you weak. Socialist beliefs make you weak (other than NS).

velvet
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 05:26 PM
So, your vision is that the "free market" should regulate the government and then all will be fine?

The truth is that mob rule guised as democrazy brought us to the point where we are. This is the result when you leave everything to personal opinions of the media-driven public. Great regulation....

And I really dont know what to think anymore of people who deem their egoistic wants and desires (to race-mix, export jobs and core technology to third world countries with the result that mad men like the North Korean guy have nukes, for some fuckn feeble dollars more in their pocket, import loads of third worlders into our countries for some fuckn feeble dollars etc etc etc) more important than the survival of their folk and nation.

You people are so frightened of "government control" (which in SpearBrave's version is always a government taken right out of Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984), that you prefer being controlled into the very last detail of your life by consumerism and capitalists who spoonfeed everyone 24/7 with the latest degeneracy to consume.

I dont disagree that the current governments must be limited. They dont need only to be limited but removed completely. But what you all seem to ignore is that the current government and big business/banks are the very same people. That, btw, is also the reason why governments right now become more oppressive, to 'socialise' the debts.


And btw, it is not because I wouldnt understand "free market capitalism" or capitalism in general. I do, very well on top. Not honour, justice or good will direct economy elements, money does. That is why money must be boxed into a system to serve the nation and the people and not only its own interests (to generate profits).

I also dont get what would be so wrong about it when our sense of honour, justice, industriousness and so on would be 'legally enforced' or why this would be 'oppressive' when it is allegedly anyway what people would do anyway when they just be left completely to themselves and undirected by higher goals. When you reject the possibility that it could be legally enforced you want to do things that are not part of our culture or our sense of honour, justice, industriousness.

Would you really feel oppressed when you couldnt buy any longer chinese cheaps, toxic clothing from India or other BS like that? And instead our people would be 'forced' to produce products that fulfill the same purpose, just with quality products. Uhhh, how terrible.

RoyBatty
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 05:38 PM
Keep in mind that "Western democracy" and "equality for all" are myths. The amount of democracy and equality a person or group can attain is proportional to their wealth.

The playing field is not level. Without financial and organisational resources it is next to impossible (not illegal, just next to impossible) to compete against the entrenched players.

The entrenched players are backed by corporations, by oligarchs and by various mafias. Numerous lobbies of these interest groups insure that their employers wishes are met and carried out.

Politicians belong to these patrons. They act in the interests of these patrons. They do not serve the public, they do not serve "the people" and they do not serve their countries. They serve the interests of their owners and their owners are Internationalist Profiteers who have no allegiance to or Nationalist love for their particular countries.

The Internationalist Profiteer only cares about profits. Nations, Nation States, Citizens and Workers are nameless, faceless entities with a $$$ value attached to them.

Every citizen = worth X amount of earning power, Y amount of consumer power and Z amount of social expenditure power. The Internationalist Profiteer can make money on all of X, Y and Z.

Nationalism on the one hand (meaning love for one's country, culture, national background, people, traditions, values etc) and Free Market Capitalism / Globalisation / Outsourcing as practiced by our countries and the Internationalist Profiteers and Corporations who effectively control our countries are incompatible with one another.

Paradigm
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 05:45 PM
To the capitalists in the thread:

Tell me what one ought to do with a nation where various corporations under the guise of free enterprise rule your government, congress, and politicians that end up making public policy for everybody else?

You get rid of the government which helps said corporations retain their power. Simple fucking solution.


What does a nationalist do when confronted by a government that is ruled by various free enterprise corporations or profiteering international banks that have no intention of allowing nationalism to even remotely take place as they stand firm and hide behind international free market capitalism as opposed to a nationalized economy?

You get rid of the government which helps said corporations retain their power. Simple fucking solution.



Is a nationalist supposed to embrace international free market capitalism somthing of which hinders their goal and dream of nationalism or a nation state?

You're not forced to buy anything you don't like.


You all speak of international free market capitalism as somthing of which that brings fourth the greatest amount of profit and wealth yet this same very system has brought about a global recession not to mention a crumbling infrastructure of the United States as it was brought about by market capitalists themselves who's only concern is profit.

It has brought about forclosures, unemployment, lost equity, and misery for a great deal of people.

More recently is has brought about lowered wages for the working class that has not even increased all that much in the last thirty years to even match a livable wage for workers.

Free market capitalism in it's value of profit at all cost has brought about international foreign immigration in it's quest to find abundance of cheap labor for the workforce for whom it lobbies with in congress for immigration reforms that only favor in letting even more foreigners in to displace those people who are national citizens.

I thought the general disposition of this website is the preservation of race, culture, and national identity.

Free market capitalism is a corporation moving it's production to a foreign country abroad so that it does not have to pay local national workers a livable wage through outsourcing.

Free market capitalism is that of selling the integrity and pride of nation along with it's national vitality for that of a profit of which is always guaranteed to fall into private pockets.

If that is what international free market capitalism is then it can be damned for it is nothing but damnation and a blight for any intelligent nationalist to see.

Someone here earlier called me a plebeian as a sort of sarcastic gesture in making fun of my views and my occupation as a factory worker.

Although I'm somewhat of commoner now I assure you that in the not too distant future through my own hard work and self educational pursuits I'm a middle class man in the making.

I'm a intelligent commoner or plebeian and one day when I transcend into the upper class in the back of my mind I will never forget where I came from nor the cruelty from those of the top income brackets where I will transcend my class with new ideas that I will bring with me.

At any rate yes I'm currently a commoner but being that I live as a common man I have the eyes to see that which is uncommon to both the middle and upper classes.

I get the privilege as a commoner to observe the ills of this world at first hand up close in observation having even expirienced a great deal of it myself where the upper classes aren't able to in comparison with their comfortable insulated world that leaves them arrogant or stubbornly child like.

Make fun of common people that make up a majority of population of any nation if you must with their common beliefs, goals, and ideals but know that it's the common people who's lives remain destroyed because of recent unregulated international free enterprise to which if they should feel the brunt end of capitalism anymore the common masses will start to revolt in the street where the harmless plebeian as the ancient Latin aristrocratic Romans would once call them will suddenly turn violent into whole entire rebels where you will have national rebellion on your hands.

I don't expect anybody to pay this post much attention here but it is my warning and future prophecy for this world along with this nation if things continue down this disasterous current path.

To the anti-capitalist, are you so weak-willed, scared, and pathetic that you must always look to a controlling entity to make laws to keep your spirit and culture safe? I must ask, is the culture even strong at all? If the culture was strong, no authority would be needed to protect the culture from outside forces. Yet, nationalist continually bash what they see as freedom, and talk about how perverse it is, this freedom, to do what you want. Somehow to them this automatically leads to the idea that if we have the freedom, we will automatically indulge ourselves in things we wouldn't otherwise by default, and then by taking part in things outside of our culture (eating at a Japanese steakhouse, for example, which is enjoyable) we are taking part in exotic culture and lose our Germanic spirit. "Bad" things must be made illegal to preserve our culture. Well, if you were so strong, and your influence so great on your folk, you wouldn't need to ask permission for someone to intervene and ban "bad" things.

I must add that there's a big difference in working along the lines and trading, and knowing about other cultures, than completely assimilating yourself into them. You want to block both.

Leonhardt
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 06:02 PM
Democracy may have inequalities, which could be easily taxed away, but Communism has even bigger inequalities. The most billionaires lived in Russia. Everyone is looking for the right mix.

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”
http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/02/11/putin-warns-us-about-socialsm/


So, your vision is that the "free market" should regulate the government and then all will be fine?
The market collapsed because of lack of regulation, and too much speculation.


The truth is that mob rule guised as democrazy brought us to the point where we are. This is the result when you leave everything to personal opinions of the media-driven public. Great regulation....
Democracy in the US is rule by a small ring of oligarchs, not the mob rule. Public opinions are heavily influenced by the completely Jewish owned media.


And I really dont know what to think anymore of people who deem their egoistic wants and desires (to race-mix, export jobs and core technology to third world countries with the result that mad men like the North Korean guy have nukes, for some fuckn feeble dollars more in their pocket, import loads of third worlders into our countries for some fuckn feeble dollars etc etc etc) more important than the survival of their folk and nation.
Profiting from cheap Asian labor at the expense of the middle class could be a downfall for the US, similar to SA using cheap farm laborers. Some have argued that only the less expensive items are outsourced, and the primary manufacturing is still in the US.


You people are so frightened of "government control" (which in SpearBrave's version is always a government taken right out of Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984), that you prefer being controlled into the very last detail of your life by consumerism and capitalists who spoonfeed everyone 24/7 with the latest degeneracy to consume.
Most media is controlled down to the last detail by the Jews and the CIA. It has been argued that this is set the US up for Communism, or something similar.


I dont disagree that the current governments must be limited. They dont need only to be limited but removed completely. But what you all seem to ignore is that the current government and big business/banks are the very same people. That, btw, is also the reason why governments right now become more oppressive, to 'socialise' the debts.
Most politicians in the US can only be known and elected by receiving corporate dollars. This is why some have argued for publicly financed campaigns, and term limits, to try to get rid of the profit seekers.
I believe the socializing of debt is merely the transfer of public wealth to the banksters. However, Germany owns perhaps several hundred billions in bonds that could collapse also.


And btw, it is not because I wouldnt understand "free market capitalism" or capitalism in general. I do, very well on top. Not honour, justice or good will direct economy elements, money does. That is why money must be boxed into a system to serve the nation and the people and not only its own interests (to generate profits).
:thumbup The people must remain moral and industrious if they are to receive all this money.


I also dont get what would be so wrong about it when our sense of honour, justice, industriousness and so on would be 'legally enforced' or why this would be 'oppressive' when it is allegedly anyway what people would do anyway when they just be left completely to themselves and undirected by higher goals. When you reject the possibility that it could be legally enforced you want to do things that are not part of our culture or our sense of honour, justice, industriousness.
:thumbup I think the people would still need some direction.


Would you really feel oppressed when you couldnt buy any longer chinese cheaps, toxic clothing from India or other BS like that? And instead our people would be 'forced' to produce products that fulfill the same purpose, just with quality products. Uhhh, how terrible.
It has been argued before that inflating the dollars leads to buying at a discount for the US. It does not hurt the US too much as long as the population is nearly fully employed with decent jobs and health insurance.

genius
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 06:21 PM
Keep in mind that "Western democracy" and "equality for all" are myths. The amount of democracy and equality a person or group can attain is proportional to their wealth.

The playing field is not level. Without financial and organisational resources it is next to impossible (not illegal, just next to impossible) to compete against the entrenched players.

The entrenched players are backed by corporations, by oligarchs and by various mafias. Numerous lobbies of these interest groups insure that their employers wishes are met and carried out.

Politicians belong to these patrons. They act in the interests of these patrons. They do not serve the public, they do not serve "the people" and they do not serve their countries. They serve the interests of their owners and their owners are Internationalist Profiteers who have no allegiance to or Nationalist love for their particular countries.

The Internationalist Profiteer only cares about profits. Nations, Nation States, Citizens and Workers are nameless, faceless entities with a $$$ value attached to them.

Every citizen = worth X amount of earning power, Y amount of consumer power and Z amount of social expenditure power. The Internationalist Profiteer can make money on all of X, Y and Z.

Nationalism on the one hand (meaning love for one's country, culture, national background, people, traditions, values etc) and Free Market Capitalism / Globalisation / Outsourcing as practiced by our countries and the Internationalist Profiteers and Corporations who effectively control our countries are incompatible with one another.

I agree with you on all points here exept the end. Case in point: Jews.

The Germanics and other whites who rule choose not to care much about their race. The Jews who rule most of them do care about their race. Thus money is funneled into Israel, in lobbying politicians to support Jewish collective agendas, museums, communities and other projects to serve the Jewish cause. It's not incompatible. the problem is 95% of Germanics don't care enough about their culture.

It's no different on the street level. If I, a white man, were to get jumped and beat by a bunch of immigrants the majority of whites would drive by and do nothing. A few would call the police.

If a Jew was getting attacked other Jews seeing this would immediately come to their aid. Blacks would do the same, Mexicans, maybe even Asians. And Asians and Jews are not very physical people usually! This holds even more true if one of their kind is mistreated. If a black, Jew, Muslim etc. is "discriminated" against in some way the whole community rallies to their support. If a Germanic is discriminated against its "you're on your own".

Stop blaming the system. It's clear other people (namely Jews) thrive in this system and preserve their people, culture, ethnic identity etc. so its not impossible. But even if we look into the past in other systems seems Jews were dominating most of those too, though maybe not to the same degree today. But that has to do more with technology rather than social organization.

My advise: get wealthy, get powerful. If you can't compete in this world accept that and don't think some non-competitive utopia will be any better. Failure is ingrained in the individual as is success. might I quote Hitler here "the same conditions that compell one man to starve compells another to work harder." The environment is not the primary cause of man's condition- the environment does not make the man, the man makes the environment!! Another nazi slogan.

So what that means if you take all the wealth away from the worlds richest people most of them will gain it back in a few years even under a different system! Whereas you can give a million dollars to a loser and in 5 years he's bankrupt. Weakness is from inside. Actually these are not theories but proven. Oprah gave $100,000 to a homeless man who in 2 months was homeless again. Look it up. Look up lottery winners. Also look up about people like Donald Trump who have lost their fortunes only to make them all back again several times!

So if you see the world differently (such as that you are a failure in this situation but would be some kind of grand king in another political or economic system) you are kidding yourself! There may be some differance but it would be only small at best!

But as I said before if you are a failure yeah maybe some of it is your genes (like intelligence, instinct etc.) some of it your environment (especially your family etc.), but a lot of it is changeable: that is the attitudes and culture you carry with you. Germanics have been stripped of their native empowering tradition and replaced with slave cultures of Christianity and Marxism. This culture gives them a blue ribbon for coming in last place, tells them failure "isn't your fault" and "you're special just the way you are" and if you are a loser well "it's the systems fault".

You know what people who tell you that are not your friends. If you learn to improve yourself then you will be happier in life. No amount of money can buy the inward strength that comes from molding one's character. Many of us will never reach our full potential because we can never rid ourselves completely of the liberalism we were raised with, but our children can have more opportunity than us to think the right way, and also we can go a long way towards changing ourselves just from will power- the triumph of the will!!

Why do you think the main weapon used against us is a TV screen and a class room? Think about it. Wars aren't fought very often with guns anymore. It's fought with ideas, deception, manipulation. Your guns is your philosophy, how you live your life.

Paradigm
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 06:36 PM
The market collapsed because of lack of regulation, and too much speculation.

Don't throw gas on the fire. The market collapsed due to a few things, none of them was "lack of regulation", seeing how it's more and more regulated every year.

The market had it's boom and bust due to the Fed (who supposed to "regulate" these matters) lending out loans with artificially low interest rates. Thus acquiring money is cheap, while the continue to print more. More money printed creates the effects of inflation, of prices going up while the value of the dollar is dropping.

The boom was the new money going to individuals and businesses, such things as the housing market collapsing and businesses having to downsize was due to false signals created by the Fed of false saving. By issuing out loans with low interest rates when in reality the money was never there, people purchased goods and expanded business without having the foreknowledge that it will not yield greater profits.

The Keynesian (and our government's) solution is to repeat process, and lend more money and increase spending, instead of saving. To the Austrian we pinpoint the problem at central banking and the lending of loans, etc. To the Keynesian they pinpoint the problem at aggregate demand, so they want to increase spending to increase production, and keep the economy in a quasi-boom. It would be like keeping a drug addict alive by giving him an IV with more drugs.

Leonhardt
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 06:56 PM
Don't throw gas on the fire. The market collapsed due to a few things, none of them was "lack of regulation", seeing how it's more and more regulated every year.
The market was less and less regulated under George Bush, starting with the repeal of Glass-Steagal. The market regulators were sitting on their thumbs being paid off. Their agency was also heavily cut by George Bush.


The market had it's boom and bust due to the Fed (who supposed to "regulate" these matters)
True the booms and bust are due to the Fed, which sole purpose in being created was to prevent booms and busts.


lending out loans with artificially low interest rates. Thus acquiring money is cheap, while the continue to print more. More money printed creates the effects of inflation, of prices going up while the value of the dollar is dropping.

True, they purposefully inflate and devalue.


The boom was the new money going to individuals and businesses, such things as the housing market collapsing and businesses having to downsize was due to false signals created by the Fed of false saving. By issuing out loans with low interest rates when in reality the money was never there, people purchased goods and expanded business without having the foreknowledge that it will not yield greater profits.
I look at it as one big inflation bubble that popped. The bubble lead people to believe they were profiting, instead of being inflated. Some people, such as in hedge funds, watched their own investments create "profit". However, some people may have timed the market properly and profited, perhaps due to insider knowledge, or associations.


The Keynesian (and our government's) solution is to repeat process, and lend more money and increase spending, instead of saving. To the Austrian we pinpoint the problem at central banking and the lending of loans, etc. To the Keynesian they pinpoint the problem at aggregate demand, so they want to increase spending to increase production, and keep the economy in a quasi-boom. It would be like keeping a drug addict alive by giving him an IV with more drugs.
True, they are trying to start inflation again. It does seem sort of out of control, and Orwellian right now.

Caledonian
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 05:39 AM
The lightly regulated free market will never exist. It always kills itself off due to the greed of its capitalist participants.

The goal of a corporation is not to keep a market free, but to close it in their favor. The more money and power the corporation gains, the more it is able to buy up or destroy the competitors in its marketplace.

The American market of today is made up of some monopolies, but mostly oligopolies who are friendly competitors and don't really compete.

"Basic principles of oligopolies:
-All industries tend toward oligopoly.
-Being #1 is great, being #2 is good, being #3 is difficult, being #4 or higher is a losing game.
-Oligopolies are safer from regulation than monopolies.
-Oligopolies are tempted to go vertical.
-Oligopolies are tempted to go horizontal.
-Oligopolies are tempted to go multinational.
-Members of oligopolies tend to converge.
-Oligopolies offer pseudo-variety.
-Members of oligoplies are friendly enemies.
-Oligopolies watch their flanks, fearing disruption.
- A key source of disruption is a shift in the competition matrix.
-Acqusitions cause other acqusitions as a buying panic results.
-Oligopolies buy up innovators or steal their ideas and put them out of business.
-Oligopolies lead to oligopsonies.
-Oligopolies collect and discard brands like a gin rummy player.
-Only the big can serve the big.
-Oligopolies try to master three basic forces: shelf life, shelf space, and mind space.
-Oligopolies tend toward oligonomy"


Monopoly is a Capitalists Paradise. Free markets, as in when there is true compitition, is the very antithesis of capitalism. All capitalists seek to kill the competition. Why do you suppose there are only a very few banks and they are always working at merging with, or trying to put all other banks out of business? For one example.

In any event the USA is the world's shining example of a Capitalist's Paradise. Millions out of work, because businesses wanted to improve the bottom line by looking around the world for the losest wages possible and shipped the American economy overseas. Millions of families losing their homes because business decided that instead of a middle class it was better to kill trade unions and employ people in slave wage countries to further enrich themselves.

Paradigm
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 05:56 AM
I bet your just some rich twenty somthing year old born to a aristocratic family who has never expirienced real suffering or torment in life. Your insulated world of rich opulence breeds the kind of weakness I despise in your lazy pleasure seeking lifestyles.

I'm only an aristocrat of the soul. :D


You've never expirienced what it is like to be broken down and to have nothing nor have you ever truely expirienced life crushing despair where suicide seems like a pleasant thought compared to living,

You've never expirienced what it is like to be sacrificed thrown into the gutter like common trash.

You've never expirienced in having years of your life taken away which cannot be brought back by constant struggles of trying to climb out of abyssnal poverty, unemployment, and destitution.

You've never expirienced what it is like to have no sort of self identity in this world at all.

You've never expirienced months of homelessness living on the streets.

I have and so much more in comparison. I've felt the brunt force of free market capitalism in which I'm still being slammed by to this day.

Don't you ever assume to know about me just because of a couple of personal articles I post about myself here and there on this website.

Believe me you wouldn't want to know a person like myself in real life beyond the internet because I already dislike you without having met you where I'm sure I would come to hate a person like yourself if we had the privilege of meeting.

Also I would refrain from making future personal attacks on people beyond posting that which is centered around the thread subject created.

Anymore people that feel the need to attack me personally because they don't like the opinions that come from me will have themselves reported to the main member here that owns this website.

I will not put up with personal insults nor should I have to.

I don't really care what life you lead or what type of life you had before or what type of physical, psychological, or emotional torment you'll never bestow upon me because you would never do it regardless of what law making entity exist. In your occupation you have "drifter" added as if it's anything dignifying, so don't give a sob story when you don't see to have any initiative to leave your so troubled life behind.

This isn't a personal insult either, it's a life analysis. Take it into consideration. If you don't act honorable and aristocratic, you'll never be so spiritually or materially.

Caledonian
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 06:04 AM
I'm not looking for pity or sympathy.

I don't need any.

I was making a comparison analysis between us which this post of yours quoted above only reaffirms the differences between you and me.

You seem to think that there are many of our people that are worth sacrificing and to be thrown away into being worthless because they don't meet your expectations or prognosis of what they should be.

I don't because I don't believe people's lives should be thrown away so carelessly.


you'll never bestow upon me because you would never do it regardless of what law making entity exist.

Some of my commentary in that post wasn't made to you directly as it was speaking indirectly about the world around me and it was intentionally not designed to be directed towards you apart of some of my comments of that post that definately obviously were.

I wouldn't want to break any internet rules or laws in place especially the general rules of this forum where some nondirected vague ambiguity is helpful in written sentences in expressing oneself.




In your occupation you have "drifter" added as if it's anything dignifying, so don't give a sob story when you don't see to have any initiative to leave your so troubled life behind.

Yeah it's called I've expirienced the cruelest realities of this world where I'm still continuing to expirience them where I'm not afraid to admit or express it here in illustration even when it concerns a simple phrase.

But I don't expect someone like you to understand with your arrogant cavalier sort of attitude.


This isn't a personal insult either, it's a life analysis. Take it into consideration. If you don't act honorable and aristocratic, you'll never be so spiritually or materially.

I don't need advice from the likes of you.

Your advice is worthless just like your opinions of me.

Paradigm
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 06:18 AM
You seem to think that there are many of our people that are worth sacrificing and to be thrown away in being worthless because they don't meet your expectations or prognosis of what they should be.

I never said such things about sacrificing people or them not meeting "my" expectations of what they should be. People can do whatever they want. One reason I support free markets. How you carry and portray yourself is something different.


But I don't expect someone like you to understand with your arrogant cavalier sort of attitude.

I know and seen people and things that you would have never guessed. I don't need to publicize it either for attention. Some things are best kept secret before one starts making a fool of himself.

Caledonian
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 06:25 AM
I never said such things about sacrificing people or them not meeting "my" expectations of what they should be. People can do whatever they want. One reason I support free markets. How you carry and portray yourself is something different.

I haven't portrayed myself in any ill manner.

It's rude and arrogant of you to presume otherwise.

Calling me a embarrassment is one example not to mention your mockery of me.


I know and seen people and things that you would have never guessed. I don't need to publicize it either for attention. Some things are best kept secret before one starts making a fool of himself.

People who keep things hidden to themselves are people who build their lives upon fear of which my life is not one built upon fear therefore I hide nothing.

As for attention.... This is a public internet forum of which posts are made for attention otherwise they wouldn't be made at all, would they?

Paradigm
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 06:39 AM
Well congratulations. You have money to invest.

Must be nice living the good life.

Yes, minimum wage jobs, the good life.


People who keep things hidden to themselves are people who build their lives upon fear of which my life is not one built upon fear therefore I hide nothing.

I'm not hiding anything. I just know a lot of things that need no mention, mainly due to it's utterly useless to give out said "information".


As for attention.... This is a public internet forum of which posts are made for attention otherwise they wouldn't be made at all, would they?

You post outlandish and ridiculous stuff.

Besides that it's useless to reply to this anymore.

Caledonian
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 06:40 AM
As for the current global recession which has it's origins on American wallstreet we could say that it was caused by under-regulated Capitalism.

Banks are allowed to create risky products, sell them, then bet on their failure.

Companies are allowed to sell a single stock note to many different people while only securing funds for one actual note.

The SEC is held captive by the industry it regulates. After the SEC announced an investigation into Goldman Sachs, Goldman responded by lobbying Congress to open an investigation into the SEC.

Under-regulated capitalism.

It's been acknowledge that consumer debt is one of the many reasons which brought about the recession in the United States.

Why is it that people keep acquiring so much debt?

Could it be that so many people can barely afford to survive and live in a country where a affordable wage isn't given to them?


News article 2008

There's no magic bullet, says Steven Fazzari, economics professor at Washington University in St. Louis. The root cause of the current economic slowdown in the U.S. goes back several decades. There has been a concurrent wave of increasing consumer spending and rising consumer indebtedness. In the past, consumer spending actually helped the economy as it raised firms' sales and encouraged more hiring. But the associated rise in household debt, most obviously in the recent housing bubble, has come back to haunt the U.S.

"For more than two decades we had consumer-led growth, which actually mitigated the recessions of the early 1990s and 2001," Fazzari says. "Part of the reason we had mild recessions was due to consumer strength. But we kept building up debt. It was also a period of falling nominal interest rates. This meant that every cycle of low interest rates was another opportunity for people to refinance on better terms and extend their spending further."

The economy is changing, however, and we can't rely on consumer spending to keep rising beyond its already inflated level; households can no longer push the debt limit because the credit isn't there. Even the Federal Reserve Bank's move to lower interest rates doesn't give Fazzari much hope for a turnaround.

"Bernanke deserves credit for creative approaches to containing instability in financial markets," Fazzari says. "But the source of the recession comes from structural problems that need to be changed. Bail-outs may help prevent everything from cascading further, but the Fed does not have the tools to solve these problems.


Steven Fazzari
"Unfortunately, the cost of letting institutions fail is worse than the cost of bailing them out, but ultimately, the Fed will not be able to stop the downturn in consumer spending. The household sector just has to retrench and repair its balance sheet. In the meantime, the result is a weak economy," he says.

Fazzari notes that the stimulus packages proposed by Congress and the presidential candidates could be useful as well, but even those policies aren't nearly large enough to prevent a deep recession.

"With those proposals, we're talking about something that is a quarter of the size of what's necessary to turn things around."


http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/11430.aspx

Caledonian
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 06:42 AM
Yes, minimum wage jobs, the good life.



I'm not hiding anything. I just know a lot of things that need no mention, mainly due to it's utterly useless to give out said "information".



You post outlandish and ridiculous stuff.

Besides that it's useless to reply to this anymore.

Whatever. Reply or don't. I don't really care either way.

I'm tired of your Mr. know it all attitude, your insults, and your mockery of people when you can't hold your own debate.

Also in a world revolving around subjectivity what is considered useless or worthless to you isn't to everybody else.

Horagalles
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 06:59 AM
To the capitalists in the thread:

Tell me what one ought to do with a nation where various corporations under the guise of free enterprise rule your government, congress, and politicians that end up making public policy for everybody else?

What does a nationalist do when confronted by a government that is ruled by various free enterprise corporations or profiteering international banks that ....This is anything, but "free enterprise" as it is having some interfering with the enterprise of others via the state. That situation is kind of neo-mercantilism, where business people utilize the government in their own favor. However this highlights a problem for the libertarians. There are only a few business people favoring their model. Many business people favor big government, as they can use this in their favor. The libertarian support base is mainly limited to people in academia or autistic nerds, who just want "to do what they want, without the government interfering".

Caledonian
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 07:07 AM
This is anything, but "free enterprise" as it is having some interfering with the enterprise of others via the state. That situation is kind of neo-mercantilism, where business people utilize the government in their own favor. However this highlights a problem for the libertarians. There are only a few business people favoring their model. Many business people favor big government, as they can use this in their favor. The libertarian support base is mainly limited to people in academia or autistic nerds, who just want "to do what they want, without the government interfering".

I thought mercantilism was where corporations, businesses, and industries were extensions of a strong nationalized government not the other way around where government is dominated by trade monopolies that controls it's decisions of policy making.

I personally favor a economical model where the nation state, economy, and business are all apart of singular system where none can become independent of each other to influence the others.

In order for there to be nationalism all institutions need to become one where none is independent of each other to infiltrate and corrupt the other.

When we have a system like capitalism where merchants are independent to do whatever they wish in creating profit can we really expect such people to always have national interests close to heart?

If anything past and current history has proven no to that question.

Horagalles
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 09:52 AM
I thought mercantilism was where corporations, businesses, and industries were extensions of a strong nationalized government not the other way around where government is dominated by trade monopolies that controls it's decisions of policy making.
That's why I called it neomercantilism. There is certainly a shift in power from the first and second estate to third one. You can of course argue that roles and structure have shifted. with the media and academia having taken over the role of the church, while the soldiering is done by civil society activists now.


I personally favor a economical model where the nation state, economy, and business are all apart of singular system where none can become independent of each other to influence the others.
In that the case the influence would just be more total.


In order for there to be nationalism all institutions need to become one where none is independent of each other to infiltrate and corrupt the other.
Nationalism just needs to be part of the canon of prevalent ideas.


When we have a system like capitalism where merchants are independent to do whatever they wish in creating profit can we really expect such people to always have national interests close to heart?
Merchants are also influenced by the prevalent ideas. What accounts for the merchants does account for civil servants and academics as well.


If anything past and current history has proven no to that question.
Well, since WW2 the hegemony of ideas has shifted. (White) Nationlism is bad now and you are dealing with an egotistic culture of self-realization. Not that people didn't have egos before this, but you had a balance with other institutions and values.

velvet
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 01:16 PM
Democracy may have inequalities, which could be easily taxed away, but Communism has even bigger inequalities. The most billionaires lived in Russia. Everyone is looking for the right mix.

It's not about to eradicate inequality. It's about to limit the level of exploitation that makes this inequality greater than it must be (by the individual's skills, merits, industriousness etc. Not everyone who is 'stupid' is also lazy f.e., he's just not super bright. I just think when someone works 8h a day that this is worth something (ie a third of his life time) and he should be paid accordingly).

Btw, I dont advocate Communism. I advocate a national-socialist system, which put great emphasis on industriousness and personal merit.

I know you Americans freak out on the word 'socialism', but this really is a lack of understanding of what it means in the context of National Socialism.



The market collapsed because of lack of regulation, and too much speculation.

Yes, and it's unregulated because the banks, big business etc are the same people as in government, so if 'regulation' happens, it is for the advantage of big business, not for the individual's rights.


Democracy in the US is rule by a small ring of oligarchs, not the mob rule. Public opinions are heavily influenced by the completely Jewish owned media.

The point is that these people gained power through the fantasy construct of a "self-regulating market" (or free market). Once they have been in the positions that they wanted to optain, they stopped playing 'by the rules' of their own game. Which was the goal from the start, but they were clever. They said everyone could do that too, but everyone else failed, so its their own fault. This was never true to begin with, because the "self-regulating market" is governed by 'rules' that limit the possible players to those who have the means to control the market, ie those who possess a lot of money. And the current oligarchs and profiteers possessed a lot of money already before the market was made ruleless, all this blubbering about individual rights and freedoms was just to cloud the truth and make people play along with a game whose extent and rules only few understood, if at all.

Same for the media. The media was in the hands of these same oligarchs for large degrees already before the market was made ruleless, and the media added a lot of drift to that it became 'free', not least through the constant rallying for "individual rights" and "freedoms" which, as said, really only exist for those who can buy them.



Profiting from cheap Asian labor at the expense of the middle class could be a downfall for the US, similar to SA using cheap farm laborers. Some have argued that only the less expensive items are outsourced, and the primary manufacturing is still in the US.

Dont know for the US, for Germany this certainly is only partly true. We export more core technology, knowledge and skills every year, whole production plants are moved to cheap wage regions (East Europe, Asia, India, and lately also North Africa). Parallel to that the education level is dumped down (f.e. there are only very few Diploma study fields left, most is downgraded to Master or Bachelor, which in turn generates a "need for skilled labor forces" from elsewhere in the world). I'm pretty sure that this is the case in the US too.



Most media is controlled down to the last detail by the Jews and the CIA. It has been argued that this is set the US up for Communism, or something similar.

They could gain this position through generating a "free market", in order that they become the controlling instance. Their goal never was a real 'free market' for product exchange, the goal was to gain power positions.



Most politicians in the US can only be known and elected by receiving corporate dollars. This is why some have argued for publicly financed campaigns, and term limits, to try to get rid of the profit seekers.

This is a good example of how the "free market" distributes power to those who can pay for it. Your constitution says everyone can be elected, in truth you need several million dollars to finance your campaign, so "democrazy" only exists for the rich.

This btw also counts for justice. When you can pay lawyers, you can buy 'justice', when you dont have dollars, justice doesnt exist for you. Or any of your constitutionally granted "rights". They exist in theory, in praxis it's only for the rich.


I believe the socializing of debt is merely the transfer of public wealth to the banksters.

Yes, because the banksters are the same people like government, and their interest is to transfer all wealth (=power) to themselves.


However, Germany owns perhaps several hundred billions in bonds that could collapse also.

Could be MADE to collapse, indeed. See the Iceland case (Ice Save) for details of how this works.


:thumbup The people must remain moral and industrious if they are to receive all this money.

Yes, but they also must be enabled to be remain 'moral' and industrious. This is in the current system increasingly not the case anymore and it will get worse.


:thumbup I think the people would still need some direction.

That's what I say. You need a neutral instance that takes care of the culture, the direction in which the economy develops, of the rights of people, can enforce responsibility of the people etc, in short govern the immaterial, higher goals of the people and a nation.

This neutral instance cannot be thrown into the free market or battles of free competition. It can only be neutral when it is independend of profit interests and doesnt have to compete. The Japanese solve this problem with "The Ministry" (ie the neutral, leading instance that directs and takes care of the culture, the economy, etc), put up and ruled by the Kaiser. Neither profit interests nor other economic interests were taken into account, only the wellbeing of the Japanese people, upholding of the culture and the taking care of the societal structures that enable their growth and development.

Now, the Japanese arent a "free" people. And in details they even go too far for my taste, but the idea as such, the system is a good one - and their success gives it credit.

They have been the second richest nation until recently, when China kicked them down to rank three. But the point is that the Japanese really dont care. It wasnt their goal to be second, and falling down to three or even further doesnt bother them. Because what is 'good for them' is not measured in an international contest of profit. It is neutral and absolute and is not for sale.



It has been argued before that inflating the dollars leads to buying at a discount for the US. It does not hurt the US too much as long as the population is nearly fully employed with decent jobs and health insurance.

Is your population "nearly fully employed"? Do your people earn a "decent salary"? Can people effort health insurance?

I've heard that more and more people in the US need two or more jobs to 'survive' (a development slowly reaching also Europe btw), thanks to all the nice and good competition on the labor market, where they have to sell their labor force and the hours of their days for a way too low wage.
Which in turn moves them into poorer neighborhoods, which in turn disables them to partake in social activies, which in turn levels down their nutrition, which in turn endangers their health, which in turn limits their labor power, which in turn downgrades their wages even further and so on. And with all the risk factors their health insurance probably becomes unpayable then, so when something happens to them, they will literally lose everything.

Someone who has to work 14+h a day to 'survive' doesnt get kids, and when they have kids, they cannot take proper care of them, they cannot finance their education properly, they arent even there to answer questions or to support them in any other way. So basically, if they breed at all, they breed the next generation of the super poor and uneducated, whose wages will be even lower, their living standard, education standard, everything is downgraded to the lowest denominator.

This also helps to keep the power in the hands of the oligarchs. People who are uneducated and unskilled have no voice, no rights, no lobby and no means to change their own situation, let alone to see through the overall scheme.

Leonhardt
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 03:59 PM
exploitation that makes this inequality greater than it must be
I advocate a national-socialist system, which put great emphasis on industriousness and personal merit.
agree


I know you Americans freak out on the word 'socialism', but this really is a lack of understanding of what it means in the context of National Socialism.
Some are strict Capitalists, but I like government health care.



Yes, and it's unregulated because the banks, big business etc are the same people as in government, so if 'regulation' happens, it is for the advantage of big business, not for the individual's rights.
For their peak advantage, the businesses would want no regulation whatsoever, and there would be a big shark feeding frenzy. They need some regulation for at least appearances. It is true that many of the laws on the surface appear to be regulation, but actually make it easier for the businessmen to profit.



The point is that these people gained power through the fantasy construct of a "self-regulating market" (or free market).
I am not sure if they had free market propaganda in the newspapers. I always thought they profited from market manipulations.
How they gained power is also covered in the Rosenthal interview in my signature.


Once they have been in the positions that they wanted to optain, they stopped playing 'by the rules' of their own game. Which was the goal from the start, but they were clever. They said everyone could do that too, but everyone else failed, so its their own fault. This was never true to begin with, because the "self-regulating market" is governed by 'rules' that limit the possible players to those who have the means to control the market, ie those who possess a lot of money. And the current oligarchs and profiteers possessed a lot of money already before the market was made ruleless, all this blubbering about individual rights and freedoms was just to cloud the truth and make people play along with a game whose extent and rules only few understood, if at all.
It is true they have obtained most of the positions of power, and they don't play by very many rules. Even an investor like Mark Cuban knows that the stock market is completely corrupt. (after hours trading, insider deals)


Same for the media. The media was in the hands of these same oligarchs for large degrees already before the market was made ruleless, and the media added a lot of drift to that it became 'free', not least through the constant rallying for "individual rights" and "freedoms" which, as said, really only exist for those who can buy them.
Agree they own the media and school text books. It seems like individual rights are only for immigrants these days.



Dont know for the US, for Germany this certainly is only partly true. We export more core technology, knowledge and skills every year, whole production plants are moved to cheap wage regions (East Europe, Asia, India, and lately also North Africa). Parallel to that the education level is dumped down (f.e. there are only very few Diploma study fields left, most is downgraded to Master or Bachelor, which in turn generates a "need for skilled labor forces" from elsewhere in the world). I'm pretty sure that this is the case in the US too.
There are some engineering schools that are now arts schools, but I haven't followed it too closely. It has been said for awhile now that the standards have dropped at school.




They could gain this position through generating a "free market", in order that they become the controlling instance. Their goal never was a real 'free market' for product exchange, the goal was to gain power positions.Agree, money, then power.



This is a good example of how the "free market" distributes power to those who can pay for it. Your constitution says everyone can be elected, in truth you need several million dollars to finance your campaign, so "democrazy" only exists for the rich.True, unless there are publicly financed campaigns.


This btw also counts for justice. When you can pay lawyers, you can buy 'justice', when you dont have dollars, justice doesnt exist for you. Or any of your constitutionally granted "rights". They exist in theory, in praxis it's only for the rich.True, lawyers can cost several hundred thousands, up to a lengthy trial of a million. They should be publicly financed also.



Yes, because the banksters are the same people like government, and their interest is to transfer all wealth (=power) to themselves.
True, they fund many politicians, and then transfer wealth back to themselves.


Yes, but they also must be enabled to be remain 'moral' and industrious. This is in the current system increasingly not the case anymore and it will get worse.It would be interesting to see how sharing the profit with the employees would result.




This neutral instance cannot be thrown into the free market or battles of free competition. It can only be neutral when it is independend of profit interests and doesnt have to compete. The Japanese solve this problem with "The Ministry" (ie the neutral, leading instance that directs and takes care of the culture, the economy, etc), put up and ruled by the Kaiser. Neither profit interests nor other economic interests were taken into account, only the wellbeing of the Japanese people, upholding of the culture and the taking care of the societal structures that enable their growth and development.interesting


Now, the Japanese arent a "free" people. And in details they even go too far for my taste, but the idea as such, the system is a good one - and their success gives it credit.I can't remember from which country it originates, but there is a saying "The nail that sticks up gets hammered back down".


They have been the second richest nation until recently, when China kicked them down to rank three. But the point is that the Japanese really dont care. It wasnt their goal to be second, and falling down to three or even further doesnt bother them. Because what is 'good for them' is not measured in an international contest of profit. It is neutral and absolute and is not for sale.Yes, some over compete at the expense of national well being.



Is your population "nearly fully employed"? Do your people earn a "decent salary"? Can people effort health insurance?
Lower employment is due to bank bailouts and immigrants. Lower salaries are possibly due to outsourcing and immigrants. However, I believe many of the US unions are corrupted. Expensive health insurance is more due to that industry's setup than to outsourcing. It is an arbitrary line as to how many cheap imports are too much.


I've heard that more and more people in the US need two or more jobs to 'survive' (a development slowly reaching also Europe btw), thanks to all the nice and good competition on the labor market, where they have to sell their labor force and the hours of their days for a way too low wage.true

Which in turn moves them into poorer neighborhoods, which in turn disables them to partake in social activies, which in turn levels down their nutrition, which in turn endangers their health, which in turn limits their labor power, which in turn downgrades their wages even further and so on. And with all the risk factors their health insurance probably becomes unpayable then, so when something happens to them, they will literally lose everything.I think most in the US would rather move to the suburbs, or further out west, than into the city. They still have grocery stores with fruit and vegetables in most cities, but taking the bus could drag one down.


Someone who has to work 14+h a day to 'survive' doesnt get kids, and when they have kids, they cannot take proper care of them, they cannot finance their education properly, they arent even there to answer questions or to support them in any other way. So basically, if they breed at all, they breed the next generation of the super poor and uneducated, whose wages will be even lower, their living standard, education standard, everything is downgraded to the lowest denominator.That is why I usually advocate no taxes for parents of Germanic children, and possible even a money bonus.
Like Hillary Clinton had said, "If you want to change the world, then you have to be in power". Until then, it could continue to go downhill for some people.


This also helps to keep the power in the hands of the oligarchs. People who are uneducated and unskilled have no voice, no rights, no lobby and no means to change their own situation, let alone to see through the overall scheme.The people being uneducated relates to the banker's printing of the school textbooks in the US. It seems like "political correctness" trumps math and vocabulary.
I think the "no voice" part is due to being unorganized, and not looking out for one another, which leads to no improvement of their own situation.

I liked the recent Fritz Springmeier article(makow.com) where he said the people must first have hope. From there, they must organize and take action.

RoyBatty
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 08:37 PM
Democracy may have inequalities, which could be easily taxed away, but Communism has even bigger inequalities. The most billionaires lived in Russia. Everyone is looking for the right mix.


I'd like to address this point:

- The old Soviet Union's economy did stagnate in comparison to Western Countries. It was too Centralised, aka too much of a Command Economy. There is truth to the usual arguments that there was little incentive for Comrades to work harder or smarter because ultimately we're all greedy and no reward = can't be bothered.

This was less of an issue in the scientific sphere where the Soviet Union easily held its own with the West. Scientists / Scientific development were not as much affected as ordinary workers and the general economy were.

When the Soviet Union broke up in the early 1990's it's economy wasn't completely in ruins but it had been creaking along for many years. Many industries were inefficient, inefficiently run, in need of modernisation etc.

Russia itself then headed for a disastrous time under Yeltsin because whilst the economy obviously needed reforming it did not need the type of reforming which was done under Yeltsin with the aid of the "Harvard Boys" types of economic "advisors" and other bandits who streamed in from the West.

What followed was a crazy Capitalist (in the worst sense) drive by Oligarchs and Scheissters to loot and grab what were State Assets in rigged sales and auctions for a fraction of what they were worth. It was privatisation gone wrong - the other extreme of the scale. In the end a handfull of oligarchs controlled everything worth controlling and the general population were left with next to nothing.

Conditions in the country went from bad to worse. The life expectancy dropped sharply. The birthrate dropped sharply. Crime levels were at unimaginable levels. The problems with Chechnya and the banking crisis of 1998? put further strain on the state. Wealth was being plundered by (often Jewish) Russian insiders working in cahoots with foreign "financial advisors". Bad deals were made.

For example, the Sakhalin Oil and Gas project was set up on such ridiculous terms under the Yeltsin Government in order to attract investment and the necessary foreign expertise that Russia lacked that Russia itself was going to earn next to nothing from the project whilst cost-overruns were spiralling out of control.

All the above are examples of the negative and dark side of unchecked Capitalism. The situation only started improving after Yeltsin was "retired" (presumably he was made an offer he couldn't refuse) and Putin took over the Presidency and started reigning in the worst of the Oligarchs and Oligarch excesses and robbery.

It's no coincidence why Putin is hated so much by the Western media and publications like "The Economist". He cost them a lot of $$$ after he put a partial end to the worst of their looting.


Regarding capitalism, socialism and communism, nobody here are advocating a "Communist" type system where the State controls everything in a Command style economy. All we're saying is that there needs to be a counterbalance to the power of the Corporations, Banks, Tycoons / Oligarchs etc. Without that counterbalance we end up with a situation like we have in the USA and UK today where the country is run by the Corporations For The Corporations. Where workers and citizens are simply numbers on a balance sheet. Where there is no loyalty and support to the citizen from the Nation State. Where there is little assistance from the State to provide the citizen with a decent education, income support when needed etc.

We're not advocating "Social Welfare" where idiots get free money for existing or breeding. Obviously there needs to be control over how this money is allocated, how it is used and how it is recuperated again from the citizen via taxes etc.

Neither Extreme Communism nor Extreme Capitalism are desirable systems. Somewhere in the middle is perhaps a better way.

RoyBatty
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 09:17 PM
I agree with you on all points here exept the end. Case in point: Jews.

The Germanics and other whites who rule choose not to care much about their race. The Jews who rule most of them do care about their race. Thus money is funneled into Israel, in lobbying politicians to support Jewish collective agendas, museums, communities and other projects to serve the Jewish cause. It's not incompatible. the problem is 95% of Germanics don't care enough about their culture.


There is much truth in what you're saying. There is a lack of community spirit and social cohesion amongst Germanics and the same holds for "white" people.

The most likely explanation I can think of is that until recent times it wasn't really necessary. Germanics / Whites were not under threat. They controlled regions, countries and formed the majority. This state of affair afforded them a sense of security and complacency.

There has been a distinct lack of vision and foresight to realise how soon all this can be changed as we're experiencing today.

In the same way that it requires miles to change the direction of an oil tanker, it requires a concerted effort to change attitudes and raise awareness of these problems. It's been made a lot more difficult by the fact that the enemy now controls the media and much of the political and economic spheres.

Germanics have themselves to blame for being complacent to allow this to happen but that's water under the bridge and unless we start raising awareness and national "pride" (I hate that word lol) things will only go from bad to worse.

The Jews have millenia of experience and practice living as minorities in communities and societies who don't exactly love them (mostly due to their greed and love of exploiting and ripping off the goyim). In order to survive and flourish they've learned to work together despite differences amongst themselves. They always ensure that they raise one another up through the ranks.

By contrast we're still stuck in a culture where "promotion should be by merit" and where people are expected to "make it by themselves". These are issues we need to redress.

Leonhardt
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 10:16 PM
What followed was a crazy Capitalist (in the worst sense) drive by Oligarchs and Scheissters to loot and grab what were State Assets in rigged sales and auctions for a fraction of what they were worth. It was privatisation gone wrong - the other extreme of the scale. In the end a handfull of oligarchs controlled everything worth controlling and the general population were left with next to nothing.
I had heard it was the old Jewish Czars splitting the country up amongst themselves. Some of them, like Khodorkovsky, were Rothschild agents spending banker money. They were no more ravenous than they were as Czars.

Most people agree that Socialism, such as Canada's, is acceptable.
The US is only slightly less socialist than Canada.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 10:32 PM
Whatever. Reply or don't. I don't really care either way.

I'm tired of your Mr. know it all attitude, your insults, and your mockery of people when you can't hold your own debate.

Also in a world revolving around subjectivity what is considered useless or worthless to you isn't to everybody else.

Whining about his own personal situation with minimum wage jobs and trying to use this to prove a point or justify trade monoplies and interest slavery doesn't prove his point at all. On the contrary it only shows the futility of running economics and society by these things.

Thats all its for...putting alittle extra cash in someone's pocket...just what do these kinks in the system help build or create or fix?

RoyBatty
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 10:58 PM
I had heard it was the old Jewish Czars splitting the country up amongst themselves. Some of them, like Khodorkovsky, were Rothschild agents spending banker money. They were no more ravenous than they were as Czars.


Yes that's more or less correct. Khodorkovsky started out his career in the Commie Youth if I recall correctly. He somehow got into some $$$ and started buying up State assets, often via rigged auctions. (Bribes would be paid beforehand to those running the auctions in order to "sell" the asset for a fraction of its real worth).

Speculation has been that Rothschild were supplying Khodorkovsky with the necessary Capital to acquire assets. Another method of gaining control over companies was to buy up bonds from the general public. When the Soviet Union broke up the Russian Authorities issues certificates to everybody in the country entitling them to partial ownership of state assets. The oligarchs collected these certificates (ordinary Russians had no idea what these were worth, they couldn't trade or sell them etc) in exchange for small amounts of money, vodka etc. Hence they acquired control over the companies.

So... interestingly enough it transpired after Khodorkovsky's arrest by the Russian authorities that control over his Yukos shares passed over to none other than Rothschild. This was a secret arrangement which wasn't public knowledge until this point. In the end it didn't make a difference since the Russian State effectively seized Yukos / Khodorkovsky's ill gotten gains but it does give interesting insight in how the game was played, who supplied the money and how they ripped off the rest of the country.

This is why, if you recall, there was such a massive Western outcry about Russia vs Khodorkovsky. Khodorkovsky was presented as some kind of democracy loving martyr being "victimised and persecuted" by the "Authoritarian Russian Regime". Some of them (The Economist for example) even suggested that Khodorkovsky could one day soon return from incarceration as a "hero to the Russian people". :D

yes...... we can laugh about it now.... how the Russians supposedly can't wait for their Jewish "saviour" Khodorkovsky to lead them back to the 1990's when everything went to hell.




Most people agree that Socialism, such as Canada's, is acceptable.
The US is only slightly less socialist than Canada.

In Sweden (a very Socialist country) the system is also quite fair although taxes are perhaps too high if you're somewhat wealthy. They also waste too much money on sponsoring immigrants..... but that's another story.

Caledonian
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 11:02 PM
I had heard it was the old Jewish Czars splitting the country up amongst themselves. Some of them, like Khodorkovsky, were Rothschild agents spending banker money. They were no more ravenous than they were as Czars.

Most people agree that Socialism, such as Canada's, is acceptable.
The US is only slightly less socialist than Canada.

I would go for a type of socialism found in Canada only with powerfu racial cultural systems in place that would make it a form of social nationalism. ;)

The corporations must be kept into check from influencing the government and from looting the pockets of the general populance.

I do not understand anybody that can disagree with that.

What we have is now is a international coalition of big industry,banks, and corporations that have swindled their way into our government controlling public policy not to mention destabilizing our nationalized economies, sovereignty, and cultural racial identity.

They must be stopped and violently so if needed as far as I'm concerned.

Caledonian
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 11:06 PM
Whining about his own personal situation with minimum wage jobs and trying to use this to prove a point or justify trade monoplies and interest slavery doesn't prove his point at all. On the contrary it only shows the futility of running economics and society by these things.

Thats all its for...putting alittle extra cash in someone's pocket...just what do these kinks in the system help build or create or fix?

Increasing unemployment, outsourcing of jobs, and a bankrupted United States only proves my point in the perils we've come to live in.

In other threads I express things of my personal expiriences of the various hardships I go through but they are only representations of a much larger picture of what is going on in the world.

So what if I do? Why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Why do you have a problem with it?

Any attempt to criticizing me for complaining about my own plight in life in that which I live is merely you despising what you hear from another in that people's emotions like my own are a disruptive force in that facade of reality that you take for granted along with the plight of the working class that you choose to ignore.

I will not be bothered by opinions like yours in that beyond a sort of cavalier type attitude of the wealthy scoffing at the problems of the poor or the working class they are meaningless attitudes that are unproductive for me to hear.

Caledonian
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 11:14 PM
Yes that's more or less correct. Khodorkovsky started out his career in the Commie Youth if I recall correctly. He somehow got into some $$$ and started buying up State assets, often via rigged auctions. (Bribes would be paid beforehand to those running the auctions in order to "sell" the asset for a fraction of its real worth).

Speculation has been that Rothschild were supplying Khodorkovsky with the necessary Capital to acquire assets. Another method of gaining control over companies was to buy up bonds from the general public. When the Soviet Union broke up the Russian Authorities issues certificates to everybody in the country entitling them to partial ownership of state assets. The oligarchs collected these certificates (ordinary Russians had no idea what these were worth, they couldn't trade or sell them etc) in exchange for small amounts of money, vodka etc. Hence they acquired control over the companies.

So... interestingly enough it transpired after Khodorkovsky's arrest by the Russian authorities that control over his Yukos shares passed over to none other than Rothschild. This was a secret arrangement which wasn't public knowledge until this point. In the end it didn't make a difference since the Russian State effectively seized Yukos / Khodorkovsky's ill gotten gains but it does give interesting insight in how the game was played, who supplied the money and how they ripped off the rest of the country.

This is why, if you recall, there was such a massive Western outcry about Russia vs Khodorkovsky. Khodorkovsky was presented as some kind of democracy loving martyr being "victimised and persecuted" by the "Authoritarian Russian Regime". Some of them (The Economist for example) even suggested that Khodorkovsky could one day soon return from incarceration as a "hero to the Russian people". :D

yes...... we can laugh about it now.... how the Russians supposedly can't wait for their Jewish "saviour" Khodorkovsky to lead them back to the 1990's when everything went to hell.




In Sweden (a very Socialist country) the system is also quite fair although taxes are perhaps too high if you're somewhat wealthy. They also waste too much money on sponsoring immigrants..... but that's another story.


They also waste too much money on sponsoring immigrants..... but that's another story.

That's where national socialism comes in by ridding all of that along with shielding a nation from the negativity of globalization.

genius
Friday, December 3rd, 2010, 11:34 PM
I'd like to address this point:


Regarding capitalism, socialism and communism, nobody here are advocating a "Communist" type system where the State controls everything in a Command style economy. All we're saying is that there needs to be a counterbalance to the power of the Corporations, Banks, Tycoons / Oligarchs etc. Without that counterbalance we end up with a situation like we have in the USA and UK today where the country is run by the Corporations For The Corporations. Where workers and citizens are simply numbers on a balance sheet. Where there is no loyalty and support to the citizen from the Nation State. Where there is little assistance from the State to provide the citizen with a decent education, income support when needed etc.

We're not advocating "Social Welfare" where idiots get free money for existing or breeding. Obviously there needs to be control over how this money is allocated, how it is used and how it is recuperated again from the citizen via taxes etc.

Neither Extreme Communism nor Extreme Capitalism are desirable systems. Somewhere in the middle is perhaps a better way.

There are always winners and losers. I don't get upset when a cat catches a bird and eats it, nor should I be upset when the average russian peasant has little of the nations resources because some geniuses divided it among themselves.

What confuses me is the same point I keep repeating:

within the system we have today anybody can create a community based on racial loyalty. Anybody can start a business and pay people fairly and treat them fairly. The government IS set up where anybody can go to college- they simply choose not to.

Look what is the differance between giving a person in the ghetto a welfare check and giving somebody a high wage that he doesn't earn? It's a thin line.

The reason workers make so little is because of supply and demand. There is a huge supply of the uneducated. Educated workers make a lot of money because of low supply. You can get a college degree for free and make $20 an hour if not more. If you are smart enough there are programs offering you a free college degree and over $100,000 a year job upon graduation. The problem is people aren't smart enough for it.

The reason the Germanic race is failing is because they are weak. I don't think the government should protect the race if it can't protect itself. That's liberalism! It's just a selfish form of liberalism that only applies to your own people- even worse if you ask me.

People have opportunity here but they aren't competitive enough to take it. We have lots of poverty because we have lots of morons.

But if it is so great to pay people higher wages, and have more of a sense of culture etc. then start a business based on your own "kin". pay them high wages etc. why do you need the government to force your ideas on everyone else?

It's like every socialist argument I see here can be met with the same answer:
All we're saying is that there needs to be a counterbalance to the power of the Corporations, Banks, Tycoons / Oligarchs etc. Without that counterbalance we end up with a situation like we have in the USA and UK today where the country is run by the Corporations For The Corporations. Where workers and citizens are simply numbers on a balance sheet.

the corporations are made of citizens too. You simply have a situation where one type of citizen is able to do better than another type.

Who should have power? the people who scrub toilettes? The janitors, and dishwashers of the world? The high school drops outs, the crack moms, the trailer trash? If you say no then we go to the corrupt capitalist system where CEOs, the educated, those who own their own business etc. are running the show. You basically want to "equalize" the two by giving unearned power to the lower people.

Then again the same answer also comes up: you can start your own business and run it in a socialist way within the system. Nothing stops anyone from doing that. Yet socialists are usually people who can't run their own business. they can't make it in the real world so they go into government where they can parasite off others and then also redistribute a "slice of the pie" to other losers like themselves.

Leonhardt
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 12:31 AM
Then again the same answer also comes up: you can start your own business and run it in a socialist way within the system. Nothing stops anyone from doing that. Yet socialists are usually people who can't run their own business. they can't make it in the real world so they go into government where they can parasite off others and then also redistribute a "slice of the pie" to other losers like themselves.
I agree with the first part.

Many of the wealthiest people have government contracts themselves. The Rockefellers/Rothschilds have the Federal Reserve interest money. The US pays $200 billion in interest per year, but some of it may be returned.
The Bush Family has General Defense Contractors, estimated to make $25 million a day from all the wars in the Middle East.
Warren Buffet has GEICO insurance. Then there is the Military/Industrial complex with too many families to name.
It is like George Bush Sr. said, they are redistributing the wealth into "higher, tighter, and righter hands".
I don't see why one of the poor people's, you know those with less than a billion dollars, shouldn't aspire to grab a piece of the pie also. Think of how many Germanic babies could be raised with a mere billion. They are redistributing to the bankers these days in the trillions.
That is where the money is, in the tax dollars. Although they control the stock markets too.

Caledonian
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 12:38 AM
There are always winners and losers. I don't get upset when a cat catches a bird and eats it, nor should I be upset when the average russian peasant has little of the nations resources because some geniuses divided it among themselves.

What confuses me is the same point I keep repeating:

within the system we have today anybody can create a community based on racial loyalty. Anybody can start a business and pay people fairly and treat them fairly. The government IS set up where anybody can go to college- they simply choose not to.

Look what is the differance between giving a person in the ghetto a welfare check and giving somebody a high wage that he doesn't earn? It's a thin line.

The reason workers make so little is because of supply and demand. There is a huge supply of the uneducated. Educated workers make a lot of money because of low supply. You can get a college degree for free and make $20 an hour if not more. If you are smart enough there are programs offering you a free college degree and over $100,000 a year job upon graduation. The problem is people aren't smart enough for it.

The reason the Germanic race is failing is because they are weak. I don't think the government should protect the race if it can't protect itself. That's liberalism! It's just a selfish form of liberalism that only applies to your own people- even worse if you ask me.

People have opportunity here but they aren't competitive enough to take it. We have lots of poverty because we have lots of morons.

But if it is so great to pay people higher wages, and have more of a sense of culture etc. then start a business based on your own "kin". pay them high wages etc. why do you need the government to force your ideas on everyone else?

It's like every socialist argument I see here can be met with the same answer:
All we're saying is that there needs to be a counterbalance to the power of the Corporations, Banks, Tycoons / Oligarchs etc. Without that counterbalance we end up with a situation like we have in the USA and UK today where the country is run by the Corporations For The Corporations. Where workers and citizens are simply numbers on a balance sheet.

the corporations are made of citizens too. You simply have a situation where one type of citizen is able to do better than another type.

Who should have power? the people who scrub toilettes? The janitors, and dishwashers of the world? The high school drops outs, the crack moms, the trailer trash? If you say no then we go to the corrupt capitalist system where CEOs, the educated, those who own their own business etc. are running the show. You basically want to "equalize" the two by giving unearned power to the lower people.

Then again the same answer also comes up: you can start your own business and run it in a socialist way within the system. Nothing stops anyone from doing that. Yet socialists are usually people who can't run their own business. they can't make it in the real world so they go into government where they can parasite off others and then also redistribute a "slice of the pie" to other losers like themselves.

I understand what your saying and certainly education needs to be somthing which is accessible to the population for them to change their plight in society however as you said if there is a very large supply of uneducated workers that are low income, poor, and living off of the social welfare system because they have no other means to survive where they outnumber the smaller percentage of high income specialists that make most of the money within a economy that is no good either.

If most of your population is poor in a nation that means there is no purchasing power within a economy for commodities that makes wealth where infact by leaving such in that position only increases the national debt even further.

The top income earners that are small in number cannot support a economy by themselves while everybody else is just left in poor situations to fend off for themselves.

This is why you need to get the large segment of the population that are workers to start working again in order to boost the growth of economy and a increase in wages would help also perhaps by the cutting of taxes all across the board if not by increasing the wages of the workers themselves.

Also I refuse to believe that most of the uneducated working class are drug addicts or careless emotionally wretched people in that I view that to be a unproven generalization of a entire class of people.

Working class people such as myself are just everyday people trying to get by with the hope and aspiration of one day having a family with a financial 'peace' of mind when it concerns future security.

The problem in the United States is that the prices of commodities,expenses, and living has gone up where the typical wage hasn't changed at all to meet the demands of the current standard of living. It's a ongoing problem and it might account as to why national debt started this whole recession in the first place in that some economical theorists have concluded that inequal wage distribution could of been a major contribution to the recession.

This of course makes sense considering that when one can't afford to live and survive by their means they tend to acquire alot of debt.

Of course it's been the policy of various corporations to ignore all of this that run the United States economy because simply by raising the wages of workers would cut their yearly profit ratios which is somthing they are not keen on relinquishing anytime soon.

I personally was against wallstreet and the corporations being bailed out by the government in that I would of rather seen a depression in comparison to them being bailed out where their irresponsibility was only indulged in that currently they go about business as if they didn't learn anything at all.

Why should they have learned anything at all considering that the same people they screwed they forced with the long arm of the government with a loaded gun pointed to their face in paying up to bail themselves with?

For me the government take over and bail out of wallstreet wasn't socialism at all where infact it represented government consented thievry.

The same very predatory practices that got us into the recession is now once more starting to be practiced yet again of which there seems to be no mercy for the common man on the street who is taking the brunt of various corporate institutions that run the economy.

If the working class is continued to be ignored and unhelped the national debt will continue to rise in which national bankruptcy of a nation is inevitable.

We cannot continue to allow corporate institutions to prey upon the working class further by smashing it into poverty and total destruction.

Some sort of intervention must be maintained for the well being of the national economy. At this point it may only come about by revolution considering the corrupt infiltrated government we have representing us.

Observation of other western nations tells me that similar instances of this is going on in other countries although I don't know much about their political complexities beyond my own.

[I should probally read global news more often.]

RoyBatty
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 12:54 AM
There are always winners and losers. I don't get upset when a cat catches a bird and eats it, nor should I be upset when the average russian peasant has little of the nations resources because some geniuses divided it among themselves.


No. It's not about geniuses dividing it amongst themselves. It's about opportunists and scheissters who are organised and connected and therefore in a position to make a killing at the expense of everybody else.

Not everybody aspires to become such a cold, calculating dog-eat-dog scheisster. There is nothing admirable about being a greedy grab-it-all smash and grabber. One reason the Jews are successful is because they take care of their community. If we fail to take care of our own people by allowing situations such as this to develop we will fail.




within the system we have today anybody can create a community based on racial loyalty. Anybody can start a business and pay people fairly and treat them fairly. The government IS set up where anybody can go to college- they simply choose not to.


Where I'm from not everybody can go to college, at any rate, not anymore.



The reason the Germanic race is failing is because they are weak. I don't think the government should protect the race if it can't protect itself. That's liberalism! It's just a selfish form of liberalism that only applies to your own people- even worse if you ask me.

People have opportunity here but they aren't competitive enough to take it. We have lots of poverty because we have lots of morons.


Again, I don't know exactly what conditions are like where you're from but for example, a friend of mine is from Ohio, ex-military. The only reason he got an education is because he joined the military. Otherwise there simply wouldn't have been another way to pay for it because the family aren't well off, there are loads of brothers, sisters, step brothers & sisters etc. You get the idea.

Not everybody are in the fortunate situation where they can just walk in and "make use of their opportunities" should they choose to do so.

I'm not advocating govt charity but to me it's not fair to have a system where only the rich and super-shrewd can "get ahead" and get educated while the rest are left behind because they didn't have the means to make something of their lives.

Imo this is one of the things the Commies in the Soviet Union got right. They provided everybody with an opportunity to be educated and millions of people who'd have otherwise remained uneducated serfs were given a fair chance to use or lose their opportunities.

A dog-eat-dog / screw-u-buddy type world isn't something to aspire to imo.

Leonhardt
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 01:03 AM
One reason the Jews are successful is because they take care of their community. If we fail to take care of our own people by allowing situations such as this to develop we will fail.:thumbup
Quoted for re-emphasis. Why would a Germanic Preservationist not take care of their own?

If our enemies are trying to decrease our percentage of the population, and decrease our wealth, what does that tell us we should do?

velvet
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 01:15 PM
within the system we have today anybody can create a community based on racial loyalty.

Nope. Freedom of association has been de facto eradicated (see the BNP case f.e.). At least for whites, while immigrants, here like in US, get funds to celebrate their 'culture' and of course can reject white members in their orgs.


Anybody can start a business and pay people fairly and treat them fairly.

Try it, and let us know how long it took until your business was seized or closed down because banks (even if you never took a credit) decided that your business is unprofitable, and either is sold over your head or simply closed.


The government IS set up where anybody can go to college- they simply choose not to.

College might be for free, but there is no infrastructure that enables people to effort going to college who dont have rich parents.

It's all just theory, you have a "right" to education, but in fact the lack of means financing their life while going to the "free" college disallows them to exercise their choice.

Basically this counts for all "rights". When you have money to pay lawyers to enforce your rights, you get them, when you have no money, there is noone that will enforce your rights.



Look what is the differance between giving a person in the ghetto a welfare check and giving somebody a high wage that he doesn't earn? It's a thin line.

Why should someone working 8h / day, building houses or whatever, earn less than 40dollar/h? It's hard work, they do earn it. But the oligarchs say their work is only worth 15Dollar, because the unskilled, never properly working illegal immigrant does the 'work' for 5Dollar/h. This makes the house useless, because its crap from the bottom to the top, but it was cheap.

This is just retarded actually

And indeed damages the economy. Every single immigrant does. He levels down the quality of the work, of products, of hygiene standards, of everything. And through that he overall levels down the niveau of wages, he also damages the buying power of all others.

The current development - a fast spiral downwards - will make the once great "western world" third world niveau in some few decades.



If you are smart enough there are programs offering you a free college degree and over $100,000 a year job upon graduation. The problem is people aren't smart enough for it.

Or affirmative actions disable the alleged opportunity for them.



The reason the Germanic race is failing is because they are weak. I don't think the government should protect the race if it can't protect itself. That's liberalism! It's just a selfish form of liberalism that only applies to your own people- even worse if you ask me.


Ehm, what exactly are you doing on this board you said?
When you think our people arent worth to survive, this for once explains your position to let all the already screwed by this attitude to kick the bucket, but it also proves beyond any doubt that you have abolutely no interest in your people or your culture.

Quite the opposite. You express nothing but scorn.

Voth
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 01:26 PM
Of course, in this country, capitalism clashes with nationalism. The majority of control over the media (via Viacom and production), finances (via banks, the Fed, etc.), education (via the most popular theorists), and government (via lobbies, contributions) is composed of people who are nationalist toward another country: Israel.

Leonhardt
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 01:41 PM
I don't think the government should protect the race if it can't protect itself. That's liberalism! It's just a selfish form of liberalism that only applies to your own people- even worse if you ask me.
It is no more liberal than the giant money sinkhole called Israel.

genius
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 06:59 PM
Most people here live in some fantasy land where they can't be successful unless someone else does it for them.

a) I have lived in the ghettos, worked at minimal wage etc. about 95% or more of these people are destructive morons. You can give them $100 an hour and they will still be poor. It's what is inside them that is the problem. their culture and their bad genes, including the whites.

b) I have been homeless, poor etc. I'm going to college. It's not a theory, anybody can do it. Most people I meet just make exuses or they are too stupid for it or something.

c) kkk and other groups are legal. There is no law against white preservation groups. Most of the sites on the web are non-profit groups registered with the government.

d) I've met a lot of people that run businesses I don't know how a bank could sieze it. Most people who have businesses hire relatives and pay them $15 an hour to work at a gas station where normally someone would make $6 (now $7 something I guess). I have met whites that do this as well nothing was done to their business, but usually its minorities.

e) I don't know what is wrong with whites. Most of them don't care about their own. Most racialists have a defeated attitude that the whole world is against them and causing them to fail and that prosperity is not possible except in some other system.

f) even if all these things fail why not try anyway instead of defeating yourself already in your mind and thoughts. It is better to try and fight rather than complain and expect collective action.

velvet
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 09:48 PM
You talk about a defeatist attitude in others while at the same time advise the same people to assimilate themselves into a system that will lead to our extinction?

What is wrong with whites that they expect everyone to become a egomanic hermit in order to survive on their own (or else they deserve to be screwed over) instead of doing the only right thing: unite and revolt?

RoyBatty
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 10:24 PM
One of the first things the military hammers into the heads of new recruits is the virtue of teamwork.

There are always going to be a couple of "aspiring hero" types who think they are smarter and / or stronger than the rest. Then you get the average types. Then you get the stragglers.

This motley crew cannot function without discipline and a teamwork ethic. There'll be chaos and disarray if everybody decided to do things their way, to go on strike, to leave their buddies behind, to desert, to launch actions without orders etc.

Being a team player doesn't mean having to surrender every bit of one's individuality, ideas, thoughts, property and so forth. It simply means that you are willing and ready to cooperate with a group in order to accomplish certain basic common goals because as a collective unit you are strong whilst as individuals you are weak.

It really is that simple. People who don't have any interest in teamwork and in helping to take care of their communities and environments are people who have no loyalties to anybody or anything except themselves. Everybody has a choice. If that's your particular choice, great, so be it. Best of luck. Goodbye.

genius
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 11:08 PM
You talk about a defeatist attitude in others while at the same time advise the same people to assimilate themselves into a system that will lead to our extinction?

What is wrong with whites that they expect everyone to become a egomanic hermit in order to survive on their own (or else they deserve to be screwed over) instead of doing the only right thing: unite and revolt?

Seems to me pretty easy to survive in the current environment. The only problem I see is with Germanics, not really with the system. I can tell people "here's a way to make millions" or "here's a way to secure massive political power" and "here's a way to solve the immigration issue" they won't do it. They can't act on their own, they need someone else to follow, they don't have condience in their own ability, nor the intelligence usually to act.

I hear the same arguments from black people. The American system is racist and out to get them etc. I say to them why don't you go back to Africa then? People are doing worse there. Yet they live in a jungle away from any "system" to oppress them or from any non-blacks. Then they will blame imperialism on Africa's sorry state. It's always someone else's fault, the systems fault etc.

This system will not lead to a person's extinction if they are capable of some very basic things, like basic organizing, in other words they just need some basic level of competitiveness and a desire to preserve their unique folk.

That's the problem I see is people lack the ability to work together. I strongly agree with that. But they also lack a proper education and often cling to totally illogical positions.

You got to crawl before you walk. If you can't run your own household how do you know how to run the country? If you can't run your own business why should you be in charge of national economics? I guess I could say the same to most of the marxists out there who think they know best.

I have the attitude that if I fail its my own fault and it seems reasonable I don't see any great conspiracy against me. I have the attitude that the more I improve myself the better off I am, rather than relying on the system or something to change to suit me. I have little power to change others, I can only change myself.

velvet
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 01:20 PM
Look, the BS with wiping off the truth of the table by calling it a "conspiracy" is closing your eyes from the truth.

This truth isnt even hidden, it is publicly available for everyone to see and understand. Yet, people keep on calling it a "conspiracy theory" in order to avoid realising a problem that needs to be taken care of.

And the real problem is that people are meanwhile so egomanic and hermit like and dispatched from their folk community that they dont even realise the threat anymore that this poses to the "entirety of the people", just because they are not personally and directly threatened (yet).

And their own eye-closing from this truth and threat they justify with preaching the same nonsense up and down, that everyone can survive, make a good living bla bla, while this isnt true at all for most people. Most people are followers, its just the way things are, that is how herd animals function, they have an alpha animal that leads them and the rest follows. It's fuckn nature.

But the alphas, being dispatched and inoculated by rampant individualism reject their responsibility for their folk. They say, I can survive on my own, and so can everyone, very well knowing that this isnt true at all, and so they keep repeating what was inoculated into them by those who run the show: when they go down it's their own fault.

Every single one has responsibility for his folk. The followers by providing and keeping the fabric of society intact, led and directed by the alphas. And the alphas's fuckn job is to lead them properly and carry the responsibility for the overall direction, to protect them, to make responsible decisions for the future of the folk as a whole.

When Germanics go down, it's the fault of those who are alphas but reject their responsibility.

genius
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 04:12 PM
I agree with that. We need to work together. But most people I meet can't work together and can't take on a successful mindset. but the problem there is people can't work together or don't care about their folk etc. its not the capitalist system or anything. It does have to do with the culture and mindset of people.

velvet
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 05:01 PM
I agree with that. We need to work together. But most people I meet can't work together and can't take on a successful mindset. but the problem there is people can't work together or don't care about their folk etc. its not the capitalist system or anything. It does have to do with the culture and mindset of people.

The point is that the capitalists first corrupted and/or killed the leaders and then took over their position. And since about ~300 years it is them who forge the "culture" (which is now consumerism and profitism) and the "mindset" of people (by holding the propaganda machinery in their hands): to be individualistic, opportunistic, busy with basic survival, to make people dependend on and to consume products that further the interdependence of global economy. It is these people who define values and teach people what is right or wrong. Nothing of this is governed by our culture or our values. Most people dont even know anymore what that is, because everything is relative.

And you expect from these confused atomized individuals to know what is 'good' for them, their people? Where are they supposed to know that from when it is the exact opposite of what is good for them what is constantly teached and repeated?

The biggest design error of Germanics is their inability to revolt. Our inborn individualism is basically a good trait, our ability to assimilate ourselves to given circumstances (harsh climate f.e.) as well. But it also makes us manipulatable, because we even manage to adapt to the biggest bullshit ever and still remain somehow decent people.

And this is not least because some people can take advantage of this biggest bullshit ever and learn to play by rules that essentially are against our nature. THIS is the reason why people unlearned to work together, because the individualistic opportunist also works against them. Why should they team with someone who betrays them as well on the first opportunity and lets them down? Where is the trust supposed to come from in our fellow folks?


When other people immigrate, first they do is looking for someone of their own folk, and they will find unconditional support and likewise unconditional trust.

When whites are asked to work together, first thing they do is to scrutinize the other whether he deserves any support or rather deserves to be let down. Trust must be earned, most people dont even trust their "friends". And with this overall attitude you expect anyone to team? To trust anyone means you get most likely screwed over, because everyone turns their back to everyone on the first opportunity and then you stand alone. And more often than not those who turned their back are the same who claim that all others are unable to work together.

genius
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 05:22 PM
at least in capitalism people can rise above the control. If it was mercantilism, dictatorship etc. then the same manipulation would be going on but in a system which people must fight violently to resist it and which in the end is less stable and prosperous. In this system a simple choice to reject the propaganda is about all it takes.

Paradigm
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 07:02 PM
Europeans, Anglo-Saxons specifically, came to North America in search of gold, as well as freedom of religion. They were financed to find a profit in the new land. The entire basis was economical. Eventually the colonialist fought Britain in a war that was influenced by taxation. The war was about economic and individual freedom. As far as I know it was those of Anglo-Saxon ancestry who formed the Constitution, and that was the framework for limited government. As time goes by the new Americans went west, in search of gold. Eventually, we had a war among the nation, and the South was against the tariffs and taxation imposed on them by the North, it was a war of state vs federal power, a war of limited government. Northerners and Southerners were both against the tyrant Lincoln, eventually he had his way. Slavery ended (which would have ended regardless to do it's economical disadvantages). Industry starts up in America, and the standard of living rises, and production increases.

As far as I'm concerned the early history of America was founded on capitalist and minarchist principles. There was no secret agenda, and nothing about Jews. As far as nationalism goes, there was a war for the South to secede from the North, the two were both culturally different (as it can be today).

I'm more interested to carry on my history of these principles than someone elses. I'll continue to fight for these, regardless of who's in control or trying to cause sabotage or confusion.

Leonhardt
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 08:53 PM
There was no secret agenda, and nothing about Jews. As far as nationalism goes, there was a war for the South to secede from the North, the two were both culturally different (as it can be today).

The Civil War was partially provoked and financed by the Rothschilds.

During the American Civil War, the Rothschilds financed both sides of the conflict. "The reasons leading to this civil war," van Helsing wrote, "were almost completely due to the actions and provocations of Rothschild agents." One of the troublemakers, founder of the "Knights of the Golden Circle," was George Bickley (NJ). Bickley extolled the advantages of succession from the Union by the Confederate States. On the other side, the Rothschild-J. P. Morgan and August Belmont banks financed the Union. In addition, Rothschild' s London bank supported the North, while its Paris bank funded the South. It was a glorious business.

President Lincoln finally caught wind of the scam and withheld immense interest payments to the Rothschilds. He then petitioned Congress to print "greenbacks"-dollars over which only the Union held printing power. In response, the furious Rothschilds are said to have arranged his assassination. John Wilkes Booth murdered Lincoln on April 14, 1865. Booth was freed from jail due to the efforts of the Knights of the Golden Circle. He spent the duration of his days living comfortably in England, funded by the Rothschilds.
http://lampuri.fi/rothschild.htm

The South may have had provocation agents from Britain.

The Illustrated University History, 1878, p. 504, tells us that the southern states swarmed with British agents. These conspired with local politicians to work against the best interests of the United States. Their carefully sown and nurtured propaganda developed into open rebellion and resulted in the secession of South Carolina on December 29, 1860. Within weeks another six states joined the conspiracy against the Union, and broke away to form the Confederate States of America, with Jefferson Davis as President.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/39508

Even the chancellor of Germany was aware of the bankers trying to force the division of the US.

We can see from this quote of the then chancellor of Germany that slavery was not the only cause for the American Civil War. "The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the US, if they remained as one block, and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world."
http://www.xat.org/xat/usury.html

Abraham Lincoln did not make any banker friends by printing interest free Greenbacks.

genius
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 09:32 PM
I'm more interested to carry on my history of these principles than someone elses. I'll continue to fight for these, regardless of who's in control or trying to cause sabotage or confusion.

Exactly. Preservation is more based on a tribal or clan level or a very local region.

If we are more concerned about ourselves and being responsible for our own lives regardless of who is in control then we don't have to worry as much about all these conspiracies. Our own individual lives go on. Whereas depending on collective action, nationalism, and the state leaves one vulnerable and manipulated

Leonhardt
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 10:00 PM
Preservation is more based on a tribal or clan level or a very local region.
There has been less clanishness ever since the Germanics starting forming the super-tribes of the Franks and the Alamanni. Even the Bavarians, to a degree, were originally composed of smaller tribes. I suppose they could still have their family clans, but would still pledge allegiance to the super tribe. However, as they proceeded towards Nations, they had less freedom.


If we are more concerned about ourselves and being responsible for our own lives regardless of who is in control then we don't have to worry as much about all these conspiracies.
Who is in control makes a very big difference for the Boers. Farmers can be very independent.

RoyBatty
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 10:06 PM
I don't buy into this individualism philosophy. It's fine if one wants to disconnect from your surroundings and live in a bubble. It fails utterly if the intention were to protect one's turf from hostile takeovers.

Taking responsibility for one's life, actions and destiny is one thing. Neglecting one's community and turning one's back on your nation is another.

Paradigm
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 10:22 PM
When referring to the type of philosophical individualism of actually being disconnected, the only person I can think of who was along these lines was Max Stirner, all the individualist who I've read deny that we would just be disconnected from our surroundings.

Caledonian
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 10:49 PM
When referring to the type of philosophical individualism of actually being disconnected, the only person I can think of who was along these lines was Max Stirner, all the individualist who I've read deny that we would just be disconnected from our surroundings.

Actually he only denied social collectivism if it in any way got in the way of the individual's pursuit of self accomplishment.

More than anything most of his criticizement of collectivism was when it came down to collective government which he railed against as not being collective or individualist at all in that he was one of many to notice how government is controlled by a elite few who are only interested in their own benefit for the most part.

Caledonian
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 10:55 PM
at least in capitalism people can rise above the control. If it was mercantilism, dictatorship etc. then the same manipulation would be going on but in a system which people must fight violently to resist it and which in the end is less stable and prosperous. In this system a simple choice to reject the propaganda is about all it takes.

I'd rather have a strong economical dictatorship where unemployment is low and where there is strong racial cultural national emblems in place compared to the damnation we have currently.

I'm a anarchist in that I'm against government largely of every kind but I would settle for such compared to this racial cultural apocalypse that we have now.

Atleast it would be a point in the right direction where afterwards it could change overtime that is less dictatorial which usually systems of that kind usually do in progression in that no dictatorship lasts very long without revolution of some kind.

Voth
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 11:04 PM
I'd rather have a strong economical dictatorship where unemployment is low and where there is strong racial cultural national emblems in place compared to the damnation we have currently.

I'm a anarchist in that I'm against government largely but I would settle for such compared to this racial cultural apocalypse that we have now.

Atleast it would be a point in the right direction where afterwards it could change overtime that is less dictatorial which usually systems of that kind usually do in progression.

I don't really believe such a system of government could exist. Even with the fiercest of dictators, you can't count on them not being bought out by the power of the bank note. This "racial cultural apocalypse" has the possibility of getting much worse in such a scenario. Remember, it wasn't democracy that got us here; it was the counterculture propaganda that made us so apathetic and let it happen.

Even if we had Hitler himself running the country, there rings the possibility that he'd get bought out by Islamic interests and the population would become Muslim. It was Hitler (who was influenced by Indo-Aryan interest groups) who said that Islam was much more compatible with Germanic people than Christianity...

Caledonian
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 11:08 PM
Panic of 1907 Alarms Bankers
Early in 1907, New York Times Annual Financial Review published Paul Warburg's (a partner of Kuhn, Loeb and Co.) first official reform plan, entitled "A Plan for a Modified Central Bank," in which he outlined remedies that he thought might avert panics. Early in 1907, Jacob Schiff, the chief executive officer of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., in a speech to the New York Chamber of Commerce, warned that "unless we have a central bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history." "The Panic of 1907" hit full stride in October. [Herrick]


1908 cartoon argued that elastic currency is neededBankers felt the real problem was that the United States was the last major country without a central bank, which might provide stability and emergency credit in times of financial crisis. While segments of the financial community were worried about the power that had accrued to JP Morgan and other 'financiers', most were more concerned about the general frailty of a vast, decentralized banking system that could not regulate itself without the extraordinary intervention of one man. Financial leaders who advocated a central bank with an elastic currency after the Panic of 1907 include Frank Vanderlip, Myron T. Herrick, William Barret Ridgely, George E. Roberts, Isaac Newton Seligman and Jacob H. Schiff. They stressed the need for an elastic money supply that could expand or contract as needed. After the scare of 1907 the bankers demanded reform; the next year, Congress established a commission of experts to come up with a nonpartisan solution.[edit] Aldrich Plan
Rhode Island Senator Nelson Aldrich, the Republican leader in the Senate, ran the Commission personally, with the aid of a team of economists. They went to Europe and were impressed at how well they believed the central banks in Britain and Germany handled the stabilization of the overall economy and the promotion of international trade. Aldrich's investigation led to his plan in 1912 to bring central banking to the United States, with promises of financial stability, expanded international roles, control by impartial experts and no political meddling in finance. Aldrich asserted that a central bank had to be (contradictorily) decentralized somehow, or it would be attacked by local politicians and bankers as had the First and Second Banks of the United States. The Aldrich plan was introduced in 62nd and 63rd Congresses (1912 and 1913) but never gained much traction as the Democrats in 1912 won control of both the House and the Senate as well as the White House.


[edit] A Regional Federal Reserve System
Main article: Federal Reserve System
The new President, Woodrow Wilson, then became the principal mover for banking and currency reform in the 63rd Congress, working with the two chairs of the House and Senate Banking and Currency Committees, Rep. Carter Glass of Virginia and Sen. Robert L. Owen of Oklahoma. It was Wilson who insisted that the regional Federal reserve banks be controlled by a central Federal reserve board appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.

[edit] Agrarian Demands Partly Met
William Jennings Bryan, now Secretary of State, long-time enemy of Wall Street and still a power in the Democratic party, threatened to destroy the bill. Wilson masterfully came up with a compromise plan that pleased bankers and Bryan alike. The Bryanites were happy that Federal Reserve currency became liabilities of the government rather than of private banks—a symbolic change—and by provisions for federal loans to farmers. The Bryanite demand to prohibit interlocking directorates did not pass. Wilson convinced the anti-bank Congressmen that because Federal Reserve notes were obligations of the government, the plan fit their demands. Wilson assured southerners and westerners that the system was decentralized into 12 districts, and thus would weaken New York City's Wall Street influence and strengthen the hinterlands. After much debate and many amendments Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act or Glass-Owen Act, as it was sometimes called at the time, in late 1913. President Wilson signed the Act into law on December 23, 1913.

[edit] 1914 – Present: Recent Changes
The Fed's power developed slowly in part due to an understanding at its creation that it was to function primarily as a reserve, a money-creator of last resort to prevent the downward spiral of withdrawal/withholding of funds which characterizes a monetary panic. At the outbreak of World War I, the Fed was better positioned than the Treasury to issue war bonds, and so became the primary retailer for war bonds under the direction of the Treasury. After the war, the Fed, led by Paul Warburg and New York Governor Bank President Benjamin Strong, convinced Congress to modify its powers, giving it the ability to both create money, as the 1913 Act intended, and destroy money, as a central bank could.

During the 1920s, the Fed experimented with a number of approaches, alternatively creating and then destroying money which, in the eyes of many scholars (notably Milton Friedman), helped create the late-1920s stock market bubble.[1]. In 1928, Strong died, leaving a tremendous vacuum in Fed governance, from which the bank did not recover in time to react to the 1929 collapse, unlike after 1987's Black Monday. Because of this power vacuum, the Fed adopted what most would consider a restrictive policy by today's standards, exacerbating the crash.

After Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933, the Fed was subordinated to the Executive Branch, where it remained until 1951, when the Fed and the Treasury department signed an accord granting the Fed full independence over monetary matters while leaving fiscal matters to the Treasury.

The Fed's monetary powers have not significantly changed since 1951, but in the 1970s it was specifically charged by Congress to effectively promote "the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates" as well as given regulatory responsibility over many consumer credit protection laws.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United _States

It would appear that the central bank is more of a symptom of both capitalism and government as a tool to stabilizing markets from instability.

Therefore I do not understand what free market capitalists here are complaining about when it concerns them.

Free market banking cannot self regulate itself without privatizing large portions of the national economy by the individual banks themselves therefore it seems that is why centralization occured in the financial portions of the economy.

Of course the federal reserve like anything else has become corrupted overtime from it's original use of which it is to be expected by monopolies of free market merchants in a international front of free market monopolized capitalism.

RoyBatty
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 11:17 PM
I don't really believe such a system of government could exist. Even with the fiercest of dictators, you can't count on them not being bought out by the power of the bank note. This "racial cultural apocalypse" has the possibility of getting much worse in such a scenario. Remember, it wasn't democracy that got us here; it was the counterculture propaganda that made us so apathetic and let it happen.

Even if we had Hitler himself running the country, there rings the possibility that he'd get bought out by Islamic interests and the population would become Muslim. It was Hitler (who was influenced by Indo-Aryan interest groups) who said that Islam was much more compatible with Germanic people than Christianity...

True, you can't count on it. It's a lottery with dictatorships. Thing is, I can't see our chances being any worse with a dictatorship than the current "democracy" sham we're stuck with.

I read a signature or something similar in somebody's post at Skadi about Napoleon having said that "Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets." There's a lot of truth to this since the general public reading the general media are so fkn gullible and dumbed down that they're effectively under remote control of whoever happens to own the media.

Control over the media = Control over democracy. Hence from our perspective it's a worthless system unless the media are controlled by nationalist elements.

Caledonian
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 11:28 PM
I don't really believe such a system of government could exist. Even with the fiercest of dictators, you can't count on them not being bought out by the power of the bank note. This "racial cultural apocalypse" has the possibility of getting much worse in such a scenario. Remember, it wasn't democracy that got us here; it was the counterculture propaganda that made us so apathetic and let it happen.

Even if we had Hitler himself running the country, there rings the possibility that he'd get bought out by Islamic interests and the population would become Muslim. It was Hitler (who was influenced by Indo-Aryan interest groups) who said that Islam was much more compatible with Germanic people than Christianity...

I doubt Hitler would of sold Germany or Europe for that matter to Islam.

Leonhardt
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 11:35 PM
Control over the media = Control over democracy.
This is a big part of it, including the movies.

They also have dominant control of most schools and textbooks.

Voth
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 11:37 PM
This is a big part of it, including the movies.

They also have dominant control of most schools and textbooks.

My cultural anthropology book doesn't even try to hide it. It put a smile on my face when the association for anthropology declared anthropology "unscientific".

RoyBatty
Sunday, December 5th, 2010, 11:42 PM
This is a big part of it, including the movies.

They also have dominant control of most schools and textbooks.

Definitely.

The impression I get (it's been a while since I went to school) is that the "educational system" (in Western Country of your choice) is spending a lot more time on teaching Social Engineering Classes as opposed to the classic "Reading, Writing and Arithmetic" they used to concentrate on.

ZOG made a point of infiltrating the Edu system, to "catch them while they're young and impressionable". They succeeded in turning teacher colleges into Marxist Centers and in producing generations of liberal "educators" who are hellbent on effeminating boys.

To undo this damage is going to be an uphill struggle.

Ardito
Monday, December 6th, 2010, 01:09 AM
I doubt Hitler would of sold Germany or Europe for that matter to Islam.

"Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the hasher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

From Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer.

I don't mean to argue for Islamising Europe now, mind. What's happening now is peaceful, quiet immigration, driven by liberal ideology, which is nothing at all like what Islamic medieval Germans would have been like.

Caledonian
Monday, December 6th, 2010, 01:20 AM
"Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the hasher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

From Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer.

I don't mean to argue for Islamising Europe now, mind. What's happening now is peaceful, quiet immigration, driven by liberal ideology, which is nothing at all like what Islamic medieval Germans would have been like.

Well one can argue all they want what history could of been like if it went in one direction or another but all of that dialogue is rather useless to what current history is now in our present form which past history forged.

At any rate in being the godless atheist that I am I would rather shun religion altogether but I'd rather see Europeans/Germanics embrace their pagan roots if they must have any religion at all then to embrace another decrepited Abrahamic one.

I doubt Hitler would of made the move himself being that Christianity was so far ingrained in European society at the time.

Caledonian
Monday, December 6th, 2010, 01:36 AM
A central bank, reserve bank, or monetary authority is a public institution that usually issues the currency, regulates the money supply, and controls the interest rates in a country. Central banks often also oversee the commercial banking system within its country's borders. A central bank is distinguished from a normal commercial bank because it has a monopoly on creating the currency of that nation, which is usually that nation's legal tender.[1][2]

The primary function of a central bank is to provide the nation's money supply, but more active duties include controlling interest rates, and acting as a lender of last resort to the banking sector during times of financial crisis. It may also have supervisory powers, to ensure that banks and other financial institutions do not behave recklessly or fraudulently.

Most developed nations today have an "independent" central bank, that is one which operates under rules designed to prevent political interference. Examples include the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Federal Reserve System in the United States.[3]


In Europe prior to the 17th century most money was commodity money, typically gold or silver. However, promises to pay were widely circulated and accepted as value at least five hundred years earlier in both Europe and Asia. The Song Dynasty was the first to issue generally circulating paper currency, while the Yuan Dynasty was the first to use notes as the predominant circulating medium. In 1455, in an effort to control inflation, the succeeding Ming Dynasty ended the use of paper money and closed much of Chinese trade. The medieval European Knights Templar ran an early prototype of a central banking system, as their promises to pay were widely respected, and many regard their activities as having laid the basis for the modern banking system.

As the first public bank to "offer accounts not directly convertible to coin", the Bank of Amsterdam established in 1609 is considered to be a precursor to a central bank.[4] In 1664, the central bank of Sweden—"Sveriges Riksbank" or simply "Riksbanken"—was founded in Stockholm and is by that the world's oldest central bank (still operating today).[5] This was followed in 1694 by the Bank of England, created by Scottish businessman William Paterson in the City of London at the request of the English government to help pay for a war.

Although central banks today are generally associated with fiat money, the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries central banks in most of Europe and Japan developed under the international gold standard, elsewhere free banking or currency boards were more usual at this time. Problems with collapses of banks during downturns, however, was leading to wider support for central banks in those nations which did not as yet possess them, most notably in Australia.

With the collapse of the gold standard after World War I, central banks became much more widespread. The US Federal Reserve was created by the U.S. Congress through the passing of the Glass-Owen Bill, signed by President Woodrow Wilson on December 23, 1913, whilst Australia established its first central bank in 1920, Colombia in 1923, Mexico and Chile in 1925 and Canada and New Zealand in the aftermath of the Great Depression in 1934. By 1935, the only significant independent nation that did not possess a central bank was Brazil, which developed a precursor thereto in 1945 and created its present central bank twenty years later. When African and Asian countries gained independence, all of them rapidly established central banks or monetary unions.

The People's Bank of China evolved its role as a central bank starting in about 1979 with the introduction of market reforms in that country, and this accelerated in 1989 when the country took a generally capitalist approach to developing at least its export economy. By 2000 the People's Bank of China was in all senses a modern central bank, and emerged as such partly in response to the European Central Bank. This is the most modern bank model and was introduced with the euro to coordinate the European national banks, which continue to separately manage their respective economies other than currency exchange and base interest rates.



Functions of a central bank may include:

implementing monetary policy
determining Interest rates
controlling the nation's entire money supply
the Government's banker and the bankers' bank ("lender of last resort")
managing the country's foreign exchange and gold reserves and the Government's stock register
regulating and supervising the banking industry
setting the official interest rate – used to manage both inflation and the country's exchange rate – and ensuring that this rate takes effect via a variety of policy mechanisms
[edit] Monetary policy

The Bank of England, central bank of the United Kingdom
The ECB building in Frankfurt
The Bank of CanadaCentral banks implement a country's chosen monetary policy. At the most basic level, this involves establishing what form of currency the country may have, whether a fiat currency, gold-backed currency (disallowed for countries with membership of the IMF), currency board or a currency union. When a country has its own national currency, this involves the issue of some form of standardized currency, which is essentially a form of promissory note: a promise to exchange the note for "money" under certain circumstances. Historically, this was often a promise to exchange the money for precious metals in some fixed amount. Now, when many currencies are fiat money, the "promise to pay" consists of nothing more than a promise to pay the same sum in the same currency.

In many countries, the central bank may use another country's currency either directly (in a currency union), or indirectly, by using a currency board. In the latter case, local currency is directly backed by the central bank's holdings of a foreign currency in a fixed-ratio; this mechanism is used, notably, in Bulgaria, Hong Kong and Estonia.

In countries with fiat money, monetary policy may be used as a shorthand form for the interest rate targets and other active measures undertaken by the monetary authority.

[edit] Goals of monetary policy
Price Stability
Unanticipated inflation leads to lender losses. Nominal contracts attempt to account for inflation. Effort successful if monetary policy able to maintain steady rate of inflation.
High Employment
The movement of workers between jobs is referred to as frictional unemployment. All unemployment beyond frictional unemployment is classified as unintended unemployment. Reduction in this area is the target of macroeconomic policy.
Economic Growth
Economic growth is enhanced by investment in technological advances in production. Encouragement of savings supplies funds that can be drawn upon for investment.
Interest Rate Stability
Volatile interest and exchange rates generate costs to lenders and borrowers. Unexpected changes that cause damage, making policy formulation difficult.
Financial Market Stability
Foreign Exchange Market Stability
Conflicts Among Goals
Goals frequently cannot be separated from each other and often conflict. Costs must therefore be carefully weighed before policy implementation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank#History


Again I'm not sure why free market capitalists here are against bank centralization considering central banks were created as a way of regulating the market from instability and unnregulated forces.

I understand the current corruption and mismanagement of today's centralized banks but the irony is that it is those very trade monopolies of a free market system that allows a level of corruption to take place within the central banking structure.


The only devised alternative to bank centralization is demurrage currencies.


Demurrage is a cost associated with owning or holding currency over a given period of time. It is sometimes referred to as a carrying cost of money. For commodity money such as gold, demurrage is in practice nothing more than the cost of storing and securing the gold.

Demurrage is sometimes cited as having advantageous economic effects, usually in the context of complementary currency systems. However, the effects of demurrage have not been extensively studied, nor have its benefits (or detriments) been rigorously demonstrated. The study of the effects of demurrage on an economic system is a rich and largely unexplored area of research in economics and other fields such as sociology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_(currency)#Theory


However with that there is:


Key thesis by "Greg": Interest exists because of the underlying conditions, not just from monetary design:

1.

"Interest is the price paid for the use of borrowed money. Money itself does not pay interest...this is money functioning as stored of value, value lent by one party and borrowed by another that can be exchanged for productive assets. The need for borrowing implies scarcity. Therefore we can infer that interest is truly the price paid for accelerated access to scarce resources. Like all prices, an interest rate is a market signal that enables efficient allocation of these scarce resources - in this case resources being allocated through time, between consumption and investment. This analysis implies two preconditions for the existence of interest:

Scarce resources
Varying temporal preferences for consumption
Critically, these preconditions refer not only to the monetary system but to the constituents of the economy itself - its productive capabilities and the psychology of its participants. A monetary regime intended to eliminate interest would have to resolve at least one of these conditions in the economy itself."


2.

"This (demurrage) proposal only addresses the currency system without resolving the economic conditions that lead to interest. It seeks to "design" currency without reference to the characteristics of the underlying market it must serve as a proxy for. Whereas the gift economy creates compatibility with new types of abundant value creation, demurrage currency emulates a world of scarce resources - becoming more scarce (depreciating) over time.

Given that our current monetary system exhibits behavior quite similar to proposed dumurrage currencies, we can speculate as to whether such a system would in fact provide a "disincentive against hoarding money." What we observe currently is that people do avoid hoarding cash...but instead of circulating that money they transfer (hoard) their savings into investments - assets that serve a productive function and appreciate over time. The net result is that inflation (demurrage) does nothing to discourage the accumulation of wealth, which is presumably the true goal of demurrage proponents.

What does this mean for interest in future monetary systems? Interest will persist so long as scarce resources persist and market participants endeavor to shift their consumption of those resources through time. Interest will diminish in importance to the degree that productive abundance facilitates a shift away from transactional currency altogether." (http://onthespiral.com/the-role-of-interest-in-future-monetary-syste)

3.

"The examples used by Rushkoff and others like him all come from societies where financial investments are not available. These are societies where there are only two choices - consumption or saving. In modern society we have a third option - investment...and investment provides a financial return because it uses scarce resources in the present to produce more scarce resources in the future.

Once securitized investment enters the equation the demurrage logic breaks down. A market participant who previously had to choose between consumption or depreciating savings, now chooses between consumption, depreciating savings or appreciating investments. This choice simply shifts hoarding in currency to hoarding in investment products. This is exactly what we experience today, inflation (depreciating currency) does not lead to accelerating consumption; instead it leads to investment in inflation protected assets." (http://onthespiral.com/the-role-of-interest-in-future-monetary-syste)

http://p2pfoundation.net/Demurrage#Critique_of_Demurrage

Caledonian
Monday, December 6th, 2010, 01:53 AM
That's why I called it neomercantilism. There is certainly a shift in power from the first and second estate to third one. You can of course argue that roles and structure have shifted. with the media and academia having taken over the role of the church, while the soldiering is done by civil society activists now.
In that the case the influence would just be more total.
Nationalism just needs to be part of the canon of prevalent ideas.
Merchants are also influenced by the prevalent ideas. What accounts for the merchants does account for civil servants and academics as well.

Well, since WW2 the hegemony of ideas has shifted. (White) Nationlism is bad now and you are dealing with an egotistic culture of self-realization. Not that people didn't have egos before this, but you had a balance with other institutions and values.


You can of course argue that roles and structure have shifted. with the media and academia having taken over the role of the church, while the soldiering is done by civil society activists now.

Yes I could.


In that the case the influence would just be more total.
What did you mean by that statement?


Nationalism just needs to be part of the canon of prevalent ideas.
Merchants are also influenced by the prevalent ideas. What accounts for the merchants does account for civil servants and academics as well.

That's not enough. Nationalism needs to be safeguarded by a strong handed iron fist.

Even in a nationalist country merchants, academicians, and civil servants might try to sabotage the national interests by that of self interests chipping away at the collective securities of all people within a nation for selfish reasons.

There needs to be somebody that disallows them as such that actively makes sure that they can't.


Well, since WW2 the hegemony of ideas has shifted. (White) Nationlism is bad now and you are dealing with an egotistic culture of self-realization. Not that people didn't have egos before this, but you had a balance with other institutions and values.

A change in structure is needed.

velvet
Monday, December 6th, 2010, 11:42 AM
at least in capitalism people can rise above the control. If it was mercantilism, dictatorship etc. then the same manipulation would be going on but in a system which people must fight violently to resist it and which in the end is less stable and prosperous. In this system a simple choice to reject the propaganda is about all it takes.

Earlier you, and others, denied that capitalism is a political system. Now you claim that capitalism limits control on the individual, which is very much a political implication. :shrug

Indeed, capitalism is in its nature "anarchic", capitalism rejects any other control than what is exercises by itself: consumerism advertised 24/7, while the only "higher goal" that is allowed to exist is profitism, profit at any costs.



I don't really believe such a system of government could exist. Even with the fiercest of dictators, you can't count on them not being bought out by the power of the bank note. This "racial cultural apocalypse" has the possibility of getting much worse in such a scenario.

Relying on single individuals is always a bad idea.

The Japanese Kaiser put into place a system that, although thought out by him and some experts, is upheld by the "Ministry", an apparatus of thousands of well educated and trained people who go through a 20 years education until they're allowed to work on their own, that is, working according to the rules and regulations that ensure the future existence and prosperity of the Japanese people. I think we can learn a lot from them, because not "idealism" governs them but very simple truths that no level of sophistication can eradicate from a society or the nature of people. They dont manipulate the people, they control the system that governs people's lives, they dont control single economical aspects or businesses, they exercise control over what governs businesses. It's a dictatorship without dictator, capitalism without capitalists, national-socialism without fascists. Within the fenced and protected space that arises from that people are free to do what they want.


Remember, it wasn't democracy that got us here; it was the counterculture propaganda that made us so apathetic and let it happen.

Democracy is part of that game. Something that too few people understand.

Specially since, apart from Switzerland, no western country has real democracy but a "representative democrazy", which is the "Senatorial dictatorship" designed and employed by Jews already since the first century BCE.

Ever wondered why elections never change something on the overall politics? Some details may change, but the overall direction remains the same, and the goal remains the same: the abyss of extinction. It doesnt matter much on which way this reached methinks.

Let's not confuse the Senate of the Jews with something elected. This refers to the institutions that de facto are the puppet masters pulling the string. Right now these institutions go under the name ADL, Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, UN and a bunch of others.

Everyone who believes we would live in a democracy errs. We have a very cultural marxist, anarcho-capitalist dictatorship that is guised as democracy.



Even if we had Hitler himself running the country, there rings the possibility that he'd get bought out by Islamic interests and the population would become Muslim. It was Hitler (who was influenced by Indo-Aryan interest groups) who said that Islam was much more compatible with Germanic people than Christianity...

Nope, Albert Speer said this, not Hitler.

"Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

Both Hitler and Himmler thought uni sono to (re-) introduce an ancestor cult like the Japanese have. The only factor of Islam that Hitler admired was their ruthlessness with which they enforce homogenity in their country and also the warrior soul that is an object of adoration in Islam, while christianity puts emphasis on the peaceful side aka meekness and flabbiness.

Though Hitler didnt intent to spread his belief, he said very clearly that National-Socialism is not for export. The reason to side with Muslims was that their religion offers an ingrained mechanism to reject capitalism-democrazy-communism (which are just different variants of the same thing really). Muslims believe in a Caliphate state, it is essential part of their "religion" (Islam is rather a political state system with a religious component) which is not open for change.

The example with the Muslims falling into Charlemagne's reich btw is nonsense. The Muslims only startet in the 9th/10th century to convert conquered people. Until then Islam was a very elitist, for Arabs only religion. If they had won that battle, this would most likely have never changed, because it was this defeat which brought about the end of their Golden Age and the change of tactic, adopting the christian practice of missionizing (which is a great corruption of Islam teaching) to subject people they originally could not conquer and still add them into their "House of Peace".

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 05:32 AM
1) All Systems are technically Capitalist, because they all operate on Capital. IE People, raw materials, and technology.

2) Free Market, Lower Level market, controlled by local business, and not specifically Regulated from above.

3) Communism, A form of economic system where all goods and services are controlled by the government.

4) Fascism, A form of economic system where goods and services are produced by large Company's and regulated by the government.

5) Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, or military control.

6) Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. The combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy.


The Western World is ruled by number 6

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 06:02 AM
1) All Systems are technically Capitalist, because they all operate on Capital. IE People, raw materials, and technology.

2) Free Market, Lower Level market, controlled by local business, and not specifically Regulated from above.

3) Communism, A form of economic system where all goods and services are controlled by the government.

4) Fascism, A form of economic system where goods and services are produced by large Company's and regulated by the government.

5) Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, or military control.

6) Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. The combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy.


The Western World is ruled by number 6

Capitalism is just one economical interpretation of supply and demand when it concerns capital yet there are many other interpretations revolving around the movement of capital of which that are no restricted to capitalism alone.

Paradigm
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 06:12 AM
Capitalism is just the most efficient and productive course of economics. The fact of this cannot be denied. Even Karl Marx himself had to pay tribute to capitalism in that field, and that communism would never be able to out produce capitalism.

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 06:41 AM
Capitalism is just the most efficient and productive course of economics. The fact of this cannot be denied. Even Karl Marx himself had to pay tribute to capitalism in that field, and that communism would never be able to out produce capitalism.

Yes capitalism is the most efficient and productive of harboring wealth for the general 2% of any given population economically much as a whip is effective at whipping the backs of drones of slaves.

I'll give you that credit in that it is much deserved in that it is as of yet the greatest economical monopoly of the wealthy ever achieved to date not to mention it is crafty with it's manipulation of people in it's top down economical structure.

[It's also very ingenius of convincing people that their slavery is infact the very instance of their freedom.]

[Credits deserved there too of which I'm never ceased to be amazed anymore.]

Paradigm
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 07:18 AM
Yes capitalism is the most efficient and productive of harboring wealth for the general 2% of any given population economically much as a whip is effective at whipping the backs of drones of slaves.

I'll give you that credit in that it is much deserved in that it is as of yet the greatest economical monopoly of the wealthy ever achieved to date not to mention it is crafty with it's manipulation of people in it's top down economical structure.

[It's also very ingenius of convincing people that their slavery is infact the very instance of their freedom.]

[Credits deserved there too of which I'm never ceased to be amazed.]

I was giving an honest answer hoping not for a condescending reply. Take a look at the masses, and compare them to 10, 20, 50 years ago. Everything has become cheaper, more efficient, and on a larger scale. Do you think any centrally planned entity could do that? Do you think any protectionist policy could do that? Now anyone can afford the basics plus luxury. Communist and others talked about the masses, but capitalist actually provided for the masses. I'll let these statistics speak for themselves.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SxHs-gJRDiI/AAAAAAAAMAw/eiCl3rc9toc/s1600/household2.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SxHgynoVpdI/AAAAAAAAMAo/nFF6xFEr4kY/s1600/household1.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SLWCRVSqwHI/AAAAAAAAFgs/aEXmkxBOraU/s1600/income1.bmp

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/COMPRNFB_Max_630_378.png

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SwAcjo2YghI/AAAAAAAAL6w/YjHiVl87Zds/s1600/foodclotsh.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S7iq7NG5ijI/AAAAAAAANJo/24anfjyOgCc/s1600/eggs.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S7il8Y8DM8I/AAAAAAAANJY/KXM_rWSlAf4/s1600/food.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S7NA9EeMLlI/AAAAAAAANHA/OgAgecG4VUY/s400/mac2.jpg

Due to businesses with a profit-motive they can reinvest their profit into production. Technology advances and better and cheaper production can yield more results. As businesses become more profitable they can afford to pay their employees more (at the same time selling cheaper goods).

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 07:28 AM
I was giving an honest answer hoping not for a condescending reply. Take a look at the masses, and compare them to 10, 20, 50 years ago. Everything has become cheaper, more efficient, and on a larger scale. Do you think any centrally planned entity could do that? Do you think any protectionist policy could do that? Now anyone can afford the basics plus luxury. Communist and others talked about the masses, but capitalist actually provided for the masses. I'll let these statistics speak for themselves.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SxHs-gJRDiI/AAAAAAAAMAw/eiCl3rc9toc/s1600/household2.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SxHgynoVpdI/AAAAAAAAMAo/nFF6xFEr4kY/s1600/household1.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SLWCRVSqwHI/AAAAAAAAFgs/aEXmkxBOraU/s1600/income1.bmp

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/COMPRNFB_Max_630_378.png

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SwAcjo2YghI/AAAAAAAAL6w/YjHiVl87Zds/s1600/foodclotsh.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S7iq7NG5ijI/AAAAAAAANJo/24anfjyOgCc/s1600/eggs.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S7il8Y8DM8I/AAAAAAAANJY/KXM_rWSlAf4/s1600/food.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S7NA9EeMLlI/AAAAAAAANHA/OgAgecG4VUY/s400/mac2.jpg

Due to businesses with a profit-motive they can reinvest their profit into production. Technology advances and better and cheaper production can yield more results. As businesses become more profitable they can afford to pay their employees more (at the same time selling cheaper goods).

Technically free market capitalism is regulated to a specific degree centrally because without centralization in would be in a unnregulated mess leading to instability in the market left to it's own devices.

[Much like how when it began to unregulate itself in the 90's it eventually brought about the 2008 global recession that were still in to this day.]

Also to this day being that wages haven't hardly changed in steadily increase added with a growing unemployment more and more people are starting to be unable to afford half of that stuff on that list in those statistical surveys listed.

More and more people are reverting to buy used items that are cheaper compared to things bought new at whole sale beyond farmers eggs at a local grocery store.

Beyond the computer I'm using I know that I can't afford any of those things currently at new whole sale price.

Paradigm
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 08:02 AM
Technically free market capitalism is regulated to a specific degree centrally because without centralization in would be in a unnregulated mess leading to instability in the market left to it's own devices.

[Much like how when it began to unnregulated itself in the 90's it eventually brought about the 2008 global recession that were still in to this day.]

Also to this day being that wages haven't hardly change more and more people are starting to be unable to afford half of that stuff on that list in those projects.

More and more people are reverting to buy used items that are cheaper compared to things bought new.

Beyond the computer I'm using I know that I can't afford any of those things currently at new price.

Since you're too daft to understand business cycle theory or central banking I won't go into the details of why a regulated market led to the crash we are experience now (which I've probably explained at least 2-3 times already), but our crash has nothing to do with unregulated markets. All intervention in a market is distortion in the market, as resources and prices are not allowed to fluctuate naturally to the demands in the market, and especially when the prices of loans are artificially set by a central bank (plus the printing of new money - again, this is all free-market right?).

Wages haven't changed? Do you see how much wages have gone up? Even working a minimum wage job you can afford home appliances. I can buy a brand new laptop at half the price I got my desktop I have now that was purchased 5 years ago, and it would be at least 5 times faster, and would have more memory than my external hard drive plus my internal combined.

People generally revert to cheaper, used items than new unless it's something specific. I purchased a used car for 1,800, but I'm going to buy a newer and better cellphone, you're point? Buying cheap doesn't disprove anything, it's subjective preference.

Working at minimum wage job you should be able to provide the basics you need if living at home.

My paychecks generally average $300 (I get paid every other week). I have a cellphone bill which I'll round up to $60, and car insurance I'll round to $85.

You could say I make roughly $600 a month. $600 - $60 - $85 = $455 leftover.

Depending on how much driving I do, I could probably go two weeks before I fill up my car (when it's near empty). Takes $40 to fill my tank completely, so, every two weeks = $80.

$455 - $80 = $375.

After bills are paid and gas I have $375 (consider that I'm paying to drive and use a cellphone, which both are rather essential, so I'm not at a loss for it).

$375 on nearly a minimum wage every month left for disposable income.

In 2009 on minimum wage I made a gross pay of $7,647.80. I paid $936.10 in taxes, and had a net pay of $6,711.70. Roughly $6,700 a year on minimum wage, and that's working an average of 20 hours a week.

Put it this way, a 16 year old could make over $6,000 a year on a min wage job. Given that the 16 old probably has nothing to pay for, it's all disposable income.

People in a career field will make between $10 to $20 an hour, or more, and will generally work 40 hours a week.

Someone who works 40 hours a week and makes $15 an hour will have an annual gross income of $31,200. A 19 year old receptionist who makes over $10 an hour could afford their own place with utilities and still have a disposable income.

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 08:13 AM
Yeah I'm so daft that's why I know the economical recession were in was caused by a unnregulated financial sector of the economy along with......


A real estate bubble or property bubble (or housing bubble for residential markets) is a type of economic bubble that occurs periodically in local or global real estate markets. It is characterized by rapid increases in valuations of real property such as housing until they reach unsustainable levels relative to incomes and other economic elements, followed by a reduction in price levels.

Whether real estate bubbles can or should be identified or prevented, and whether they have broader macroeconomic importance or not are debated within and between different schools of economic thought, as detailed below. The financial crisis of 2007–2010 was related to the collapse of real estate bubbles, notably in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_bubble


Or.....


Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability, and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during late 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period as credit tightened and international trade declined.[8] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st century financial markets.[9] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion, and institutional bailouts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010


Or...............................



Lower interest rates encourage borrowing. From 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%.[31] This was done to soften the effects of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, and to combat the perceived risk of deflation.[32]


U.S. current account or trade deficitAdditional downward pressure on interest rates was created by the USA's high and rising current account (trade) deficit, which peaked along with the housing bubble in 2006. Ben Bernanke explained how trade deficits required the U.S. to borrow money from abroad, which bid up bond prices and lowered interest rates.[33]

Bernanke explained that between 1996 and 2004, the USA current account deficit increased by $650 billion, from 1.5% to 5.8% of GDP. Financing these deficits required the USA to borrow large sums from abroad, much of it from countries running trade surpluses, mainly the emerging economies in Asia and oil-exporting nations. The balance of payments identity requires that a country (such as the USA) running a current account deficit also have a capital account (investment) surplus of the same amount. Hence large and growing amounts of foreign funds (capital) flowed into the USA to finance its imports.

This created demand for various types of financial assets, raising the prices of those assets while lowering interest rates. Foreign investors had these funds to lend, either because they had very high personal savings rates (as high as 40% in China), or because of high oil prices. Bernanke referred to this as a "saving glut."[34]

A "flood" of funds (capital or liquidity) reached the USA financial markets. Foreign governments supplied funds by purchasing USA Treasury bonds and thus avoided much of the direct impact of the crisis. USA households, on the other hand, used funds borrowed from foreigners to finance consumption or to bid up the prices of housing and financial assets. Financial institutions invested foreign funds in mortgage-backed securities.

The Fed then raised the Fed funds rate significantly between July 2004 and July 2006.[35] This contributed to an increase in 1-year and 5-year adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) rates, making ARM interest rate resets more expensive for homeowners.[36] This may have also contributed to the deflating of the housing bubble, as asset prices generally move inversely to interest rates and it became riskier to speculate in housing.[37][38] USA housing and financial assets dramatically declined in value after the housing bubble burst.[39][40]

[edit] Weak and fraudulent underwriting practice
Testimony given to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission by Richard M. Bowen, III on events during his tenure as Citi's Business Chief Underwriter for Correspondent Lending in the Consumer Lending Group (where he was responsible for over 220 professional underwriters) suggests that by the final years of the US housing bubble (2006–2007), the collapse of mortgage underwriting standards was endemic. His testimony states that by 2006, 60% of mortgages purchased by Citi from some 1,600 mortgage companies were "defective" (were not underwritten to policy, or did not contain all policy-required documents). This, despite the fact that each of these 1,600 originators were contractually responsible (certified via representations and warrantees) that their mortgage originations met Citi's standards. Moreover, during 2007, "defective mortgages (from mortgage originators contractually bound to perform underwriting to Citi's standards) increased... to over 80% of production".[41]

In separate testimony to Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, officers of Clayton Holdings -the largest residential loan due diligence and securitization surveillance company in the United States and Europe- testified that Clayton's review of over 900,000 mortgages issued from January 2006 to June 2007 revealed that scarcely 54% percent of the loans met their originators’ underwriting standards. The analysis (conducted on behalf of 23 investment and commercial banks, including 7 "Too Big To Fail" banks) additionally showed that 28 percent of the sampled loans did not meet the minimal standards of any issuer. Clayton's analysis further showed that 39% of these loans (i.e., those not meeting any issuer's minimal underwriting standards) were subsequently securitized and sold to investors.[42] [43]

[edit] Sub-prime lending

U.S. subprime lending expanded dramatically 2004-2006The term subprime refers to the credit quality of particular borrowers, who have weakened credit histories and a greater risk of loan default than prime borrowers.[44] The value of U.S. subprime mortgages was estimated at $1.3 trillion as of March 2007,[45] with over 7.5 million first-lien subprime mortgages outstanding.[46]

In addition to easy credit conditions, there is evidence that both government and competitive pressures contributed to an increase in the amount of subprime lending during the years preceding the crisis. Major U.S. investment banks and government sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae played an important role in the expansion of higher-risk lending.[47][48]

Subprime mortgages remained below 10% of all mortgage originations until 2004, when they spiked to nearly 20% and remained there through the 2005-2006 peak of the United States housing bubble.[49] A proximate event to this increase was the April 2004 decision by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to relax the net capital rule, which permitted the largest five investment banks to dramatically increase their financial leverage and aggressively expand their issuance of mortgage-backed securities. This applied additional competitive pressure to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which further expanded their riskier lending.[50] Subprime mortgage payment delinquency rates remained in the 10-15% range from 1998 to 2006,[51] then began to increase rapidly, rising to 25% by early 2008.[52][53]

Some, like American Enterprise Institute fellow Peter J. Wallison,[54] believe the roots of the crisis can be traced directly to sub-prime lending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are government sponsored entities. On September 30, 1999, The New York Times reported that the Clinton Administration pushed for sub-prime lending:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers... In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.[55]

A 2000 United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends for 305 cities from 1993 to 1998 showed that $467 billion of mortgage credit poured out of Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)-covered lenders into low and mid level income borrowers and neighborhoods.[56] Nevertheless, only 25% of all sub-prime lending occurred at CRA-covered institutions, and a full 50% of sub-prime loans originated at institutions exempt from CRA.[57] While the number of CRA sub-prime loans originated were less than non-CRA sub-prime loans originated, it is important to note that the CRA sub-prime loans were the more "vulnerable during the downturn, to the detriment of both borrowers and lenders. For example, lending done under Community Reinvestment Act criteria, according to a quarterly report in October of 2008, constituted only 7% of the total mortgage lending by the Bank of America, but constituted 29% of its losses on mortgages."[58]

Others have pointed out that there were not enough of these loans made to cause a crisis of this magnitude. In an article in Portfolio Magazine, Michael Lewis spoke with one trader who noted that "There weren’t enough Americans with [bad] credit taking out [bad loans] to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product." Essentially, investment banks and hedge funds used financial innovation to enable large wagers to be made, far beyond the actual value of the underlying mortgage loans, using derivatives called credit default swaps, CDO and synthetic CDO. As long as derivative buyers could be matched with sellers, the theoretical amount that could be wagered was infinite. "They were creating [synthetic loans] out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans."[59]

Economist Paul Krugman argued in January 2010 that the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial real estate pricing bubbles undermines the case made by those who argue that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, CRA or predatory lending were primary causes of the crisis. In other words, bubbles in both markets developed even though only the residential market was affected by these potential causes.[60]

[edit] Predatory lending
Predatory lending refers to the practice of unscrupulous lenders, to enter into "unsafe" or "unsound" secured loans for inappropriate purposes.[61] A classic bait-and-switch method was used by Countrywide Financial, advertising low interest rates for home refinancing. Such loans were written into extensively detailed contracts, and swapped for more expensive loan products on the day of closing. Whereas the advertisement might state that 1% or 1.5% interest would be charged, the consumer would be put into an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) in which the interest charged would be greater than the amount of interest paid. This created negative amortization, which the credit consumer might not notice until long after the loan transaction had been consummated.

Countrywide, sued by California Attorney General Jerry Brown for "Unfair Business Practices" and "False Advertising" was making high cost mortgages "to homeowners with weak credit, adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) that allowed homeowners to make interest-only payments.".[62] When housing prices decreased, homeowners in ARMs then had little incentive to pay their monthly payments, since their home equity had disappeared. This caused Countrywide's financial condition to deteriorate, ultimately resulting in a decision by the Office of Thrift Supervision to seize the lender.

Former employees from Ameriquest, which was United States's leading wholesale lender,[63] described a system in which they were pushed to falsify mortgage documents and then sell the mortgages to Wall Street banks eager to make fast profits.[63] There is growing evidence that such mortgage frauds may be a cause of the crisis.[63]

[edit] Deregulation
Further information: Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis
Critics[who?] have argued that the regulatory framework did not keep pace with financial innovation, such as the increasing importance of the shadow banking system, derivatives and off-balance sheet financing. In other cases, laws were changed or enforcement weakened in parts of the financial system. Key examples include:

Jimmy Carter's Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) phased out a number of restrictions on banks' financial practices, broadened their lending powers, and raised the deposit insurance limit from $40,000 to $100,000 (raising the problem of moral hazard).[64] Banks rushed into real estate lending, speculative lending, and other ventures just as the economy soured.[citation needed]
In October 1982, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed into Law the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which provided for adjustable-rate mortgage loans, began the process of banking deregulation,[citation needed] and contributed to the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s/early 1990s.[65]
In November 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into Law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This repeal has been criticized for reducing the separation between commercial banks (which traditionally had a conservative culture) and investment banks (which had a more risk-taking culture).[66][67]
In 2004, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission relaxed the net capital rule, which enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages. The SEC has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis.[68][69]
Financial institutions in the shadow banking system are not subject to the same regulation as depository banks, allowing them to assume additional debt obligations relative to their financial cushion or capital base.[70] This was the case despite the Long-Term Capital Management debacle in 1998, where a highly-leveraged shadow institution failed with systemic implications.
Regulators and accounting standard-setters allowed depository banks such as Citigroup to move significant amounts of assets and liabilities off-balance sheet into complex legal entities called structured investment vehicles, masking the weakness of the capital base of the firm or degree of leverage or risk taken. One news agency estimated that the top four U.S. banks will have to return between $500 billion and $1 trillion to their balance sheets during 2009.[71] This increased uncertainty during the crisis regarding the financial position of the major banks.[72] Off-balance sheet entities were also used by Enron as part of the scandal that brought down that company in 2001.[73]
As early as 1997, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated.[74] With the advice of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets,[75] the U.S. Congress and President allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market when they enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008.[76] Warren Buffett famously referred to derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction" in early 2003.[77][78]
[edit] Increased debt burden or over-leveraging

Leverage ratios of investment banks increased significantly 2003-2007U.S. households and financial institutions became increasingly indebted or overleveraged[citation needed] during the years preceding the crisis. This increased their vulnerability to the collapse of the housing bubble and worsened the ensuing economic downturn[citation needed]. Key statistics include:

Free cash used by consumers from home equity extraction doubled from $627 billion in 2001 to $1,428 billion in 2005 as the housing bubble built, a total of nearly $5 trillion dollars over the period, contributing to economic growth worldwide.[79][80][81] U.S. home mortgage debt relative to GDP increased from an average of 46% during the 1990s to 73% during 2008, reaching $10.5 trillion.[82]
USA household debt as a percentage of annual disposable personal income was 127% at the end of 2007, versus 77% in 1990.[83]
In 1981, U.S. private debt was 123% of GDP; by the third quarter of 2008, it was 290%.[84]
From 2004-07, the top five U.S. investment banks each significantly increased their financial leverage (see diagram), which increased their vulnerability to a financial shock. These five institutions reported over $4.1 trillion in debt for fiscal year 2007, about 30% of USA nominal GDP for 2007. Lehman Brothers was liquidated, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch were sold at fire-sale prices, and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley became commercial banks, subjecting themselves to more stringent regulation. With the exception of Lehman, these companies required or received government support.[85]
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two U.S. Government sponsored enterprises, owned or guaranteed nearly $5 trillion in mortgage obligations at the time they were placed into conservatorship by the U.S. government in September 2008.[86][87]
These seven entities were highly leveraged and had $9 trillion in debt or guarantee obligations, an enormous concentration of risk[neutrality is disputed]; yet they were not subject to the same regulation as depository banks[citation needed].



Financial innovation and complexity
The term financial innovation refers to the ongoing development of financial products designed to achieve particular client objectives, such as offsetting a particular risk exposure (such as the default of a borrower) or to assist with obtaining financing. Examples pertinent to this crisis included: the adjustable-rate mortgage; the bundling of subprime mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) or collateralized debt obligations (CDO) for sale to investors, a type of securitization; and a form of credit insurance called credit default swaps (CDS). The usage of these products expanded dramatically in the years leading up to the crisis. These products vary in complexity and the ease with which they can be valued on the books of financial institutions.

As described in the section on subprime lending, the CDS and portfolio of CDS called synthetic CDO enabled a theoretically infinite amount to be wagered on the finite value of housing loans outstanding[citation needed], provided that buyers and sellers of the derivatives could be found. For example, selling a CDS to insure a CDO ended up giving the seller the same risk as if they owned the CDO, when those CDO's became worthless.

Certain financial innovation may also have the effect of circumventing regulations[citation needed], such as off-balance sheet financing that affects the leverage or capital cushion reported by major banks. For example, Martin Wolf wrote in June 2009: "...an enormous part of what banks did in the early part of this decade – the off-balance-sheet vehicles, the derivatives and the 'shadow banking system' itself – was to find a way round regulation."[88]

[edit] Incorrect pricing of risk

A protester on Wall Street in the wake of the AIG bonus payments controversy is interviewed by news media.The pricing of risk refers to the incremental compensation required by investors for taking on additional risk, which may be measured by interest rates or fees. For a variety of reasons, market participants did not accurately measure the risk inherent with financial innovation such as MBS and CDO's or understand its impact on the overall stability of the financial system.[9] For example, the pricing model for CDOs clearly did not reflect the level of risk they introduced into the system. Banks estimated that $450bn of CDO were sold between "late 2005 to the middle of 2007"; among the $102bn of those that had been liquidated, JPMorgan estimated that the average recovery rate for "high quality" CDOs was approximately 32 cents on the dollar, while the recovery rate for mezzanine CDO was approximately five cents for every dollar.[89]

Another example relates to AIG, which insured obligations of various financial institutions through the usage of credit default swaps. The basic CDS transaction involved AIG receiving a premium in exchange for a promise to pay money to party A in the event party B defaulted. However, AIG did not have the financial strength to support its many CDS commitments as the crisis progressed and was taken over by the government in September 2008. U.S. taxpayers provided over $180 billion in government support to AIG during 2008 and early 2009, through which the money flowed to various counterparties to CDS transactions, including many large global financial institutions.[90][91]

The limitations of a widely-used financial model also were not properly understood.[92][93] This formula assumed that the price of CDS was correlated with and could predict the correct price of mortgage backed securities. Because it was highly tractable, it rapidly came to be used by a huge percentage of CDO and CDS investors, issuers, and rating agencies.[93] According to one wired.com article:

Then the model fell apart. Cracks started appearing early on, when financial markets began behaving in ways that users of Li's formula hadn't expected. The cracks became full-fledged canyons in 2008—when ruptures in the financial system's foundation swallowed up trillions of dollars and put the survival of the global banking system in serious peril... Li's Gaussian copula formula will go down in history as instrumental in causing the unfathomable losses that brought the world financial system to its knees.[93]

As financial assets became more and more complex, and harder and harder to value, investors were reassured by the fact that both the international bond rating agencies and bank regulators, who came to rely on them, accepted as valid some complex mathematical models which theoretically showed the risks were much smaller than they actually proved to be.[94] George Soros commented that "The super-boom got out of hand when the new products became so complicated that the authorities could no longer calculate the risks and started relying on the risk management methods of the banks themselves. Similarly, the rating agencies relied on the information provided by the originators of synthetic products. It was a shocking abdication of responsibility."[95]

Moreover, a conflict of interest between professional investment managers and their institutional clients, combined with a global glut in investment capital, led to bad investments by asset managers in over-priced credit assets. Professional investment managers generally are compensated based on the volume of client assets under management. There is, therefore, an incentive for asset managers to expand their assets under management in order to maximize their compensation. As the glut in global investment capital caused the yields on credit assets to decline, asset managers were faced with the choice of either investing in assets where returns did not reflect true credit risk or returning funds to clients. Many asset managers chose to continue to invest client funds in over-priced (under-yielding) investments, to the detriment of their clients, in order to maintain their assets under management. This choice was supported by a “plausible deniability” of the risks associated with subprime-based credit assets because the loss experience with early “vintages” of subprime loans was so low.[96]

Despite the dominance of the above formula, there are documented attempts of the financial industry, occurring before the crisis, to address the formula limitations, specifically the lack of dependence dynamics and the poor representation of extreme events.[97] The volume "Credit Correlation: Life After Copulas", published in 2007 by World Scientific, summarizes a 2006 conference held by Merrill Lynch in London where several practitioners attempted to propose models rectifying some of the copula limitations. See also the article by Donnelly and Embrechts [98] and the book by Brigo, Pallavicini and Torresetti, that reports relevant warnings and research on CDOs appeared in 2006. [99]

[edit] Boom and collapse of the shadow banking system

Securitization markets were impaired during the crisisIn a June 2008 speech, President and CEO of the New York Federal Reserve Bank Timothy Geithner — who in 2009 became Secretary of the United States Treasury — placed significant blame for the freezing of credit markets on a "run" on the entities in the "parallel" banking system, also called the shadow banking system. These entities became critical to the credit markets underpinning the financial system, but were not subject to the same regulatory controls. Further, these entities were vulnerable because of maturity mismatch, meaning that they borrowed short-term in liquid markets to purchase long-term, illiquid and risky assets. This meant that disruptions in credit markets would make them subject to rapid deleveraging, selling their long-term assets at depressed prices. He described the significance of these entities:

In early 2007, asset-backed commercial paper conduits, in structured investment vehicles, in auction-rate preferred securities, tender option bonds and variable rate demand notes, had a combined asset size of roughly $2.2 trillion. Assets financed overnight in triparty repo grew to $2.5 trillion. Assets held in hedge funds grew to roughly $1.8 trillion. The combined balance sheets of the then five major investment banks totaled $4 trillion. In comparison, the total assets of the top five bank holding companies in the United States at that point were just over $6 trillion, and total assets of the entire banking system were about $10 trillion. The combined effect of these factors was a financial system vulnerable to self-reinforcing asset price and credit cycles.[17]

Paul Krugman, laureate of the Nobel Prize in Economics, described the run on the shadow banking system as the "core of what happened" to cause the crisis. He referred to this lack of controls as "malign neglect" and argued that regulation should have been imposed on all banking-like activity.[70]

The securitization markets supported by the shadow banking system started to close down in the spring of 2007 and nearly shut-down in the fall of 2008. More than a third of the private credit markets thus became unavailable as a source of funds.[100] According to the Brookings Institution, the traditional banking system does not have the capital to close this gap as of June 2009: "It would take a number of years of strong profits to generate sufficient capital to support that additional lending volume." The authors also indicate that some forms of securitization are "likely to vanish forever, having been an artifact of excessively loose credit conditions."[101]

Economist Mark Zandi testified to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in January 2010: "The securitization markets also remain impaired, as investors anticipate more loan losses. Investors are also uncertain about coming legal and accounting rule changes and regulatory reforms. Private bond issuance of residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities, and CDOs peaked in 2006 at close to $2 trillion...In 2009, private issuance was less than $150 billion, and almost all of it was asset-backed issuance supported by the Federal Reserve's TALF program to aid credit card, auto and small-business lenders. Issuance of residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities and CDOs remains dormant."[102]

[edit] Commodities boom
Main article: 2000s commodities boom
Rapid increases in a number of commodity prices followed the collapse in the housing bubble. The price of oil nearly tripled from $50 to $147 from early 2007 to 2008, before plunging as the financial crisis began to take hold in late 2008.[103] Experts debate the causes, with some attributing it to speculative flow of money from housing and other investments into commodities, some to monetary policy,[104] and some to the increasing feeling of raw materials scarcity in a fast growing world, leading to long positions taken on those markets, such as Chinese increasing presence in Africa. An increase in oil prices tends to divert a larger share of consumer spending into gasoline, which creates downward pressure on economic growth in oil importing countries, as wealth flows to oil-producing states.[105] A pattern of spiking instability in the price of oil over the decade leading up to the price high of 2008 has been recently identified. [106] The destabilizing effects of this price variance has been proposed as a contributory factor in the financial crisis.

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on June 3, 2008, former director of the CFTC Division of Trading & Markets (responsible for enforcement) Michael Greenberger specifically named the Atlanta-based IntercontinentalExchange, founded by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and BP as playing a key role in speculative run-up of oil futures prices traded off the regulated futures exchanges in London and New York.[107] However, the IntercontinentalExchange (ICE) had been regulated by both European and US authorities since its purchase of the International Petroleum Exchange in 2001. Mr Greenberger was later corrected on this matter.[108]


Global copper pricesIt was also noticed[who?] that copper prices increased at the same time as the oil prices. Copper traded at about $2,500 per tonne from 1990 until 1999, when it fell to about $1,600. The price slump lasted until 2004 which saw a price surge that had copper reaching $7,040 per tonne in 2008.[109]

Nickel prices boomed in the late 1990s, then the price of nickel imploded from around $51,000 /£36,700 per metric ton in May 2007 to about $11,550/£8,300 per metric ton in January 2009. Prices were only just starting to recover as of January 2010, but most of Australia's nickel mines had gone bankrupt by then.[110] As the price for high grade nickel sulphate ore recovered in 2010, so did the Australian nickel mining industry.[111]

Coincidentally with these price fluctuations, long-only commodity index funds became popular – by one estimate investment increased from $90 billion in 2006 to $200 billion at the end of 2007, while commodity prices increased 71% – which raised concern as to whether these index funds caused the commodity bubble.[112] The empirical research has been mixed.[112]

[edit] Systemic crisis
Another analysis, different from the mainstream explanation, is that the financial crisis is merely a symptom of another, deeper crisis, which is a systemic crisis of capitalism itself.[113] According to Samir Amin, an Egyptian Marxist economist, the constant decrease in GDP growth rates in Western countries since the early 1970s created a growing surplus of capital which did not have sufficient profitable investment outlets in the real economy[citation needed]. The alternative was to place this surplus into the financial market, which became more profitable than capital investment, especially with subsequent deregulation.[114] According to Samir Amin, this phenomenon has led to recurrent financial bubbles (such as the internet bubble) and is the deep cause of the financial crisis of 2007-2010.[115]

John Bellamy Foster, a political economy analyst and editor of the Monthly Review, believes that the decrease in GDP growth rates since the early 1970s is due to increasing market saturation.[116]

John C. Bogle wrote during 2005 that a series of unresolved challenges face capitalism that have contributed to past financial crises and have not been sufficiently addressed:

Corporate America went astray largely because the power of managers went virtually unchecked by our gatekeepers for far too long...They failed to 'keep an eye on these geniuses' to whom they had entrusted the responsibility of the management of America's great corporations.

He cites particular issues, including:[117][118]

"Manager's capitalism" which he argues has replaced "owner's capitalism," meaning management runs the firm for its benefit rather than for the shareholders, a variation on the principal-agent problem;
Burgeoning executive compensation;
Managed earnings, mainly a focus on share price rather than the creation of genuine value; and
The failure of gatekeepers, including auditors, boards of directors, Wall Street analysts, and career politicians.
Robert Reich has attributed the current economic downturn to the stagnation of wages in the United States, particularly those of the hourly workers who comprise 80% of the workforce. His claim is that this stagnation forced the population to borrow in order to meet the cost of living.[119]

[edit] Role of economic forecasting
The financial crisis was not widely predicted by mainstream economists, who instead spoke of The Great Moderation. A number of heterodox economists predicted the crisis, with varying arguments. Dirk Bezemer in his research[120] credits (with supporting argument and estimates of timing) 12 economists with predicting the crisis: Dean Baker (US), Wynne Godley (UK), Fred Harrison (UK), Michael Hudson (US), Eric Janszen (US), Steve Keen (Australia), Jakob Brøchner Madsen & Jens Kjaer Sørensen (Denmark), Kurt Richebächer (US), Nouriel Roubini (US), Peter Schiff (US), and Robert Shiller (US). Examples of other experts who gave indications of a financial crisis have also been given.[121][122][123]

A cover story in BusinessWeek magazine claims that economists mostly failed to predict the worst international economic crisis since the Great Depression of 1930s.[124] The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania's online business journal examines why economists failed to predict a major global financial crisis.[125] Popular articles published in the mass media have led the general public to believe that the majority of economists have failed in their obligation to predict the financial crisis. For example, an article in the New York Times informs that economist Nouriel Roubini warned of such crisis as early as September 2006, and the article goes on to state that the profession of economics is bad at predicting recessions.[126] According to The Guardian, Roubini was ridiculed for predicting a collapse of the housing market and worldwide recession, while The New York Times labelled him "Dr. Doom".[127]

Within mainstream financial economics, most believe that financial crises are simply unpredictable,[128] following Eugene Fama's efficient-market hypothesis and the related random-walk hypothesis, which state respectively that markets contain all information about possible future movements, and that the movement of financial prices are random and unpredictable.

Lebanese-American trader and financial risk engineer Nassim Nicholas Taleb author of The Black Swan spent years warning against the breakdown of the banking system in particular and the economy in general owing to their use of bad risk models and reliance on forecasting, and their reliance on bad models, and framed the problem as part of "robustness and fragility".[129][130] He also reacted against the cold of the establishment by making a big financial bet on banking stocks and making a fortune from the crisis ("They didn't listen, so I took their money") .[131] According to David Brooks from the New York Times, "Taleb not only has an explanation for what’s happening, he saw it coming." .[132]

[edit] Financial markets impacts
[edit] Impacts on financial institutions
See also: Nationalisation of Northern Rock and Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

2007 bank run on Northern Rock, a UK bankThe International Monetary Fund estimated that large U.S. and European banks lost more than $1 trillion on toxic assets and from bad loans from January 2007 to September 2009. These losses are expected to top $2.8 trillion from 2007-10. U.S. banks losses were forecast to hit $1 trillion and European bank losses will reach $1.6 trillion. The IMF estimated that U.S. banks were about 60% through their losses, but British and eurozone banks only 40%.[133]

One of the first victims was Northern Rock, a medium-sized British bank.[134] The highly leveraged nature of its business led the bank to request security from the Bank of England. This in turn led to investor panic and a bank run in mid-September 2007. Calls by Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesman Vince Cable to nationalise the institution were initially ignored; in February 2008, however, the British government (having failed to find a private sector buyer) relented, and the bank was taken into public hands. Northern Rock's problems proved to be an early indication of the troubles that would soon befall other banks and financial institutions.

Initially the companies affected were those directly involved in home construction and mortgage lending such as Northern Rock and Countrywide Financial, as they could no longer obtain financing through the credit markets. Over 100 mortgage lenders went bankrupt during 2007 and 2008. Concerns that investment bank Bear Stearns would collapse in March 2008 resulted in its fire-sale to JP Morgan Chase. The financial institution crisis hit its peak in September and October 2008. Several major institutions either failed, were acquired under duress, or were subject to government takeover. These included Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, and AIG.[135]

[edit] Credit markets and the shadow banking system

TED spread and components during 2008During September 2008, the crisis hit its most critical stage. There was the equivalent of a bank run on the money market mutual funds, which frequently invest in commercial paper issued by corporations to fund their operations and payrolls. Withdrawal from money markets were $144.5 billion during one week, versus $7.1 billion the week prior. This interrupted the ability of corporations to rollover (replace) their short-term debt. The U.S. government responded by extending insurance for money market accounts analogous to bank deposit insurance via a temporary guarantee[136] and with Federal Reserve programs to purchase commercial paper. The TED spread, an indicator of perceived credit risk in the general economy, spiked up in July 2007, remained volatile for a year, then spiked even higher in September 2008,[137] reaching a record 4.65% on October 10, 2008.

In a dramatic meeting on September 18, 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke met with key legislators to propose a $700 billion emergency bailout. Bernanke reportedly told them: "If we don't do this, we may not have an economy on Monday."[138] The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which implemented the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), was signed into law on October 3, 2008.[139]

Economist Paul Krugman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner explain the credit crisis via the implosion of the shadow banking system, which had grown to nearly equal the importance of the traditional commercial banking sector as described above. Without the ability to obtain investor funds in exchange for most types of mortgage-backed securities or asset-backed commercial paper, investment banks and other entities in the shadow banking system could not provide funds to mortgage firms and other corporations.[17][70]

This meant that nearly one-third of the U.S. lending mechanism was frozen and continued to be frozen into June 2009.[140] According to the Brookings Institution, the traditional banking system does not have the capital to close this gap as of June 2009: "It would take a number of years of strong profits to generate sufficient capital to support that additional lending volume." The authors also indicate that some forms of securitization are "likely to vanish forever, having been an artifact of excessively loose credit conditions." While traditional banks have raised their lending standards, it was the collapse of the shadow banking system that is the primary cause of the reduction in funds available for borrowing.[141]

[edit] Wealth effects

The New York City headquarters of Lehman BrothersThere is a direct relationship between declines in wealth, and declines in consumption and business investment, which along with government spending represent the economic engine. Between June 2007 and November 2008, Americans lost an estimated average of more than a quarter of their collective net worth[citation needed]. By early November 2008, a broad U.S. stock index the S&P 500, was down 45% from its 2007 high. Housing prices had dropped 20% from their 2006 peak, with futures markets signaling a 30-35% potential drop. Total home equity in the United States, which was valued at $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, had dropped to $8.8 trillion by mid-2008 and was still falling in late 2008. Total retirement assets, Americans' second-largest household asset, dropped by 22%, from $10.3 trillion in 2006 to $8 trillion in mid-2008. During the same period, savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion. Taken together, these losses total a staggering $8.3 trillion.[142] Since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion.[143]

Further, U.S. homeowners had extracted significant equity in their homes in the years leading up to the crisis, which they could no longer do once housing prices collapsed. Free cash used by consumers from home equity extraction doubled from $627 billion in 2001 to $1,428 billion in 2005 as the housing bubble built, a total of nearly $5 trillion over the period.[79][80][81] U.S. home mortgage debt relative to GDP increased from an average of 46% during the 1990s to 73% during 2008, reaching $10.5 trillion.[82]

To offset this decline in consumption and lending capacity, the U.S. government and U.S. Federal Reserve have committed $13.9 trillion, of which $6.8 trillion has been invested or spent, as of June 2009.[144] In effect, the Fed has gone from being the "lender of last resort" to the "lender of only resort" for a significant portion of the economy. In some cases the Fed can now be considered the "buyer of last resort."

Economist Dean Baker explained the reduction in the availability of credit this way:

Yes, consumers and businesses can't get credit as easily as they could a year ago. There is a really good reason for tighter credit. Tens of millions of homeowners who had substantial equity in their homes two years ago have little or nothing today. Businesses are facing the worst downturn since the Great Depression. This matters for credit decisions. A homeowner with equity in her home is very unlikely to default on a car loan or credit card debt. They will draw on this equity rather than lose their car and/or have a default placed on their credit record. On the other hand, a homeowner who has no equity is a serious default risk. In the case of businesses, their creditworthiness depends on their future profits. Profit prospects look much worse in November 2008 than they did in November 2007 (of course, to clear-eyed analysts, they didn't look too good a year ago either). While many banks are obviously at the brink, consumers and businesses would be facing a much harder time getting credit right now even if the financial system were rock solid. The problem with the economy is the loss of close to $6 trillion in housing wealth and an even larger amount of stock wealth. Economists, economic policy makers and economic reporters virtually all missed the housing bubble on the way up. If they still can't notice its impact as the collapse of the bubble throws into the worst recession in the post-war era, then they are in the wrong profession.[145]

At the heart of the portfolios of many of these institutions were investments whose assets had been derived from bundled home mortgages. Exposure to these mortgage-backed securities, or to the credit derivatives used to insure them against failure, caused the collapse or takeover of several key firms such as Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, and HBOS.[146][147][148]

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 08:18 AM
All intervention in a market is distortion in the market, as resources and prices are not allowed to fluctuate naturally to the demands in the market, and especially when the prices of loans are artificially set by a central bank (plus the printing of new money - again, this is all free-market right?).

I've already went over this on my two prior posts regarding bank centralization.

A free market system cannot self regulated itself by a monopoly of several private competing banks which is the reason why many private banks along with the federal government conspired together in the creation of the central bank of which there doesn't seem to be any adequate alternative to it's creation in the functioning of a economy which is one of the reasons why your capitalists vouched for it in the first place.

Moreover a free market cannot self regulate itself adequately to meet the demands of a national economy without some form of regulated centralization.


Wages haven't changed? Do you see how much wages have gone up? Even working a minimum wage job you can afford home appliances. I can buy a brand new laptop at half the price I got my desktop I have now that was purchased 5 years ago, and it would be at least 5 times faster, and would have more memory than my external hard drive plus my internal combined.


The most important promises used to justify capitalism are that your children will have a better life than you do, and in President Kennedy’s famous words, “a rising tide lifts all boats,” meaning everyone benefits from the accumulation of capital. These promises ring hollow in a period in which the relative position of the working people of the United States is declining and its ruling class is able to appropriate an increasing share of the national income. This pattern of accumulation and appropriation has become evident to many Americans and this awareness is beginning to affect political consciousness.
Today, people worry that their children will not enjoy the same standard of living that they have. They know that the benefits of growth are going overwhelmingly to the wealthy and not to working people. The statistics support such an understanding. For a quarter of a century, from 1980 to 2004, while U.S. gross domestic product per person rose by almost two-thirds, the wages of the average worker fell after adjusting for inflation. Over the three decades from 1972 to 2001, the wages and salaries of even those Americans at the 90th percentile (those doing better than 90 percent of their fellow citizens) experienced income gains of only 1 percent a year on average. Those at the 99.9th percentile saw their income rise by 181 percent over these years (to an income averaging almost $1.7 million). Those at the 99.99th percentile had income growth of 497 percent.1

From an economic standpoint what has happened is that the link between productivity and wages has been broken. No longer does economic growth mean increases in the real earnings for the working class as their productivity rises. This was evident through Clinton’s last term when between 1997 and 2001 the top 10 percent of U.S. earners received 49 percent of the growth in real wages and salaries; indeed, the top 1 percent got 24 percent of the total while the bottom half of workers received less than 13 percent. This trend is of longer duration. Based on a somewhat different calculation the share of income going to the top .1 percent quadrupled between 1970 and 1998 at the expense of working-class earners.

Inequality was growing in most of the rest of the world too; but the United States led among the richer nations; and unlike most others that offset market inequality though government intervention, the United States has not done so. For working people the issues are not simply the stagnation of real wages and growing inequality but the worsening insecurity that permeates many aspects of their lives as labor market conditions change and government abrogates more and more elements of the social contract.

Because globalization has been such a powerful force restructuring the international political economy there is a tendency to see economic developments as the result of this process rather than in terms of class. If we start with class and labor as the givens—rather than beginning with globalization trends—and then go on to the dispiriting impacts on people, the focus moves from deterministic structures to agency and the need for and potential of struggle. To understand the present, we need to look closely at how the factions of capital are advancing their selfish interests, at the expense of working people, by consciously manipulating the beliefs, fears, and idealism of citizens.

Despite globalization, manufacturing output is not declining in the United States. It has been expanding, growing faster than the rest of the economy in recent years. It is manufacturing employment that is shrinking.

It is at its lowest level in more than half a century. Between 2001 and the spring of 2006 worker hourly productivity rose by 24 percent so fewer workers are needed to produce more output. But output has not been rising as fast as in the past. This is not only because of greater global competition but also slower global growth in demand. If demand had increased at levels seen during the early post–Second World War era, millions of additional jobs would have been created in manufacturing for U.S. workers. Manufacturing jobs are especially important for those with the least education. Men with less than a high school education saw their wages fall in the 1980s in real terms by 20 percent. From 1979 to 1992 real yearly wages for male high school dropouts fell by over 23 percent while high school graduates with no additional education experienced a fall in real wages of 17 percent. There was a large expansion of temporary and part-time work.

The U.S. economy is always creating and destroying jobs. The question is how much trouble do the unemployed have in finding work? What kind of jobs are available? What do they pay? What is the work like? What are the benefit packages, if any? If they are laid off how much pain do workers endure when they are involuntarily separated from employment?

How long does the period last? What sort of job did they lose, did they get, and again at what pay and with what benefits? Every three months 7 percent of all jobs are destroyed and roughly the same number are created. In a typical year a quarter of all jobs disappear. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that in 1983, men between the age of 45 and 54 held jobs on average for 12.8 years but by 2004 for only 9.7 years. Jobs are now less secure for white-collar workers as well as in blue-collar occupations.

The layoffs have been in big companies, which tend to pay better and to offer benefits. It is not of course that things were great in the 1980s. During that decade, 13 percent of Americans between 40 and 50 years of age spent at least one year living in poverty, but by the 1990s, 36 percent did. Mobility has also declined. Today, according to a Federal Reserve study, if your parents are rich the chance of your being rich is as high as the probability that if your parents are tall you will be tall. Social mobility is not as likely here as in Germany, for example.

The true cost of job loss must be measured not just in money as economists do in their limited calculations. For many people there is a spiral pattern in which layoffs lead to not only financial insecurity but to feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness, depression, sleepless nights, headaches, chronic stomach aches, and fatigue that cause lasting harm.

Even after getting work some people have trouble talking to the boss and dealing with job demands. The damage done by job loss, even the threat of job loss, along with the worries about how people will live after they are no longer able to work, or if they have a serious illness how they can pay for the doctor and a hospital stay, produce anxieties that permeate working-class existence. There is a rise in escapist pursuits as the economy produces greater uncertainty; the growth of gambling addiction is one example. By the start of the 2000s, Americans were spending more on gambling than on theme parks, video games, spectator sports, and movie tickets. The most desperate tend to risk the most. Data from the late 1990s shows households with incomes under $10,000 a year spend three times as much on lottery tickets as those with incomes of more than $50,000. There is, however, an important psychological disconnect between harsh economic realities, escapist avenues, and the ideological interpretation most working people adopt to preserve their sense of worth and well-being. Credit card debt ensnares a large part of the working class. In 2004, 1.6 million people filed for personal bankruptcy, twice the number of a decade earlier, and half of those filed after a major medical expenditure. Other prominent causes of debt were divorce and job loss.

On the whole, life grows ever more insecure for working people. Capital’s share of all corporate income is the highest and the compensation of employees is the lowest that they have been in twenty-five years. Moreover, capital income is more concentrated than it has ever been. As the profit share went up, the CEO’s share of both the total wage bill and of corporate profits dramatically increased. By the mid-1990s CEO pay was about 5 percent of corporate profits. In 2003 their share was 10 percent of all profits.2 The percentage available for labor’s share decreased.

In the 2006 holiday season the top Wall Street firms together paid out an estimated $36 to $44 billion to their employees. The bulk of it went to those masters of the universe who were restructuring employment prospects for U.S. workers and extorting concessions from workers to finance debt. Andrew Sum of Northeastern University’s Center for Market Labor Studies points out that from 2000 to 2006, all 93 million American workers—all production and nonsupervisory workers as defined by the government—had real earnings increases of less than half of the combined bonuses awarded by the top Wall Street firms for just one year.3

These are disturbing developments to many Americans, but have they shaken the powerful hold of individualism on people’s psyches?

Hundreds of national polls confirm that Americans express optimism regarding their own life chances and those of their children. They are reluctant to describe their own circumstances in negative terms even as they tell interviewers that “people like them” are doing poorly. While they say that education and hard work will help people get ahead they also report anxiety about outsourcing, plants closing, permanent jobs being replaced with part-time and contingent work, the lack of career opportunities, and fear that if they lose their job they will only be able to get one with lower pay and no benefits.4 Americans are frustrated that their incomes are not keeping up with the cost of living and that they are being squeezed. They are critical of corporate greed and dishonesty. They want the government to call these corporations, especially pharmaceutical and oil companies, to account. They are worried that things will not get better. But they are not, in great numbers, hostile to the system. They express faith in the American Dream and continue to believe that individuals can overcome obstacles. A majority envy the rich and famous.

Horatio Alger stories continue to resonate with Americans. Close to two-thirds of Americans in a 2002 Pew poll believe that success depends on forces within their own control—double the percent who respond this way in Italy or Germany and triple those who respond this way in Turkey or India. Another 2002 poll by the accounting firm of Ernst & Young, taken after the dot-com crash and the terrorist attacks the previous September, found that 81 percent thought they would be richer than their parents, while other surveys show a high proportion expecting to become millionaires. One poll taken in 2000 found that a quarter of teenagers in the United States believed they would be millionaires by the time they were forty.5 At the time the poll was taken there were 150,000 millionaires in the country. If the teenagers were right about their future, nine and a half million people would have to jump to this status. Those who think they will become rich because America is an opportunity society can be attracted to such politicians as George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan who feed their dreams while robbing their pockets.

Such individualist optimists typically do not believe in helping those who do not help themselves. A very large part of the working class is alienated from poverty programs which are seen as taking their tax money and giving it to those who lack ambition and a willingness to work hard. One of the lasting legacies of 1960s liberalism is the division the liberal view makes between the poor and everyone else. The unspoken assumption underlying the liberal approach is that everyone else is doing just fine. The poor are viewed as a separate group excluded from the benefits of a system that is working for everyone else. This was not a true picture in the 1960s. It is certainly not the case today. The poor are numerous and in need of help, but it is the class nature of society that produces and replenishes the reserve army, that forces some to work full time year round and still be poor, while it excludes others from even this prospect. This makes all workers insecure about the future and fearful of losing what they have.

The great gap is between the top 1 percent or the top .1 percent and the rest of the country. The myth of the United States as a middle-class nation with endless prospects for upward mobility is increasingly contradicted by the evidence. Those at the top are a ruling elite and are concentrating more income and wealth into their own hands. Edward Wolff has documented that the top 10 percent of wealth holders own 85 percent of the value of taxable stocks and mutual funds, the top 1 percent own about half. Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez have demonstrated that the share of pretax income going to the top 1 percent of Americans doubled between 1980 and 2004. (The last time the top 1 percent had such a large share of the total was in 1937.) What about after-tax income?

In a May 2006 statement advocating the continuation of his huge tax cut going overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Americans, President Bush asserted that the failure to extend the tax cut would be “disastrous” for “all working Americans.” As experts from mainstream think tanks, the Brookings Institution, the Urban Institute, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in response: “The president’s claim is implausible in light of the distribution of the reconciliation bill’s benefits. Some 68 percent of all American households will receive no tax cut at all from the legislation….” They noted that an even larger fallacy was the assumption that the tax cut should be seen as a costless gift from a beneficent government since the tax cut was being paid for with borrowed money. It turns out that 99 percent of Americans are net losers under this tax cut—for every dollar they received they also got a bill of $3.74 in the form of a larger national debt for which they will be paying interest.

Robert McIntyre of the Citizens for Tax Justice calculates however, that the wealthiest 1 percent, who in 2006 had family incomes of over a million and a quarter dollars, received an average tax break of $84,482 per family member, which exceeded their additional tax burden by over $30,000 for each of the four members of the average wealthy family. Income tax cuts to the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution do nothing because the families who in 2006 had incomes below $36,000 typically paid no income taxes. They were, however, affected by the service cuts which the money could have gone to pay for and they will be impacted by the cost of borrowing the money which went mostly to the rich and, it should not be forgotten, to pay for the war in Iraq and the other increases in defense spending.

What by convention the establishment calls “defense” spending is rather the expenses of empire, war, and preparation for and the actuality of killing. It is one of the costs citizens pay for American imperialism. In 2001, Bush said the war in Iraq would cost $50 billion (and fired his senior economic adviser Larry Lindsay in part for daring to say the cost might go as high as $200 billion). The administration assured the public the war would be over quickly. Bush lied about much as it turned out. In 2006, Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes put the war’s price tag at two trillion dollars, and even conservative estimates are in the trillion and more range. Increasingly there are estimates of what the American people could have gotten instead for the money—in health care, education, and infrastructure—to make their current lives and future prospects far better than they are.

Imperialism is the other side of an economy that is not producing adequate civilian jobs that would allow the sort of solid working-class existence to which unionized workers in a previous era could aspire. But even with poor prospects most young people are not interested in the volunteer army. One of the reasons the war costs so much, aside from the corrupt extractions of Halliburton and the other contractors with friends in high places, is getting young people to sign on to possibly die in an unpopular war. Recruitment costs are currently over a billion dollars as enlistees, who can now be up to forty years of age and in the second lowest category of intelligence (the one just above imbecility), are paid signing bonuses of up to $40,000. Such a volunteer army is not volunteer. It is a poverty draft. For the most part it is only young people who cannot afford college and face poor job prospects who can be lured to join.

The liberal establishment is worried that the more sophisticated classbased voting rooted in economic awareness they see growing in Latin America after three decades of a disastrous neoliberalism may be heading north. Robert Rubin, Clinton’s first secretary of the treasury and his successor Larry Summers have spearheaded the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution focusing on what they see as the paradox of wage stagnation in a period of robust growth in the productivity of the U.S. workforce. They are worried that growing inequality and wage stagnation will lead to radicalization. The idea is to come up with a program to preempt discussion of more radical proposals and the self-organization of grassroots movements in opposition to business as usual. Modest improvements through spending on education, training, and infrastructure will not be enough to address rising income and wealth inequalities and the deteriorating status of American workers. Nevertheless, establishment liberals hope that frustrations can be cooled by these means.

Republicans place their hopes in the strong hold ideologies of individualism have on Americans, including working-class and low-income voters. Three-quarters of poor Republicans, who as a group make up some 10 percent of the electorate (a Pew study tells us) believe that people can make it on their own through hard work and good character. Exit polls after the 2004 election show that the higher the family income the more likely people were to vote for Bush. Households with incomes below $50,000 generally voted for Kerry, but this was not the case for whites in the $30–50,000 category, which was once dependably Democrat. It is true that many in this group were open to the cultural conservativism the Republicans showcased, but more importantly these are people hurt by economic changes. They turned against the government and the Democrats back in the Carter years. Rather than offering meaningful resources to help such people, Kerry made balancing the budget the heart of his economic program.

The penchant for people to see the basic unfairness of the capitalist system and at the same time accept it and to believe that they can do well against the odds is a difficult reality for Marxists and other advocates for radical change. Critics of capitalism are not at all alone in their belief that those who control the major parties are in thrall to the economic elites. But the left has a serious problem to unravel. Why does the working class refuse to take on its historical obligations and instead seek individualistic or escapist alternatives? While the progressive segments of the middle class and some working-class militants are willing to struggle for meaningful change, most working people are not. In large numbers they embrace the wedge issues that reactionary forces use to win support for candidates who will pursue policies objectively against their interests. How can this be?

It would be a mistake to see the salience of social and cultural issues as distinct from economics. Traditional values, as they are called, are less appealing to the better off and better educated who are more likely to live in nuclear families, less likely to be divorced (and more likely to remarry if they are), less likely to have kids out of wedlock, and whose own children are more likely to go to college and become successful. Lowerincome people are more likely to live in a harsher world of social and personal insecurity, with greater prevalence of single motherhood, more abortions, and too commonly verbal and physical violence. The psychology of many wanting to escape such a life is to embrace aspirational values and absolutist guidelines which come with being born again in hope of finding support and strength. The church offers a heart in a heartless world of economic dislocation and deprivation. Certain fundamentalist religions serve the dispossessed and working families who once would have earned a family wage and lived in stable communities with strong working-class cultures.

Those who point out smugly that red states have more divorce, crime, poverty, single parents, and so on need to ask why this is so. Can it be the case that economically more secure people—like those who live in a high-income state such as Massachusetts, where community life is stronger for the most part and where there are fewer transients and murders per capita—accept gay marriage more easily because their family life is not so threatened? How important is lack of security and fear of further social breakdown to a propensity to be moved by hot button cultural issues? Once fundamentalist religious views were concentrated in poor, rural, isolated agricultural regions dependent on the capricious and often harsh nature of storms, draught, pests, and other uncontrollable disasters. With the dramatic drop in factory employment and the decline of unions the same sort of insecurity is widespread in areas where once there were communities of better paid workers and more stable families. Facing relative deprivations or simply living surrounded by social breakdown and disturbing signs of a disordered culture, a personal savior and acceptance of an inerrant authority of Biblical literalism can have greater appeal.

For many it is the ceaseless realities of a life of pain that leads to aspirational adoption of absolutist moral values and a rejection of the seemingly far-fetched promises of a solidarity based on class and citizen entitlement. It is easy for such people to demonize unions and a government, which are not helping them. Class is also an important entry point to examine the divisions within the Democratic Party, which has two major constituencies: better off, highly educated white liberals and the less well educated, heavily minority, group of low-income working people. The issues important to the first, the right to choose and the environment, may not be the most pressing to those for whom economic survival is uppermost. Moreover, the corporate funding the party depends on comes with the need to support free trade and neoliberalism.

All of this leads to the question: under what conditions does a broadbased progressive movement appear which can change the direction of the country? The Populist era, the New Deal, and the Great Society need to be understood in their material context to explain why they could do as much as they did. When Wall Street and the railroads abused the farmers and the early industrial workers, resistance built up and radical politics followed. In the thirties ordinary working people were in motion, unions were being organized, and the corruption of corporate leaders came to be widely known. The desire to punish “the malefactors of great wealth” and to prevent another depression led factions of the ruling class to support reforms and regulation to save capitalism from itself and perforce to help ordinary Americans. A hegemonic liberal-labor bloc moved the country to the left. In the 1960s, the modernization of American capitalism prompted change in the antiquated social relations of the Jim Crow South. The mechanization of agriculture ended the necessity for a huge workforce of blacks in agriculture. Air conditioning and air travel opened the South to the national economy. The changed material conditions stimulated activism in the form of the civil rights movement demanding inclusion on the basis of juridical equality for African Americans. Reluctantly, for this would require dismantling the alliance between Southern racist politicians and politics and Northern corporate interests and labor which constituted the New Deal coalition, first a cautious Kennedy and then a more assertive Johnson acted, pushed by powerful social movements, to keep the country united and to shore up the Democratic base in the North. Despite the activities of millions of activists, racism and regional conflict remain potent. The only successful Democratic candidates for the presidency since the early 1960s have been Southerners.

From Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” through the disenfranchisement of blacks (most importantly in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004), the Republicans were able to impose an increasingly rightward turn in American politics. The whipping up of fear was the driver of reaction— fear of blacks, fear of communism, fear of terrorists. The large and most internationalized corporations, which had backed the Democrats from the New Deal through the Great Society, became transnational corporations.

As a result, their stance shifted regarding the functions of the state and U.S. labor. They now sought the freedom to disinvest at home and reinvest abroad, pressuring governments everywhere to accept neoliberal policies. This combination of the objective interests of big capital in the new stage of capitalist development and the use of racist appeals, national chauvinism, and religious fundamentalism brought us to where we have been until an overreaching by the Bush alliance provoked a progressive backlash.

Under Clinton, and in the economics advanced by Gore and Kerry, it is clear that the Democrats accepted and encouraged corporate globalization and lacked enthusiasm to defend working-class interests. In the post mortems after the 2004 election, Stan Greenberg, the Democratic Party pollster, crunched the numbers and declared that John Kerry had the White House within reach but his failure to shift from Iraq to economic issues led to his defeat. Interestingly, the white rural voters who were decisive to the Bush victory were open to an economic debate and held back. This group, a fifth of the electorate, was worried about health care, jobs, and retirement. They had been hit hard by economic dislocations.

“They were looking for an election about their lives—not national security—and they didn’t get that choice,” Greenberg reported. If they had gotten what they wanted Kerry would be president. There remains a basic disconnect between what Americans think is important and what politicians in thrall to the well-to-do are willing to consider.6 There is room to the left of politics as normal for such a discussion.


Notes
1. Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon, “Where Did the Productivity Growth Go?” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 11842, December 2005.
2. Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and Sylvia Allegretto, The State of Working America, 2006-2007 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007).
3. Andrew Sum, unpublished essay.
4. Robert McIntyre, “Transparent Dishonesty,” The American Prospect Online, August 30, 2006, http://www.prospect.org.
5. JA Interprise Poll, “American Dream 2000” (2001), http://www.ja.org.
6. Stan Greenberg, et al., The Economic Disconnect, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, December 2006, http://www.epi.org.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0607wkt.htm




In June, an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities confirmed that gap between rich and poor in the United States reached levels not seen since 1929. Between 1979 and 2007, the yawning chasm separating the after-tax income of the richest 1 percent of Americans from the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled. But while the Bush recession which began in December 2007 temporarily halted the stratospheric advance of the wealthy, the rich - and the rich alone - have largely recovered their losses. Which means that the record level of income inequality in America is growing once again.

The CBPP report found a financial Grand Canyon separating the very rich from everyone else. Over the three decades ending in 2007, the top 1 percent's share of the nation's total after-tax household income more than doubled, from 7.5 percent to 17.1 percent. During that time, the share of the middle 60% of Americans dropped from 51.1 percent to 43.5 percent; the bottom four-fifths declined from 58 percent to 48 percent. As for the poor, they fell further and further behind, with the lowest quintile's income share sliding to just 4.9%. Expressed in dollar terms, the income gap is staggering:

Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent after adjusting for inflation -- an increase in income of $973,100 per household -- compared to increases of 25 percent ($11,200 per household) for the middle fifth of households and 16 percent ($2,400 per household) for the bottom fifth.

To be sure, the deficit-exploding Bush tax cuts played an essential role in fueling the gap. (This is evidenced by the fact that between 2001 and 2007, the income share of the 400 richest American taxpayers doubled even as their tax rates were halved.) As the New York Times revealed in October, by 2007 the top 1% - the 1.5 million families earning more than $400,000 - reaped 24% of the nation's income. The bottom 90% - the 136 million families below $110,000 - accounted for just 50%.

But with the devastating Bush recession, the upper class joy ride hit a speed bump. As the media last fall lamented the downturn's impact on the tragically rich, David Leonhardt and Geraldine Fabrikant of the New York Times concluded concluded, "After a 30-year run, [the] rise of the super-rich hits a sobering wall."

They began to pull away from everyone else in the 1970s. By 2006, income was more concentrated at the top than it had been since the late 1920s. The recent news about resurgent Wall Street pay has seemed to suggest that not even the Great Recession could reverse the rise in income inequality.

But economists say -- and data is beginning to show -- that a significant change may in fact be under way. The rich, as a group, are no longer getting richer. Over the last two years, they have become poorer. And many may not return to their old levels of wealth and income anytime soon.

As it turned out, that time wasn't just soon. It's already here.



The Los Angeles Times announced the return of record-setting income inequality last month in an article titled, "Millionaires Make a Comeback." After getting pummeled as Wall Street plummeted in 2008, the rich have begun to recoup their losses. The short period of Gilded Interrupted is over:

In 2008, as the financial crisis raged, the stock market hit bottom and the Great Recession ate into the economy, the number of millionaires in the United States plunged.

But last year the number of millionaires bounced up sharply, new data show.

And after that decline and rebound, the millionaire class held a larger percentage of the country's wealth than it did in 2007.

"It's been a recession where everyone took a hit -- with the bottom taking a bigger hit," said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin professor who studies economic inequality. But "the wealthy alone have bounced back."

Bounced back, it turns out, with a vengeance. The Boston Consulting Group found that "the number of U.S. households with at least $1 million in "bankable" assets climbed 15% last year to 4.7 million after tumbling 21% in 2008." Despite there being 10% fewer millionaires than in 2007, the percentage of Americans' total wealth held by those households was slightly higher, growing to 55%.

Writing in the Washington Post, Ezra Klein neatly summed up the dynamic which has restored income inequality to record highs:

The basic story here is that assets have recovered so much more quickly than the broader economy that in 2009, "the millionaire class held a larger percentage of the country's wealth than it did in 2007." In other words, inequality has actually gotten worse. If you want to see why that's unexpected, check out the chart I cadged from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: After the Great Depression, inequality fell and didn't recover until 2007. That's about 80 years. After the Great Recession, inequality fell and didn't recover until ... 2009? That's one year.

For his part, Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute argued, "The recession is going to end up accentuating the inequalities of income and wealth we've seen for 30 years," adding, "This requires attention if we're going to see robust wealth growth going forward."

Which is exactly right. Sadly, Republican obstructionists in Washington are only paying attention to those who need it least. Before they united to block the extension of unemployment benefits to the long-term jobless, Republicans delivered a one-year suspension of the estate tax. And even as that gambit drains billions from the U.S. Treasury to produce a one-year windfall for the heirs of the richest Americans, the GOP and its Tea Party shock troops insist on making the expiring Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent.

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/record-us-income-gap-growing-again



As Labor Day approaches, many Americans are breathing a sigh of relief for the extra day off. On a day that celebrates unions and the eight-hour work day, plenty of people are feeling like their hard work isn't exactly paying off the way it used to.

Even as productivity has continued to climb, wages have been either stagnant or declining. Household income for the average working family has continued to fall, but men, Latinos and those without a college education have experienced an especially sharp deceleration of wage growth since the recession, according to a new briefing paper by the Economic Policy Institute.

The Washington, D.C.-based think tank says that from 2002 to 2007, productivity rose 11 percent but the hourly wage for high school and college educated workers fell. In fact, the average median household income (adjusted for inflation) actually earned $2,000 less during that period, going from $60,804 to $58,718. For the first time, family income levels sunk below what they had been at the beginning of the economic cycle.

Typically, an era of higher productivity would also cause wages to rise as workers receive compensation for harder work. Instead, the opposite has been happening. As many companies have reduced staff to cut costs, employees have been squeezed to work longer and produce more. And with productivity falling slightly for the first time in more than a year, many workers have likely reached their threshold this past Spring.

That's because the labor isn't transferring to the employee paychecks. Nominal wage growth in the private sector was 3.4 percent before the economic crisis, but fell to 1.6 percent by the recession's third year. Similarly, wage compensation dropped from 3.1 percent to 1.8 and most of the benefits went to the upper class. From 1989 to 2007, the top one percent of households earned 56 percent of the total income growth. The bottom 90 percent received a total of 16 percent.

This isn't surprising since the trend has actually been ongoing for the last 30 years. The reasons for why wages have continued to stagnate are varied. But could the lack of wage growth be also tied to labor's declining membership? Workers who belong to unions enjoy better pay and benefits than non-unionized employees. In a Washington Post column by Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation magazine editor and publisher, describes how unions were able to raise American living standards:

But when unions represented over 33 percent of all private workers in the 1940s, they drove wage increases for everyone -- non-union firms had to compete for good workers. Now, unions struggle just to defend their members' wages and benefits. Over the past decade before the Great Recession, productivity soared, profits rose and CEO pay skyrocketed, but most workers lost ground.
The wage stagnation and its correlation to unionization is not far fetched. Change to Win, a coalition of several union organizations, points out that the peak of real wages was in 1972 when private sector union membership was 28 percent. They write:

Workers are now earning only 83 cents of every dollar they earned more than 35 years ago, while their productivity has increased a dramatic 80%. This is the central explanation for the explosion in corporate profits and the growing income gap in America, and the reason workers in America still believe the economy is moving in the wrong direction.
Still, with less than 13 percent of the workforce belonging to a union, it's difficult to get the same strength in numbers to raise the standard of living for everyone. The power of collective bargaining has been a central tenet to negotiating a living wage. But the small union numbers, coupled with companies invoking the current economic climate to justify concessions, has eroded the negotiating power of the average worker.
The tight labor market has also been working to the employer's advantage, making it difficult for workers to negotiate a better wage. For every job opening, there are five unemployed people vying for that spot. In a job market like today where there is a big pool of applicants and a small number of vacancies, companies are able to leverage the pay and benefits on their terms.

Flexible pay scales are also on the rise, where workers have a smaller base salary in exchange for big single payment bonuses. According to Businessweek, more than 90 percent of U.S. corporations now use this plan for non-executive employees. In the early 1990s, it was less than 50 percent. And to top it off, with rising healthcare costs, companies have also shifted the burden onto workers by reducing their wages.

As a result, many are still feeling financially vulnerable despite having a job. A Gallup poll from August 16 found that 26 percent of Americans were worried about pay reductions. Not as many workers are concerned as last year but the statistic is still high compared to previous surveys. Another polls says consumer confidence is also falling to the lowest levels all year and many are saying the economy is only getting worse.

The growing anxiety is because workers have not been able to benefit from the productivity. Spurring median wage growth is a big policy concern. If households are not able to keep up with the cost of living, the decline in consumer spending could further prolong the economic recovery.
But as EPI suggests, raising the minimum wage or nudging the federal government to create job growth are some short-term solutions.

On Monday, though, workers across America will be enjoying a much-needed holiday before going back to the grind.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akito-yoshikane/overworked-and-underpaid-_b_702744.html



REAL WAGES
1964-2004
Average Weekly Earnings (in 1982 constant dollars)
For all private nonfarm workers
Year Real $ Change
1964 302.52
1965 310.46 2.62%
1966 312.83 0.76%
1967 311.30 -0.49%
1968 315.37 1.31%
1969 316.93 0.49%
1970 312.94 -1.26%
1971 318.05 1.63%
1972 331.59 4.26%
1973 331.39 -0.06%
1974 314.94 -4.96%
1975 305.16 -3.11%
1976 309.61 1.46%
1977 310.99 0.45%
1978 310.41 -0.19%
1979 298.87 -3.72%
1980 281.27 -5.89%
1981 277.35 -1.39%
1982 272.74 -1.66%
1983 277.50 1.75%
1984 279.22 0.62%
1985 276.23 -1.07%
1986 276.11 -0.04%
1987 272.88 -1.17%
1988 270.32 -0.94%
1989 267.27 -1.13%
1990 262.43 -1.81%
1991 258.34 -1.56%
1992 257.95 -0.15%
1993 258.12 0.07%
1994 259.97 0.72%
1995 258.43 -0.59%
1996 259.58 0.44%
1997 265.22 2.17%
1998 271.87 2.51%
1999 274.64 1.02%
2000 275.62 0.36%
2001 275.38 -0.09%
2002 278.91 1.28%
2003 279.94 0.37%
2004 277.57 -0.84%



Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits%3A+Real+Wages+(1964-2004)




As you were saying?

Paradigm
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 08:32 AM
1. You're linking Wikipedia because you don't know any economics sites, and large portions of it to make yourself seem more knowledgeable than you are.

2. Housing Bubble quote - provides no information on either side of the argument.

3. "Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st century financial markets. Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion, and institutional bailouts."

That adds credit to my argument, thanks for posting.

4. "Lower interest rates encourage borrowing. From 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%. This was done to soften the effects of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, and to combat the perceived risk of deflation."

Adds credit to my argument, artificially lowered interest rates encouraged borrowing, rates that wouldn't have been on a market without a central bank, this increased spending with money that wasn't really there.

5. "The Fed then raised the Fed funds rate significantly between July 2004 and July 2006. This contributed to an increase in 1-year and 5-year adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) rates, making ARM interest rate resets more expensive for homeowners. This may have also contributed to the deflating of the housing bubble, as asset prices generally move inversely to interest rates and it became riskier to speculate in housing. USA housing and financial assets dramatically declined in value after the housing bubble burst."

Again, this adds credit to my argument.

6. "Some, like American Enterprise Institute fellow Peter J. Wallison, believe the roots of the crisis can be traced directly to sub-prime lending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are government sponsored entities."

7. Everything else you posted is useless, because you're just posting large sums of material that you don't understand hoping that somehow it will be a rebuttal to what I'm posting, or have posted. Yet, you can't argue any of the statistics I've posted.

Paradigm
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 08:36 AM
Can you give me a list of what books on economic theory you've read? If not that what professors/college you were taught economic theory under?

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 08:40 AM
You keep wanting to make this a issue of the federal reserve and central banks except what you refuse to acknowledge is that this was done by the support of private financing firms and a coalition of private banks working with the federal government.

The federal government did not act alone nor did the reserve.

It was a collusion of the federal government along with private financing firms and banks.

[The central bank did not work alone.]


Can you give me a list of what books on economic theory you've read? If not that what professors/college you were taught economic theory under?
I'm self educated. If you don't like that well that's tough.

If you don't like my lack of credentials that is also tough because if you are a college student I can't believe in half the crap that they teach you.

Now I'm sure your going to rail against me in my self education in ridiculing me with your pedigree institutional training if you are a college student.


1. You're linking Wikipedia because you don't know any economics sites, and large portions of it to make yourself seem more knowledgeable than you are.
I admit that I have a basic knowledge of economics but I am learning and I'm trying to make a attempt every week in learning more about the subject.

I use wikipedia as a easy access reference source to save me from posting alot.



6. "Some, like American Enterprise Institute fellow Peter J. Wallison, believe the roots of the crisis can be traced directly to sub-prime lending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are government sponsored entities."And yet it's not the government that dominates those two private firms as it is the other way in that everybody knows the real power in this country is not in government as it is in private corporations.

Government in this country doesn't even hold any real power anymore as it is subjugated by private corporations where the real authority of government comes from.

Paradigm
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 08:55 AM
Yeah, and one bank is given the authority by law to set interest rates and print money, yet you say the market was unregulated, when the government is obviously regulating a banking cartel which excludes competition (no competition in currency or free banking). The government has granted privileges to a specific group. I have not refused to acknowledge anything (cane you cite where?) about those firms, as they too were bailed out by the federal government when they should have failed and downsized like any other business.

Also, it's interesting that you have "Loki Incarnate" under your name when Loki was a troublesome character who brought confusion, mischief, stress, ill-will, and outright trouble to the gods. I see him as the Satan of Norse mythology. He's also one to blame in the death of Baldr, and in Ragnarok the death of Heimdall. How fitting for a person such as yourself.

Here's a snapshot in case you decide to change it.

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=106903&stc=1&d=1291712082

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 08:57 AM
The Great Housing Bubble was caused by an expansion of credit that enabled irrational exuberance and wild speculation. The expansion of credit came in the form of relaxed loan underwriting terms including high debt-to-income ratios, lower FICO scores, high combined-loan-to-value lending including 100% financing, and loan terms permitting negative amortization.

Addressing the conditions of expanding credit is a legitimate focus for intervention in the credit markets. Another major lending problem is unrelated to the terms: low documentation standards. The credit crunch that gripped the markets in late 2007 was exacerbated by the rampant fraud and misrepresentation in the loan documents underwriting the loans packaged and sold in the secondary mortgage market. It is essential to an evaluation of the viability of a mortgage note to know if the borrower actually has the income necessary to make the payments. When investors lost confidence in the underlying documents, the whole system seized up, and it was not going to work properly until the documentation improved to reflect the reality of the borrower's financial situation. Any remedy for the housing bubble must address the issue of poor documentation in order to facilitate the smooth operation of the secondary market.

There are some factors that created the Great Housing Bubble that cannot be directly regulated. One of these is the lax enforcement of existing regulations as described previously. Even though lenders and investors lost a great deal of money during the price crash, their behavior during the bubble was still predatory. Lenders peddled unstable loan programs to borrowers who could not afford the payments. They did not do this to obtain the property as is ordinarily the case with predatory lending; they did it to obtain a fee through loan origination. Since they felt insulated from the losses to these loans being packaged and sold to investors, they were in a position to profit at the expense of borrowers, the definition of predatory lending.

Another factor that cannot be regulated is the crazy behavior of borrowers caught up in a speculative mania. It is not possible to stop people from overpaying for real estate, but it is possible from preventing them from doing so with borrowed money. If people wish to risk their own equity in property speculation, it is their money to lose, but when lender money is part of the equation, the entire financial system can be put at risk, which it was during the Great Housing Bubble. The fickle nature of borrowers became apparent during the decline of the bubble when many borrowers behaved in a predatory manner refusing to make payments on loans they could have afforded to make because the property had declined in value. Borrowers who were grateful to receive 100% financing and what was perceived at the time to be favorable loan terms were not hesitant to betray the lenders when their speculative investment did not go as planned.

The 30-year fixed-rate conventionally-amortizing mortgage with a reasonable downpayment is the only loan program proven to provide stability in the housing market. Many of the "affordability" products used during the Great Housing Bubble and many of the deviations from traditional underwriting standards created the bubble. Mortgage debt-to-income ratios greater than 28% and total indebtedness greater than 36% have a proven history of default. Despite this fact, debt-to-income ratios greater than 50% were common in the most extreme bubble markets.

Limiting debt-to-income ratios is critical to stopping loan defaults and foreclosures. Lower FICO scores was the hallmark of subprime lending. FICO scores provide a fairly accurate profile of a borrower's willingness and ability to pay their debts as planned. Low FICO scores are synonymous with high default rates. Limiting availability of credit to those with low FICO scores was a historic barrier to home ownership because these people default too much. The free market solved this problem. Subprime was dead.

High combined-loan-to-value (CLTV) lending including 100% financing is also prone to high default rates. In fact, it is more important than FICO score. FICO scores are very good at predicting who will default when down payments are large, but when borrowers have very little of their own money in the transactions, both prime and subprime borrowers defaulted at high rates. Many prime borrowers are more sophisticated financially, and the unscrupulous recognized 100% financing as a perfect too for speculating in the real estate market and passing the risk off to a lender.

The primary culprits that inflated the housing bubble were the negative amortization loan and interest-only loans where lenders qualified buyers on their ability to make only the initial payment. As the Great Housing Bubble began to deflate, Minnesota and some other states passed laws restricting the use of negative amortization loans and required lenders to qualify borrowers based on their ability to make a fully amortized payment. The Minnesota law is a good template for the rest of the nation.

Any proposal to prevent bubbles from reoccurring in the residential real estate market must properly identify the cause, provide a solution that is enforceable, and allow for the unhindered working of the secondary mortgage market. The solutions outlined below are both market-based, meaning it does not require government regulation, and regulatory based, meaning it entails some form of civil or criminal penalties to prevent certain forms of behavior leading to market bubbles.

All changes are difficult to implement and the solutions presented here would be no exception. Any policies which prevent future bubbles will be opposed by those who profit from these activities and homeowners who are in need of the next bubble to get out of the bad deals they entered during the Great Housing Bubble. Despite these difficulties, it is imperative that reform take place, or the country may experience another housing bubble with all the pain and financial hardship it entails.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Housing-Bubble-Causes---Why-Did-it-Happen?&id=1944233

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 09:04 AM
Yeah, and one bank is given the authority by law to set interest rates and print money, yet you say the market was unregulated, when the government is obviously regulating a banking cartel which excludes competition (no competition in currency or free banking). The government has granted privileges to a specific group. I have not refused to acknowledge anything (cane you cite where?) about those firms, as they too were bailed out by the federal government when they should have failed and downsized like any other business.

Also, it's interesting that you have "Loki Incarnate" under your name when Loki was a troublesome character who brought confusion, mischief, stress, ill-will, and outright trouble to the gods. I see him as the Satan of Norse mythology. He's also one to blame in the death of Baldr, and in Ragnarok the death of Heimdall. How fitting for a person such as yourself.

Here's a snapshot in case you decide to change it.

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=106903&stc=1&d=1291712082



Yeah, and one bank is given the authority by law to set interest rates and print money, yet you say the market was unregulated,

Yes but once you understand how many members within the federal reserve are actually ex members of these private firms, banks, and various corporate enterprises the collusion becomes all the more interesting, doesn't it?

One might think to themselves that such members in the federal reserve might actually work on the inside of the government to benefit their past employers by shifting the market in a desirable outcome to them.

[Look at Paulson at the end of the Bush administration.]

Don't be so naive.

As for the government bailing out banks, are you talking about past Goldman Sachs employees working within the federal reserve by giving various generous donations in bail out money to the corporation Goldman Sachs itself?

Isn't that interesting? Not only is the government and federal reserve dominated by private firms and corporations but some of it's members is from those same very corporations that they're supposed to be regulating.

[You know on wallstreet they call that inside trading.]



when the government is obviously regulating a banking cartel which excludes competition (no competition in currency or free banking). The government has granted privileges to a specific group. I have not refused to acknowledge anything (cane you cite where?) about those firms, as they too were bailed out by the federal government when they should have failed and downsized like any other business.

Which goes back to my initial post.


Also, it's interesting that you have "Loki Incarnate" under your name when Loki was a troublesome character who brought confusion, mischief, stress, ill-will, and outright trouble to the gods. I see him as the Satan of Norse mythology. He's also one to blame in the death of Baldr, and in Ragnarok the death of Heimdall. How fitting for a person such as yourself.

And for a godless heathen like myself what a better character to venerate being that at times I like to play the part of the mischief maker delighting in the fall of arrogant people.

I see you like to attack people's personal character still as a means of debating your points.

As for destruction in a theological or even existential discussion in being the opposite of creation I believe that in destruction there is much more deeper philosophical meaning to be found that people in a quaint manner tend to overlook in their demonization of that eternal primordial adversarial constant sequence of the universe.

[ A conversation for another time as to not detract from the current subject at hand.]


Here's a snapshot in case you decide to change it.

Why would I put it in my profile if I didn't want others to see it?

Sorry guy you lose this round.

Paradigm
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 09:22 AM
And for a godless heathen like myself what a better character to venerate being that at times I like to play the part of the mischief maker delighting in the fall of arrogant people.

Baldr or Heimdall were not arrogant. Be careful with which gods you use to represent yourself.

It's utterly useless to discuss anything with you, and you've shown your true colors.

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 09:28 AM
Baldr or Heimdall were not arrogant. Be careful with which gods you use to represent yourself.

It's utterly useless to discuss anything with you, and you've shown your true colors.

Is that all you got?

Your just going to resort to personal attacks and defamation.

Whatever dude..........

I'm so glad you could pick somthing personal of my profile to detract from the current discussion with. Congrats.

Paradigm
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 09:34 AM
It's not a personal attack or defamation, you've considered yourself "Loki Incarnate". I have no use talking to someone who believes in such. If you really were Loki incarnated, do you think I'd waste time talking in circles with him? Why would someone try to engage with someone who's known for dishonesty, mischief, and bad luck?

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 09:36 AM
It's not a personal attack or defamation, you've considered yourself "Loki Incarnate". I have no use talking to someone who believes in such. If you really were Loki incarnated, do you think I'd waste time talking in circles with him? Why would someone try to engage with someone who's known for dishonesty, mischief, and bad luck?

Haha... This is funny... You can't hold your water in debate and now you want to detract the thread with theology, superstition, mythology, and religion.

[Keep in mind that I'm a atheist.]

I'm done with this thread for tonight.

I feel enough has been spoken for the time being.

Paradigm
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 09:41 AM
No, I've disproved you, constantly, you have no argument, and some of the things you do post just give credit for my position, this thread has 16 pages as I post this, and I've constantly have had to repeat myself. You have not posted anything of substance and are too daft to understand anything. Saying you are Loki incarnated just brings new light to the subject about your character, and Loki is something to avoid. I'm done with this.

Caledonian
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010, 07:13 PM
No, I've disproved you, constantly, you have no argument, and some of the things you do post just give credit for my position, this thread has 16 pages as I post this, and I've constantly have had to repeat myself. You have not posted anything of substance and are too daft to understand anything. Saying you are Loki incarnated just brings new light to the subject about your character, and Loki is something to avoid. I'm done with this.

Well then, go ahead with your obvious excuses, personal attacks, and diatribes.

I on the other hand will continue reply to your past posts in regard to the subject of the thread with or without your presence.

[For it does not matter to me much either way.]

Caledonian
Sunday, December 12th, 2010, 04:12 AM
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/5674/52097826.jpg




Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874–1936), was a poet and essayist.

In his work The End of the Armistice, Chesterton wrote:

"both capitalism and communism rest on the same idea: a centralization of wealth which destroys private property."

And in his work As I Was Saying, he wrote:

"For communism is the child and heir of capitalism, and the son would still greatly resemble his father even if he had really killed him."

He also wrotes:

"Capitalism and Communism are so very nearly the same thing in ethical essence, that it would not be strange if they did take leaders from the same ethnological elements"

This is not so astonishing from the viewpoint of Hegelian Dialectic. But maybe it's just that, like Feynman said, even in front of logical facts people don't "put two and two together".

By the way a french humorist Coluche used to say : "Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Communism is the inverse." :)



A Theory of Outsourcing and Wage Decline

By Thomas J. Holmes and Julia Thornton Snider1

June 2010

Abstract
This paper develops a theory of outsourcing in which the circumstances under which
factors of production can grab rents play the leading role. One factor has monopoly power
(call this labor) while a second factor does not (call this capital ). There are two kinds of
production tasks: labor-intensive and capital-intensive. We show that if frictions limiting
outsourcing are not too large, in equilibrium labor-intensive tasks are separated from capitalintensive
tasks into distinct firms. When a capital intensive country is opened to free trade,
outsourcing increases and labor rents decline. A decrease in outsourcing frictions lowers
labor rents.
1Holmes, University of Minnesota, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, and the National Bureau of
Economic Research;


http://www.econ.umn.edu/~holmes/papers/outsource_revision.pdf

Caledonian
Thursday, December 16th, 2010, 01:24 AM
Everybody wants to complain about oligarchies and plutocracies not realizing that international free market capitalism is the epitome of both socially.

velvet
Thursday, December 16th, 2010, 12:27 PM
Can you give me a list of what books on economic theory you've read? If not that what professors/college you were taught economic theory under?

How is this relevant for the fuck reality of "free market capitalism"?

NO SINGLE MARKET THEORY ever was implemented as the theory proposed. It's all complete rubbish, because the reality is quite different from theory.

And maybe YOUR view is very clouded by all the theories you swallowed, can reproduce and therefore give a shit about the facts that are reality right now.

The Fed is a PRIVATE BANK that blackmailed the American government in 1913 (eventually, after several former, less successful tries) to grant them over the exclusive right to issue money, that the government, and in consequence the tax payer, has to pay for.

The resulting debts, no matter how much a government would limit its spendings, can never be paid back, and this isnt in the interest of the Fed anyway (or any other central bank, who at the end all belong to the Rothschild imperium regardless).

As a consequence of this, states must take ever more loans to serve the interests of the original loan. Note that this does never pay back the loan sum as such, only the interests.

This happens by design, it is the central building block of the fraud system "free market capitalism" that is underpinned with complex, confusing mechanism of how to theoretically prevent this or that downpoint, usually the "solution" is to take away regulations and to open up the alleged "free market" (that is all but free by design of free market capitalism) to more fraud and deceit by the capitalists.

The financial market is completely dispatched from the normal functioning product exchange market. Capitalism builds on "shares" and "shareholders" and the revenue generated from these shares, that in fact take out "money" (as the profit from real work generated by real trade of goods) from the business.

This is called "investment", but it really is just a mechanism to bring the business to take loans. This finance magic has nothing to do with the business, the products, the people. This is a mechanism to fill the pockets of capitalists, and more often than not end in a contested takeover. Not because the business went down, not because the products were bad, but because the business pays interests to people who have only interest in the "profit", regardless of where or how it is generated, they really dont invest in a product. This is the reason why "cheap is good", because cheap generates more profits.

The demand of constant growth is also part of that. The "growth" in sales volumes is there to serve the - by design - constantly rising costs of paying out the share holders.

In theory the shares are paid if and when the business makes profit. If it doesnt, there 'shouldnt' be dividends either. In reality though the dividend is guaranteed, that is why businesses playing in the stock market give out "profit warnings" when their expected profit volume is lower than ten percent (some high level businesses even give out these warnings when their expected profit is lower than 30 percent. It is absolute madness when this business generates a sales volume of several billion dollars, like M$, car producers or banks - and, as said, all this "profit" (which really isnt profit but actual costs for the business) is only there to pay share holders.

This is the very basic building block of capitalism, and it is fraud from A to Z. And it is fraud by design.

RoyBatty
Thursday, December 16th, 2010, 09:59 PM
I'd be curious to see how much some of our "Free Marketeers" would enjoy to live in a country where their Anarcho Capitalism dreams and theories are put into actual practice.

I've seen the effects of Anarcho Capitalism and it's devastating. Economies are ruined, industries are gutted, national wealth is grabbed by a handful of scheissters (who work in collaboration with foreign "investors" to rob the country blind). People lose most or all of their wealth. In the insanity that follows many citizens turn to violent crime and form mafia syndicates which wage war against one another, terrorise the local population and remaining businesses by confiscating their property, robbing them etc.

Paradigm
Friday, December 17th, 2010, 04:06 AM
velvet, I've come to the conclusion you're someone who borders that of a devout Alex Jones listener. I've taken nothing you've said seriously, you keep repeating gibberish about the Federal Reserve and other nonsense as if I don't actually own books on economics and banking (I've actually studied theory and banking the past couple years). Maybe you should lay off watching Zeitgeist for a little bit.

RoyBatty, where have you seen the effects of anarcho-capitalism? Where in the modern world is an anarcho-capitalist society? It's been fact that when the government stays out of the economy and lowers taxes that production, real wages, and employment increases. That of anarcho-capitalist theory is simply that what the government has a monopoly on should also be privatized and open to the market. You claim to be a socialist, so what's your view of how a society should be? Does it suppose to fit a certain paradigm or mold? Would anyone be able to own private property and do as they wish with it, the most basic request one can make? Other than that, I'd love to live in an anarcho-capitalist society. Hopefully all the productive and non-stagnant individuals will be there who enjoy working and bettering themselves away from all the drifters and economic parasites.

MCP3
Friday, December 17th, 2010, 05:09 AM
I'd be curious to see how much some of our "Free Marketeers" would enjoy to live in a country where their Anarcho Capitalism dreams and theories are put into actual practice.

I've seen the effects of Anarcho Capitalism and it's devastating. Economies are ruined, industries are gutted, national wealth is grabbed by a handful of scheissters (who work in collaboration with foreign "investors" to rob the country blind). People lose most or all of their wealth. In the insanity that follows many citizens turn to violent crime and form mafia syndicates which wage war against one another, terrorise the local population and remaining businesses by confiscating their property, robbing them etc.

Good post. NS was to put the authority of the state and the community above that of private interests and private capital. It thereby created a mix, market economy but private interests rank below state interests. Also private property was not untouchable, there was the paragraph of anti-social conduct when a company did not fulfill the minimum social-standards and wages. Usually the company owner were given warnings first, followed by the threat of dispossession and in case of criminal conduct of the owner or CEO, threat of concentration camp. This is of course stands in total contradiction to the Anglo-Saxon system and tradition and led to bad blood between England and Germany when Hitler finally nationalized the Reichsbank (German Federal Reserve) in 1936, thus overtook the money printing press, along with accusing Hjalmar Schacht and Goerdeler of being "British agents" (translate: Rothschild agents). Both had good contacts in London, Schacht was somewhat involved with the Bank of England. It was from 1936 on that British-German tensions grew, a war of words in the press started and Hitler repeatedly started to complain about 'warmongering' and 'outright lies' in the British press to British ambassador Hendersson.

I am going to suggest, that if you want to change the system you have a problem: The Global Empire will not allow it and start the same kind of mobbing as against NS-Germany in the 1930s or Iraq recently, against anyone that intents to or leaves the Path of Internationalism/Global ZOG/ NWO.


velvet, I've come to the conclusion you're someone who borders that of a devout Alex Jones listener. I've taken nothing you've said seriously, you keep repeating gibberish about the Federal Reserve and other nonsense as if I don't actually own books on economics and banking (I've actually studied theory and banking the past couple years). Maybe you should lay off watching Zeitgeist for a little bit.

RoyBatty, where have you seen the effects of anarcho-capitalism? Where in the modern world is an anarcho-capitalist society? It's been fact that when the government stays out of the economy and lowers taxes that production, real wages, and employment increases. That of anarcho-capitalist theory is simply that what the government has a monopoly on should also be privatized and open to the market. You claim to be a socialist, so what's your view of how a society should be? Does it suppose to fit a certain paradigm or mold? Would anyone be able to own private property and do as they wish with it, the most basic request one can make? Other than that, I'd love to live in an anarcho-capitalist society. Hopefully all the productive and non-stagnant individuals will be there who enjoy working and bettering themselves away from all the drifters and economic parasites.

Also, I hope someone doesn't complain about how they got offended by some pixels on the screen like another user. We don't need another text victim.
Yawn. :thumbdown

Here is your pal:

It's amazing how ignorant the 9-11 Truther is about the events of 9-11 and the WTC. Though I would say selectively so. A woman who lost her husband in the attacks actually sued the government and NY Port authority. It came out at trial that the buildings were not built to code, and none of the architects or the builders could provide any proof or data on why they made the claim the buildings were "airplane proof".

Why is that Truthers who maintain they are the foremost experts on everything 9-11 ALWAYS feign no knowledge of such events. Could it possibly be because it totally destroys their inane conspiracies? Heaven forbid Alex Jones couldn;t continue his fearmongering retailing empire or that Dylan Avery couldn;t come out with yet another 20-45 dvd telling you the "truth"--- for a price.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t761320-26/#post8782577 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stor mfront.org%2Fforum%2Ft761320-26%2F%23post8782577)

RoyBatty
Friday, December 17th, 2010, 07:08 AM
RoyBatty, where have you seen the effects of anarcho-capitalism?

Russia.

It imploded economically in the 1990's. Yes I know, you're going to blame it on "the inherent design flaws of Communism" (which of course explains why China is rich and the USA is broke) :shrug and "economic inefficiencies" and "corruption" blah blah blah.

What really happened is that the system got changed and the "free marketeers" (often sponsored from the outside) caused mayhem.

Certain people like to claim that "the country was already bankrupt". This is not the case. The economy was obviously not in good shape but there was still a lot of wealth and value but that wealth and value got transferred within a very short period of time from "the people" to "god's chosen people".

Obviously you'll now argue that the general population are to blame for being screwed over since they must have deserved it because they weren't greedy, criminal and quick enough to steal whatever they could lay their hands on. :shrug

The same thing has been happening in our own countries, particularly since the 1980's. The difference in our countries being that this process which usually takes the form of globalisation, outsourcing and privatisations of the national infrastructure (with corresponding massive price hikes) is taking a bit longer meaning that the effects are not quite as dramatic or apparent. (Yet).

The principles behind Anarcho Capitalism are no different to those behind an Anarchic Society. Whoever has the leverage, the ambition, the will and the means will establish themselves to lord it over the rest and do with them as they see fit.

In layman's terms it means that if my clan has more guns, machetes and the bandits to operate them than yours does you're finished, pal.

Paradigm
Friday, December 17th, 2010, 07:47 AM
I'm starting to think you have a misconception of what I mean by anarcho-capitalism. You are talking about anarcho-libertarianism, right? Also, what principles?


In layman's terms it means that if my clan has more guns, machetes and the bandits to operate them than yours does you're finished, pal.

This sort of sounds like the State, doesn't it?

velvet
Friday, December 17th, 2010, 05:34 PM
velvet, I've come to the conclusion you're someone who borders that of a devout Alex Jones listener. I've taken nothing you've said seriously, you keep repeating gibberish about the Federal Reserve and other nonsense as if I don't actually own books on economics and banking (I've actually studied theory and banking the past couple years). Maybe you should lay off watching Zeitgeist for a little bit.

Who's Alex Jones? :shrug

Maybe you should put some of your indoctrination books aside and have a look on the real world every now and then.

For example this:

http://www.petitiononline.com/fedres/petition.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.peti tiononline.com%2Ffedres%2Fpetition.html)

Abolish The Federal Reserve Act of 1913

This petition calls for the abolishment, by Congress of The Federal Reserve Act of 1913. To return all the rights and profits, from the creation of money to the rightful heirs, the citizens and the U.S. Government. It is outrageous that private banks and the FED can create our money and collect interest on it. If we must pay interest on monies created and loaned, let it be the United States of America that receives it, not some private interest.

We have lost our freedom to the private banks that create money out of thin air and enslave the common man to a life of debt. If we are to be indebted let it be to our country and not the bankers.

"The States should be applied to, to transfer the right of issuing circulating paper to Congress exclusively, in perpetuum." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:276

"[The] Bank of the United States... is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution... An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?" --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803. ME 10:437


The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.

There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking."


The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created.

In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central Banking Corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.


.......... rest under the link above, there are many passages to be highlighted actually.


But of course, you will go on and deny all this. You will continue to claim that only private banks with profit interests are the thing of choice, that it is the most senseful thing to indebt a state (and its people) with debts that never can be paid back, in fact, take out billions in interests from the economy for the "renting" of a "currency" that isnt "of the people" anymore and does not serve them or their economy either. And most importantly, that the government, through this indebting, can be blackmailed, manipulated and pushed into the direction "private banksters" want it to move (meanwhile they spare themselves the trouble of blackmailing the government, they simply put the government in place themselves, makes it run much more smooth for them).

I've pointed out to you that the signees of the Federal Reserve Act are identical for the most parts with the people who owned the banks, who pushed for this Federal Reserve Act. Indeed, the banks made this law, by blackmail (and very real threats to the life of those in the government who opposed this), and forced the few Constitutional Rights activists to sign it as well. This is publicy available knowledge that you can look up everywhere, even on the fed-website itself (although they left out the blackmail part). You deny these facts though.

You also deny that Lincoln was killed for taking the central bank / right to issue money back into governmental power, where it belongs. Because it is actually completely retarded to pay interests for a currency, which is the reflection of the nation's economy and the industriousness of the people. And now this is private banks who rob from the people for being allowed to play with their - actually worthless - paper money? How retarded must one be to believe that this would be in any way "right"?

You think inflation comes from government regulation? No, it comes from renting the currency from private banksters and paying billions in interests. Even when the country would apart from this make no debts whatsoever, the currency is the next year worth less than this, because of these billions paid in interests. Consequently, the state then must raise taxes, in order to serve the interests of renting the currency, because the moment the state was deprived of its currency (and all its property, since the state in capitalism cannot own anything), it also cannot make any own profit and must rob it from the people. Yes, this is by design that way, this is the intention and the only goal.

You will deny it, I know. What you claim though has nothing to do with reality. :shrug

RoyBatty
Friday, December 17th, 2010, 06:31 PM
I'm starting to think you have a misconception of what I mean by anarcho-capitalism. You are talking about anarcho-libertarianism, right? Also, what principles?


Perhaps your interpretation of what "anarcho-capitalism" really is (too much reliance on fancy explanations and textbooks???) only exists in your own mind and bears little resemblance to reality.

Anarcho = a term derived from the word Anarchy. As a mental exercise I'll leave it to you to look up what this word means.

Capitalism, again, look it up.

Combine the two and you get survival-of-the-fittest aka law-of-the-jungle economics. Trying to claim that economics is separate from laws, human behaviour, social realities and so forth is futile because they're all interwoven.

If anarchist conditions exist within which to pursue economic goals it's pretty obvious that the strongest, most organised, most brutal and most determined will triumph whilst the rest will be subjected. Anything less is simply wishful thinking and would display a lack of ambition and resolve on the part of the aspiring "anarcho-capitalist".

The textbooks / dictionaries describe the theory behind freemarket anarchism aka anarcho-capitalism as having a world / society where law, policing, justice, defense / offence (as if there is much of a difference) etc are privatised. Money is "privately provided" and they yap endlessly about "voluntary trade" and all kinds of fanciful, fantastic and fluffy gibberish.

Privatised Control = Privatised Control by Top Dog and the gang, not Public Control. They decide. The Public jumps at their command.

The entire system / notion of "freemarket anarchism" is utter nonsense and unworkable for everybody except the Top Dog and the henchmen and collaborators of Top Dog.

Interestingly enough the USA, in particularly through it's increasingly privatised global terrorism campaigns to "voluntarily acquire oil and other resources, markets and territories" is indeed putting anarcho-capitalism into practice.

It's great and no doubt a lot of fun if you're some young buck who signs up for the slaughter, $$ and some kicks. It's a lot less fun when it's your country that's being overrun by the USA and its vassals with the ensuing robbing, torturing and enslavement which follows.

Horagalles
Friday, December 17th, 2010, 08:20 PM
I'm starting to think you have a misconception of what I mean by anarcho-capitalism. You are talking about anarcho-libertarianism, right? Also, what principles?


In layman's terms it means that if my clan has more guns, machetes and the bandits to operate them than yours does you're finished, pal.

This sort of sounds like the State, doesn't it?Well it makes no difference whether you call it a state, a gang or a company. All can act using there power to force their will on others. And that's actually a major flaw of libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism/market anarchism or whatever you call it. Just because an institution/organisation doesn't have the state-stamp on it, doesn't mean that it can not act like the state/government and i.e. extract payments from people they've not volunteered for also and most certainly not in a anarcho capitalist society.
Anarcho capitalism just leaves the door open for others to step in and assign themselves rights of taxation, labor service, making rules for others etc.

Vindefense
Friday, December 17th, 2010, 09:43 PM
We have lost our freedom to the private banks that create money out of thin air and enslave the common man to a life of debt. If we are to be indebted let it be to our country and not the bankers.


Only a Marxist would oppose a system based on the abundance of Nature for under such a system there is no way to control the masses.


"The States should be applied to, to transfer the right of issuing circulating paper to Congress exclusively, in perpetuum." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:276

Who here thinks that the responsibility to issue paper rests any where else than Congress?


"[The] Bank of the United States... is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution... An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?" --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803. ME 10:437

What did he mean by National? (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp)


The FED is a central bank.

When they say central it is important to understand that it's behavior is central but it's existence is not.


Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks.


... Behavior which evidently could not be trusted in the hands of Government 200 years ago let alone now. I think Jefferson may have even approved of the FED as a check against the eminent corruption that infests all Nationalized banks. (http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/conspiracy.html)


In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.


Being owned and controlled by the Government was precisely the problem according to Jefferson, not the solution.



There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking."


All three were National banks (http://www.nationalbankhistory.com/). Now, we know National banks are bad and so are private, so what else is there?



The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created.

It is neither National or Private or Central, it is a hybrid that is supposed to be beyond the control of Government greed and private profiteers spreading freely the abundance of wealth by empowering the common man (whatever that is).

Paradigm
Friday, December 17th, 2010, 10:14 PM
Maybe you should put some of your indoctrination books aside and have a look on the real world every now and then.

For example this:

http://www.petitiononline.com/fedres/petition.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.peti tiononline.com%2Ffedres%2Fpetition.html)

Abolish The Federal Reserve Act of 1913

This petition calls for the abolishment, by Congress of The Federal Reserve Act of 1913. To return all the rights and profits, from the creation of money to the rightful heirs, the citizens and the U.S. Government. It is outrageous that private banks and the FED can create our money and collect interest on it. If we must pay interest on monies created and loaned, let it be the United States of America that receives it, not some private interest.

We have lost our freedom to the private banks that create money out of thin air and enslave the common man to a life of debt. If we are to be indebted let it be to our country and not the bankers.

"The States should be applied to, to transfer the right of issuing circulating paper to Congress exclusively, in perpetuum." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:276

"[The] Bank of the United States... is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution... An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?" --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803. ME 10:437


The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.

There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking."


The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created.

In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central Banking Corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.


.......... rest under the link above, there are many passages to be highlighted actually.


But of course, you will go on and deny all this. You will continue to claim that only private banks with profit interests are the thing of choice, that it is the most senseful thing to indebt a state (and its people) with debts that never can be paid back, in fact, take out billions in interests from the economy for the "renting" of a "currency" that isnt "of the people" anymore and does not serve them or their economy either. And most importantly, that the government, through this indebting, can be blackmailed, manipulated and pushed into the direction "private banksters" want it to move (meanwhile they spare themselves the trouble of blackmailing the government, they simply put the government in place themselves, makes it run much more smooth for them).

I've pointed out to you that the signees of the Federal Reserve Act are identical for the most parts with the people who owned the banks, who pushed for this Federal Reserve Act. Indeed, the banks made this law, by blackmail (and very real threats to the life of those in the government who opposed this), and forced the few Constitutional Rights activists to sign it as well. This is publicy available knowledge that you can look up everywhere, even on the fed-website itself (although they left out the blackmail part). You deny these facts though.

You also deny that Lincoln was killed for taking the central bank / right to issue money back into governmental power, where it belongs. Because it is actually completely retarded to pay interests for a currency, which is the reflection of the nation's economy and the industriousness of the people. And now this is private banks who rob from the people for being allowed to play with their - actually worthless - paper money? How retarded must one be to believe that this would be in any way "right"?

You think inflation comes from government regulation? No, it comes from renting the currency from private banksters and paying billions in interests. Even when the country would apart from this make no debts whatsoever, the currency is the next year worth less than this, because of these billions paid in interests. Consequently, the state then must raise taxes, in order to serve the interests of renting the currency, because the moment the state was deprived of its currency (and all its property, since the state in capitalism cannot own anything), it also cannot make any own profit and must rob it from the people. Yes, this is by design that way, this is the intention and the only goal.

You will deny it, I know. What you claim though has nothing to do with reality. :shrug

The ignorance perpetrated here is at breaking levels. Again, you repeat the same delusional rhetoric over and over with nothing of substance. You only regurgitate historical information regarding a small fraction of information which has little to do with actual economic theory. The Federal Reserve is a quasi-private bank given a monopoly over the money supply, in which they are granted special privileges by the State that no one else receives to print/coin money, loan money to other banks, and set interest rates. You are too daft to understand the difference in free banking, and in central banking, that on free banking no bank would be given special privileges over another, and they would be a for profit, as in they would take losses and would not be granted bail-outs by Congress for bad business decisions.

Some of the shit you say doesn't even make sense or isn't even relevant. Who said anything about Lincoln and central banks? He was shot because he was a tyrant who waged a war on the Southern states. Andrew Jackson actually killed the charter renewal for the Central Bank, but when he was out of office it was reinstated. "Because it is actually completely retarded to pay interests for a currency." - You don't realize that an interest rate is the price of money itself, when you get a loan, it has a price that has to be repaid. When you print money for free that's retarded.

Origins of the Federal Reserve (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.or g%2Fstore%2FOrigins-of-the-Federal-Reserve-The-P623.aspx)
The Case Against the Fed (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.or g%2Fstore%2FCase-Against-the-Fed-The-P69.aspx)
End the Fed (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.or g%2Fstore%2FEnd-the-Fed-P619.aspx)
Mystery of Banking (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.or g%2Fstore%2FMystery-of-Banking-The-P528.aspx)
A Free Market Monetary System (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.or g%2Fstore%2FFree-Market-Monetary-System-A-P553.aspx)
Banking and the Business Cycle (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.or g%2Fstore%2FBanking-and-the-Business-Cycle-P370.aspx)
The Case for Gold (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.or g%2Fstore%2FCase-for-Gold-The-P386.aspx)


Perhaps your interpretation of what "anarcho-capitalism" really is (too much reliance on fancy explanations and textbooks???) only exists in your own mind and bears little resemblance to reality.

Anarcho = a term derived from the word Anarchy. As a mental exercise I'll leave it to you to look up what this word means.

Capitalism, again, look it up.

Combine the two and you get survival-of-the-fittest aka law-of-the-jungle economics. Trying to claim that economics is separate from laws, human behavior, social realities and so forth is futile because they're all interwoven.

First, I'll throw out a "so what?". Survival of the fittest? And? Your point?

Second, anarcho-capitalism is liberty without intervention. People make choices and exchanges everyday. Businesses and communities come up with their own rules and laws within their bounds of property. People hire security guards to protect their assets, and insure them with private companies. You act as if the State ceased to exist all this would fall apart as if we are not civilized human beings.


If anarchist conditions exist within which to pursue economic goals it's pretty obvious that the strongest, most organized, most brutal and most determined will triumph whilst the rest will be subjected. Anything less is simply wishful thinking and would display a lack of ambition and resolve on the part of the aspiring "anarcho-capitalist".

The best triumphs over the least best. Your problem? Are you scared you might fall under failure?


The textbooks / dictionaries describe the theory behind freemarket anarchism aka anarcho-capitalism as having a world / society where law, policing, justice, defense / offence (as if there is much of a difference) etc are privatised. Money is "privately provided" and they yap endlessly about "voluntary trade" and all kinds of fanciful, fantastic and fluffy gibberish.

Privatised Control = Privatised Control by Top Dog and the gang, not Public Control. They decide. The Public jumps at their command.

When you say "public control" you really mean "state control", am I right? Like the state I live under now that has a monopoly over the courts, police, and money, so called "public ownership" in which they are the ones making the choices. That's the best, right?


The entire system / notion of "freemarket anarchism" is utter nonsense and unworkable for everybody except the Top Dog and the henchmen and collaborators of Top Dog.

Yes, as if the Top Dog United States Government hasn't committed atrocities in every way possible. Remember, it was the government that dropped a nuclear bomb on two cities. It was the state that allows cops to return back to the force for shooting dogs and beating people endlessly. The state gave someone the privilege to inflate the currency that we have to use by law, their law.


Interestingly enough the USA, in particularly through it's increasingly privatised global terrorism campaigns to "voluntarily acquire oil and other resources, markets and territories" is indeed putting anarcho-capitalism into practice.

It's great and no doubt a lot of fun if you're some young buck who signs up for the slaughter, $$ and some kicks. It's a lot less fun when it's your country that's being overrun by the USA and its vassals with the ensuing robbing, torturing and enslavement which follows.

Yeah, the USA government, it's a real private industry, at the expense of tax payers, that is. Yeah, that's not force at all, taxation, it's all voluntary for their shoddy services in every sector, but hell, it's better than having choices, am I right?

Society Without a State (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewr ockwell.com%2Frothbard%2Frothbard133.htm l)
Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewr ockwell.com%2Fhoppe%2Fhoppe5.html)
Six Myths About Libertarianism (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewr ockwell.com%2Frothbard%2Frothbard12.html )
What Libertarianism Isn't (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewr ockwell.com%2Forig%2Ffeser2.html)
What It Means To Be An Anarcho-Capitalist (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewr ockwell.com%2Fkinsella%2Fkinsella15.html )
Libertarian Anarchism: Response to Ten Objections (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewr ockwell.com%2Flong%2Flong11.html)
The Origins of Individualist Anarchism in America (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewr ockwell.com%2Frothbard%2Frothbard107.htm l)

RoyBatty
Friday, December 17th, 2010, 10:55 PM
First, I'll throw out a "so what?". Survival of the fittest? And? Your point?

Second, anarcho-capitalism is liberty without intervention.


only in your dreams



The best triumphs over the least best. Your problem? Are you scared you might fall under failure?


USA is number 1, therefore Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, Italy and all other occupied countries are failures. Yes thanks for your contributions, sage and wisdom. You can keep your "best". Thanks.

:thumbup

Paradigm
Friday, December 17th, 2010, 10:59 PM
You're welcome.

velvet
Saturday, December 18th, 2010, 02:01 PM
as if we are not civilized human beings.

You obviously are not. Your behavior, and the "values" you hold high are a certain way to dissolve society and destroy civilisation.

You are a predator in a herd of sheep, and you demand that you can do as you see fit because you make your own rules. And these are rather relative, always swinging in the direction that serves your predator-attidude while trampling around on all others.

You give a shit about your people, your nation, and the future of both, as long as YOU (center of the universe) can rob, steal, cheat to remain the top dog. :thumbdown


:thruponsb

Caledonian
Saturday, December 18th, 2010, 05:07 PM
I'd be curious to see how much some of our "Free Marketeers" would enjoy to live in a country where their Anarcho Capitalism dreams and theories are put into actual practice.

I've seen the effects of Anarcho Capitalism and it's devastating. Economies are ruined, industries are gutted, national wealth is grabbed by a handful of scheissters (who work in collaboration with foreign "investors" to rob the country blind). People lose most or all of their wealth. In the insanity that follows many citizens turn to violent crime and form mafia syndicates which wage war against one another, terrorise the local population and remaining businesses by confiscating their property, robbing them etc.

One need only to look at Somalia to see a state of existence that is purely anarcho capitalist.

What anarcho capitalists don't understand is that a criminal enterprise or syndicate in many ways is a type of business and if such a enterprise comes to power, then what?

[What does unnregulated unbridled power lead to?]

You will find warlords with their groups of mercenaries and armed rebel soldiers run their existence much like any other corporation.

[Much like the Zeta cartels of Mexico that are competing for control with the Mexican government itself not to mention most of central America currently.]

Paradigm
Saturday, December 18th, 2010, 05:17 PM
0MRmxfLuNto&feature=related

Caledonian
Saturday, December 18th, 2010, 06:16 PM
Only a Marxist would oppose a system based on the abundance of Nature for under such a system there is no way to control the masses.



Who here thinks that the responsibility to issue paper rests any where else than Congress?



What did he mean by National? (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp)



When they say central it is important to understand that it's behavior is central but it's existence is not.



... Behavior which evidently could not be trusted in the hands of Government 200 years ago let alone now. I think Jefferson may have even approved of the FED as a check against the eminent corruption that infests all Nationalized banks. (http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/conspiracy.html)


Being owned and controlled by the Government was precisely the problem according to Jefferson, not the solution.




All three were National banks (http://www.nationalbankhistory.com/). Now, we know National banks are bad and so are private, so what else is there?




It is neither National or Private or Central, it is a hybrid that is supposed to be beyond the control of Government greed and private profiteers spreading freely the abundance of wealth by empowering the common man (whatever that is).


Only a Marxist would oppose a system based on the abundance of Nature for under such a system there is no way to control the masses.

Oh really? So now you support the financial bank monopoly that brought about the financial recession that were currently in that also controls governments within their influence of international free market capitalism?

Who's side are you on? The jewish bankers?

Abundance of nature? How are you defining it?

We know that not everybody is allowed to collect upon this abundance, so who is allowed to it?

Z1Jl6wUmPsc

VgtprlxOcks

uGczVEWKgl8

[The best video yet frankly from a matter of personal opinion on the matter at hand within the subject thread.]

rEpmRv2kAng


mkUc0k2ePhk


Exm6pROz6kk

n0NYBTkE1yQ

[Which foreigners got $500,000,000,000.00 when it concerns lost assets? :Bernanke: I don't know. ]

LdPLoR-t4y0


MwU-d-RYYYg












Who here thinks that the responsibility to issue paper rests any where else than Congress?

Do you mean the same people in congress bought out by the fed in private donations via third parties or those who in the past had previously worked within the fed?


It is neither National or Private or Central, it is a hybrid that is supposed to be beyond the control of Government greed and private profiteers spreading freely the abundance of wealth by empowering the common man (whatever that is).

Yes we all know how well that worked out with the recent economical recession and the government bailout of private industry via ex ceo's and members of such private firms in key positions within the government specifically the federal reserve itself doing the actual bailing out........

[Government insider trading is all it was and still is......]

At what point do we have somebody within the fed that used to work within a high level of a private firm like Goldman Sachs in the past that is in actual charge of bailing out the same company Goldman Sachs within the Federal Reserve, do we not ask ourselves whether there is somthing deeply corrupt within the system that is being operated?

This is exactly what members here like myself, Roy, and Velvet have been speaking about when it concerns the perils of international free market capitalism in a more conditioned world of economical globalism specifically when it deals with private interests exerting influences over a government leaving it in inoperable safe guarding privated individualized profit amongst co-conspirators as it threatens the collective national framework of any nation that becomes it's host when it concerns anybody else.

Have you read anything on the history of central or national banks?

If you have which I'm sure a educated fellow like yourself has you would know there is nothing to complain about when it concerns the issues of national or centralized banks considering that they didn't emerge going against the grain of ideals when it concerns the celebrated free market of capitalism as you suppose them to have where instead they are very much a reactionary consequence of the free market itself that overtime helped them come to formation.



In Europe prior to the 17th century most money was commodity money, typically gold or silver. However, promises to pay were widely circulated and accepted as value at least five hundred years earlier in both Europe and Asia. The Song Dynasty was the first to issue generally circulating paper currency, while the Yuan Dynasty was the first to use notes as the predominant circulating medium. In 1455, in an effort to control inflation, the succeeding Ming Dynasty ended the use of paper money and closed much of Chinese trade. The medieval European Knights Templar ran an early prototype of a central banking system, as their promises to pay were widely respected, and many regard their activities as having laid the basis for the modern banking system.

As the first public bank to "offer accounts not directly convertible to coin", the Bank of Amsterdam established in 1609 is considered to be a precursor to a central bank.[4] In 1664, the central bank of Sweden—"Sveriges Riksbank" or simply "Riksbanken"—was founded in Stockholm and is by that the world's oldest central bank (still operating today).[5] This was followed in 1694 by the Bank of England, created by Scottish businessman William Paterson in the City of London at the request of the English government to help pay for a war.

Although central banks today are generally associated with fiat money, the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries central banks in most of Europe and Japan developed under the international gold standard, elsewhere free banking or currency boards were more usual at this time. Problems with collapses of banks during downturns, however, was leading to wider support for central banks in those nations which did not as yet possess them, most notably in Australia.

With the collapse of the gold standard after World War I, central banks became much more widespread. The US Federal Reserve was created by the U.S. Congress through the passing of the Glass-Owen Bill, signed by President Woodrow Wilson on December 23, 1913, whilst Australia established its first central bank in 1920, Colombia in 1923, Mexico and Chile in 1925 and Canada and New Zealand in the aftermath of the Great Depression in 1934. By 1935, the only significant independent nation that did not possess a central bank was Brazil, which developed a precursor thereto in 1945 and created its present central bank twenty years later. When African and Asian countries gained independence, all of them rapidly established central banks or monetary unions.

The People's Bank of China evolved its role as a central bank starting in about 1979 with the introduction of market reforms in that country, and this accelerated in 1989 when the country took a generally capitalist approach to developing at least its export economy. By 2000 the People's Bank of China was in all senses a modern central bank, and emerged as such partly in response to the European Central Bank. This is the most modern bank model and was introduced with the euro to coordinate the European national banks, which continue to separately manage their respective economies other than currency exchange and base interest rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank

[Specifically with the dissolvolution of the gold standard.]


Moreover I assume bank nationalization to be fundamental of any nation when it concerns the proper protection and nationalization of one's currency within a nation, don't you?

A nationalized banking structure seems like a ordinary consequence of that.

Paradigm
Saturday, December 18th, 2010, 07:53 PM
If anyone thinks they are so right then debate here (http://mises.org/Community/forums/).

MCP3
Saturday, December 18th, 2010, 08:03 PM
If anyone thinks they are so right then debate here (http://mises.org/Community/forums/).
You link to the forum of mises.org.

Ludwig von Mises was a Galician (thus a Polish-) Jew, but you don't say that.

Just to clarify what the so-called "Austrian" School of Economics in the US is about.

More about von Mises here:

"Galicia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire"
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t755078/

"Ludwig von Mises was racially aware"
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t735928/

@General public: The second link is worth a read.

My own contribution in the above "second link" with a short bio of the Economist is question.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t735928-5/#post8502434

Paradigm
Saturday, December 18th, 2010, 08:57 PM
OH NOEZ VON MISES IS JEWISH DON'T READ HIS BOOKS OR GO TO HIS SITE!!!111

Yeah, I posted a link to the Mises forum, was I not aware of what link I inserted? I don't need to bother to mention Mises is Jewish because there's enough paranoid Jewphiles here who'll broadcast it to everyone around.

Either go to the forum or shut up about it. So far the people on this thread cannot tell the difference between central banking and free banking, mixed economy and free market economy, and don't know anything about capitalism or the role of the State in the market at all. Hell, if someone says they are for a free market you have people assuming they support the Federal Reserve for some damn reason and won't shut the hell up about it (really, you people have not shut up about the Fed when I do not support central banking, can we move on?). AlaricLachlan posted a video with Ron Paul in it, and if you didn't know Ron Paul was influenced by Mises and the Austrian School, and had help from Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, and Doug French during his presidential campaign, and was friends with Murray Rothbard. Ron Paul is also a closet anarcho-capitalist. He pretty much posted a video of a guy who supports me.

Either go to the Mises forum and debate there or isolate yourself and your mind from other views. New people are always welcome.

Caledonian
Saturday, December 18th, 2010, 09:00 PM
OH NOEZ VON MISES IS JEWISH DON'T READ HIS BOOKS OR GO TO HIS SITE!!!111

Yeah, I posted a link to the Mises forum, was I not aware of what link I inserted? I don't need to bother to mention Mises is Jewish because there's enough paranoid Jewphiles here who'll broadcast it to everyone around.

Either go to the forum or shut up about it. So far the people on this thread cannot tell the difference between central banking and free banking, mixed economy and free market economy, and don't know anything about capitalism or the role of the State in the market at all. Hell, if someone says they are for a free market you have people assuming they support the Federal Reserve for some damn reason and won't shut the hell up about it (really, you people have not shut up about the Fed when I do not support central banking, can we move on?). AlaricLachlan posted a video with Ron Paul in it, and if you didn't know Ron Paul was influenced by Mises and the Austrian School, and had help from Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, and Doug French during his presidential campaign, and was friends with Murray Rothbard. Ron Paul is also a closet anarcho-capitalist. He pretty much posted a video of a guy who supports me.

Either go to the Mises forum and debate there or isolate yourself and your mind from other views. New people are always welcome.


Then explain it to the rest of us since we aren't able to grasp the complexities like you solely can in contrast that you profess.

This is a open thread. You are free to make your opening arguements anytime.


(really, you people have not shut up about the Fed when I do not support central banking, can we move on?)

Central banking is a consequence of central planning of which any nation needs in order to at minimal be able to function at all.

If you study the history of central banking you would find out that private sections of the free market economy allowed it's existence realizing that without such a structure in place there would only be instead private factions of business regulating the market in it's place which would be quite ineffective in comparison.

Why you free market capitalists are against central banks is beyond me considering many private capitalists helped form it as a concept to begin with.

[ Like the Morgans, Rothchilds, and ect.]



AlaricLachlan posted a video with Ron Paul in it, and if you didn't know Ron Paul was influenced by Mises and the Austrian School, and had help from Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, and Doug French during his presidential campaign, and was friends with Murray Rothbard. Ron Paul is also a closet anarcho-capitalist. He pretty much posted a video of a guy who supports me.
I full well know what the political affiliations of Ran Paul are however the video itself is not so much about his politics as it is about him questioning those within the FED on the recent economical bailouts.


Either go to the Mises forum and debate there or isolate yourself and your mind from other views. New people are always welcome.
I'll do what I wish with my free time.

Paradigm
Saturday, December 18th, 2010, 10:06 PM
Then explain it to the rest of us since we aren't able to grasp the complexities like you solely can in contrast that you profess.

This is a open thread. You are free to make your opening arguements anytime.

I have made my arguments. You're too daft to compute such intricate details and information that you disregard it entirely and ramble on about something like the Federal Reserve. Somehow, debunking something I'm against anyway has become the staple of your argument.


Central banking is a consequence of central planning of which any nation needs in order to at minimal be able to function at all.

If you study the history of central banking you would find out that private sections of the free market economy allowed it's existence realizing that without such a structure in place there would only be instead private factions of business regulating the market in it's place which would be quite ineffective in comparison.

Central banking is a consequence of central planning, yes, what we have is a central bank, that fails entirely. No bureaucrat can know and plan everything about the market economy. You'd have to be omnipotent to pull off such an act. On the contrary private banking is extremely effective in keeping inflation down and minimizing extreme boom/busts.


Why you free market capitalists are against central banks is beyond me considering many private capitalists helped form it as a concept to begin with.

Um, because it's of Statist origin, not a free-market origin. Just because someone is running a business and makes a lot of money doesn't mean they are a "capitalist". If they are using the State to get what they what, they are the opposite of what a capitalist stands for (free-markets). Just because some bankers and business owners pushed for a central bank doesn't make it anymore capitalist. Thus, your argument falls apart. Look at the men themselves, they were not concerned with free-markets, they were concerned with power, and they obtained it through the State. What's the origin of the Federal Reserve? Power, greed, control, and of course what made it legal, the State.


I full well know what the political affiliations of Ron Paul are however the video itself is not so much about his politics as it is about him questioning those within the FED on the recent economical bailouts.

Yeah, and if you actually read deeper into his economics (Freedom Under Siege, End the Fed) you'll know why he's against the Fed, and why he's for a gold standard, and free banking. When you only post 1/3rd of the information out of context it doesn't support your argument.


I'll do what I wish with my free time.

Apparently spending a lot of time on this forum.

Horagalles
Sunday, December 19th, 2010, 04:05 PM
You link to the forum of mises.org.
Ludwig von Mises was a Galician (thus a Polish-) Jew, but you don't say that. Just to clarify what the so-called "Austrian" School of Economics in the US is about.
More about von Mises here:
"Ludwig von Mises was racially aware"
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t735928/
...
Ludwig Mises is the most famous representative of the Austrian School, but he isn't the founder. Prior to him Carl Menger, von Boehm-Bawerk and Friedrich von Wieser did do some foundational work. And it should be noted that the later wasn't a classical liberal, which may be the reason why he's mostly neglected by todays "Austrians". During the last half of the last century the Austrian school was indeed dominated by Jews like Mises, Rothbard, Kirzner and some others. On the other hand it seems now that other ethnicities like Germans, Italians and people of British decent do win some ground again.

On a general note "Austrians" did dismiss Nationalism and "Racism" as "collectivism" and that settled the case for them. They were not unaware of racial differences, but couldn't see the problem with massive turd-world immigration.

Paradigm
Sunday, December 19th, 2010, 06:03 PM
It should be noted that Austrian economics is essentially Mengerian economics. What I have read by Mises on race wasn't that impressive (he should just stick to economic theory). Issue was recently discussed on the Mises forum, and they weren't too happy with what I had to say (to say the least). The Austrian school has a lot of different ethnicities, I don't see why the emphasis should be on the Jews. Hayek was not Jewish and was extremely important, and was a rival of Keynes.

velvet
Sunday, December 19th, 2010, 06:43 PM
really, you people have not shut up about the Fed when I do not support central banking, can we move on?

Not unless you understand that the Fed IS a PRIVATE BANK, not a state bank. Simple, fuckn facts that you keep denying.

And a private bank is what you want. You say you dont want the Fed, but you want private banking, and also support that a state has to rent his currency from a private bank (which would still be possible in a state that issues his currency itself btw, and then it would be in proper limits too) (in order to 'limit' abuse by the government in exchange for massive abuse by private banksters, makes perfectly sense...). You also support that a state cannot own anything, and therefore also has nothing to earn money with to finance itself. And then you whine about being robbed off taxes, when you on the other hand support that system and demands that force the state to introduce taxes in the first place. Your solution is to do away with governments entirely and go eventually fully free market anarchic (aka rob, steal, cheat before someone else does it).

The downpoints of anarcho-capitalism pointed Roy Betty out. Although I'm sure the facts will not enter your brain because for you communism is something completely different from capitalism when it is in fact not (its just two sides of the same coin, playing by other details of the rules, but the endgoal is the same in both: to transfer all wealth from the working people to the oligarchs).

I also dont really see the logic behind your statements made in the other thread. Here you support "individual rights", in the NS thread you deprive entire classes of people of ANY right (maybe well knowing that the 'noble warrior' caste is not the caste you will find yourself in, so it's not that bad), no private property, no other individual right, nothing. Only service to which they are indoctrinated. You even go further and propose a system that keeps about 90 percent of all people down and limited and uneducated (just the stupid working class, they dont need knowledge, after all, they're slaves anyway of the 10 percent top-dog assholes you appoint yourself to), and there you put up an utopia of an economy that is planned through from A to Z (with this percent farmers, that percent workers, that percent whatever), while here you go rampant about "free markets", unregulated trade for trade's sake regardless of whether it benefits your country, your people or even yourself, the alleged benefits of cheap labor force (that by necessity produces swarms of immigrants that will soon enough outbreed your people, for some retarded extra dollars to serve your greed). What you spouse here and there is contradicting each other on every single aspect.




private profiteers spreading freely the abundance of wealth by empowering the common man

Now, can we get some examples / proofs how these "private profiteers" ever spread their "abundance of wealth" other than keeping their billions hidden from the evil tax department on illegal accounts on islands in the Carribeans?

kuehnelt
Sunday, December 19th, 2010, 07:14 PM
Not unless you understand that the Fed IS a PRIVATE BANK

Well, I need some money right now. I'll just go downstairs and print up some FRNs, like these other private guys can.


Simple, fuckn facts that you keep denying.

The only simple, fuckn fact here is that the Fed is called a private bank. Lots of organizations are called lots of things.


Your solution is to do away with governments entirely and go eventually fully free market anarchic (aka rob, steal, cheat before someone else does it).

A state is a form of government. Market anarchism describes another form of government. One of these institutionalizes property violations and the other forbids any kind of institutionalization of them. Yes, there may be another simple fuckn fact here that "anarchism is the absence of government", but it is what it is.

Paradigm
Sunday, December 19th, 2010, 07:30 PM
Not unless you understand that the Fed IS a PRIVATE BANK, not a state bank. Simple, fuckn facts that you keep denying.

And a private bank is what you want. You say you dont want the Fed, but you want private banking, and also support that a state has to rent his currency from a private bank (which would still be possible in a state that issues his currency itself btw, and then it would be in proper limits too) (in order to 'limit' abuse by the government in exchange for massive abuse by private banksters, makes perfectly sense...). You also support that a state cannot own anything, and therefore also has nothing to earn money with to finance itself. And then you whine about being robbed off taxes, when you on the other hand support that system and demands that force the state to introduce taxes in the first place. Your solution is to do away with governments entirely and go eventually fully free market anarchic (aka rob, steal, cheat before someone else does it).

Did I deny the Federal Reserve was private in ANYTHING I said? No, I told you that the Federal Reserve is a quasi-private bank given special privileges by the State to set interest rates, print/coin money, and lend/loan money to other banks. You don't understand that the Federal Reserve is the ONLY institution to do this, they have no competition. From this, what do I support? I support competition on the markets of competing banks of a hard currency, not fiat money, in which the banks would actually take on losses as a real business if they cannot meet consumer demands, and there would be no sole provider of currency, you would have competing hard currencies to keep inflation in check. No bank would be given special privileges over another, unlike the Federal Reserve. It's illegal to compete with the Federal Reserve, so how is that a free-market? What I'm putting forth is no different than Menger or Hayek.

What you said about taxes makes no sense. The State does not produce anything, they have no wealth of their own except what they take from the people through taxes, so what's so hard to understand about that? What do I support that introduces taxes? You act like my own government does not rob, cheat, and steal from it's people.


The downpoints of anarcho-capitalism pointed Roy Betty out. Although I'm sure the facts will not enter your brain because for you communism is something completely different from capitalism when it is in fact not (its just two sides of the same coin, playing by other details of the rules, but the endgoal is the same in both: to transfer all wealth from the working people to the oligarchs).

That's hilarious. Yeah, capitalism, which has it's foundations in private property and individual rights, is just the same as communism, which is the abolition of private property and individual rights.


I also dont really see the logic behind your statements made in the other thread. Here you support "individual rights", in the NS thread you deprive entire classes of people of ANY right (maybe well knowing that the 'noble warrior' caste is not the caste you will find yourself in, so it's not that bad), no private property, no other individual right, nothing. Only service to which they are indoctrinated. You even go further and propose a system that keeps about 90 percent of all people down and limited and uneducated (just the stupid working class, they dont need knowledge, after all, they're slaves anyway of the 10 percent top-dog assholes you appoint yourself to), and there you put up an utopia of an economy that is planned through from A to Z (with this percent farmers, that percent workers, that percent whatever), while here you go rampant about "free markets", unregulated trade for trade's sake regardless of whether it benefits your country, your people or even yourself, the alleged benefits of cheap labor force (that by necessity produces swarms of immigrants that will soon enough outbreed your people, for some retarded extra dollars to serve your greed). What you spouse here and there is contradicting each other on every single aspect.

I told you in the other thread I was simply posting that National Socialism has it's origins in the Platonic Tripartite State, and I thought it would be an interesting discussion piece. Where did I endorse National Socialism? Can I not discuss something without supporting it? I never said anything to the extent, and I even posted my contrast and views regarding Plato, Aristotle, and anarcho-capitalism (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=1047652&postcount=9). I even posted a reply to yours regarding this in that thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=1047710&postcount=12).


Now, can we get some examples / proofs how these "private profiteers" ever spread their "abundance of wealth" other than keeping their billions hidden from the evil tax department on illegal accounts on islands in the Carribeans?

Investments in production and business, and the expansion of production and employment, and technological process. If you want to look at empirical evidence you're wrong. According to you, due to a market economy, it should not be possible for the standard of living to rise, for production to increase, for technological process, and it should not be possible for people to find new jobs and move vertically as far as a yearly income goes, it should also not be possible for new and better products to become cheaper, all of which happens on the market economy. According to you everyone should be poor while a few benefit, but does that happen? No, it doesn't. How do they spread their abundance of wealth? By giving everyone a chance to work and expand. By furthering productive developments. Quit your Marxist bullshit and realize you're wrong.

Horagalles
Sunday, December 19th, 2010, 10:03 PM
...The only simple, fuckn fact here is that the Fed is called a private bank. Lots of organizations are called lots of things.
...But the important question would be who controls the private bank. Is it the President, Congress a minister or any kind of governmental institution? Or is it private entities like banks, NGO's etc.?!


It should be noted that Austrian economics is essentially Mengerian economics. What I have read by Mises on race wasn't that impressive (he should just stick to economic theory). Issue was recently discussed on the Mises forum, and they weren't too happy with what I had to say (to say the least). The Austrian school has a lot of different ethnicities, I don't see why the emphasis should be on the Jews. Hayek was not Jewish and was extremely important, and was a rival of Keynes.I'd consider Menger as the founder. What Mises said about racial theories is to some extent flawed (It's a strawman), but I think this should be discussed in more detail elsewhere. Hayek is sometimes believed to be Jewish (due to being a relation of Wittgenstein), but actually isn't:
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/temp/delete-westman2.html

While some Austrian Economist weren't Jewish. The Jewish influence and dominance for a while can not be overlooked.

velvet
Sunday, December 19th, 2010, 11:56 PM
Investments in production and business, and the expansion of production and employment, and technological process. If you want to look at empirical evidence you're wrong. According to you, due to a market economy, it should not be possible for the standard of living to rise, for production to increase, for technological process, and it should not be possible for people to find new jobs and move vertically as far as a yearly income goes, it should also not be possible for new and better products to become cheaper, all of which happens on the market economy. According to you everyone should be poor while a few benefit, but does that happen? No, it doesn't. How do they spread their abundance of wealth? By giving everyone a chance to work and expand. By furthering productive developments. Quit your Marxist bullshit and realize you're wrong.

You have not the slightest idea of what I propose, every single point you said there misses totally my position. The problem is your part, since you confuse (national) socialism with marxism/communism, which is not the same at all.

National Socialism was not and is not a "planned economy", it is a "directed economy" that benefits the nation as a whole and the people as individuals. This does not have to be a contradiction, y'know. In National Socialism, the state ownes the exclusive and inalienable right to issue money, in addition there can be, but does not include all, nationalised businesses, namely the infrastructure components like energy, public transportation, probably others.

Infrastructural components are vital to the direction in which society develops. Since the people, the nation, the state, the economy are one and the same, there is also an ideological component, so you want to make sure that the direction remains a positive one for the nation (the individual AND the folk body), without interferring too much, a hidden hand so to say. Infrastructural components are vital, because it ensures that people and goods are mobile; trucks need streets, other goods need trains, people can use both as well and so on. Same for telecommunication, energy and public transportation. With having it in the hands of the ideological lead state that works for the benefit of the people and not for profit interests of money, this ensures that the infrastructure is built out into the most rural areas (profit interests will not do that, because there is no profit to make).

And since the state is the instance that cares for this infrastructure, it makes also sense to give the state the means to care for it, the profits generated from infrastructural components. This is somehow a beloved misconception that "state business" automatically would mean its "free" and be financed via taxes. Eh, no, of course used energy is paid for, public transportation is paid for, etc. It's just not 1000 percent profit like today, but a limited profit makes it available to everyone including private business which can get energy and use the infrastructure for a effordable price.

Also, the state would profit from loans, and together with the profit generated from the economy components, the state finances itself. In such an environment chances are that taxes are rather low, probably even nonexistent.

Under this greater structure, private businesses, even private banks can exist.

National Socialism had another, important component, and that was a decentralised structure for local levels, the socalled Gauen. Local infrastructure may differ from the larger national infrastructure, needs and necessities may differ, that do not have to be regulated from above either. The structure of the Gauen makes sure that the overall ideology is kept intact, while allowing for and furthering local development and taking care of local issues.

That NS was quite a success is easily proven by the economical development and boom (that did not only came from military business, there have been quite some other components that played a role in that) it generated in just a few years. Also Japan runs a similar economy today, and whether one likes the Japanese or not, one has to admit that they're quite at the top of technological advance (even though they maybe only "pimp" other people's inventions, they do it good), which both is proof that progress indeed happens in this structure, and advance is even furthered and wanted. In contrast to the Japanese system, which bases a lot in their (very hierachical) culture, NS was vertically permeable, in fact, NS even did completely away with the noble caste and put all emphasis on personal merit. In order to get the best possible results to chose from for higher careers, NS also enabled everyone to get education, so that everyone had the chance to prove himself. I even think that the three-leveled school we still have today here in Germany was introduced by them, so everyone got the best possible, but also basically required education standard that he was able to perform in. When you want a highly developed society and culture/civilisation, you want to make sure that everyone is part of that and runs 'on the same fuel', otherwise you end up with ghettoes, empoverished groups of people, criminals, shadow-societies and what not all. You want your people to be integrated (uh, no buzzword intended) into your society, which in turn gives them the individual liberties and rights and freedoms they need for their individual development and growth. These stem directly from the way society as a whole functions, and only when this society functions as a whole, you can possibly have freedoms and rights. An atomized individual, what we have today, does not have rights, because it is not part of any society which could possibly protect its rights and freedoms. Our lands are a non-society, a sea of atomized, egomanic individuals who have no bonds whatsoever to their people, their economy, their past or future, but scream "me" all the time and demand rights and freedoms from people/institutions they consider actually to be enemies, government, state, "society" as a whole, police, everone is an enemy.

Doesnt work that way. There's nothing wrong with wanting a world that is worth to live in and not that hell we generate ourselves with screaming "me" all the time and forgetting that we are part of a greater whole. When we do away with this greater whole, that comes with some rules and principles that limit rampant individualism in order to make it function, we do away with our future - for a shallow "me" and some profit? Dont think it's worth that.



The system you propose on the other hand, that with rampant competition, may work when a "society" is made up of single males aged 20-30. You asked, do you fear losing in the competition? What about the old, the ill, mothers, the children? Can all die, since they lost in the competion, cant compete (and most likely also have no interest to compete all the time against everyone) and arent worth anything anymore?

And why, I wonder, can the competition (in education f.e.) not be who gathers the most knowledge and perfoms best all on his own, but the competition must be against all others, fighting them with ellbows, pushing them aside, screaming the loudest "me", trampling over them and then despising them and leaving them behind. I dont get how from this a "society" that is worth that term should possibly come about. :shrug

Jäger
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 02:00 AM
... in addition there can be, but does not include all, nationalised businesses, namely the infrastructure components like energy, public transportation, probably others.
The beautiful German word is "Bedarfsdeckung" [fulfillment of a need], wherever this is not met, the state shall intervene, in the form of presenting itself as a supplier :).


... this ensures that the infrastructure is built out into the most rural areas (profit interests will not do that, because there is no profit to make).
[...]
This is somehow a beloved misconception that "state business" automatically would mean its "free" and be financed via taxes.
Since you correctly identified the usual reason for a failure to fulfill a need through mere means of market economics, it usually does mean that the state won't get rich with it (politely put :D).


National Socialism had another, important component, and that was a decentralised structure for local levels, the socalled Gauen.
It was not a decentralized structure, it was a strict hierarchical one. Centralized yet wonderfully shrunken to human overseeable levels :) :thumbup


NS even did completely away with the noble caste and put all emphasis on personal merit.
NS reinstated a true noble caste, which sadly hasn't been present (some exceptions) in Germany for a few hundred years before.

kuehnelt
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 02:26 AM
What about the old, the ill, mothers, the children? Can all die, since they lost in the competion, cant compete (and most likely also have no interest to compete all the time against everyone) and arent worth anything anymore?

You had this great post, and then you returned to... who knows what you're talking about, here? Who knows what you mean by 'rampant competition'? Wasn't that a term invented by would-be oligopolies to get the state to crush their competition? A "too established to fail" precursor to "too big to fail". I feel like there's a discussion about horses but you keep wanting to object that unicorns shouldn't be left alone with young women. Unicorns don't exist! Moreover, nobody but you is talking about unicorns!

Economic orders don't need to have designs with a "care for the children" organ for the same reason that they don't have "make people have sex with each other" organs - all that is already taken care of. No society that failed to develop traditions and institutions to handle basic things like this could possibly grow to have a discussion about whether to 'regulate competition' or not.

So what do we have for the old, the ill, mothers, children? Families. Neighbors. Fellowships. Priests. Charities. What we've always had. It's natural, money's natural, saying "I should be the one to dispose of what I produce with my own means on my own property." is natural, "I was using it first!" is so natural that small children deliver it in a morally offended tone, and so on. The capitalist doesn't have to remake society, and doesn't have to justify funding the construction and running of a textile mill or whatever. What must be justified are grand architectural schemes to engineer 'greed' or 'selfishness' out of society, or to threaten 'economic criminals' with jail-cells and firing squads, which is what I think of when I think of socialism.

Your description of National Socialism, though, reads to me as like a description of what any good ruler or elite would try to do. If we had any rulers like that, it should be enough to present them with an economics textbook. "Here's a whole science by which you can trace the consequences of raising a tariff on sugar, say; maybe you, actually understanding all the consequences, could then make a better decision on whether and how to do it."

Paradigm
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 05:12 AM
I'd consider Menger as the founder. What Mises said about racial theories is to some extent flawed (It's a strawman), but I think this should be discussed in more detail elsewhere. Hayek is sometimes believed to be Jewish (due to being a relation of Wittgenstein), but actually isn't:
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/temp/delete-westman2.html

While some Austrian Economist weren't Jewish. The Jewish influence and dominance for a while can not be overlooked.

When it comes to race, Mises is pretty disappointing.

Omnipotent Government: Chapter 8, Anti-Semitism and Racism (http://mises.org/etexts/mises/og/chap8.asp)

Paradigm
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 05:44 AM
You have not the slightest idea of what I propose, every single point you said there misses totally my position. The problem is your part, since you confuse (national) socialism with marxism/communism, which is not the same at all.

I honestly have no clue what you're talking about half the time, but Statism is Statism, and control is control, those things are obvious, especially if someone does not want to be a part of it.


National Socialism was not and is not a "planned economy", it is a "directed economy" that benefits the nation as a whole and the people as individuals. This does not have to be a contradiction, y'know. In National Socialism, the state ownes the exclusive and inalienable right to issue money, in addition there can be, but does not include all, nationalised businesses, namely the infrastructure components like energy, public transportation, probably others.

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

So, what's the difference? What's the difference between "directed" and "planned"?


Infrastructural components are vital to the direction in which society develops. Since the people, the nation, the state, the economy are one and the same, there is also an ideological component, so you want to make sure that the direction remains a positive one for the nation (the individual AND the folk body), without interferring too much, a hidden hand so to say. Infrastructural components are vital, because it ensures that people and goods are mobile; trucks need streets, other goods need trains, people can use both as well and so on. Same for telecommunication, energy and public transportation. With having it in the hands of the ideological lead state that works for the benefit of the people and not for profit interests of money, this ensures that the infrastructure is built out into the most rural areas (profit interests will not do that, because there is no profit to make).

You speak of a "hidden hand", but what about the "invisible hand" that was discussed by Adam Smith? Markets are self regulating. This is undeniable fact. You act like as if there wasn't some authority telling people what to do all chaos would break out, that trains would be late, garbage would not be collected, mail would be lost (oh, wait, that already happens, with State mail), crime would be rampant (oh, wait, that already happens, with State police), and so on and so on. You pretty much act as if people can't take care of themselves, so we need Big Brother, Big Sister, Big Mother, and Big Father to make sure everything stays in it's planned place.

The problem with your concept is if there is no profit motive or competition, how do we know it's cost efficient? How do we know resources could or could not be allocated to more efficient means? If there's no price structure or profit/loss "system" in place, how would we know that this one group of people are using the money in the most efficient means? It's been proven this is impossible, that one would have to be omnipotent to pull off such a godly act of knowing every price at every second and the demands of every consumer, and allocating resources correctly to meet these needs.


And since the state is the instance that cares for this infrastructure, it makes also sense to give the state the means to care for it, the profits generated from infrastructural components. This is somehow a beloved misconception that "state business" automatically would mean its "free" and be financed via taxes. Eh, no, of course used energy is paid for, public transportation is paid for, etc. It's just not 1000 percent profit like today, but a limited profit makes it available to everyone including private business which can get energy and use the infrastructure for a effordable price.

How does a limited profit make it available to everyone, and what's an "affordable" price?


Also, the state would profit from loans, and together with the profit generated from the economy components, the state finances itself. In such an environment chances are that taxes are rather low, probably even nonexistent.

Under this greater structure, private businesses, even private banks can exist.

Ah, so the State is to set the interest rates of loans, and only the State, and there's no competition or someone else who would lend loans with lower interest rates? So, the State has literally banned competition in the business of currency, well, THAT doesn't sound familiar...


National Socialism had another, important component, and that was a decentralised structure for local levels, the socalled Gauen. Local infrastructure may differ from the larger national infrastructure, needs and necessities may differ, that do not have to be regulated from above either. The structure of the Gauen makes sure that the overall ideology is kept intact, while allowing for and furthering local development and taking care of local issues.

That NS was quite a success is easily proven by the economical development and boom (that did not only came from military business, there have been quite some other components that played a role in that) it generated in just a few years.

Last I heard Nazi Germany had rampant inflation, beyond our inflation currently, so I'd like to see your sources involving statistics on this.


Also Japan runs a similar economy today, and whether one likes the Japanese or not, one has to admit that they're quite at the top of technological advance (even though they maybe only "pimp" other people's inventions, they do it good), which both is proof that progress indeed happens in this structure, and advance is even furthered and wanted. In contrast to the Japanese system, which bases a lot in their (very hierachical) culture, NS was vertically permeable, in fact, NS even did completely away with the noble caste and put all emphasis on personal merit. In order to get the best possible results to chose from for higher careers, NS also enabled everyone to get education, so that everyone had the chance to prove himself. I even think that the three-leveled school we still have today here in Germany was introduced by them, so everyone got the best possible, but also basically required education standard that he was able to perform in. When you want a highly developed society and culture/civilisation, you want to make sure that everyone is part of that and runs 'on the same fuel', otherwise you end up with ghettoes, empoverished groups of people, criminals, shadow-societies and what not all. You want your people to be integrated (uh, no buzzword intended) into your society, which in turn gives them the individual liberties and rights and freedoms they need for their individual development and growth. These stem directly from the way society as a whole functions, and only when this society functions as a whole, you can possibly have freedoms and rights.

Impoverished people and ghettos are a result of planned government low-income housing and welfare. It breeds crime and poverty, instead of giving people the incentive to not live in poverty.


An atomized individual, what we have today, does not have rights, because it is not part of any society which could possibly protect its rights and freedoms.

No one speaks of atomized individuals, not even a single anarcho-capitalist scholar has put forth that nonsense. It was Max Stirner, if anyone, that said anything to this extent.


Our lands are a non-society, a sea of atomized, egomanic individuals who have no bonds whatsoever to their people, their economy, their past or future, but scream "me" all the time and demand rights and freedoms from people/institutions they consider actually to be enemies, government, state, "society" as a whole, police, everone is an enemy.

Well, the government is taking their "rights" away and forcing them into policies that they do not want. This is a bad strawman, by the way.


Doesnt work that way. There's nothing wrong with wanting a world that is worth to live in and not that hell we generate ourselves with screaming "me" all the time and forgetting that we are part of a greater whole. When we do away with this greater whole, that comes with some rules and principles that limit rampant individualism in order to make it function, we do away with our future - for a shallow "me" and some profit? Dont think it's worth that.

I guess this is more atomized individual nonsense. No individualist I've read has ever went along these lines. "Society" is made up of interdependent individuals who work and cooperate. On the market economy, this is possible, as it's the most natural and receptive order to the demands of individuals.


The system you propose on the other hand, that with rampant competition, may work when a "society" is made up of single males aged 20-30. You asked, do you fear losing in the competition? What about the old, the ill, mothers, the children? Can all die, since they lost in the competion, cant compete (and most likely also have no interest to compete all the time against everyone) and arent worth anything anymore?

OH NOEZ WHAT ABOUT TEH BABIEZ IN TEH STREETZ WILL NO ONE CARE FOR THEM IF THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT???!!!111

Are you telling me if the government wasn't telling you to care for people you wouldn't? You act like there are not non-profit programs and charities that are there to help people. A lot of organizations (and even hospitals) got a lot of income from private individuals before the government stepped in. Again, a really bad strawman, this is generally the type of stuff I hear from liberals. You can't even prove that there aren't programs to help people in a market economy.


And why, I wonder, can the competition (in education f.e.) not be who gathers the most knowledge and perfoms best all on his own, but the competition must be against all others, fighting them with ellbows, pushing them aside, screaming the loudest "me", trampling over them and then despising them and leaving them behind. I dont get how from this a "society" that is worth that term should possibly come about. :shrug

To hell with government education. That's the worst. I'm definitely not sending my child to a public school. What you speak of (kids fighting one another) is what happens now, and the government runs the schools! They are in horrible condition and the education is half-ass. I don't need the government "educating" my child. Again, another big, tax guzzling, government program that fails at success, and makes people stupid.

Ward
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 08:30 AM
When it comes to race, Mises is pretty disappointing.

And you're surprised by this? Since when has anarcho-capitalism ever been concerned with racial preservation? The logical conclusion of this doctrine is a consumerist monoculture in a world without national distinctions.

Paradigm
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 08:36 AM
And you're surprised by this? Since when has anarcho-capitalism ever been concerned with racial preservation? The logical conclusion of this doctrine is a consumerist monoculture in a world without national distinctions.

I don't know any national distinctions in my country. They are covered up by the stench of a rotten government. Whatever nationalism you want to talk about doesn't exist here, and if it does it's sadly misguided.

I'll start talking about nationalism when I see a secession.

Paradigm
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 09:39 AM
The economics of Nazi Germany:

The Nazis and the German Economy (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazis_and_the_german_economy.htm)

Nazi Economics (http://reason.com/archives/1999/08/01/nazi-economics)

Inflation and Price Control (http://mises.org/daily/1823) by Ludwig von Mises (Uh-oh, a Jew...)

Weimar Germany 1919-1933 (http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/weimar.htm)

Nazi Economics (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon51.html) by David Gordon

Horagalles
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 11:55 AM
Originally Posted by Paradigm http://forums.skadi.net/images/atlantis/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=1048695#post1048695)
When it comes to race, Mises is pretty disappointing.


And you're surprised by this? Since when has anarcho-capitalism ever been concerned with racial preservation? The logical conclusion of this doctrine is a consumerist monoculture in a world without national distinctions.
It seems that he changed his tune a bit with the beginning of world war 2. Give me some time to find the quotes from the works in chronological order. On the other hand Libertarians commonly acknowledge racial difference, yet they dismiss "racism" or nationalism as "collectivism".

Some data mining on economists and thinkers in general reveals lot's of interesting stuff. Take Gustav le Bon for instance ;).

Donnerschall
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 04:27 PM
[QUOTE=kuehnelt;1048666]
Economic orders don't need to have designs with a "care for the children" organ for the same reason that they don't have "make people have sex with each other" organs - all that is already taken care of. No society that failed to develop traditions and institutions to handle basic things like this could possibly grow to have a discussion about whether to 'regulate competition' or not.

So why do, or can´t Germanic women bear any children anymore?

The system doesn´t allow them, the politics allows the social engineering as it is, the economical structure forces women to compete on the labour market.

MCP3
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 06:29 PM
So why do, or can´t Germanic women bear any children anymore?

The system doesn´t allow them, the politics allows the social engineering as it is, the economical structure forces women to compete on the labour market.
Rep. for connecting the dots rationally .The system of profit maximization, along with an ideology that promotes multiculturalism, racial intermarriage and criminalizes any form racism and racial preservation of the various ethnic groups.
And this system emerged victorious from the Second German War in the 20th century and is now destroying all of us, friend and foe alike, domestic and abroad.

Paradigm
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 06:38 PM
It seems that he changed his tune a bit with the beginning of world war 2. Give me some time to find the quotes from the works in chronological order. On the other hand Libertarians commonly acknowledge racial difference, yet they dismiss "racism" or nationalism as "collectivism".

Some data mining on economists and thinkers in general reveals lot's of interesting stuff. Take Gustav le Bon for instance ;).

There's many different types of libertarians, but from what I know many libertarians don't have a problem with racism, because it doesn't violate the Non-Aggression Principle. There's no harm in someone having a particular view. Generally if you ask a libertarian (depending) they fall back on the NAP with a sort of neutral answer. In reference to collectivism that's due to racial policy, and you might get an answer (that'll probably involve the NAP) about how one group is violating the rights of others through coercion against their will.

The funny thing is that many libertarians (as myself) have been smeared with the racist label because we're against the Civil Rights Act and we believe that individuals should do what they wish with their own private property. According to some liberal that would mean that all businesses would magically become "whites only" and no one would hire blacks. I raised the question, "Can not a black man discriminate against a Klan member from entering his business?", and there was silence. The contradiction was shown in her views.

Paradigm
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 06:46 PM
So why do, or can´t Germanic women bear any children anymore?

The system doesn´t allow them, the politics allows the social engineering as it is, the economical structure forces women to compete on the labour market.

Germanics still have children. How do you think we are here right now. Plus, most women want to work. All the females I know have jobs and make decent money.


Rep. for connecting the dots rationally .The system of profit maximization, along with an ideology that promotes multiculturalism, racial intermarriage and criminalizes any form racism and racial preservation of the various ethnic groups.
And this system emerged victorious from the Second German War in the 20th century and is now destroying all of us, friend and foe alike, domestic and abroad.

How do matrices of individuals making exchanges on the market promote multiculturalism and racial intermarriage? How do two people making an exchange support what you say? I don't think going to Best Buy and buying a cd player supports an interracial marriage. Your angst is misplaced. It wasn't the market that anti-discrimination laws and civil rights laws emerged, it was the government. What I want to know is: You have a problem with market economics because you say it promotes these negative traits you stated, but what about a place that's already 100% Germanic? Here's the hypothetical you have to deal with in my example. 100% Germanic country, what are the negative traits in that economy involving market economics if there are no other races? The economics is the same as before, and always will be.

Jäger
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 09:32 PM
The problem with your concept is if there is no profit motive or competition, how do we know it's cost efficient?
The state shall only deny competition in areas where cost efficiency is of less concern than the actual presence of the actual supply to all in need.


Ah, so the State is to set the interest rates of loans, and only the State, and there's no competition or someone else who would lend loans with lower interest rates?
Indeed, that's not how it is supposed to work.


Last I heard Nazi Germany had rampant inflation, beyond our inflation currently, so I'd like to see your sources involving statistics on this.
:shrug In any case, the standard of living rose considerably.


Impoverished people and ghettos are a result of planned government low-income housing and welfare.
So in a libertarian future, there won't be any poor people at all?


"Society" is made up of interdependent individuals who work and cooperate. On the market economy, this is possible, as it's the most natural and receptive order to the demands of individuals.
Yes, I agree.


You act like there are not non-profit programs and charities that are there to help people.
Ya, but didn't you tell us that currently there is no free market implemented anywhere? What about tax incentives for many of such donations?
In any case, the degree of caring is proportional to the degree of belonging, which in turn depends on a higher organizational structure (if you want to extend it beyond 200 people or so that is).


To hell with government education. That's the worst.
[...] Again, another big, tax guzzling, government program that fails at success, and makes people stupid.
This is your strawman, there certainly are much more reasons for the American failure in regards to public schools, other than IT'S FROM THE GOVERNMENTTTT!!!!!!!

Paradigm
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 09:57 PM
The state shall only deny competition in areas where cost efficiency is of less concern than the actual presence of the actual supply to all in need.

How would they know? Why would cost efficiency be less of a concern in an area where the supply is a big concern? If the demand is greater, then resources would naturally be allocated to those areas of production to meet consumer's demand for a larger supply. The market would naturally react. If you are talking about price fixing you must realize when you fix a price below or above the market price that this will naturally have an effect on other areas of industry. So, are we to suggest the government to direct production in what they believe to be an area of greater demand at the expense of everyone else and other areas of production?



Indeed, that's not how it is supposed to work.

Then how does it supposed to work?



:shrug In any case, the standard of living rose considerably

How? How does the standard of living rise, when you have hyperinflation?



So in a libertarian future, there won't be any poor people at all?

Define "poor", and no, I don't have fantasies of a Utopian future. I can only hope for the least worst.


Ya, but didn't you tell us that currently there is no free market implemented anywhere? What about tax incentives for many of such donations?
In any case, the degree of caring is proportional to the degree of belonging, which in turn depends on a higher organizational structure (if you want to extend it beyond 200 people or so that is).

We have markets, the amount of freedom is being restricted, by people such as yourself I might add, who want a more interventionist economy to make things "fair". Not sure what a tax incentive has to do with anything. In any case, why would the government have to make people care, or make a "charity" if people are willing to do it amongst themselves


This is your strawman, there certainly are much more reasons for the American failure in regards to public schools, other than IT'S FROM THE GOVERNMENTTTT!!!!!!!

Yeah, number one, the government runs it. No profit/loss system, no price structure, no competition. That's it in a nutshell. If you want to argue public schools I can make that an entirely different topic.

Jäger
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 11:08 PM
How would they know?
A mixture of logic and empiricism.


If the demand is greater, then resources would naturally be allocated to those areas of production to meet consumer's demand for a larger supply. The market would naturally react.
This is only true for short and mid term profits. If you had to invest into a project which will only be - even tremendously - pay off when you are already dead, the motivation of the individuals involved to reallocated resources is generally negligible.


Then how does it supposed to work?
The state won't hand out (interest based) loans at all, those who want to do this can do so at any rate of interest.


How? How does the standard of living rise, when you have hyperinflation?
I don't know, so are we to assume there hasn't been any hyperinflation?


Define "poor", and no, I don't have fantasies of a Utopian future. I can only hope for the least worst.
You said: "Impoverished people and ghettos are a result of planned government low-income housing and welfare.".
However, you agree that impoverished people can be a result of a libertarian structure, so I am not even sure what your statement adds to this discussion.


Not sure what a tax incentive has to do with anything.
The state imposes taxes, and then gives you some of it back for behaving a certain way, this is a form of "directing" or "planning". Thus those people are still directed by an authority to make a charity. It is no counter-example.


In any case, why would the government have to make people care, or make a "charity" if people are willing to do it amongst themselves
Because they usually are not willing to do so outside of a rather small (evolutionary defined) scope, if there is no greater organizational force which implements behavioral structure, e.g. symbolism.


Yeah, number one, the government runs it.
If so, why are there public schools who exceed privet ones in terms of accomplishment?

kuehnelt
Tuesday, December 21st, 2010, 02:33 AM
How about this: to argue for a social structure is to presume that some elites are around, that there is an influential and capable section of the society that will act to perpetuate the social structure, and act to see that its functions are carried out. Well, someone could argue for "a society without elites", or "a society in which everyone is a member of the elite", but you can spend your own time deciding to agree with me that these are just silly or self-annihilating or fantastical.

As to argue for a social structure is to presume some elites who will support it, to argue for nationalism or capitalism or socialism then is to presume some nationalist or capitalist or socialist elites. So, what kind of elites do these systems rely on? Without whom won't they work? If you hear someone on Skadi say that they want an X-ist system, what is the nature of their X-ist elite? This class isn't usually talked about - I think only I mentioned it once in this thread, but I think if you try to take this focus then you can almost instantly see why someone would enthuse about or be revolted by a proposed X-ism. You could have different ideas about the nature of these elites - say, a monarchist could talk about ideal kings all day, and then an anti-monarchist could reply with some harsh words for actual kings. But these are productive disputes. Talking about the actual people who must be available to run a system, must be more fruitful than talking vaguely about a system itself as if it could be independent of the people under it -- in particular I see that it's pretty hard for a lot of you to form meaningful arguments against capitalism, when you could instead say:

Capitalism's elite: anyone who can make a lot of money.

Isn't that disgusting? There's nothing in there about honor, courage, loyalty, etc., and a capitalist society would happily accept as of their elite the filth of Hollywood or the criminal scum of big banks. The more money you have, the more say you have about what's produced and how it's produced, the more say you have about infrastructure that people depend on, the more say you have about whether to stay with one company or whether to ship in a foreign company's goods. If we imagined men of great will and character, who in an earlier age would instantly be lifted up in their society to defend it and its interests against its enemies - and then we continued to imagine, "but these guys couldn't sing or play basketball or tolerate powerpoint presentations" - then they would be nothing in our age. Who could want that? What but ruin could come to a society that would think itself better off the less distracted its elite were from getting rich?

velvet
Tuesday, December 21st, 2010, 12:24 PM
I honestly have no clue what you're talking about half the time, but Statism is Statism, and control is control, those things are obvious, especially if someone does not want to be a part of it.

Well, you dont understand me half of the time because all that fills you is consumerism and profit interests. You see, there are values beside that, although in a capitalist society they play no more role.

I just would like to change that, because the course we are on right now leads right into extinction. The difference between us is that you give a shit about that, while I do care.


So, what's the difference? What's the difference between "directed" and "planned"?

You freak so much out on anything that could probably limit your profit or box your greed into some values, that you wont understand it anyway, so much I've learned already.

Rules and governing values can also be beneficial, and indeed they also should be. This isnt the case anymore though, its not only that we undermine these governing (common) values and (common) rules all the time and loosen them, it is really that we dont possess any either anymore. We do not even possess anything that would be worth calling "common", as in community, a real nation where people are fueled by their consciousness for their identity and take pride in their heritage and their people's accomplishments, for the accomplishment of outstanding individuals are the result of a common effort by a body of people working for a higher goal in a working community that benefits all and allows these outstanding individuals to come about in the first place. What we have today is increasingly the very opposite of that though.



You speak of a "hidden hand", but what about the "invisible hand" that was discussed by Adam Smith? Markets are self regulating.

Adam Smith put forth a theory of a "self-regulating market" in free market capitalism. In fact, this is illusionary though, because a "self-regulating" market that is governed by profit interests WILL lead to monopols by necessity of eliminating concurrence.

And this theory also introduced the splitted individual, one time as consumer, another time as profiteer, the next as property owner and the market is dispatched from society as a whole and is viewed as if it had nothing to do with each other. Even worse, the market can do as it pleases for profit, but no more responsibility to the society and nation.

Name me one good reason why the economy should not be subjected to the "interests of the people as a whole" and the "individual" at the same time (because the individual is everything at the same time too, a consumer, a producent, an owner), or a "higher ethic and common goal of a society", but should be left unchecked.


You act like as if there wasn't some authority telling people what to do all chaos would break out

Chaos, no. It is a very ordered process orchestrated by money's profit interests.


that trains would be late, garbage would not be collected, mail would be lost (oh, wait, that already happens, with State mail), crime would be rampant (oh, wait, that already happens, with State police), and so on and so on. You pretty much act as if people can't take care of themselves, so we need Big Brother, Big Sister, Big Mother, and Big Father to make sure everything stays in it's planned place.

Fact is that not everyone can "take care of themselves", even though you think those who cant arent worth to live anyway.

In Germany until about ~20 years ago mail and telecommunication and the Bundesbahn (train/public transportation) was national business. It was cheap, everywhere available, reliable.

Then all this got privatised (though in steps, the details are too long to explain here), the point is that today we have no more reliable mail, there is no more reliable trains, the rails are rotting, though at the same time the now private Bahn (which is deceivingly allowed to still carry the name Bundesbahn) invests billions into completely useless prestige objects (that will never pay back the investment because its totally out of any meaningful proportion) and demands subsidies for this nonsense on top (it's private, they should pay for their shit themselves and not demand the taxpayer to pay it), also demanding to be applied the monopoly it was when it was national business (so much to market competition, and there are indeed criminal activities to keep competitors out). And we also have increasing areas that are not connected to the modern standard of telecommunication either, because to maintain the network and constantly expand it costs money, and with that, would limit the profit and therefore it's not done, despite that there is demand for it.

The "self-regulating market" is obviously unable or unwilling to fullfil basic needs of its consumers.


The problem with your concept is if there is no profit motive or competition, how do we know it's cost efficient?

See above. The self-regulating market is designed around "profit" and therefore does not fullfil requirements of the "consumer" (uh, how could that happen, isnt the consumer a market element? Why does demand there not generate supply?).

There are aspects of society that neither have a prize attached nor can they be put under the pressure of cost efficiency alone. They exist beyond/above and independent of the market. (Not that I'd expect you to understand that, since for you only profit exists and no higher goal or values).

But, how does "cost efficiency" relate directly to competition? What has it to do with each other?



How do we know resources could or could not be allocated to more efficient means?

You mean like blocking out people in rural areas from basic technology because it is cost-inefficient?


If there's no price structure or profit/loss "system" in place, how would we know that this one group of people are using the money in the most efficient means?

Wasnt it you who said that people can do with their money what they want, how they want and when they want? Who asks these people with billions on their bank accounts whether they use their money for efficient means? Noone does. And they dont. They obviously do not invest this money nor do they "spread their abundance of wealth" in any way, otherwise they wouldnt have billions locked away on their bank accounts.


It's been proven this is impossible, that one would have to be omnipotent to pull off such a godly act of knowing every price at every second and the demands of every consumer, and allocating resources correctly to meet these needs.

But who apart from you ever claimed this to be the case or plan?

Well, I know you confuse communism with NS, but this really is nonsense, noone wanted to know every price at every second what you said there. Yes, I agree that this would be utter nonsense, but apart from you noone brought this up anyway, so can we quit this nonsense now?



How does a limited profit make it available to everyone, and what's an "affordable" price?

Because a (self-imposed limited) profit on the producent side would make it cheap and available for everyone. This of course only can come from an instance whose first interest is not profit, but to maintain and expand infrastructural components and to benefit the nation / society as a whole.

What you seem to fail to understand is that not every motive to do something must be "profit". Are you so empty already that you cannot imagine a motive to benefit, while not having a "profit" interest?



Ah, so the State is to set the interest rates of loans, and only the State, and there's no competition or someone else who would lend loans with lower interest rates? So, the State has literally banned competition in the business of currency, well, THAT doesn't sound familiar...

When does that happen in real life that a bank offers lower interest rates? The banks 'loan' the money from the FED (or the corresponding counterpart in other parts of the world) for 0 percent interests, and then they play "competition" with offering varying degrees of interest rates between 9 and 15 percent. Cool rip off method... eh competion :thumbup

Oh, yeah, I know mortgages are usually cheaper, but this is because there is a "real value" at the other end of the line that they can grab if you're just one time late with your rates.


Last I heard Nazi Germany had rampant inflation, beyond our inflation currently, so I'd like to see your sources involving statistics on this.

The Weimar Republic, to which you obviously refer, was not NS Germany. But they left quite a mess after just 10 years, with many rotten industry and not maintained infrastructure, of course NS Germany could not correct this over night. But they did soon enough.

This btw I noticed in several "history books" that they claim the WR hyperinflation would have been in NS Germany. In reality NS Germany ended the economical depression that held us under its grip since 1923 though.


Impoverished people and ghettos are a result of planned government low-income housing and welfare. It breeds crime and poverty, instead of giving people the incentive to not live in poverty.

Ah, yeah, the evil "welfare nanny state" ruined the paradise of rampant free market capitalism *snif* :|

Well, these "lower class" people in older times did all this work like street cleaner, harvesters, unskilled work in assembly lines and what not all. But because they are natives (of their respective country), they still are too expensive to hire, and because they are uneducated (and will also distance their children further from the educated classes, because they cannot effort education for them either), they also have no means to take themselves out of this. And indeed also no incentive, because what they could earn on the free market, uneducated and unskilled as they are, would be less than welfare. Both, this low-income and welfare, are not enough to "live" though, so they would only jump from the pan into the fire. Where should the incentive come from?

And if there wouldnt be cheap housing, these people would all live on the streets. So rather be glad that there is still cheap housing, otherwise you could enjoy the joys of "free market capitalism" tomorrow, when suddenly ~30 percent would end up on the streets. Welcome chaos.



No one speaks of atomized individuals, not even a single anarcho-capitalist scholar has put forth that nonsense. It was Max Stirner, if anyone, that said anything to this extent.

No, of course these criminals dont say that. But it is the result of their "market form".

The theories split up the individual into "consumer", "producent", "loan taker", "supplyer" whatever and treat the parts of the individual as if they actually were seperated, which they are not. The individual can be and also is all at the same time, while the market denies this, and with this dissolves the individual and in consequence, the fabric of society as a whole.

One of the most important factors why "free market capitalism" is incompatible with nationalism btw, because the market does not care either for the economy as an interconnected whole nor the individual with its different roles, and needs that it has at all times, regardless of which role it fulfills at a given moment.


Well, the government is taking their "rights" away and forcing them into policies that they do not want. This is a bad strawman, by the way.

Look, you have no rights in "free market capitalism", because the only thing that rules supreme there is money and profit interests. When you feel the government makes it worse, this is just the result of free market capitalism that dissolves society. The measures that take away your rights are measures to keep free market capitalism up and running.

When you dont like that, maybe think about your support of free market capitalism, because your rights really have no prize attached and also dont generate profit. When you think that profit is the be-all and end-all, then dont whine about the loss of your rights.

Rights do not generate profit.


I guess this is more atomized individual nonsense. No individualist I've read has ever went along these lines. "Society" is made up of interdependent individuals who work and cooperate. On the market economy, this is possible, as it's the most natural and receptive order to the demands of individuals.

You constantly go over competition, and now suddenly there is "cooperation"? You do realise that one exclude the other, yes?



Are you telling me if the government wasn't telling you to care for people you wouldn't? You act like there are not non-profit programs and charities that are there to help people.

ROFL, now this is great. First you say "no nanny state", and then you expect "someone else" (of course not you) to take care of people who fell through somehow.

How does charity generate profit (other than to cherish the egomanic selfishness to see one's own face on the yellow press title pages that is)?

And the more interesting question is, wouldnt it make much more sense to maintain an infrastructure / system / society that doesnt bring people to the point where they fall through in the first place? Where their jobs are not oursourced or given to cheap labor immigrants from who knows where in the world?

No, everyone waits til they are so far down that the oh so "noble" :puke charity giver appears like a hero, while it is exactly the system he uses to acquire all that money that he is then able to give to charity that brings people to the point where they fall through.

Sorry, I find this disgusting. Utterly disgusting.



A lot of organizations (and even hospitals) got a lot of income from private individuals before the government stepped in. Again, a really bad strawman, this is generally the type of stuff I hear from liberals. You can't even prove that there aren't programs to help people in a market economy.

I never claimed them to not exist. :shrug


To hell with government education. That's the worst.

Oh, I agree, under the current market rules it is certainly worst ever, because its not education but agenda indoctrination.

But what you still fail to understand is that I dont want to give the current governments more power, but first to replace them with people who are governed by higher values, likewise to replace the current systematics with another system (see my post before, there would be a lot to add still) and then have a common goal of society, and an economy that is not left alone to govern itself but is governed also by this higher goal and values.

And it's not that I wouldnt enjoy individualism, my personal interests, my hobbies, my free time, whatever. But it really doesnt work when this goes against the interests of society as a whole, as the unity it is. I also dont think that one should leave the "profit interests of money" alone and expect that society remains intact. And why the Hel should the interests of money (a thing with no interests other than profit, and no consciousness for ethic or benefit) be allowed to govern the economy, and with that society?

Paradigm
Tuesday, December 21st, 2010, 07:14 PM
Well, you dont understand me half of the time because all that fills you is consumerism and profit interests. You see, there are values beside that, although in a capitalist society they play no more role.

Yeah, I'm filled with consumerism and profit interest, I'm also filled with gumdrops and candy canes.


I just would like to change that, because the course we are on right now leads right into extinction. The difference between us is that you give a shit about that, while I do care.

I guess you meant to say "you don't give a shit" instead of "give a shit".


You freak so much out on anything that could probably limit your profit or box your greed into some values, that you wont understand it anyway, so much I've learned already.

Yeah, I'm freaking out because some Leviathan State might take people's choices and freedom away to do what they wish with their property and themselves. Sounds reasonable.



Rules and governing values can also be beneficial, and indeed they also should be.

I never said anything against rules or governing. It's who's making the rule's and who's governing.


This isnt the case anymore though, its not only that we undermine these governing (common) values and (common) rules all the time and loosen them, it is really that we dont possess any either anymore. We do not even possess anything that would be worth calling "common", as in community, a real nation where people are fueled by their consciousness for their identity and take pride in their heritage and their people's accomplishments, for the accomplishment of outstanding individuals are the result of a common effort by a body of people working for a higher goal in a working community that benefits all and allows these outstanding individuals to come about in the first place. What we have today is increasingly the very opposite of that though.

Well, to be honest, my heritage involves a revolution against a British monarch in the name of individual liberty that happened to be fueled on economic restrictions by the British. The colonies revolted against their Mother nation, so to speak. You're heritage, NS or whatever, is different from mine. Acknowledge that.


Adam Smith put forth a theory of a "self-regulating market" in free market capitalism. In fact, this is illusionary though, because a "self-regulating" market that is governed by profit interests WILL lead to monopols by necessity of eliminating concurrence.

Actually, a monopoly is a business given special privileges by the State, so if the State is not in the equation, there can't be a monopoly. Now the term is thrown around loosely at any business someone thinks is too successful and good at serving customers, so they want to limit their business.


And this theory also introduced the splitted individual, one time as consumer, another time as profiteer, the next as property owner and the market is dispatched from society as a whole and is viewed as if it had nothing to do with each other. Even worse, the market can do as it pleases for profit, but no more responsibility to the society and nation.

Damn, you have to pull out some bad economic rhetoric. The individual is both a consumer and producer, the individual is not split, this is natural as would be a hunter/gatherer who also trades for other goods, there's nothing new in producing and consuming. I can't think of life existing without it otherwise. Also, "society" doesn't exist as a single entity, there is only individuals. Individuals are not split from other individuals, they are interdependent on one another through the market. No one lives in isolation. Nor can the market do as it pleases for profit, because for profit to generate it must serve the needs of individuals, the so called society. It can't go against society and be irresponsible if society is the one deciding to do business with said individuals.


Name me one good reason why the economy should not be subjected to the "interests of the people as a whole" and the "individual" at the same time (because the individual is everything at the same time too, a consumer, a producent, an owner), or a "higher ethic and common goal of a society", but should be left unchecked.

The interest of the people will be on the market as individuals meeting their own needs and wants through trade. The interest do not need to be subjected to some overlord when they can be met instantly on the market with other individuals. It does not remain unchecked, individuals check other individuals through the process of buying/selling, refraining, and moving on to others.


Chaos, no. It is a very ordered process orchestrated by money's profit interests.

There's nothing more peaceful than capital production.


Fact is that not everyone can "take care of themselves", even though you think those who cant arent worth to live anyway.

Oh, now I believe the sick and weakly must die? I must have forgot I never said anything along those lines.


In Germany until about ~20 years ago mail and telecommunication and the Bundesbahn (train/public transportation) was national business. It was cheap, everywhere available, reliable.

Then all this got privatised (though in steps, the details are too long to explain here), the point is that today we have no more reliable mail, there is no more reliable trains, the rails are rotting, though at the same time the now private Bahn (which is deceivingly allowed to still carry the name Bundesbahn) invests billions into completely useless prestige objects (that will never pay back the investment because its totally out of any meaningful proportion) and demands subsidies for this nonsense on top (it's private, they should pay for their shit themselves and not demand the taxpayer to pay it), also demanding to be applied the monopoly it was when it was national business (so much to market competition, and there are indeed criminal activities to keep competitors out). And we also have increasing areas that are not connected to the modern standard of telecommunication either, because to maintain the network and constantly expand it costs money, and with that, would limit the profit and therefore it's not done, despite that there is demand for it.

Sounds like Germany has a problem. Maybe you need another charismatic Austrian leader.


The "self-regulating market" is obviously unable or unwilling to fullfil basic needs of its consumers.

Apparently, it is, right now as we speak. Go to a grocery store or a mall and see all the individuals getting what they want and need through the market.


See above. The self-regulating market is designed around "profit" and therefore does not fullfil requirements of the "consumer" (uh, how could that happen, isnt the consumer a market element? Why does demand there not generate supply?).

You look past what's right in front of you. The only way anyone can generate profit is if they meet consumer demands. If they don't please consumers, they lose profit. There's no way they can profit off products that are counter to the interest of consumers. Can you name one business that makes profit, but everyone of it's customers is dissatisfied and frustrated of every single one of their products? No, it's impossible. The profit motive is to best serve customers, with competition they have choices, and move to what they believe is the next best, this keeps businesses constantly trying to outdo one another to keep their profits. If they lose profits, their business begins to fail due to competition who are serving the customers better. Those who gain profits can reinvest it into their company. This is happening right now.


There are aspects of society that neither have a prize attached nor can they be put under the pressure of cost efficiency alone. They exist beyond/above and independent of the market. (Not that I'd expect you to understand that, since for you only profit exists and no higher goal or values).

Yeah, I have no higher goals. I'm only an atomized individual who acts as a robot. My life is empty and my soul is nonexistent. My brain functions just like a computer, I can only do what I'm programmed to do. I run on oil and I have no heart. Detecting pathetic smear attack strawman from silly National Socialist, can't compute, too stupid.


But, how does "cost efficiency" relate directly to competition? What has it to do with each other?

How would you know if what you are doing is cost efficient if you have nothing to compare it to? How would you know if there are no other choices to meet your demands? How would you know what is more cost efficient if there is no competition or price structure?


You mean like blocking out people in rural areas from basic technology because it is cost-inefficient?

Right now I'm going to block out a strawman.



Wasnt it you who said that people can do with their money what they want, how they want and when they want? Who asks these people with billions on their bank accounts whether they use their money for efficient means? Noone does. And they dont. They obviously do not invest this money nor do they "spread their abundance of wealth" in any way, otherwise they wouldnt have billions locked away on their bank accounts.

Maybe you should ask them yourselves. Maybe you should ask Bill Gates and Steve Jobs why they have billions of dollars and why they don't invest their own personal money into their own creations? Oh, wait, THEY DO. That's why they are billionaires, they served the customer immensely beyond belief! They spread their abundance, just not in the ways you'd want (forced at gun point to give it up, I presume), maybe you shouldn't be worried in what's in someones bank account and mind your own business. You act like because someone's rich they only worked, saved, and never spent any of it. When in reality a majority of the people who are billionaires DO invest it and accumulated that much money because they best served the customers demands.


But who apart from you ever claimed this to be the case or plan?

Well, I know you confuse communism with NS, but this really is nonsense, noone wanted to know every price at every second what you said there. Yes, I agree that this would be utter nonsense, but apart from you noone brought this up anyway, so can we quit this nonsense now?

This is vital, don't ignore it. You have so much against capitalism, so are you the one to direct/plan the economy and know every single detail of ever product and productions price and it's relation to other areas of industry at every given second of the day to know what's the most profitable and cost efficient process in EVERY area of production under a nationalized economy? Are you or anyone else omnipotent to know the value? Wait, that's wrong, value is subjective, so you would never know regardless because you're just one individual, what your preferences are will not match up with other individuals.



Because a (self-imposed limited) profit on the producent side would make it cheap and available for everyone. This of course only can come from an instance whose first interest is not profit, but to maintain and expand infrastructural components and to benefit the nation / society as a whole.

You can only benefit individuals by meeting their demands on the market.


What you seem to fail to understand is that not every motive to do something must be "profit". Are you so empty already that you cannot imagine a motive to benefit, while not having a "profit" interest?

Profit interest can be a lot of things. I'm profiting from reading books, and I can profit in other ways mentally or spiritually. This is all subjective to the individual. You're not me, you don't have the same profit interest as me.


When does that happen in real life that a bank offers lower interest rates? The banks 'loan' the money from the FED (or the corresponding counterpart in other parts of the world) for 0 percent interests, and then they play "competition" with offering varying degrees of interest rates between 9 and 15 percent. Cool rip off method... eh competion :thumbup

Oh, yeah, I know mortgages are usually cheaper, but this is because there is a "real value" at the other end of the line that they can grab if you're just one time late with your rates.

Yeah, as if a central bank isn't setting interest rates? Isn't that what you wanted, a centrally planned bank? Oh, wait, you want a nationalized bank with no competition, right? Or a quasi-private nationalized bank? Again, your FED examples have been irrelevant for the past 5 pages at least.


The Weimar Republic, to which you obviously refer, was not NS Germany. But they left quite a mess after just 10 years, with many rotten industry and not maintained infrastructure, of course NS Germany could not correct this over night. But they did soon enough.

I referred to both, and I had sources to Nazi Germany, and they had high inflation.


This btw I noticed in several "history books" that they claim the WR hyperinflation would have been in NS Germany. In reality NS Germany ended the economical depression that held us under its grip since 1923 though.

Ha ha ha.


Ah, yeah, the evil "welfare nanny state" ruined the paradise of rampant free market capitalism *snif* :|

Well, these "lower class" people in older times did all this work like street cleaner, harvesters, unskilled work in assembly lines and what not all. But because they are natives (of their respective country), they still are too expensive to hire, and because they are uneducated (and will also distance their children further from the educated classes, because they cannot effort education for them either), they also have no means to take themselves out of this. And indeed also no incentive, because what they could earn on the free market, uneducated and unskilled as they are, would be less than welfare. Both, this low-income and welfare, are not enough to "live" though, so they would only jump from the pan into the fire. Where should the incentive come from?

How about you figure it out. I skimmed this paragraph because I knew it would be boring and useless.


And if there wouldnt be cheap housing, these people would all live on the streets. So rather be glad that there is still cheap housing, otherwise you could enjoy the joys of "free market capitalism" tomorrow, when suddenly ~30 percent would end up on the streets. Welcome chaos.

People already do live on the streets.


No, of course these criminals dont say that. But it is the result of their "market form".

The theories split up the individual into "consumer", "producent", "loan taker", "supplyer" whatever and treat the parts of the individual as if they actually were seperated, which they are not. The individual can be and also is all at the same time, while the market denies this, and with this dissolves the individual and in consequence, the fabric of society as a whole.

This is hilarious. You don't know anything about their theories, and as I explained above none of what you profess is true. Maybe you should get back to me when you read Hayek or Hoppe.


One of the most important factors why "free market capitalism" is incompatible with nationalism btw, because the market does not care either for the economy as an interconnected whole nor the individual with its different roles, and needs that it has at all times, regardless of which role it fulfills at a given moment.

The market is an interconnection of individuals. Society is only individuals, there's no single entity as "society" as some giant atomized substance. In reference to society, you reference individuals, the individuals make up the market.


Look, you have no rights in "free market capitalism", because the only thing that rules supreme there is money and profit interests. When you feel the government makes it worse, this is just the result of free market capitalism that dissolves society. The measures that take away your rights are measures to keep free market capitalism up and running.

You have no rights regardless.


When you dont like that, maybe think about your support of free market capitalism, because your rights really have no prize attached and also dont generate profit. When you think that profit is the be-all and end-all, then dont whine about the loss of your rights.

Rights do not generate profit.

Yeah, rights don't exist. Especially when the State is deciding what your rights are, rights don't exist. Don't talk to me about rights, I don't believe anyone has a right to anything except a right from aggression on persons and property, and that's the only right.


You constantly go over competition, and now suddenly there is "cooperation"? You do realise that one exclude the other, yes?

Two people working is cooperation. 528 people working in a company is cooperation. Those 528 will compete with company X that has 357, company Y that has 735, and company Z that has 439. All those people in those companies are cooperating and competing with other companies. On the market individuals compete and work together. People compete for a job at an interview, movie theaters compete by lowering prices or providing better service, or different food companies compete with each other, and the stores their products are sold in compete with each other, and I'm sure the raw materials they got had companies that competed with each other, and so on, and all those companies had individuals cooperating.


ROFL, now this is great. First you say "no nanny state", and then you expect "someone else" (of course not you) to take care of people who fell through somehow.

How does charity generate profit (other than to cherish the egomanic selfishness to see one's own face on the yellow press title pages that is)?

You've never donated to a charity before? People on this forum donated to Skadi, it didn't generate profit, did it? They did it, though, on their own will.


And the more interesting question is, wouldnt it make much more sense to maintain an infrastructure / system / society that doesnt bring people to the point where they fall through in the first place? Where their jobs are not oursourced or given to cheap labor immigrants from who knows where in the world?

Yeah, I'll remove the government from the equation.


No, everyone waits til they are so far down that the oh so "noble" :puke charity giver appears like a hero, while it is exactly the system he uses to acquire all that money that he is then able to give to charity that brings people to the point where they fall through.

Sorry, I find this disgusting. Utterly disgusting.

Are you saying charity is disgusting?


I never claimed them to not exist. :shrug

If they exist why would we need the government to do the same job?


Oh, I agree, under the current market rules it is certainly worst ever, because its not education but agenda indoctrination.

Public education isn't on the market.


But what you still fail to understand is that I dont want to give the current governments more power, but first to replace them with people who are governed by higher values, likewise to replace the current systematics with another system (see my post before, there would be a lot to add still) and then have a common goal of society, and an economy that is not left alone to govern itself but is governed also by this higher goal and values.

All systems are the same. This will never happen. I have no interest in replacing government A with government B. I'm interested in limiting government A as much as possible.


And it's not that I wouldnt enjoy individualism, my personal interests, my hobbies, my free time, whatever. But it really doesnt work when this goes against the interests of society as a whole, as the unity it is. I also dont think that one should leave the "profit interests of money" alone and expect that society remains intact. And why the Hel should the interests of money (a thing with no interests other than profit, and no consciousness for ethic or benefit) be allowed to govern the economy, and with that society?

So, you admit that your own individual interest would go against the interest of other individuals who have their own interest, but also curb them on the basis of other individuals? This is generally an altruistic argument that you must give up yourself for everyone else (sort of the sickening shit I hear from Christianity). You admit that you have selfish interest, your own individual interest, but these go against that of the collective whole? I hate to break it to you, but everyone has selfish individual interest, and everyone should act on them, and in reality a lot of people do, because it's what's right. Raise yourself to a higher plane and indulge yourself in your own selfish interest and ego.

Why should the interest of profit or money run the economy? Because if it's not profitable, it fails, and if it's not profitable, it must have not met consumer demands, therefore profit = consumer satisfaction (economics 101).

Zimobog
Tuesday, December 21st, 2010, 07:33 PM
Why should the interest of profit or money run the economy? Because if it's not profitable, it fails, and if it's not profitable, it must have not met consumer demands, therefore profit = consumer satisfaction (economics 101).

So a government that couldn't balance a budget or run a surplus, can't carry out it's promises to the citizens (zero satisfaction) and therefore is a failure. :)

The difference between a corporation and a government is when this happens to a corporation, they go bankrupt and go away (in pre-bail out years of course). When this happens to a government, they just show up an rob the citizens to make up for their failures. Sometimes these citizens live in other countries, like in the case of Iraq or Poland.

How can that be confused with success?

Vindefense
Tuesday, December 21st, 2010, 09:26 PM
Oh really? So now you support the financial bank monopoly that brought about the financial recession that were currently in that also controls governments within their influence of international free market capitalism?

Abundance of nature? How are you defining it?


Based on the reasoning that life only exists at the expense of life. Life consumed discharges it's debt to other life in various ways, in man it is through toil. The more toil a man has under his command the more the balance of wealth rises to his favor, you may call this capitalism or profiteering, whatever, it is the law of life.


We know that not everybody is allowed to collect upon this abundance, so who is allowed to it?

Everyone is, as long as they honor their debt to the lives they have fed upon. If they do not, then the abundance of life is replaced with scarcity.

Posted by Paradigm:
Two people working is cooperation. 528 people working in a company is cooperation. Those 528 will compete with company X that has 357, company Y that has 735, and company Z that has 439. All those people in those companies are cooperating and competing with other companies. On the market individuals compete and work together. People compete for a job at an interview, movie theaters compete by lowering prices or providing better service, or different food companies compete with each other, and the stores their products are sold in compete with each other, and I'm sure the raw materials they got had companies that competed with each other, and so on, and all those companies had individuals cooperating.


:thumbup "If necessity is the mother of invention, competition is it's father."

Ward
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 07:44 AM
The difference between a corporation and a government is when this happens to a corporation, they go bankrupt and go away (in pre-bail out years of course).

And why do you think the "bailout years" came into being? The U.S. government was founded on libertarian principles, right? So how did it get corrupted over the years to the point that tax payers are now bailing out giant corporations?

You see, much like orthodox Marxism, libertarianism fails to take into account very real human characteristics and tendencies that do not fit within the framework of its ideological fantasies, and so it is inherently flawed and doomed to fail. What we are witnessing now is in fact the logical outcome of applied libertarian thought (with a neo-Marxist cherry on top). Our politicians have become mere functionaries for their private/corporate benefactors, and this happened precisely because our system has allowed for too much individual power and "liberty."

Take for example America's stance on the Israel/Palestine question. If we cut through all the bullshit rhetoric, our insane support for the state of Israel can be traced to a filthy rich Jewish community that uses its wealth to actively pursue its own private/individual interests. If there were more wealthy Palestinians than Jews in this country, then our politicians would almost certainly be pro-Palestine. In any case, the interests of ordinary Americans don't really enter the equation in a system where money is everything.

So we're bailing out giant corporations for the same reason that we're spending immense blood and treasure to make the world safe for Israel. The establishment of Federal Reserve is yet another, shall we say, "unintended" natural development of libertarianism, which of course has no safeguards against the rise of monopolies. It's obvious that libertarianism can neither prevent nor fix our insane state of affairs because to do so would require measures that would in fact be un-libertarian!

Paradigm
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 07:58 AM
There are varying schools of thought in libertarianism (from minarchism to anarchism), but one thing is certain, they are both to limit the state (and completely away if possible), so how is a large, or larger, government libertarian? Libertarians take into the account the real nature of people, that's why libertarians are so against them ruling others. You seem to think the outcome of a large government is due to libertarianism when it's not. The large government was voted in time after time by people who believe the politicians and believe that the government is there to help them. The people who voted for these politicians don't carry the same libertarian mindset. They clinge to government in various ways. The libertarians still stand against them. The government itself has made itself larger and larger, and yet you'll blame individual freedom on the fact the government is making itself larger? How can you blame individualism and liberty for a large government? What's your alternative? To make the Nation-State Absolute, and that you'll have their word it won't do the same as every other government?

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

Horagalles
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 08:23 AM
There are varying schools of thought in libertarianism (from minarchism to anarchism), but one thing is certain, they are both to limit the state (and completely away if possible), so how is a large, or larger, government libertarian? Libertarians take into the account the real nature of people, that's why libertarians are so against them ruling others. You seem to think the outcome of a large government is due to libertarianism when it's not. The large government was voted in time after time by people who believe the politicians and believe that the government is there to help them. ....
A while ago we had someone here that called himself a libertarian, probably because he favored the legalization of weed or drugs, but was also in favor of general (hence state-enforced) health insurance for everyone.

Can't point you to posts here, but may be someone else remembers.

Ward
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 08:54 AM
There are varying schools of thought in libertarianism (from minarchism to anarchism), but one thing is certain, they are both to limit the state (and completely away if possible), so how is a large, or larger, government libertarian?

As I said previously regarding government bailouts of banks and corporations, the executives of said enterprises have enormous concentrations of private wealth, which translates into enormous political influence, which is of course used to advance their own private interests.


Libertarians take into the account the real nature of people, that's why libertarians are so against them ruling others.

No they don't. They don't factor in cronyism, private tyranny, or monopolization. They don't factor in the importance of culture and community for meaningful existence. They don't factor in the reality that many individuals, if given the opportunity, would (figuratively if not literally) rape other people and leave them for dead if they thought they thought they could make a buck from it (as we saw with Enron and Halliburton).


The government itself has made itself larger and larger, and yet you'll blame individual freedom on the fact the government is making itself larger? How can you blame individualism and liberty for a large government?

I explained this in my previous post.

RoyBatty
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 10:06 AM
The interest of the people will be on the market as individuals meeting their own needs and wants through trade. The interest do not need to be subjected to some overlord when they can be met instantly on the market with other individuals. It does not remain unchecked, individuals check other individuals through the process of buying/selling, refraining, and moving on to others.


Wrong. There is no such thing as a completely free and unregulated market except in the pages of market theory books.

In the real world markets are either under local political authority or alternatively under local oligarch / mafia / super-capitalist authority. Within this framework individuals can make their choices but the choices are obviously not subject to "market forces only". Prices, availability of supplies etc are influenced by external factors such as who exercises ultimate control over that market.



There's nothing more peaceful than capital production.


Like weapons for offensive warfare?



You look past what's right in front of you. The only way anyone can generate profit is if they meet consumer demands. If they don't please consumers, they lose profit. There's no way they can profit off products that are counter to the interest of consumers. Can you name one business that makes profit, but everyone of it's customers is dissatisfied and frustrated of every single one of their products? No, it's impossible.


It's not impossible at all. Once you control the markets and you have driven out the competition through intimidation, "laws of economic competition" or obtained a concession to provide certain services you effectively establish a monopoly over market supply. Once you establish this monopoly position it becomes either very difficult or impossible for competitors to emerge on the scene.

For example, once a concession operator gains control over a railway line to operate their services the consumer is forced to pay whatever tariffs the concession operator chooses to set. "Competition" cannot be introduced because it's not feasible or possible to build new railway lines through existing established regions. Since there is now a monopoly operator providing this service, consumer satisfaction has absolutely nothing to do with it. The consumer's choices are now to "accept" and "be happy" with the prices from the consession operator or to move to alternative means of transport such as buses or cars, neither of which may be practical or workable solutions.



The profit motive is to best serve customers, with competition they have choices, and move to what they believe is the next best, this keeps businesses constantly trying to outdo one another to keep their profits. If they lose profits, their business begins to fail due to competition who are serving the customers better. Those who gain profits can reinvest it into their company. This is happening right now.


In a truly competitive and free market yes, this theory makes sense. In reality those conditions often do not exist.



Why should the interest of profit or money run the economy? Because if it's not profitable, it fails, and if it's not profitable, it must have not met consumer demands, therefore profit = consumer satisfaction (economics 101).

Profit is NOT necessarily equal to consumer satisfaction.
This line of thought is a fallacy.

Profit = the positive difference between the acquisition and disposal price or "value" during the exchange of a product or service.

In a theoretical "we are all free and equal" market scenario that means that the most efficient and consumer pleasing operators will become the most successful, as you seem to indicate.

In the real world this theory does not work.

Either the local authority (which supposedly administers the system in a relatively fair way on behalf of the local community) or the local oligarch (super capitalist and monopolist who administers the system to maximise his own profits at the expense of everybody else) will ultimately have control.

It's logical that oligarch / super-capitalist / privatised monopoly control is undesireable from the point of view of the general public because it WILL stifle choice, competition and will eventually lead to either higher market prices, lower prices paid to producers and workers (starvation wages) or both.

In the short term view globalisation is "great" because it leads to lower prices (through manufactured goods produced in third world countries), meaning higher profits for the importers (because they sell the goods at the same price or slightly less than domestic production would have cost) but ultimately all this comes at the expense of putting the local economy at risk, putting local workers and producers out of jobs, leads to dependency on foreign trade (meaning loss of independence) etc. All this to make a few crooks rich.

It's a price not worth paying to anybody concerned about their liberty, future, communities and country.

It's a system favoured by Internationalists and Profiteers who think only in terms of short term gains, in terms of selfish gains at the expense of the others (because chasing wealth is supposedly a noble cause) and who care nothing about their heritage, culture, traditions and values.

Worshipping at the feet of Mammon at all costs is the name of the game.

RoyBatty
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 02:15 PM
10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.


Capitalism / Communism..... flipsides of the same coin.

1. Land ownership.... you don't really "own land" under capitalism. Especially not when the Capitalism loving Government and Big Business comes along to take it from you in exchange for "market rates" which they decide because they want it and they can. And what happens to that "land ownership" when you stop paying your "land taxes"?

3. Abolition of rights of inheritance. Under the wonderful capitalist model, they simply tax you to death after your death. For the capitalists it's not efficient and sufficient enough that you died once. They want to be sure so they dig you up and shoot you again and again.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Under Capitalism, all they have to do is enslave you via debt to the creditmasters. They take out debt in your name that you had no say in. The end effect is that your wealth and the National Wealth is transferred into the pockets of the few. Gods Chosen Anarcho Capitalists in other words.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

"The Fed" exists for this purpose. Perhaps you're now going to try and tell us that this privately owned capitalist Bank is "Socialist" and "Communist"?? :P

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Centralised control over and STATE ownership of ports, airports, railways and the road network as well as basic Telco infrastructure is desireable. Within this framework capitalist competition and competing providers can be introduced provided that no monopolies are formed.





You speak of a "hidden hand", but what about the "invisible hand" that was discussed by Adam Smith? Markets are self regulating. This is undeniable fact.

Show me this self-regulated market. Where does it exist?

velvet
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 02:20 PM
Yeah, I'm filled with consumerism and profit interest, I'm also filled with gumdrops and candy canes.

Yeah, I noticed


Yeah, I'm freaking out because some Leviathan State might take people's choices and freedom away to do what they wish with their property and themselves. Sounds reasonable.

What Leviathan state? You have individuals (oligarchs) who do what they wish for their own interests that govern you. It's exactly what you want. :shrug


I never said anything against rules or governing. It's who's making the rule's and who's governing.

Right now it's oligarchs that make the rules and who govern.



Well, to be honest, my heritage involves a revolution against a British monarch in the name of individual liberty that happened to be fueled on economic restrictions by the British. The colonies revolted against their Mother nation, so to speak. You're heritage, NS or whatever, is different from mine. Acknowledge that.

Actually I would care a lot less about your heritage if and when it hadnt imposed itself upon mine.

And this was not at all peaceful, btw.


Actually, a monopoly is a business given special privileges by the State, so if the State is not in the equation, there can't be a monopoly. Now the term is thrown around loosely at any business someone thinks is too successful and good at serving customers, so they want to limit their business.

So, you deny that a "sucessful" business could acquire so much market power (by eliminating concurrence) that it can become a de facto monopoly, although it was not granted special privileges?


Damn, you have to pull out some bad economic rhetoric. The individual is both a consumer and producer, the individual is not split, this is natural as would be a hunter/gatherer who also trades for other goods, there's nothing new in producing and consuming. I can't think of life existing without it otherwise.

Producing and consuming has not that much to do with capitalism. Capitalism is a parasite in this natural process.



Also, "society" doesn't exist as a single entity, there is only individuals. Individuals are not split from other individuals, they are interdependent on one another through the market.

First you say there are only individuals, then suddenly, although there are only individuals, they are interdependent, but not through society, the community they form, but through "the market"?

The "market" is a result from society, and society, the body of people as a whole, is an own entity, it is the "body of common interests and values". The basic error with your ideology is exactly that it denies society, when there is nothing more natural in the world than society. We are not eremites, even if some people (and nowadays understandably) would like that.

Society, the individual, the market, the culture, its is all one and the same. It's retarded to split this up.



No one lives in isolation. Nor can the market do as it pleases for profit, because for profit to generate it must serve the needs of individuals, the so called society. It can't go against society and be irresponsible if society is the one deciding to do business with said individuals.

In your model "society" as the deciding entity doesnt exist, but suddenly it makes decisions again? Despite that the individual is the be-all and end-all of everything?

You're talking quite some bullshit....



The interest of the people will be on the market as individuals meeting their own needs and wants through trade.

Maybe you dont really understand the difference between mobile goods, where this model might work, and these components that are dependent on an infrastructure, like telecommunication for example, which cannot be ordered online and then delivered to the individual because it wants them by postal service. Mainly because both is not available to the individual without the infrastructure.

And then "needs" get boxed into the limitation of availability, defined and set by profit oriented individuals who want something else than meeting the other individual's demands.


The interest do not need to be subjected to some overlord when they can be met instantly on the market with other individuals. It does not remain unchecked, individuals check other individuals through the process of buying/selling, refraining, and moving on to others.

Ah, that's why VHS won against Super8 (the better system), that's why Windows has a quasi monopol, that's why petroleum giants dont allow alternative energies and so on. Because the individual consumer does not even appear in that parts of the market where they could possibly exercise their "consumer pressure".


There's nothing more peaceful than capital production.

That "peaceful" production you mean that destroys smaller businesses in rows? That "peaceful" production from aggressive warfare (sorry Roy for stealing your comment) business to "convince" other states to play by their rules of "free market capitalism" although they dont want?


Oh, now I believe the sick and weakly must die? I must have forgot I never said anything along those lines.

You said who's not fit for rampant competition and egomanic selfishness (not in that words) deserves to fall. The sick and weak, the children, mothers, the old are indeed not fit for rampant competiton.

And the women who are will not get mothers. Because a mother needs other things than competition.


Sounds like Germany has a problem. Maybe you need another charismatic Austrian leader.

The 3d Reich was the last chance for a white future.

The Allies, and specially America, defeated their own future. Clever move, eh?



Apparently, it is, right now as we speak. Go to a grocery store or a mall and see all the individuals getting what they want and need through the market.

People have more needs than what they can buy in a grocery store.

Go and buy yourself some more candies...



You look past what's right in front of you. The only way anyone can generate profit is if they meet consumer demands. If they don't please consumers, they lose profit. There's no way they can profit off products that are counter to the interest of consumers.

Ah, that's why we get toxic shirts from India, Chinese plastic cheaps that fulfill absolutely no purpose (not even that what it says it would), that's why our markets are flooded with gene-manipulated products that noone wants (they are not marked anymore as genemanipulated because the consumer then could decide that he does not want to buy them), that's why we have outsourced jobs and all that, right? Because it was the demand and interest of the consumer.

No, it was the profit interests of individuals who have acquired so much power (=money) that they 'define' what the consumer 'needs'.



...this keeps businesses constantly trying to outdo one another to keep their profits.

You do realise that this eliminates (literally) competition, yes? This "outdoing" is more often than not a contested takeover to ensure profits that would otherwise go to the competitor.


Yeah, I have no higher goals. I'm only an atomized individual who acts as a robot. My life is empty and my soul is nonexistent. My brain functions just like a computer, I can only do what I'm programmed to do. I run on oil and I have no heart.

Yeah, I noticed....


How would you know if what you are doing is cost efficient if you have nothing to compare it to?

You have costs and a sales price, and when something is left over after substracting the costs, its cost efficient. :shrug


How would you know if there are no other choices to meet your demands? How would you know what is more cost efficient if there is no competition or price structure?

Okay, again. Society, "civilisation" (of which the individual is first member and then an individual) has requirements and needs as well. Infrastructural components in common technology, mobility of its members and goods and so on, I explained that already. It is this infrastructure that meets the needs of the indivual as a member of this society.



Maybe you should ask them yourselves. Maybe you should ask Bill Gates

That Bill Gates who funds fonds that disciminate white youths and instead enable non-whites in your country to acquire education and skills that will ensure their furthering while white youths are blocked and therefore cannot acquire this education and skills to obtain a similar position? That is what Bill Gates is doing with his money.


and Steve Jobs why they have billions of dollars and why they don't invest their own personal money into their own creations?

Their "own" creation? No, a stolen creation on which they got rich, and also acquired a quasi-monopol.


Oh, wait, THEY DO.

And they also use their money to "buy up" (take over) smaller competitors and crush their business before they even get to the point where they could offer the consumer their product to have them decide what they like more.


That's why they are billionaires

They are first and foremost billionairs because they eliminated concurrence before they could "interfer" with their profit.


they served the customer immensely beyond belief!

With a stolen creation and all but "free" market rules. Or how do you explain that a computer with pre-installed Windows is cheaper than one without? Note that Windows does not build hardware.

It's an investment in a monopole market position.


When in reality a majority of the people who are billionaires DO invest it and accumulated that much money because they best served the customers demands.

Maybe you then can look up the members of the Bilderberg group and explain with what exactly they earned their billions.



This is vital, don't ignore it. You have so much against capitalism, so are you the one to direct/plan the economy and know every single detail of ever product and productions price and it's relation to other areas of industry at every given second of the day to know what's the most profitable and cost efficient process in EVERY area of production under a nationalized economy? Are you or anyone else omnipotent to know the value? Wait, that's wrong, value is subjective, so you would never know regardless because you're just one individual, what your preferences are will not match up with other individuals.

Learn to read, I just said in the part this nonsensical rant is the reply to that I dont want that and also that it is impossible. Maybe take out the candy of your head :shrug


You can only benefit individuals by meeting their demands on the market.

Individuals have needs and requirements that are not on the market.

Although I could be wrong, meanwhile you can order your future Russian or Asian wife from cataloques....



Profit interest can be a lot of things. I'm profiting from reading books, and I can profit in other ways mentally or spiritually. This is all subjective to the individual. You're not me, you don't have the same profit interest as me.

You "benefit" from reading books, because it widens (or in your case rather limits) your horizon.

All you said there is "benefitting", not "profitting".


Yeah, as if a central bank isn't setting interest rates? Isn't that what you wanted, a centrally planned bank? Oh, wait, you want a nationalized bank with no competition, right? Or a quasi-private nationalized bank? Again, your FED examples have been irrelevant for the past 5 pages at least.

I've pointed out to you that the Fed is no national bank, but a private bank. You deny this. I've shown to you who (other banks) owns the Fed. You deny this. You close your eyes from reality in favour of your fluffy "anarcho capitalist utopia", it's totally pointless indeed to discuss this with you as long as you deny all facts presented to you.



I referred to both, and I had sources to Nazi Germany, and they had high inflation.

And as Jäger pointed out, despite that the living standard rised significantly :shrug

Maybe "inflation" can also be the expression of growing living standards and would not be negative at all?

Maybe its only negative when you compare it with other currencies all the time on the base of some statistical numbers (dont believe a stat that you havent forged yourself). A national (ideologically governed) economy though doesnt care about that.


People already do live on the streets.

Yeah, but only a tiny percentage of those who "exist" below the poverty line.

Often btw, despite having jobs.


This is hilarious. You don't know anything about their theories, and as I explained above none of what you profess is true. Maybe you should get back to me when you read Hayek or Hoppe.

I see the effects of their bullshit. Effects you deny. Maybe you should for once have a look into the real world?



The market is an interconnection of individuals. Society is only individuals

Then there is no more "society" :shrug


there's no single entity as "society" as some giant atomized substance. In reference to society, you reference individuals, the individuals make up the market.

But "life" consists of more than just the market :shrug


Yeah, rights don't exist. Especially when the State is deciding what your rights are, rights don't exist. Don't talk to me about rights, I don't believe anyone has a right to anything except a right from aggression on persons and property, and that's the only right.

Yeah, I noticed that you hate society and instead prefer to play jungle rule.



You've never donated to a charity before?

No, and I never will either apart from my local animals asylum where I know what my donation is used for.


People on this forum donated to Skadi, it didn't generate profit, did it? They did it, though, on their own will.

They did because they do not have profit interests, but consider Skadi a good thing, because Skadi benefits them.



Are you saying charity is disgusting?

Yes. Because it steps in in things that went wrong due to a lack of overall governing ideology, and then there are "charity events" to celebrate some egomans who make themselves feel better, although the "charity" will not change anything on the systematic errors that make people need "charity" in the first place.



If they exist why would we need the government to do the same job?

See above.


Public education isn't on the market.

It is. That is why so many universities rot and dont have enough teachers and professors, that is why schools have skyrocketing pupil numbers but only half as much teachers than they had 20 years ago, that's why information materials (also in schools) have to be bought privately and so on. I went to school when this changed, and because my mother was poor, I had a hard time to get the books I needed. It's all put under the pressure of "cost efficiency", and therefore gets worse and worse.

But of course, education is an investment into the (rather distant) future, it does not "pay back" immediately on the bilance sheets that counts the investments and profits of this year only. And a school or university will never directly profit from the education either, not in one year nor in 20 years, they will not harvest the fruits of their "investment". Therefore its nonsense to put education onto the market, it is a common value of society, it doesnt belong into competition.


All systems are the same. This will never happen. I have no interest in replacing government A with government B. I'm interested in limiting government A as much as possible.

Well, I'm of a different opinion.


So, you admit that your own individual interest would go against the interest of other individuals who have their own interest, but also curb them on the basis of other individuals?

When everyone follows only his egoistic wants and desires, everyone acts against everyone, yes.


This is generally an altruistic argument that you must give up yourself for everyone else (sort of the sickening shit I hear from Christianity).

I didnt say that you "have to give up yourself". I just want to make sure that all people that are members of society play by the same rules. And indeed I want to make sure that noone with his egoism limits others more than is natural through the existence of both in the same space. And I want that when someone does not play by the rules that he gets punished accordingly.

When you cheat someone, you will have to pay the damage done. When someone pays a company to build a house, I want that this house is usable, and when it is not, that the company that messed up the house is the one who pays the damage. I want to enforce responsibility.

Right now reality is that people take a loan for a house, and when the Polish cheap labor scum messed up the house, people pay the loan nonetheless (or alternatively lose money they possessed) and still have no house to live in, because the company says we cant pay the damage otherwise we go bankrupt. And in many cases the building company simply ceases to exist and then there's noone left who could be sued to take responsibility for the damage they created.

The joys of contract regulated markets....


You admit that you have selfish interest, your own individual interest, but these go against that of the collective whole? I hate to break it to you, but everyone has selfish individual interest, and everyone should act on them, and in reality a lot of people do, because it's what's right. Raise yourself to a higher plane and indulge yourself in your own selfish interest and ego.

To do that I would have to step over others, cheat and trick them, or maybe even kill them when they stand in my way. Something that indeed too many people do for their selfish egomanic interests.

I could certainly, but then I would be just the same scum like them. Scum I despise deeply. Why would I want to become like them?


Why should the interest of profit or money run the economy? Because if it's not profitable, it fails, and if it's not profitable, it must have not met consumer demands, therefore profit = consumer satisfaction (economics 101).

What about culture, social structures, common values and so on? They are not market elements, they do not generate profit, but they meet a lot of needs and requirements (in contrast to wants and desires) of humans, while the market more often than not acts against these, and because the market has the power of money attached, the market decides that culture is an economic failure - and consequently, does away with it.

I just dont think that this has to be contradiction. The economy would still exist and "meet consumer interests" when it were boxed into the ideological and cultural value system and would be governed by this culture and values, and not by egomanic profit interests only.

You on the other hand consider your rampant egoism so important that you accept total control by oligarchs instead of a governing ideology that would also protect your individual rights, and not just say you have them and leave you with an illusion thereof.

RoyBatty
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 02:26 PM
The argument can be drawn out infinitely so let's take a look at the original title which is:

Free Market Capitalism Incompatible with Nationalism

It is clear and obvious to anybody with a vague comprehension of what it entails to be a Nationalist person with Nationalist aspirations and goals that Free Market Capitalism IS INDEED INCOMPATIBLE WITH NATIONALISM.

Capitalism doesn't care about culture, community, heritage, National values, compassion, care, traditions, country, land, environment, race or language. Those are traits which Nationalists concern themselves with.

Capitalism is concerned with the generation of profit only. It does not care how that profit is generated or achieved and who or what is decimated along the way of that profit generation while the "more competitive" types outcompete the less competitive ones who didn't deserve to live or survive. It is a relentless $$$$teamroller flattening everything before it in its path.

There really isn't anything else to this argument.

Caledonian
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 03:26 PM
NaturalNews) I'm a big free market proponent. I love the "freedom" in it... the individual decisions of hundreds of millions of people coalescing into an "invisible hand" of efficiency improvements, quality of life enhancements and unlimited abundance. That's the Alice-in-Wonderland version of the free market economy, anyway. In reality, the free market is broken. It doesn't work (at least not as we once hoped it would), and it can't last. In fact, unless some important changes are made to the way in which it works, the free market will lead us to the destruction of human civilization.

How, you ask? Let's answer that question by looking at free market theory, which says that individual consumers will intelligently evaluate their production and consumption options, then make an intelligent decision to produce those things that provide the greatest profits (by indirectly providing the greatest benefits to others) while purchasing / consuming those things that provide the greatest benefits to themselves. In theory, it sounds downright elegant, but in practice, there's a huge problem with all this: Consumers are not rational!


Why consumers cannot (and will not) make rational decisions
Examine the interaction between Big Pharma and consumers, for example: Drug companies use campaigns of disinformation, deception, exaggeration and scientific fraud to convince consumers they suffer from various "diseases" requiring chemical intervention. Believing this mythology, consumers then trade their hard-earned money for these chemicals that actually harm them! Spending on pharmaceuticals and "sick care" services accounts for over twenty percent of the U.S. economy. So how is this consumer behavior accounted for in the free market?

It isn't. There's no modeling for massive corporate deception in free market theory. Free market theorists merely assume that consumers are rational, that companies are honest and that people have a reasonable capacity to intelligently evaluate the products and services they choose to purchase. All those assumptions, however, quickly fall apart in the real world. Consumers are irrational, companies are dishonest and the people have virtually no evaluative skills necessary for making informed purchasing decisions.

The consumption of pharmaceuticals makes all this as plain as day, and yet pharmaceuticals are just the beginning of this story.


Buy more crap you don't need!
Consumers in America have also been convinced to purchase useless (but highly profitable) home cleaning products like Swiffer devices, which are branded, disposable home cleaning products that have no real purpose for existing other than being sold to people. A regular old sponge mop does everything that Swiffer does, without the repeated expenditures on disposable sheets, without all the brand-name advertising and without all the wasted packaging and shelf space in retail stores.

And yet consumers keep buying Swiffer products (and throwing them away). Why? Because consumers are irrational, of course, and Swiffer advertisements are quite good at compelling people to make purchasing decisions that are not in their own long-term interests.

The list goes on: Paper clips that slip off papers and are easily lost, light bulbs that burn out and need replacement, showers soaps that dissolve away at the merest touch of water... these are all examples of products that succeed in the free marketplace even though they are inferior, wasteful products.

After observing enough of these examples, the pattern becomes quite clear:

The free market encourages the production, consumption and disposal of inferior, wasteful products.


Why the free market encourages waste
Light bulbs that last ten years can easily be manufactured today. They aren't sold in stores because free market economics rewards greater profits to products that break quickly and need regular replacement. Shelf space, after all, is more valuable when the inventory doesn't sit around for very long.

U.S. auto companies figured this out decades ago. They even had a name for it: "Planned obsolescence," which simply means they designed their cars to fail right from the drawing board! Broken cars meant more repeat sales, so inferior engineering resulted in free market profits! (It's almost hilarious, isn't it, that in the face of real competition from Japanese and European auto makers, the U.S. auto industry now finds itself virtually obsolete? If they had actually tried to make quality cars that lasted instead of disposable cars that broke down, maybe they would have a future...)

The free market offers no processes by which superior, long-lasting products can be economically successful. Unless, of course, consumers recognize those qualities. But consumers don't. That's because human beings are, for the most part, short-term thinkers. They'll buy a one-year light bulb today for a dollar rather than spend three dollars on a ten-year light bulb. Part of the problem, of course, is that people can't do math anymore, so they can't calculate the total cost of ownership for anything they buy. All they recognize is the up-front price, and that's it.

HP, of course, turned this into a free market windfall by selling $49 inkjet printers that run on $30 ink cartridges. The printers themselves might as well be given away -- it's the repeated purchasing of ink that really drives the HP economy!


Lacking accurate information, consumers just guess
The free market doesn't even work at the grocery store. A consumer faced with a decision between two bins of apples, for example, has no way to consider the "total cost of ownership" of those apples once the carbon footprint, sociological impact and environmental impacts of the apples are taken into consideration.

One bin of apples might contain organic Fuji apples flown in from Japan while a second bin might offer conventionally-grown (pesticide-sprayed) apples grown in Mexico, but harvested with child labor. The point of purchase at the grocery store is not a place where consumers can make informed, rational decisions about what they're buying.

Now, I hear the more astute among you reaching the same inevitable conclusion: The free market can work if -- and only if -- purchasers combine reasoned thinking with perfect access to the complete information about what they're purchasing.

Thus, in an ideal free market fantasy land, if intelligent, reasoned consumers actually had access to the complete history (and future) of the items they were purchasing -- and if they were able to take into account the details of how products were grown, harvested, manufactured, packaged, transported, used, disposed and discarded -- then we might actually see the free market function in a successful way.

But it's obvious that virtually none of this information is available to purchasers today. Virtually all consumers have little more information than the price and the brand name of whatever they're purchasing, and that "price" in no way represent the actual cost of production, ownership or eventual disposal of the products being purchased and consumed.

Thus, the free market does not work in a complex society where product origins are also complex.


Free markets work better in local economies
On the other hand, the free market can, indeed, work better in a local economy where products are made or grown locally, usually by simple people whose reputations are also known locally. In other words, if you lived in a town of 1,000 people in the 1920's, most of your food and products were derived from local sources, and probably from people you knew. You bought bread from Bob the bread maker, horse shoes from Burt the blacksmith, got your clothes mended from the local tailor, etc.

But as societies became highly specialized, complex and intertwined, the ability of consumers to track the origins of the products they purchase was quickly lost. Today, even a product as simple as a ball-point pen may involve manufacturing expertise from a dozen different corporations spanning the globe. And I'm willing to be there's hardly a single person in the city where you live now who can make a ballpoint pen on their own, using nothing but local materials. Thus, the ability to make even simple instruments has been lost in our complex society, and at the same time, the theoretical advantages of the free market have been utterly lost to a system of such complexity that no consumer has the ability to make accurate, informed decisions about the true costs of the things they're buying.

In other words, to say it again, the free market does not work in a complex society where product origins are also complex.


The free market is running blind
Neither can the free market look ahead beyond one fiscal quarter. The entire system of free market economics greatly discounts the future while placing high value on the present. In other words, it emphasizes profits NOW at the risk of disaster in the future.
This is evidenced in the runaway mining of precious metals that are now close to running out (like many rare metals used in electronics). It's evidenced in the rampant overfishing of the world's oceans; in the pharmaceutical pollution of waterways; and in the construction of energy-inefficient homes that burn fossil fuels just to stay warm or cool. As a rule, corporations are by design incapable of seeing beyond the next fiscal quarter. They are blind to the future of human civilization, and they consistently act in ways that compromise that future.
In other words, if we let the free market and corporations continue to run things in our world, we will soon have no world left to live in. As long as there is one more tree to cut, one more fishing zone to exploit, one more consumer to medicate and one more barrel of oil to turn into plastic whatnots, corporations will grind away every last remaining resource in their quest for profits. Failing to do so, in fact, would result in a corporation being out-competed by another one willing to push the boundaries of exploitation one step further.

Sure, free market economics have brought us cheap automobiles, low-cost food, affordable clothing and big-screen television sets. But what has the free market provided that really matters? Nothing! It has not provided happiness, nor security, nor closeness with nature. It hasn't brought families together, nor enhanced anyone's wisdom of life, nor taught our children any real truths. The free market looks good on the accounting books, but in the real world, it has done far too little to benefit humankind in the ways that really matter. And alarmingly, it has now placed us in a global consumption and pollution cycle from which the future of human civilization may never escape.

So what's the answer, then, to our free market mess?


Solutions that enhance the free market
Centralized economic planning is a disaster. Forget about that.

No, a much better solution is to reveal the true costs of production, ownership and disposal at the point of purchase so that consumers are forced to assess the true costs of choosing a product.

On a more practical note, what I'm suggesting here is quite simple:

1) The true costs to nature from the production, manufacturing, transportation and packaging of products be displayed on the package and added into the product's retail price.

2) The true costs of disposing of the product (recycling, etc.) also be displayed on the package and added into the retail price.

For example, let's say you're about to buy an iPod. Today, a typical iPod price might look like this:

iPod: $249

And that's it. You don't know where it came from, how it was made, what the ecological impact was and what the environmental cost might be for the eventual disposal of the device. But with my suggestions here, the new iPod price might look like this:

iPod: $249
Manufacturing and delivery impact on nature: $25
Disposal cost: $25
-----------------------
Total price: $299

These are just example numbers, of course, but you get the idea: Under such a system, consumers become aware of the additional costs of manufacturing and disposal of products -- and they have to pay those costs!

So an iPod might actually cost $299 instead of $249. Where does the extra $50 go? The first $25 goes to protect nature. The second $25 goes to recycling centers, metal reclamation centers, and other intelligent disposal programs.

The retail price tag is the only place where consumers can be reached with the true costs of ownership of products, and when these numbers are calculated in, nobody will be buying disposable Swiffer products anymore because the disposal and manufacturing costs might triple or quadruple the product price tag. A simple sponge mop suddenly makes a lot more economic sense, which is of course the whole point of this exercise: Give consumers MORE information while preserving the free choice of the free market.

This all comes down to point-of-purchase taxes on products: A "Nature tax" and a "disposal tax." While people may balk at the idea of paying additional taxes (I don't like the sound of it either), the truth is that until the true total cost of ownership of products is reflected in their retail prices, consumers will never make the "right" decisions about what to buy and what to throw away.

The impact of consumption on our planet must become part of the purchase equation.


The economics of Mother Nature
Some of these ideas are being explored in European countries, I've heard, where some computers are sold with "disposal taxes" that are essentially pre-payment for the future disposal processing of the computer. That's a great step in the right direction.

Another way to tackle this issue without added the complexity of additional retail taxes is to tax manufacturers or raw material providers instead. This is simpler than tracking additional retail taxes, and it still results in such costs being reflected at the point of purchase anyway.

The simplest solution of all, of course, would be to grant Mother Nature legal standing as its own economic entity, and require every user of nature to pay user fees for the extraction of minerals, carbon emissions, rainfall, water from rivers, etc. If Mother Nature charged for all the services she provides to the world, everything you buy would suddenly seem extremely expensive, and people would make far wiser decisions about what to buy and what to throw away.

The real problem in the free market, then, is that Mother Nature's products and services aren't priced into the equation (or, technically, they're priced in at zero). Thus, the pollution of the planet costs nothing, and this tends to encourage the behavior.

That's why I say that the free market, as configured today, will only lead us to planetary disaster. It is an incomplete economic system that encourages exploitation, consumption and pollution. It even enriches those who teach others to consume the most!


Replace the free market with something more evolved
If we truly wish to live sustainable lives on our planet, we must abandon the free market system we know today and replace it with something that rewards thriftiness and conservation.

Conservation, of course, is the opposite of consumption. And it is consumption that's destroying our planet and that's promoted by free market greed. Conservation is what we need for sustainable living, but conservation never made money for anyone. (Who ever got rich telling people to buy LESS?)

The free market experiment has been a fun one, no doubt. Disposable film cameras and diet coke bottles will never be forgotten (mostly because they will never decompose). Yet it's time we awakened to the realization that commercially-invoked mass consumption is flatly incompatible with sustainable life on our planet.

The whole system of manufacturing, advertising, branding, consuming, throwing away and buying it again just doesn't work!

Sure, corporations and shareholders can seem like they're getting rich in the short term, but in the long term we all lose. We lose our wealth, our planet and our future. And that's no bargain, even in exchange for obscene monetary profits.


The missing piece of the Libertarian puzzle
You may find this article a bit odd coming from someone who tends to support Libertarian philosophy. I've studied Austrian economics and Libertarian free market theory, and I have yet to find any explanation in any of those texts of how the free market is supposed to protect the environment or encourage sustainable living. Libertarian economists, in my opinion, tend to miss this hugely important piece of the puzzle, believing that somehow the free market will protect the environment and conserve resources, too.

Even the precious Rearden metal alloys of Rand's Atlas Shrugged novel could not generate profits for anyone unless they were mined out of the Earth at a great environmental cost that's never really considered in the novel. Ayn Rand's "Rational Selfishness" falls apart once the scope of consideration expands to encompass multiple generations of human beings. We cannot "greed" our way to sustainable life on Earth. The very idea is absurd.

Laissez-faire capitalism is blind to the true environmental costs of economic activity. It routinely assigns a value of zero to exchanges with nature (taking things from nature, dumping things on nature, etc.), thereby utterly devaluing the root source of all wealth and abundance in our world. Yes, I deliberately use the word "ALL." There is nothing of value in this world that was not created with the help of Mother Nature. Even human-borne ideas could not have been dreamed up without the warmth of the sun, the presence of water on our planet and the energy provided by plant-sourced foods.

The great delusion of laissez-faire capitalism is that all value is created by Man, not by Mother Nature. This is a huge gap in the philosophy of Libertarian economics (which I mostly support, by the way). It's time we expanded the ideas of economics to include the true, total cost of ownership of the products we choose to consume and discard. Only then will consumers make better choices that are aligned with the conservation of resources and sustainable life on planet Earth.


http://www.naturalnews.com/026108_free_market_the_products.html

Horagalles
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 05:06 PM
Originally Posted by velvet http://forums.skadi.net/images/atlantis/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=1049007#post1049007)
Well, you dont understand me half of the time because all that fills you is consumerism and profit interests. You see, there are values beside that, although in a capitalist society they play no more role.
Yeah, I'm filled with consumerism and profit interest, I'm also filled with gumdrops and candy canes.
...
I think we have to clearly discriminate here. Quite often people lump together actually really different concepts under the term Capitalism, which leads to numerous miscommunications.
Those concepts are:
a) Capitalism as economic system with private ownership of means of production and freedom of contract within certain norms.
b) "Capitalism" as a culture of profit seeking and consumerism - Money as measure of all things, if you want. "Capitalists" as exploiters of working people etc. (and the system/culture actually being and advantage to do so).

The first is how political scientists would define it, while the later is what is residing in the popular mind. Libertarians, especially those of the Anarcho-Capitalist brand, claim that pure capitalism would negate the state. Historically it is however different in the sense that the rise of the modern state with rule of law and bureaucracies was a prerequisite for capitalism in the form of stock companies, complex financial instruments and universal or at least nationally enforcable contracts and legal norms.

On the other hand the culture of consumerism (with the erosion of family and community values) is at least in part the result of welfare state that allows for individualist life styles. Without taxpayer-funded minimum guarantees and subsidized services the life style and social organisation of people would have to be different.

Caledonian
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 05:32 PM
Because mercantilism is a economical base that protects national interests over time I have come to embrace neo mercantilism which ironically is taking over the world is spades by observations of how modern Japan, China, and Russia in the east is better off in contrast to the declining international free market economies of the west via capitalist structuring.

More and more I've started embracing neo mercantilism circulating around a rigid form of nationalism based upon socialist and statist interventionist principles. ;)

For all of this I'd like to distinguish this intellectual investment by calling the economical national outlook that I have formed for myself to being called social mercantilism.

There is no wealth or security for anybody if there isn't common wealth for all.

Paradigm
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010, 11:23 PM
There's way to much for me to respond to. I could easily waste at least 1-2 hours replying to it all, but this post is more attracting than the others.


I think we have to clearly discriminate here. Quite often people lump together actually really different concepts under the term Capitalism, which leads to numerous miscommunications.
Those concepts are:
a) Capitalism as economic system with private ownership of means of production and freedom of contract within certain norms.
b) "Capitalism" as a culture of profit seeking and consumerism - Money as measure of all things, if you want. "Capitalists" as exploiters of working people etc. (and the system/culture actually being and advantage to do so).

The first is how political scientists would define it, while the later is what is residing in the popular mind. Libertarians, especially those of the Anarcho-Capitalist brand, claim that pure capitalism would negate the state. Historically it is however different in the sense that the rise of the modern state with rule of law and bureaucracies was a prerequisite for capitalism in the form of stock companies, complex financial instruments and universal or at least nationally enforcable contracts and legal norms.

On the other hand the culture of consumerism (with the erosion of family and community values) is at least in part the result of welfare state that allows for individualist life styles. Without taxpayer-funded minimum guarantees and subsidized services the life style and social organisation of people would have to be different.

The cultural idea of capitalism is the norm. There's been some talk in libertarian circles of completely disregarding capitalism all together and just using free-market (or other various terms) instead, because of the connotations related to capitalism.

When I talk about capitalism I talk about market economics, when I do talk about economics I'm most likely talking about capitalism. When I talk about economics I'm talking about production, prices, profit/loss, marginal utility, labor, etc. I'm talking about the science itself of economics and any topic pertaining to economics itself.

When I'm discussing production or prices or supply/demand I'm not here speculating "What cultural effect will this product have?" or something to that extent. I find that as side information unrelated to the actual mechanics of production. I'm talking about the most efficient and cost effective means.

For a long time I probably shared some of the views here that were rather protectionist or uneducated. I got more interested in economics after learning about the Federal Reserve and Ron Paul. My views changed when I started to study the works of Rothbard and Mises. I've come to know that market economics is the most efficient mode of economics.

With that I don't shun away a lot of the cultural problems that come from economics, but I'm not going to restrict what I know works. That being said it's not as if I don't acknowledge cultural problems, but I'm also acknowledging the achievements from capitalism. When people use examples against capitalism that are rooted in cultural problems and not economic problems, it doesn't defeat the argument that capitalism was efficient, it must have worked, just not towards what you would have preferred in a cultural interest. If you want to have a cultural movement you must work on a cultural grounds and foundation, not an economic one.

Put it this way, I like Julius Evola, Ride the Tiger has had a good influence on me and how I am now, but does that mean I'm going to embrace traditionalism and throw out anarcho-capitalism for another political/economical position? No, I'm just going to combine the two. I have my economic views, and I have my cultural views, and I don't feel that either contradict one another. I see as being a balance.

(For the record, a majority of anarcho-capitalist scholars are culturally conservative in regards to their own personal lives.)

Jäger
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 12:54 AM
I've come to know that market economics is the most efficient mode of economics.
Is anyone actually disputing that?
Free (of sense) market economy, thus including the freedom of movement of capital (including humans) is incompatible with Nationalism.


That being said it's not as if I don't acknowledge cultural problems, but I'm also acknowledging the achievements from capitalism.
So did Marx.


If you want to have a cultural movement you must work on a cultural grounds and foundation, not an economic one.
They have reciprocal effects though.


For the record, a majority of anarcho-capitalist scholars are culturally conservative in regards to their own personal lives.
Yes, but we know this is a flawed cultural state.

kuehnelt
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 02:00 AM
[B]Capitalism doesn't care about culture, community, heritage, National values, compassion, care, traditions, country, land, environment, race or language.

Neither does physics, or chemistry, or physiology, or agriculture, biology. That they don't care at all about these things is what makes them perfectly compatible with nationalism: you are a nationalist first, and then you say "how do I build a jet engine? How do I fuel it? What forces can a pilot endure?" Economics also answers questions like this, and a person who supports capitalism just supports economic practices - wage work, investment, the price system, money, a stock market, lending at interest, etc. - which developed naturally over the course of hundreds-to-thousands of years in the West. Stock markets operated in the 15th century in the Netherlands even though the contracts weren't enforceable by law, say; these things weren't suddenly invented by the English suddenly in the Victoria era, or suddenly invented by Wall Street.

So in fact it's very easy to see how capitalism and nationalism are compatible. You say, hmm, I'm a nationalist, and what kind of economy do I want to have? Well, this one here makes a lot of sense, it's sort of what we're already doing, although its proponents have a lot of bad things to say about a lot of what we're doing, and these other economies... well, let's have an intermission:

A lot of people in this thread have said a lot of things about what capitalism 'causes' or 'leads to'. They may as well say, look, enemy archers shot a bunch of arrows into the air, and then the Earth's gravitational force let them fall to kill us! OK, sure, gravity allowed this state of affairs to succeed that state of affairs, but the enemy archers are the problem. You can call me a 'gravitarian' and blame enemy arrows on me if you really want to pretend that reality is an 'ism', but I promise you that those 'floaty-arrow-ists' can't do anything for you.

Backing off of archery: alien and enemy ethnics can't take over your industries if you exclude them like you're supposed to. If you import a mass of diseased rapists from Haiti or wherever and then disease spreads via rape through your people, it isn't the evil 'copulationists' who are responsible for this, and in vitro reproduction isn't the scientific solution. Just expel the Haitians!

Now, what about these other economies? Capitalism + 'having a lot of aliens around' allows a lot of bad things. What does socialism allow when there are a lot of aliens around? Tyrannical Jewish rule over Slavs in Russia. What do we get when we have free-ish markets but we give enormous powers to the state - when we also have a lot of aliens around? A Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs, the bailouts - enough evil to spawn generations of libertarians. What does letting our rulers prohibit us from saying offensive things and creating a hurtful public space lead to, when there are a lot of aliens around? What do welfare programs lead to when there are a lot of aliens around?

Here's a small one: what does a tradition of public toilets lead to when there are a lot of aliens around? It leads to "For Customers Only", "See Manager For Key", "See Customer Service to get Buzzed In", "NO PUBLIC RESTROOM".

Paradigm
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 07:12 AM
Two points I must make is that economics is a value-free science, as kuehnelt has stated as other sciences, they have no bias in or against anyone's favor. It's the study of economics, and how economics is applied in the most efficient way, that leads to an understanding of how economies work. It's the study of human choices and actions. The laws of economics just like the laws of gravity are the same in a communist country compared to a democratic one. The same laws of economics applied in the Soviet Union as they did in Nazi Germany and the United States. The is no book on "German Economics" and "British Economics" and "American Economics" as if the laws are somehow different.

The second point I must make is: what is nationalism? Is nationalism a political stance, or a spirit of the people? Is it pride in one's government or a pride in one's culture and self? I ask because it seems conflicted that the state and culture be one in the same, yet as a lot of us are, we live in a country with a government who don't share nationalist interest in the sense a lot of people here would, yet, a lot remain nationalist and loyal to what they see as their own culture and what they pride themselves in, and yet, they continue to do this and live. They don't seem to take into consideration that they very well are living as an individual with nationalist interest who happens to be living in a market economy. If you have nationalist interest, then all decisions and actions you make would reflect that, so you don't need a directory making those choices for you on the market.

So, what is nationalism? Is it the spirit of the people? What is capitalism and economics in general? Is it the study of the choices and actions of people? What are both and how do they conflict each other if they do? If the spirit of the people pride themselves in a certain area of interest, and happen to trade on the market, where is their a contradiction of interest?

RoyBatty
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 08:48 AM
Two points I must make is that economics is a value-free science, as kuehnelt has stated as other sciences, they have no bias in or against anyone's favor

There you go then.

Nationalism (and one may as well tag on racism for that matter since there often is a relation) is biased. The entire point is to discriminate in favour of a chosen set of values as opposed to leaving it up to quantum physics, market forces and "anarcho capitalism" to determine the outcome.

The entire point of Nationalism is to select, reject and control a given set of parameters, not to randomise it.

Ward
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 08:55 AM
a) Capitalism as economic system with private ownership of means of production and freedom of contract within certain norms.

b) "Capitalism" as a culture of profit seeking and consumerism - Money as measure of all things, if you want. "Capitalists" as exploiters of working people etc. (and the system/culture actually being and advantage to do so).

The nature of capitalism is such that if capitalists are left unregulated they will always gravitate towards exploitation to gain competitive advantages and maximize profits. The capitalist who has moral qualms about taking his business in this direction will be put out of business by someone who doesn't. The promotion of hedonistic consumerism is yet another natural consequence of unregulated capitalism. As well as soulless cosmopolitan pop culture. And interracial porn, internationalism, currency speculation, derivatives trading, short selling, outsourcing, environmental degradation, immigration... need I go on? We can see this happening all around us! Capitalists are profiting from it!!

Furthermore, while libertarians are quick to (justifiably) blast welfare parasites, they completely ignore wealthy parasites (like trust-fund kids) who live off interest, self-indulge, and never contribute anything of social value.


The first is how political scientists would define it

Well, that's how pro-capitalist political scientists would define it.


while the later is what is residing in the popular mind.

With good reason.


Neither does physics, or chemistry, or physiology, or agriculture, biology.

For Christ's sake, capitalism (a.k.a. LIBERTARIANISM) is an ideology. It can also be referred to as an economic system or a social practice, but it's not a VALUE-FREE science! What is wrong with you people?? WHY CAN YOU NOT GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS?!?

Bittereinder
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 09:43 AM
The fatal connection between all these "unbiased" "mechanism" which developed from human interaction and grew naturally over time, is the influence of capital on the market, unfortunately it depends on which interest capital serves. As most know jews have considerable influence in all the relevant spheres so as to be able to effectively steer an economy. In a nationalist racialist state the primary interest group becomes the people via a Folk orientated government whom above all interests serves the purpose of the Folk/Race, this leads to a strong Folk driven economy where the government has allot of money to invest into large scale enterprises where the primary objective is not profit (which becomes a by product) but employment which in turn creates a free market economy within the racial state which supplies everything the population needs plus a surplus to gain that which they do not posses themselves internally while every one can reap the benefits of the land they occupy and run it as they see fit. In an un homogenous "nation state" such an equilibrium cannot be reached by capitalism as the guiding principal is: whom ever holds the most capital holds the ultimate power. However capital is not what a country, company or a bank have in their coffers any longer, its about who owes who money... As Capitalism is used now capital will ultimately not exist only debt to be consolidated under cultural and economic Marxism. Under apartheid our Rand notes were redeemable for gold at the Reserve Bank today this is no longer possible because jews have used their capital "interest" to start making something from nothing. This is where governmental control of the racial nation state becomes of the utmost importance.

Horagalles
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 09:59 AM
Just on a note. Here's another example for the undiscriminating use of a term of the root-word capital-.

The nature of capitalism is such that if capitalists are left unregulated they will always gravitate towards exploitation to gain competitive advantages and maximize profits. The capitalist who has moral qualms about taking his business in this direction will be put out of business by someone who doesn't.
To maximise profit, to disregard cost for others, etc. describes general human behavior (That's not something limited to "capitalism"). It's not some distinguishing trait of capitalism. To the contrary a capitalist/market economy meeting the description I quoted from political scientists does indeed put some checks and balances on this kind of behavior. Someone trying to exploit his employees will lose them to his competitors, same accounts for trying to bs your customers or any other economic malpractice.



The promotion of hedonistic consumerism is yet another natural consequence of unregulated capitalism. As well as soulless cosmopolitan pop culture. And interracial porn, internationalism, currency speculation, derivatives trading, short selling, outsourcing, environmental degradation, immigration... need I go on? We can see this happening all around us! Capitalists are profiting from it!!
As I've shown, many of the things you mention here are the results of the welfare state. As for economic practices, when was the last time you outsourced a pizza? Many of the business practices criticised by the left, like speculation, indeed fulfil important economic functions (financing function, shortage bridging, etc.).



Furthermore, while libertarians are quick to (justifiably) blast welfare parasites, they completely ignore wealthy parasites (like trust-fund kids) who live off interest, self-indulge, and never contribute anything of social value.
One may not like Paris Hilton, but the money she blows isn't gained by coercion like the money the welfare queens do.

As a matter of fact many, if not most, of the rich inheritors do contribute things of social value. They do so in the fields of the arts and sciences, via think tanks, foundations, contributions to research, etc. In fact that's were most of the non-commercial social advances do come from.

This is just never mentioned by the teachers, priests and the media.



Well, that's how pro-capitalist political scientists would define it.
In that case they are the more sober, objective scientists then.



With good reason.
For what they hear from their teachers, priests and the media.

Jäger
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 10:19 AM
Neither does physics, or chemistry, or physiology, or agriculture, biology.
The idea that economical science would be synonymous with capitalism is ludicrous at best.


They may as well say, look, enemy archers shot a bunch of arrows into the air, and then the Earth's gravitational force let them fall to kill us!
Anyone with an intelligent mind knows the difference between a cause observing, empirical science and a science based on statistical correlation and the interpretation thereof, comparing each and giving them the same credit as for "natural law" is simply idiotic.


alien and enemy ethnics can't take over your industries if you exclude them like you're supposed to.
And going against "natural law"? Why is the freedom of movement not part of capitalist natural law? Adam Smith said so, must be right.
How can you know you are really cost efficient if you artificially exclude a good portion of the worldly work force? Or if you can't move your companies location according to "natural laws" of "business locations" :thumbup :|


It's not some distinguishing trait of capitalism.
That wasn't the point.


Someone trying to exploit his employees will lose them to his competitors, same accounts for trying to bs your customers or any other economic malpractice.
This is only true under idiotic egalitarian assumptions, e.g. not all people want to abandon their home place for a better working environment, plus one thousand other reasons influencing human behavior, i.e. culture (you may have a look at Japanese employees who commit suicide due to the work load etc. before simply abandoning their corporation).

This sounds like from scholar books (which usually sell their findings as truths) without being capable of understanding the scientific method behind it (and its accompanying enormous insecurities).
Thus such ridiculous notions of "natural law". :thumbdown


Many of the business practices criticised by the left, like speculation, indeed fulfil important economic functions (financing function, shortage bridging, etc.).
There is no such thing as "the speculation" in economic theory, it is an (intentionally) ambiguous umbrella term for thousands of different strategies.


One may not like Paris Hilton, but the money she blows isn't gained by coercion like the money the welfare queens do.
Another dangerously egalitarian and idiotic assumption, "free" idiotic decisions must not be held in any higher regard than forced good ones.


This is just never mentioned by the teachers, priests and the media.
Why should they? John and Jane Doe already think that making a song called "Hit me Baby one more time" is already an enormous social contribution, thus they financially compensate this "achievement" dearly.


In that case they are the more sober, objective scientists then.
The definition itself is sane, it's just detached from reality.

Horagalles
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 02:21 PM
The idea that economical science would be synonymous with capitalism is ludicrous at best.
Using specific schools of thought may have been a more appropriate equivalent.


Anyone with an intelligent mind knows the difference between a cause observing, empirical science and a science based on statistical correlation and the interpretation thereof, comparing each and giving them the same credit as for "natural law" is simply idiotic.
There is a fundamental difference between natural sciences and economics. The subjects of the natural sciences consist of matter, chemicals, organisms or part thereof. Economics on the other hand deals with human actors. They can make a decision, while atoms can not. That makes treating economics as an empirical science using an inductive method problematics. The deductive approach of the Austrian school seems to be the more appropriate. First fundamental principle from which to deduct is "humans act". That means they make decisions based on what they perceive from more then one option. The real action indicates what they actual choice or preference has been.



And going against "natural law"? Why is the freedom of movement not part of capitalist natural law? Adam Smith said so, must be right.
How can you know you are really cost efficient if you artificially exclude a good portion of the worldly work force? Or if you can't move your companies location according to "natural laws" of "business locations" :thumbup :|
There is other costs involved, too. Take for instance environmental or social cost. They don't necessarily appear in a companies accounting records. But they are still arguably for real. The decision of companies to move to cheaper locations has often been subsidized by the state or the risk of loss has been covered. Which is also an intervention. That's why I previously indicated that
any businessmen won't share the libertarian vision of capitalism/ free markets.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 03:30 PM
My problem with capitalism is it's consumerist motto that consumerism is the dominant underpinning of any economical structure.

Surprisingly in history it was mercantilist economies and mercantilists themselves that insisted upon low consumption with more dominantly productive economies where profit is more based upon a production type basis.

The only capitalists that agreed upon a mixed economy of consumption and production was that of Keynes along with all the Keynesian thinkers that came after him adhering to his school of thought.

Of course what ended up happening is that after the death of Keynes capitalists like Friedman came into existence where they made everything be dominated around consumption alone which is why we have purely consumptionist driven economies the way that we do now.

At any rate once you understand how capitalism practically revolves around consumption minimalizing all forms of production it becomes apparent why we have weakened often enough bankrupted economies that we have now where we import more than what we export.

How can any nation survive by importing more than what it exports?

It makes no sense to consume more than what you produce.

It's fiscally irresponsible of any nation to use that economical formula yet that's exactly what we see in today's structuring of capitalist economies.

Even Adam Smith the creator of free market capitalism based his notions on purely consumptionist economies.

You cannot expect to have a dominantly service based economy where service is the only type of profit base hoping for it to be successful making it ninety percent of your entire economical structure.

This is where international free market capitalism fails.

Now why is it that the capitalist would rather have a consumerist economy revolving around consumption?

It's because production is expensive when it concerns creating things and then selling them on the international market not to mention it's expensive in having to pay a bunch of workers who work on the production of somthing to which profit seeking capitalists are not so keen on doing because they don't like that whole redistribution of wealth thing.

In the capitalist's eyes, why would you produce somthing in your own country when you can buy it much cheaper from another nation at less the cost of which there would be a higher profit margin to be made by purchasing stuff elsewhere?

Thus in capitalism the importation of goods in order to save costs to make a profit becomes more dominant than national production in exports illustrating how our economies once again have become purely consumptionist economies.

So with international free market capitalism your left with a bankrupted weakened service base economy who's sole existence revolves around consumption.

But, guess what?

Upon the weakening of a capitalist economy a capitalist finds themselves now left with only services alone to which they later find themselves outsourcing service jobs as well!

[What happens when you outsource all forms of business centered around a national economy in order that a few can create huge forms of private wealth for themselves?]

[What happens is the complete decline and deterioration of such a national economy in economical oblivion via a implosion in itself.]

Why not? It's too expensive to pay for the services of these workers in this nation so as a capitalist I'm going to take my entire company and move elsewhere so that I can hire some cheap labor to do the same services in order to create a larger profit portfolio for myself.

Under this the only way the company and the capitalist will stay is if the local workers of a nation accept a reduction in their wages which means capitalism is a harbinger of lowered wages which anybody can see by roughly observing the falling rate of wages where wage salaries have been on a steady decline the last fourty years alone.

Why is it that big business hates socialism as a ideology?

It's simple really......because under a socialist government those sort of capitalist corporate shannigans don't work at all where the worker along with their standard of living is protected under regulated interventions of a strong government.

The reason why capitalists cry oppression under socialist governments is because they are denied their ability to hoard wealth privately apart from the social collective welfare of a nation.

International free market capitalism is a great way of creating wealth I must admit when it concerns putting large sums of money in a few private hands seperate and apart from the social collective mass who see their living standards stripped completely.

Paradigm
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 04:21 PM
There you go then.

Nationalism (and one may as well tag on racism for that matter since there often is a relation) is biased. The entire point is to discriminate in favour of a chosen set of values as opposed to leaving it up to quantum physics, market forces and "anarcho capitalism" to determine the outcome.

The entire point of Nationalism is to select, reject and control a given set of parameters, not to randomise it.

You want to control something out of your hands, and every action has a reaction, every cause has an effect, when the natural course is distorted and curved, it has negative consequences. When the government enforces a protectionist policy, or a minimum wage, these have further effects on the economy that are negative, it wasn't part of the natural cycle towards equilibrium.


My problem with capitalism is it's consumerist motto that consumerism is the dominant underpinning of any economical structure.

Surprisingly in history it was mercantilist economies and mercantilists themselves that insisted upon low consumption and more dominantly productive economies where profit is more based upon a production type basis.

The only capitalists that agreed upon a mixed economy of consumption and production was that of Keynes along with all the Keynesian thinkers that came after him adhering to his school of thought.

Of course what ended up happening is that after the death of Keynes capitalists like Friedman came into existence where they made everything be dominated around consumption alone which is why we have purely consumptionist driven economies the way that we do now.

At any rate once you understand how capitalism practically revolves around consumption minimalizing all forms of production it becomes apparent why we have weakened often enough bankrupted economies that we have now where we import more than what we export.

Production = Consumption. You mention "consumption minimalizing all forms of production", and you don't actually know what you are saying. You can't consume without production, consumption can't limit production. Consumption is the outcome of production, and there is a lot of production in the world these days. You can't make the statement "there is a lot of consumption more so than production". It's illogical.

Also, Keynesian economics dominates the universities and government, Friedman (who was partially a Keynesian) didn't dominate like Keynes did.


How can any nation survive by importing more than what it exports?

It makes no sense to consume more than what you produce.

No, it doesn't, but that's what you suggest.


Even Adam Smith the creator of free market capitalism based his notions on purely consumptionist economies.

Adam Smith, the one who furthered economic thought, not created capitalism, only looked at economics from the side of the producer, and not the consumer, this was a flaw that was picked up by the Marginal Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility#The_Marginal_Revolution ) with people like Menger and Jevons who brought subjectivity and marginal utility into economics. This furthered economic science.

The rest of what you said is a protectionist theory that doesn't hold. Economics is not a zero-sum game. People benefit from the exchanges they make. We import and export as well as everyone else, a lot of things I have are imports, and I'm sure a lot of what people have are exported from America. You don't take into consideration how many things are really bought/sold on the global market. My Volvo is a Swedish car with parts from Germany and France, and from fixing it now America. According to you I should only be able to buy an American car with American parts, and I would be at a lose not to be able to get a Volvo. Policies like this only keep people from obtaining better goods. Countries focus on their strengths, and this is the division of labor on international markets. One country exports what they are good at, and imports what they are not.


Under this the only way the company and the capitalist will stay is if the local workers of a nation accept a reduction in their wages which means capitalism is a harbinger of lowered wages which anybody can see by roughly observing the falling rate of wages where wage salaries have been on a steady decline the last fourty years alone.

1. There's no problem in accepting a reduction in wages, wages do not have to go up, they should be able to fluctuate on the market in times of economic instability. 2. A wage is a price on labor, if labor becomes too costly a business will cut back, if the labor becomes cheaper, they will hire more. 3. Capitalism brings higher prices, real wages have risen over the past 40 years, even when adjusted to inflation. 4. Cite evidence that wages have fallen over the past 40 years. 5. The root of our inflation is due to central banking, as stated, many, many, many, many times before. 6. As production increases and becomes more efficient it also becomes cheaper. 7. When businesses compete they must lower prices and raise wages to attract customers and workers.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 04:54 PM
Paradigm there is a difference between consuming stuff what you make versus consuming foreign imports out of cheap necessity.

If your economy consumes nothing but imports by not producing anything at all in comparison to export of real genuine substance I don't see how that is economically healthy.


Production = Consumption. You mention "consumption minimalizing all forms of production", and you don't actually know what you are saying. You can't consume without production, consumption can't limit production. Consumption is the outcome of production, and there is a lot of production in the world these days. You can't make the statement "there is a lot of consumption more so than production". It's illogical.

I could of actually perhaps worded that better but what I was trying to say is that if a nation doesn't produce anything of substance to where it can put it in export in having a national export income where it instead only consumes imported goods as a dominant part of the economy I don't see how that is economically stimulating at all.

I think there needs to be balanced trade between imports and exports in that one cannot have a purely consumer imported economy alone.

A nation must be able to produce somthing substantial in having the ability to exports goods and resources as well which only strengthens the national economy along with creating jobs for the commonwealth.


Also, Keynesian economics dominates the universities and government, Friedman (who was partially a Keynesian) didn't dominate like Keynes did.Friedman dominanted many presidential administrations from Nixon all the way to the latest Bush Jr.


No, it doesn't, but that's what you suggest.
What does the United States produce on it's own that it doesn't import?

There's a reason why the United States is called a consumptionist economy because it relies on consumerism without producing anything substantial in contrast.


Adam Smith, the one who furthered economic thought, not created capitalism,

Capitalism hasn't always existed in that it was created by Adam Smith and until you can show me cave man capitalist economical dynamics I stand by my opinion on that.


The rest of what you said is a protectionist theory that doesn't hold. Economics is not a zero-sum game. People benefit from the exchanges they make. We import and export as well as everyone else, a lot of things I have are imports, and I'm sure a lot of what people have are exported from America. You don't take into consideration how many things are really bought/sold on the global market. My Volvo is a Swedish car with parts from Germany and France, and from fixing it now America. According to you I should only be able to buy an American car with American parts, and I would be at a lose not to be able to get a Volvo. Policies like this only keep people from obtaining better goods. Countries focus on their strengths, and this is the division of labor on international markets. One country exports what they are good at, and imports what they are not.

Yet protectionist policies are strengthening governments and nations in the east compared to the declining weakened nations of the west.


Economics is not a zero-sum game.

When it concerns wealth it is and economics is nothing but the movement of wealth.


1. There's no problem in accepting a reduction in wages, wages do not have to go up, they should be able to fluctuate on the market in times of economic instability.

Easy for the capitalist to say when it is not their life on the line of being lost at the expense of somebody who outsources their livelyhood.


2. A wage is a price on labor, if labor becomes too costly a business will cut back, if the labor becomes cheaper, they will hire more. 3. Capitalism brings higher prices, real wages have risen over the past 40 years, even when adjusted to inflation.

Well that's all nice in theory but has zero relevance to reality especially when it concerns actual human suffering somthing of which capitalism likes to ignore.


4. Cite evidence that wages have fallen over the past 40 years.

Already have. Look a couple pages back.




5. The root of our inflation is due to central banking, as stated, many, many, many, many times before.

The central bank was created out of collusion by several private banks that got together with the government in creating it.

You have no complaint considering it was your private capitalist individual buddies that got together in forming it.

This whole ideology that bank centralization is the problem of all our woes is just a cheap excuse for your desire to have complete libertarian deregulation on everything.




6. As production increases and becomes more efficient it also becomes cheaper.

In what way?



7. When businesses compete they must lower prices and raise wages to attract customers and workers.

Well the last fourty years wages haven't increased hardly at all where they lag behind current living standards and prices.

RoyBatty
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 05:40 PM
You want to control something out of your hands, and every action has a reaction, every cause has an effect, when the natural course is distorted and curved, it has negative consequences. When the government enforces a protectionist policy, or a minimum wage, these have further effects on the economy that are negative, it wasn't part of the natural cycle towards equilibrium.

Just because a Government is Socialist it doesn't imply that they must, have to and will control every facet of the economy. Another example: Does Commie China dictate to every Company what they must pay workers? What they may manufacture? What prices they may charge etc etc etc?

The best economic systems are ones where there is a degree of freedom, in other words, some scope for your anarcho-capitalism but that within that framework there is also control exercised over this system by the authorities (on behalf of the general public) and not Privateers and Oligarchs who would only strive to reward themselves if they gained control over the system.

kuehnelt
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 06:22 PM
The nature of (humans) is such that if (humans) are left unregulated they will always gravitate towards exploitation to gain competitive advantages and maximize profits. The (human) who has moral qualms about taking his business in this direction will be put out of business by someone who doesn't.

There, I fixed that one for you. The difference between capitalism and all proposed anti-capitalisms is that capitalism does not institutionalize a method by which a would-be exploiter may exploit anyone. Where you have protective tariffs, fair competition laws, anti-monopoly laws, politicians receptive to price controls and minimum wage laws and every-cubicle-must-have-two-monitors laws about workplaces, and other 'good' things that an economic education could make you more skeptical of, then exploitation is easy and fun! Your steam mill is competing with a lot of water-wheel competitors? Well, coal burns whenever you tell it to, but water wheels rely on rivers that have uncontrollable lengths of productive and unproductive times. So, would-be-exploiter steam mill, go to your politicians and tell sad stories against long work hours, or odd work hours, or not being called into work every day - whatever it takes. Historically, it just took some working-hour limitations.


For Christ's sake, capitalism (a.k.a. LIBERTARIANISM) is an ideology. It can also be referred to as an economic system or a social practice,

Yes, I'm quite aware of what a bad word 'capitalism' is. It was coined by a guy who said two things about it: "it works like this" and "look, there it is in the world!" But it didn't work as he described, what was out there in the world wasn't and still isn't so systematic or uncontaminated, and moreover nothing could work as he described because his description relied on fundamental economic falsehoods.

Oh, there's that word 'economic' again. That guy was just spitting the word 'capitalist' at a class of people he disliked, but people call themselves capitalists in reaction to socialists, syndicalists, and other fantasists. These groups do not just stand up and say that everyone should love each other, that women and children and the elderly should be given special protection, that all classes of a nation should be uplifted - that one shouldn't be crushed to make things nice for others. They don't stand up and say these things for the same reason you and other anti-capitalists didn't only say these things in this thread: nobody would disagree with you. Every single pro-capitalist commenter that's appeared would have just said, "yeah, I like all that too," and then the thread would have ended early.

So anti-capitalists raise economic proposals, they make economic assertions, they attempt to use economic reasoning to trace economic consequences to their causes. And if none of them understand anything about economics, this is the best defense against coming to the truth of the matter. So anti-anti-capitalism is purely about economics, it's very easy for me to respond to an anti-capitalist complaint by talking expressly about economics for a bit.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 06:23 PM
Maybe a couple of capitalists here can help me out in acquiring some information.

Why is it that when it concerns businesses and industries of all sorts that only the income of the owners or ceo's goes up while the income of the workers remain the same in lower stagnation?

You would think that without the help and labor of the workers any such business would be unable to function where they are a integrate part in facilitating services yet for some reason their wages do not go up where they go largely unappreciated to the point as being deemed sacrificial lambs of any given industrial society.

Yet another facet of capitalism gone amuck.

Everybody here wants to talk about our people needing to have stronger families where children are our future when it concerns our survival yet nobody wants to talk about the issues when it regards having a livable wage to meet the current standards of living to achieve those ends.

kuehnelt
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 07:15 PM
Maybe a couple of capitalists here can help me out in acquiring some information.

If this really is just to acquire information, please ask in the economics forum, as it needs an involved answer - much more than an explanation of wage incomes, or an anti-egalitarian quip. If you are just asking this so that you can go on to say


they go largely unappreciated to the point as being deemed sacrificial lambs of any given industrial society.

Yet another facet of capitalism gone amuck.

then you're making another ineffective appeal to "capitalism = the prevailing system, whatever that may actually be". It's... kind of boring, to have to go up to your enemy and rotate them 90 or more degrees so that their misses can at least be near enough to make an exciting 'woosh'. So I'm afraid I will end my response here.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 07:52 PM
If this really is just to acquire information, please ask in the economics forum, as it needs an involved answer - much more than an explanation of wage incomes, or an anti-egalitarian quip. If you are just asking this so that you can go on to say



then you're making another ineffective appeal to "capitalism = the prevailing system, whatever that may actually be". It's... kind of boring, to have to go up to your enemy and rotate them 90 or more degrees so that their misses can at least be near enough to make an exciting 'woosh'. So I'm afraid I will end my response here.

I honestly don't care about your opinions in how you view my perspective towards ill - will nor do I care about the sensibilities I may injure here.

Until you can tell me why workers of a factory make eight to nine dollars a hour while owners and ceo's make close to a hundred thousand dollars or more a year I really don't put much respect in the arguements of capitalists either in that I view them as being nonsensical too.

So end your response if you must.

Vindefense
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 09:03 PM
Until you can tell me why workers of a factory make eight to nine dollars a hour while owners and ceo's make close to a hundred thousand dollars or more

Ah, life is so unfair is it not. Here is a suggestion, what should happen if one of those wage earners were to switch positions with that CEO? Of course the CEO would have no problem filling the shoes of the wage earner but could that wage earner run a company with 1000 employees and gasp, turn a profit?

What is fair and unfair is a matter of perspective. Consider this, the wage owner only has himself to worry about and maybe his family, in comparison the CEO may have 1,000 wage earners and families to worry about, who all may go hungry and homeless if the business looses, shhh. profits.

If we allow the same CEO with the hypothetical 1,000 employees to profit just 10 cents per hour per employee that entitles him to $100/ hour. Now, what is .10 cents in terms of percentage to a $10 / hr wage? 1%. Is 1% the definition of exploitation to you? Perhaps you think that they are entitled to nothing right, that the pressure of the CEO to make decisions that keep that company profitable and provides that wage earner employment is small change compared to your unique ability to solder two wires together or push a button for 8 hrs. a day.

Ward
Thursday, December 23rd, 2010, 11:36 PM
Just on a note. Here's another example for the undiscriminating use of a term of the root-word capital-.

What are you talking about? In a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society capital is king, and on this site we have people advocating for such a society, despite the fact that they also claim to be Germanic preservationists. Where does Germanic preservation factor into libertarian ideology? It doesn't, because it places no VALUE in it. It measures its own success entirely in base material gain.

In contrast to Mammon-worship inherent in capitalism/libertarianism, NS, for example, puts the interest of the community/folk/nation above all else. As we saw in the Third Reich, the advantages of private enterprise, if properly regulated by the state, can be harnessed for the greater good of the people. In fact, I seem to remember Hitler saying something to the effect that Bolshevik-style socialization of the economy was pure madness; German socialism was about socializing the hearts and minds of the German people.

I haven't seen anyone deny the advantages of a free market—provided that it is regulated to ensure that it meets the needs and interests of the nation. However, for libertarians, consideration of national interests is essentially a form of idolatry that leads people astray from the one true God—the unregulated free market!


To maximise profit, to disregard cost for others, etc. describes general human behavior (That's not something limited to "capitalism"). It's not some distinguishing trait of capitalism.

As an economic system, capitalism promotes egotism and erodes transcendental values, which is why it needs to be regulated so people can't amass enormous concentrations of private wealth by effectively destroying their nations.


To the contrary a capitalist/market economy meeting the description I quoted from political scientists does indeed put some checks and balances on this kind of behavior.

What "checks and balances" are you talking about?


Someone trying to exploit his employees will lose them to his competitors, same accounts for trying to bs your customers or any other economic malpractice.

Yes, capitalism works well like that so long as private monopolies are not allowed to arise.


As I've shown, many of the things you mention here are the results of the welfare state. As for economic practices, when was the last time you outsourced a pizza? Many of the business practices criticised by the left, like speculation, indeed fulfil important economic functions (financing function, shortage bridging, etc.).

No, speculation is out of control. I think I read somewhere that around 25% of the U.S. GDP stems from speculation, which is money made from nothing that has led to huge distortions in the market.


One may not like Paris Hilton, but the money she blows isn't gained by coercion like the money the welfare queens do.

No sane society would let some piece of trash like Paris Hilton have the kind of privileges she has. The only thing she does is self-indulge and promote degeneracy!!


As a matter of fact many, if not most, of the rich inheritors do contribute things of social value. They do so in the fields of the arts and sciences, via think tanks, foundations, contributions to research, etc. In fact that's were most of the non-commercial social advances do come from.

Some do, but some don't. I personally know some people who, after inheriting their parents' fortunes, simply hire someone to manage their money and spend all their time partying and having fun. Other than letting someone manage their money and lend it out, all of their endeavors are socially useless.


This is just never mentioned by the teachers, priests and the media.

Oh, those poor, persecuted capitalists. :|


In that case they are the more sober, objective scientists then.

The fact you and others consider capitalism to be a VALUE-FREE science like physics and chemistry shows how insidious the extent of pro-capitalist indoctrination has been.


The deductive approach of the Austrian school seems to be the more appropriate.

Oh yeah, so how does the Austrian School propose to save the Germanic people?

velvet
Friday, December 24th, 2010, 12:16 AM
...turn a profit?

Businesses can make as much profit as they want, as long, grasp, they do it not on the expense of culture, national integrity, general values and laws.

This means:
- no cheap labor forces mass-imported for profit's sake
- no products imported that harm culture, values or laws for profit's sake
- no products exported that harm the integrity of the nation (ie core technology) for profit's sake
- curbed power of money to not "outdo" the national integrity

So, basically a "free market" boxed into a national ideology.

What exactly would be wrong about that? And what "freedoms" would be limited with that? It would only limit "freedoms" that harm culture, values, laws and national integrity. Exactly those corner stones nationalist try to reestablish, since they have been dissolved by "international free market capitalism", because this economy model is certainly not a "value-free" science, it is a science that is designed to "free society of values", this shouldnt be confused though.

Horagalles
Friday, December 24th, 2010, 12:40 AM
What are you talking about? In a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society capital is king, and on this site we have people advocating for such a society, despite the fact that they also claim to be Germanic preservationists. ....
I should be the one asking you that questions. Rational arguments are posed and what comes back is an emotional rant. I guess one can oppose the modern state favoring economic freedom, while advocating national or ethnic communitarianism. As for the libertarians, the individual is king - which ironically would become a problem, if the welfare state would be demolished and the libertarians had their way. Under that circumstances those that can act socially are king.


As an economic system, capitalism promotes egotism and erodes transcendental values, which is why it needs to be regulated so people can't amass enormous concentrations of private wealth by effectively destroying their nations.
No, it doesn't. As explained the most rational definition of capitalism is private ownership of means of production + freedom of contract. That neither promotes nor prohibits.


What "checks and balances" are you talking about?
OK, here is economics under 'capitalism' in a nutshell. If your boss doesn't pay you enough you switch to one that pays you more. The system of competition prevents employers from lowering wages under market limits. That's for example what I meant with checks and balances.


Yes, capitalism works well like that so long as private monopolies are not allowed to arise.
Which they rarely do, for most of the part monopolies are erecting with the help of state intervention.


No, speculation is out of control. I think I read somewhere that around 25% of the U.S. GDP stems from speculation, which is money made from nothing that has led to huge distortions in the market.
Don't worry, most people don't understand the economic purpose of speculation and how to handle problems relating to it. That money isn't made from nothing. The speculator has to pay for goods a marginally higher, when nobody else wanted it (financing function) and he sells that good at a moment, when it is scarce at a marginally lower price (provision function). With other words there would be more macro-economic problems without speculators. Now a problem can arise, when speculators manage to cooperate together and to create an artificial shortage by buying all of a certain good on the market. Guess what's the remedy for that: more speculators to undercut that.


No sane society would let some piece of trash like Paris Hilton have the kind of privileges she has. The only thing she does is self-indulge and promote degeneracy!!
Beg to differ from you. I for my part don't care about Paris Hilton or what she indulges in.


Some do, but some don't. I personally know some people who, after inheriting their parents' fortunes, simply hire someone to manage their money and spend all their time partying and having fun. Other than letting someone manage their money and lend it out, all of their endeavors are socially useless.
That image of the rich inheritor playboy so promoted by movies. They exist, but that doesn't mean they are the rule. Just as for Paris Hilton, I don't care that much what people do with their money in their spare time.


Oh, those poor, persecuted capitalists. :|
... That then also have to feed these teachers, priests and and media....


The fact you and others consider capitalism to be a VALUE-FREE science like physics and chemistry shows how insidious the extent of pro-capitalist indoctrination has been.
I don't consider Capitalism a science at all. When I use the term, I'm talking about an economic system. For you and others this rather seems to be a loaded term. What you seem to mean is economics.
I stated that economics isn't a science like chemistry, but different as it deals with human actors. However it is thinkable to follow a deductive approach here that is as value-free as the inductive approach in physics or chemistry. Just that I don't consider scientists, including economists, to be unbiased, absolutely objective and value free. They aren't, but that doesn't mean that value free methods aren't thinkable.



Oh yeah, so how does the Austrian School propose to save the Germanic people?
It doesn't, it's concerned with the study of economics. What one can do is to use that knowledge for saving Germanic people. You see, a struggle is a question of education as well.

Caledonian
Friday, December 24th, 2010, 12:48 AM
Ah, life is so unfair is it not. Here is a suggestion, what should happen if one of those wage earners were to switch positions with that CEO? Of course the CEO would have no problem filling the shoes of the wage earner but could that wage earner run a company with 1000 employees and gasp, turn a profit?

What is fair and unfair is a matter of perspective. Consider this, the wage owner only has himself to worry about and maybe his family, in comparison the CEO may have 1,000 wage earners and families to worry about, who all may go hungry and homeless if the business looses, shhh. profits.

If we allow the same CEO with the hypothetical 1,000 employees to profit just 10 cents per hour per employee that entitles him to $100/ hour. Now, what is .10 cents in terms of percentage to a $10 / hr wage? 1%. Is 1% the definition of exploitation to you? Perhaps you think that they are entitled to nothing right, that the pressure of the CEO to make decisions that keep that company profitable and provides that wage earner employment is small change compared to your unique ability to solder two wires together or push a button for 8 hrs. a day.


Ah, life is so unfair is it not.

The very callous nature of this sentence makes me believe that you don't care about the plights of others at all.

Yes life is unfair full of strife and competition.

There are two forms of competition as I have alluded to in another thread.

One is mutual competition in which people mutually come together to play by a set of constructed rules and social parameters in which there are guidlines to the specific ways to conduct all forms of competition.

The other form of competition is pure violent chaos in which there are no rules where all form of social mutuality is thrown out the door in which people steal, kill, rape, plunder, and destroy each other in total disregard to one another to which is the purest form of unregulated competition that there is.

[In this life of existence there is only one form of competition or the other where one takes over the other if one should constantly fail.]

If you wish to discuss how life is unfair and competitive where there is only the survival of the fittest I suggest you find such a chaotic environment of competition where there are no rules or institutions in place to protect you by then getting back to me by telling me how you manage to fair out under such conditions.

Now when you have a bunch of workers that actually makes it possible for a factory, business, and industry to function at all it is very much against principles of fair competition that the workers get paid eight to nine dollars an hour for having help created or moved along products that are worth sometimes ten times as much if not more where the owner of such a business hoards all the wealth of profit for themselves.

I'm not saying the business man or owner isn't supposed to be able to make any money nor am I saying that a worker should be payed anything grossly doubled than what they are currently making but I will say that workers ought to have their wages increased to a sizable level to what they are now typically so that their existence can match in line with the current standards of living.

[People ought to have a livable wage fitting with the current standards of any nation.]

I would be flattered to death if all workers had their wages increased by five dollars per hour which is relatively chump change in comparison to the sizable yearly income of most owners and ceo's.

It's unfair that workers have to work two to three jobs just to be able to live comfortably and support their families.

One might as well call it economical slavery when a person has to work sixteen hours a day just to merely get ahead anymore in today's working environment.

[That is if they are lucky enough to even have two to three jobs to subsidize their incomes with since most can never find a second job let alone three anymore making the situation that much more desperately pathetic.]


Of course the CEO would have no problem filling the shoes of the wage earner but could that wage earner run a company with 1000 employees and gasp, turn a profit?

I don't see how this analogy is even remotely comparable.


If we allow the same CEO with the hypothetical 1,000 employees to profit just 10 cents per hour per employee that entitles him to $100/ hour. Now, what is .10 cents in terms of percentage to a $10 / hr wage? 1%. Is 1% the definition of exploitation to you? Perhaps you think that they are entitled to nothing right, that the pressure of the CEO to make decisions that keep that company profitable and provides that wage earner employment is small change compared to your unique ability to solder two wires together or push a button for 8 hrs. a day.

Even a five dollar wage increase per hour is nothing in comparison to what a owner and ceo makes in a year of a business or corporation.

Just by adding five dollars to the wage per hour would be enough to put more money into people's pockets of the working class in matching up with the current standard of living where by having a profitable working class would be great for any economy in that those workers would be able to spend that money on other things that would end up profiting others in the long run making it more affordable for all sorts of businesses to be created along with added jobs in the market place.

When people have more money they tend to spend it.

Vindefense
Friday, December 24th, 2010, 01:51 AM
What exactly would be wrong about that? And what "freedoms" would be limited with that? It would only limit "freedoms" that harm culture, values, laws and national integrity. Exactly those corner stones nationalist try to reestablish, since they have been dissolved by "international free market capitalism", because this economy model is certainly not a "value-free" science, it is a science that is designed to "free society of values", this shouldnt be confused though.

If we look for the market to uphold or inspire values in our societies we are indeed hopelessly lost. Values stem from elsewhere, and since we have done away with that source of values we now are coming to terms with the consequence of that crime Nietzsche warned us about. We want to point to Capitalism for the blame because this gives us an abstract concept. A straw man we may douse with gasoline and burn to the ground. The real issue is not Capitalism it is the absence of values and it is this which is infecting Capitalism and as long as this absence of values exists, it matters little what system we run the market with. Greed will still be present, it will simply change hands to a consolidated State that bases what is of worth or not upon Party favor.

Posted by Alariclachlan:

The very callous nature of this sentence makes me believe that you don't care about the plights of others at all.

Get off it. The world needs men right now, not sappy whiners complaining about fairness. I have a younger brother your age who feeds me the same story about how he can't make it today and the evil Capitalist pigs and fair this and that. Is this the attitude that represents the future? What a shame to your ancestors who worked twice as hard and never complained.


Yes life is unfair full of strife and competition.

[In this life of existence there is only one form of competition or the other where one takes over the other if one should constantly fail.]

Nature does not make mistakes, it is man and his idiotic fantasies of what is fair or not. But where should we draw the fairness line? Should we eliminate the Natural selection process entirely? Picking out what we think to be the best sperm for fertilization? Or should we give all sperm an equal chance by helping the weaker ones along and holding back the stronger ones.

I know life is unfair, the difference between you and me is I am a man and accept it.

And your solution? Raise the minimum wage. Is just like saying "Give me more money, then I will work harder".

Caledonian
Friday, December 24th, 2010, 03:17 AM
If we look for the market to uphold or inspire values in our societies we are indeed hopelessly lost. Values stem from elsewhere, and since we have done away with that source of values we now are coming to terms with the consequence of that crime Nietzsche warned us about. We want to point to Capitalism for the blame because this gives us an abstract concept. A straw man we may douse with gasoline and burn to the ground. The real issue is not Capitalism it is the absence of values and it is this which is infecting Capitalism and as long as this absence of values exists, it matters little what system we run the market with. Greed will still be present, it will simply change hands to a consolidated State that bases what is of worth or not upon Party favor.

Posted by Alariclachlan:

Get off it. The world needs men right now, not sappy whiners complaining about fairness. I have a younger brother your age who feeds me the same story about how he can't make it today and the evil Capitalist pigs and fair this and that. Is this the attitude that represents the future? What a shame to your ancestors who worked twice as hard and never complained.



Nature does not make mistakes, it is man and his idiotic fantasies of what is fair or not. But where should we draw the fairness line? Should we eliminate the Natural selection process entirely? Picking out what we think to be the best sperm for fertilization? Or should we give all sperm an equal chance by helping the weaker ones along and holding back the stronger ones.

I know life is unfair, the difference between you and me is I am a man and accept it.

And your solution? Raise the minimum wage. Is just like saying "Give me more money, then I will work harder".

Your comment is typical of a aristocrat content with the system who is unwilling to change anything with that sort of cavalier type attitude.

All I can say is that if you want chaos to rule this world where there is nothing but competition without rules and social parameters where people devour each other in a sort of cannibalistic frenzy you may very well get your wish within the nearby future where we will just see how your attitude turns out to be when such a world of total anarchy arises.

In such a world I would like to see that fallen aristocratic expression of yours then and see how well you stand by your words without any institutional system to back you up.


The very conservative existence you enjoy right now only exists because of the institutions that protects you as a wealthy opulent class.


If those institutions were ever destroyed, where would that leave a man like yourself?



Get off it. The world needs men right now, not sappy whiners complaining about fairness. I have a younger brother your age who feeds me the same story about how he can't make it today and the evil Capitalist pigs and fair this and that. Is this the attitude that represents the future? What a shame to your ancestors who worked twice as hard and never complained.

Our ancestors wouldn't approve today's capitalist system and it's ironic that you would use them to deflect the system that we live in today.

At any rate you know nothing about me beyond the internet and I assure you that I'm not whiny at all in that I speak from rational observation.

I'm not really worried about myself in that I survive well whether I survive within the realm of law or not but make no mistake once you get rid of fair competition ideals all your left with is chaos where if you wish to tell the masses to quit their whining by telling them to eat cake blood in the streets will eventually become supreme in prevailing.

Take it or leave it I don't really care.

Paradigm
Friday, December 24th, 2010, 04:52 AM
There's too much to reply to.


Paradigm there is a difference between consuming stuff what you make versus consuming foreign imports out of cheap necessity.

That's subjective.


If your economy consumes nothing but imports by not producing anything at all in comparison to export of real genuine substance I don't see how that is economically healthy.

I could of actually perhaps worded that better but what I was trying to say is that if a nation doesn't produce anything of substance to where it can put it in export in having a national export income where it instead only consumes imported goods as a dominant part of the economy I don't see how that is economically stimulating at all.

I think there needs to be balanced trade between imports and exports in that one cannot have a purely consumer imported economy alone.

A nation must be able to produce somthing substantial in having the ability to exports goods and resources as well which only strengthens the national economy along with creating jobs for the commonwealth.

There is a balance, Henry Hazlitt goes over just this point in Economics in One Lesson. There's really no evidence that our economy is in turmoil due to imports/exports.


Friedman dominanted many presidential administrations from Nixon all the way to the latest Bush Jr.

"We are all Keynesian's now" - Richard Nixon. Who's writing articles for the New York Times, on news talk shows, and defending government economic policy? Paul Krugman, a staunch Keynesian. I could dig up some Keynesian oriented economic policies for the past 30 years if you'd like.


When it concerns wealth it is and economics is nothing but the movement of wealth.

Explain, write now it's some abstract statement without meaning.

Rest of what you said isn't worth responding to.

RoyBatty, some of those countries over the years have had gradual pro-market policies.


Maybe a couple of capitalists here can help me out in acquiring some information.

Join the Mises Forum (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.or g%2FCommunity%2Fforums%2F), like I told you to. All you economic questions will be answered, and the people will be more responsive and post way more information than I can now. You won't regret it.


What are you talking about? In a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society capital is king, and on this site we have people advocating for such a society, despite the fact that they also claim to be Germanic preservationists. Where does Germanic preservation factor into libertarian ideology? It doesn't, because it places no VALUE in it. It measures its own success entirely in base material gain.

Value is subjective.


One is mutual competition in which people mutually come together to play by a set of constructed rules and social parameters in which there are guidelines to the specific ways to conduct all forms of competition.

The other form of competition is pure violent chaos in which there are no rules where all form of social mutuality is thrown out the door in which people steal, kill, rape, plunder, and destroy each other in total disregard to one another to which is the purest form of unregulated competition that there is.

I don't see CEO's having shoot outs and raping the other boss' wife and daughters. Two businesses compete on the market, not in physical uncivilized aggression.


Now when you have a bunch of workers that actually makes it possible for a factory, business, and industry to function at all it is very much against principles of fair competition that the workers get paid eight to nine dollars an hour for having help created or moved along products that are worth sometimes ten times as much if not more where the owner of such a business hoards all the wealth of profit for themselves.

You couldn't comprehend the complexity of running a large business. Nor does the owner of a business "hoard" all the wealth, a majority of what the business makes is reinvested back into that business. Plus, if the own that business, they can make whatever they want, but they do take in mind all expenses and costs, they are making logical decisions.


Just by adding five dollars to the wage per hour would be enough to put more money into people's pockets of the working class in matching up with the current standard of living where by having a profitable working class would be great for any economy in that those workers would be able to spend that money on other things that would end up profiting others in the long run making it more affordable for all sorts of businesses to be created along with added jobs in the market place.

Add five dollars extra to someone's wage per hour and watch A LOT of people get laid off, and watch A LOT of prices go up. You act like money comes out of thin air. Every transaction and cost must be accounted for. Plus, if someone's going to set some arbitrary wage limit, why not 10, 20, or 50 dollars an hour? Every time the wages are forced up, prices go up to counter this. A wage is the price of labor, and a minimum wage is a fixed price. Price fixing has negative consequences. When the minimum wage went up to 7.25 everyone actually made less than before because they had to cut back hours, and wouldn't hire anyone else. It's law that if we work over 40 hours a week we get overtime, and they don't see that as necessary, so they cut hours to meet their costs that have already gone up artificially. Plus, those aren't reflective of real wages that naturally rise do to production. At my job after the minimum wage increase we had to cut hours back a lot, and even then we still were over hours according to our home office. It was terrible.


All I can say is that if you want chaos to rule this world where there is nothing but competition without rules and social parameters where people devour each other in a sort of cannibalistic frenzy you may very well get your wish within the nearby future where we will just see how your attitude turns out to be when such a world of total anarchy arises.

No one is talking about getting rid of rules and order and social parameters. No one is devouring anyone. This is just a ridiculous strawman.


Our ancestors wouldn't approve today's capitalist system and it's ironic that you would use them to deflect the system that we live in today.

Go ask some Vikings if you can take a percentage of their property to fund the welfare state, go tell some Vikings they must pay this wage and do this with their property. :D

I also must add that this country was founded on the idea of a profit, of economic gain and liberty, and that was what, nearly 400 years ago?